The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-08-07 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports Special Meeting.pdfPage 1 City of Maple Ridge SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA August 7, 2018 6:00 p.m. Council Chamber Note: This Agenda is also posted on the City’s Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca The purpose of a Council meeting is to enact powers given to Council by using bylaws or resolutions. This is the final venue for debate of issues before voting on a bylaw or resolution. 100 CALL TO ORDER 200 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 300 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Note: Items 301 to 305 were deferred at the July 24, 2018 Council Meeting 301 2015-297-DVP, 23025, 23054, 23060 and 23075 Lougheed Highway Staff report dated July 24, 2018 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-297-DVP to relax the setback along a cul-de-sac to permit construction of an approximately 125 unit townhouse complex. Staff report dated July 24, 2018 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-297-DP to permit 125 townhouse units in phase 1 of a multi-phased development. MEETING DECORUM Council would like to remind all people present tonight that serious issues are decided at Council meetings which affect many people’s lives. Therefore, we ask that you act with the appropriate decorum that a Council Meeting deserves. Commentary and conversations by the public are distracting. Should anyone disrupt the Council Meeting in any way, the meeting will be stopped and that person’s behavior will be reprimanded. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. 302 2015-297-DP, 23025, 23054, 23060 and 23075 Lougheed Highway Special Council Meeting Agenda August 7, 2018 Council Chamber Page 2 of 2 303 2016-105-DVP, 13245 236 Street Staff report dated July 24, 2018 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-105-DVP to reduce minimum front, rear, interior and exterior yard setbacks for specified blocks, increase maximum building height for specified blocks, reduce the minimum required Useable Open Space minimum dimension for specified blocks and increase the maximum retaining wall height to permit a townhouse development consisting of 31 units 304 2016-105-DP, 13245 236 Street, Wildfire Development Permit Staff report dated July 24, 2018 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-105-DP to fulfill requirements of the Wildfire Development Permit Area guidelines. 305 2016-004-DP, 13245 236 Street Staff report dated July 24, 2018 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-004-DP to permit a 31 unit townhouse development consisting of seven buildings, under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. 400 ADJOURNMENT Checked by:________________ Date: ________________ City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-297-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 23025, 23054, 23060 and 23075 Lougheed Highway EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application (2015-297-DVP) has been received in conjunction with a application for the properties at 23025, 23054, 23060 and 23075 Lougheed Highway (Appendix A and B) to construct an approximately 125 unit townhouse complex. The requested variance is to relax the setback along the cul-de-sac from 7.5 metres to 6 metres to the front face of the units, with further reductions for the front covered porches and roof projections. The property is zoned RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) and a separate report is before Council to issue Development Permit 2015- 297-DP in conjunction with OCP Section 8.7 Multi-Family Development Permit Area Guidelines. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2015-297-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-297-DVP respecting property located at 23025, 23054, 23060 and 23075 Lougheed Highway. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Polygon Development 309 Ltd. (Craig Simms) Legal Description: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 8328) of Parcel "J" (Reference Plan 3829) Except: Part on Statutory Right of Way Plan 71204; District Lots 402 and 403 Group 1 New Westminster District; Parcel "L" (Reference Plan 3957) of Parcel "J" (Reference Plan 3829), Except: Firstly : Part on Statutory Right Of Way Plan 4834; Secondly: Part Lying South of Road Shown on Statutory Right Of Way Plan 4834; Thirdly : Part On Statutory Right of Way Plan 71204; District Lots 402 and 403 Group 1 New Westminster District; Lot 31 District Lots 402 and 403 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 61595; and Lot 32 District Lots 402 and 403 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 61595 OCP : Existing: Urban Residential and Conservation Zoning: Existing: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) 301 Surrounding Uses North: Use: Park and School Zone: CD-1-89 (Assembly, Civic, Park & School) Designation Institutional South: Use: Townhouse Site (Vacant) Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Urban Residential East: Use: Commercial with Rental Apartments, Park and Townhouse Sites (vacant) Zone: C-1(Neighbourhood Commercial), P-1 (School and Park) and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Commercial and Urban Residential West: Use: Residential and Conservation Zone: R-2 (Urban Residential District) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Urban Residential and Conservation Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Residential Site Area: 2.96 Ha. (7.3 Acres) Access: Cul-de-sac (Palarina Place) Servicing: Urban Previous Applications: 2015-297-RZ a)Project Description: This proposal is for a 125 unit townhouse development, consisting of 25 buildings, ranging between two (2) and five (5) units in a building. There will be three (3) separate colour schemes to bring variety and create a better sense of place. It is part of a comprehensively planned community to be developed in a series of phases with pedestrian trails, a public plaza, parks, commercial use, single residential lots and a common recreational facility. b)Variance Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variances and rationale for support are described below (see Appendix C). The following is proposed: 1.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, 602 RM-1 Townhouse Residential District Section 6. Siting a) - to vary the exterior side setback (to the cul-de-sac) for Building 3 and 4 from 7.5 metres to: 6.19 metres to the closer front faces and 6.95 m to the further front faces; 5.58 metres for the building overhangs; 4.33 metres to the front balcony posts; and 4.15 metres to the front balcony overhang. This will allow for a stronger pedestrian environment being created along the cul-de-sac and the public plaza developed as part of this phase at the corner of Lougheed Highway and the cul-de- sac, the future commercial / apartment rental building and amenity facility both to be built across the street as part of future phases of this comprehensively planned development. 2.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, 602 RM-1 Townhouse Residential District Section 6. Siting a) - to vary the front setback (to Lougheed Highway) for Buildings 25 from 7.5 metres to: 4.72 metres to the closer front faces and 4.42 for its associated overhang; and 5.67 metres to the further front faces and 5.37 for its associated overhang. This is necessitated by environmental and geotechnical constraints shifting units in the area north closer to the Lougheed Highway to enhance environmental protection. Measures including thicker landscaping and triple glazing will be introduced to mitigate the noise impact from Lougheed Highway. 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, 602 RM-1 Townhouse Residential District Section 6. Siting a) - to vary the front setback (to Lougheed Highway) for Buildings 26 from 7.5 metres to: 5.04 metres to the closer front faces and 4.74 for its associated overhang; and 6.00 metres to the further front faces and 5.70 for its associated overhang. This is necessitated by environmental and geotechnical constraints shifting units in the area north closer to the Lougheed Highway to enhance environmental protection. Measures including thicker landscaping and triple glazed windows or a similar acoustic rated window on the bedroom that faces on to Lougheed will be introduced to mitigate the noise impact from Lougheed Highway. 4.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, 602 RM-1 Townhouse Residential District Section 6. Siting a) - to vary the interior side setback to Unit 125 in Building 28 from 6.0 metres to: 4.52 metres to the south lot line; 4.00 metres to the closer face and 4.87 m to the further face to the south lot line; 4.87 metres to the building overhangs to the south lot line; 3.78 metres to the balcony posts to the south lot line; and 3.42 metres to the balcony overhang to the south lot line. This is necessitated by environmental and geotechnical constraints to accommodate one unit at the south end of this building containing five (5) townhouse units. 5.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, 602 RM-1 Townhouse Residential District Section 8. Other Regulations d) - to vary the minimum required open space for 3 bedroom units from a minimum of 45 square metres to a minimum of not less than 28.2 square metres as specified for each lot in the table in Appendix C: The bullets below summarize the proposed townhouse yard reductions. They propose to balance this by increasing the minimum requirement of 5% common open space required for the overall site by the amount reduced for the individual yards. This will allow a hillside area to be preserved as passive open space, an east-west pedestrian trail to give the general public from the residential area to the west (e.g. Telosky Avenue / Harrison Street area) access the new Central Park and commercial area as well as townhouse residents access their Clubhouse in the future phase and to develop the Public Plaza at the corner of Dewdney Trunk Road and the cul-de-sac for public use. The yard breakdown is: •6.4% (8 yards) will exceed the minimum area; •39.2% (49 yards) will be between 80% – 99% of the minimum; •17.6% (22 yards) will be between 70% - 79% of the minimum; and •36.8% (46 yards) will be between 63% – 69% of the minimum. The smallest yard will be 28.2 square metres or just over 300 square feet. In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. CONCLUSION: The proposed variances are justified to support the future pedestrian environment along the cul-de- sac, accommodate environmental constraints on the northern part of the site and to create a higher level of public access to the open spaces associated with this development. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2015-297-DVP. “Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP 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 Paul Gill” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Key Plan and details about requested Variances DATE: Jul 10, 2018 FILE: 2015-297 23025/23054/23060/23075 LOUGHEED HWY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:4,700 BY: LP Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of Marsh Indefinite Creek Lake or Reservoir Marsh APPENDIX A DATE: Jul 10, 2018 FILE: 2015-297 23025/23054/23060/23075 LOUGHEED HWY City of PittMeadows District ofLangley Di s t r i c t o f M i s s i o n FRASER R. ^ PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2016´ Scale: 1:4,700 BY: LP APPENDIX B DETAIL 2 -BUILDING 28 SETBACKS Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" � L_�_J I�L----¥-- 6 Interior lot line setback variances along lot lines for Unit 125 in Buildings 28: From 6.0 m to: lZI 5.4 7 m to closer front foces and 6.95 m to further away front foces lZI 4.87 m for the building overhangs lZI 3.78 m to the front balcony posts lZI 3.42 to the front balcony overhang - 2 - Surrounding Uses North: Use: Park and School Zone: CD-1-89 (Assembly, Civic, Park & School) Designation Institutional South: Use: Townhouse Site (Vacant) Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Urban Residential East: Use: Commercial with Rental Apartments, Park and Townhouse Sites (vacant) Zone: C-1(Neighbourhood Commercial), P-1 (School and Park) and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Commercial and Urban Residential West: Use: Residential and Conservation Zone: R-2 (Urban Residential District) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Urban Residential and Conservation Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Residential Site Area: 2.96 Ha. (7.3 Acres) Access: Cul-de-sac (Palarina Place) Servicing: Urban Previous Applications: 2015-297-RZ Concurrent application: 2015-297-DVP b) Project Description: Context: The overall site is subject to a comprehensive development concept (Appendix C). The first and the second phases are for a townhouse community, built around a one acre city park and a private Amenity Facility in the second phase. The third phase is a mixed use commercial / rental apartment building under a Housing Agreement. In parallel are two single family subdivisions; one with 27 lots to complete the Telosky Avenue / Harrison Street neighbourhood west of the development and the other a 47 lot single residential subdivision in the eastern part of the site along 232 Street. This subject development permit application is for the first phase of 125 townhouses. Development permit applications for the second and third parts will be brought forward to Council at a later date. Subject Proposal: This proposal is for a 125 unit townhouse development, consisting of 25 buildings, ranging between two (2) and five (5) units in a building (Appendix D). There will be three (3) separate colour schemes to bring variety and create a better sense of place (Appendix E). This phase is congruent with a comprehensively planned open space and circulation concept having three major pedestrian elements as follows:  A pedestrian network interconnecting the commercial area, Central Park, passive open spaces and a potential future pedestrian bridge over the Haney Bypass / CR Rail right of way with the residences within the development and to neighbourhoods beyond. - 3 -  A Public Plaza with public art at the southwest corner of Lougheed Highway and the cul-de- sac. This portion of the site may be subject to adjustments to the landscaping and hardscaping through the Public Art Selection Process agreed upon between the developer and the City. The Maple Ridge Public Art Steering Committee will have a role in selecting the final public art piece displayed at this location.  A shared private amenity facility, referred to by the developer as a Clubhouse, will be in the second phase of this development. This proposal will be brought forward to Council as a separate report when the application for the phase 2 townhouse complex is submitted to the City. This Clubhouse will have a floor area of approximately 560 square metres and will feature a great room, fitness studio, pool, hot tub and resident manager dwelling, within a landscaped setting. The overall appearance of the development from the street is shown in Appendix F. Through variances described below, street facing units have individual gates and have a sympathetic front yard relationship to the public realm. Townhouse building blocks are varied with two (2) to six (6) dwelling units in a building. Samples of townhouse buildings (and their associated floor plans and elevations) are attached as Appendix G and H for flatter and sloping areas of the site, respectively. Appendix I shows the cul-de-sac road and the proposed Public Plaza at the corner of Lougheed Highway. This corner plaza (Appendix J) in phase 1 is subject to a statutory right-of-way allowing for unrestricted public access. Its design will be a combination of hardscaping and landscaping, designed to accommodate a monument sign identifying the community and featuring a piece of public art in fulfillment of one of the Council conditions for rezoning. (There is elaboration provided in the Financial Implications section.) Variances: Variances are being sought for the following purposes:  to allow about a dozen of the units, including their associated front porches, to be brought out closer to the sidewalk;  to reduce interior setbacks for one unit where the site is pinched by ESA areas; and  to reduce the minimum required yard space for a majority of the units in exchange for providing at least an equal amount of addition common or passive open space thus having more common open space than required by the zone regulations, a public plaza and a public trail through the townhouse development. These variances will be the subject of a separate report to Council accompanying this report under application number 2015-297-DVP. c) Planning Analysis: The proposal for the first phase of the former MOTI / Cottonwood site being developed by Polygon is in accordance with the overall development concept of these lands as required in the Supplementary Design Guidelines registered on the site and the OCP Development Design Guidelines for Multi- family projects and described in d). It has been assessed by the Architect and apart from the three (3) variances describes in b), complies with the RM-1 zone. - 4 - d) Advisory Design Panel: This proposal was presented to the Advisory Design panel on two occasions – firstly on on February 15, 2017 and secondly on June 13, 2017. The following is a description provided by the project Architect about how each matter raised by the ADP was addressed: February 15, 2017 ADP Meeting The following are the 11 comments provided by the ADP and the corresponding responses by the Project Architect: 1. Provide dimensional material in lieu of vinyl. Architect’s Response: Painted and hardie panels are now added to more surfaces of the facades, so that the use of vinyl is limited to a small percentage of the building surfaces. 2. Provide further articulation on the rear elevation. Architect’s Response: Upper level bedroom bays now at the rear elevations will be cladded with painted hardie panels to give it a distinct surface texture and character. 3. Consider more uniform composition of glazing. Architect’s Response: Window sizes and locations are made consistent throughout individual unit types. The style of the windows are also made consistent for all unit types. 4. Show more details and locations how the building responds to grade change. Architect’s Response: How buildings step in response to the grade change is now illustrated individually in elevations. 5. Provide details and sections of tiered retaining wall including landscape treatment. Architect’s Response: Tiered retaining walls are described in section and plan. Details of retaining walls are included. 6. Provide details for acoustic and landscape treatment along Lougheed Highway. Consider acoustic fence. Architect’s Response: Details for solid wood fencing used for sound attenuation have been provided. Solid wood fencing and dense coniferous planting along Lougheed Highway are employed to mitigate noise and the visual impacts of traffic. Staff Comment: The majority of the sound attenuation will be required for the units in the phase 2 portion of this development where the townhouse units are closer to the Haney Bypass and the CP Rail line. This will be part of the development permit application to be made by the developer and brought to Council at a future date to consider. 7. Provide landscape treatments and planting in detail. Architect’s Response: Soft landscape and rain garden areas have been clarified with hatch patterns and a shrub line in plan. Planting selections have been refined and presented in a plant schedule. 8. Provide legend or schedule of hard scape treatment. Architect’s Response: Paving types have been clarified with a hatch pattern. A corresponding hardscape legend has been provided. - 5 - 9. Use native trees and plants near the conservation area and forest edge. Architect’s Response: Tree selections at the interface with conservation areas and existing forests have been refined. Trees and understory planting in these areas is composed of native and adaptive species. 10. Show the overall layout of the park in relation to the building layout adjacent to Lot D. Architect’s Response Park layout is shown in the context of the overall building layout in plan. 11. Provide more details regarding public art and place making. Architect’s Response Opportunities for public art and place making locations have been identified in plan. Integration of rain gardens into landscape to increase storm water capacity, and control infiltration while also providing social spaces and integrated rain garden landscape planting. June 13, 2017 ADP Meeting: The following is the comment provided by the ADP and the corresponding response by the Project Architect: 1. Consider where necessary transitional elements for connection between stepped units. Architect’s Response Incorporated into the overall design in these areas are, not only low, stepped, landscape walls, but public walkways, landscaped hedges and trees, as well as low fences for privacy of rear yards. As well, Landscaping is used extensively, where possible to assist with any transitions occurring at building edges. All changes have been reflected in the final plans for this development proposal. Financial Implications: In accordance with Council’s Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security for the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. The securities are being collect for a number of purposes:  $1,488,773.00 for on-site landscaping requirements secured at about 125% for a security submitted of $1,829,545.00;  $67,318.75 for the hardscaping and landscaping of the Public Plaza (secured at 100% of the estimate); and  $41,283.75 for the hard and soft landscaping of east-west public trail on the site (secured at 100% of the estimate). The proposed public art piece to be situated on this property at the corner of Lougheed Highway and the cul-de-sac is subject to a Statutory Right-of-Way and Restrictive Covenant providing for public access to the public plaza and collecting a further security of $100,000 towards the creation and placement of a public art piece through a Public Art Selection process involving the City, developer, ADP representative and the Maple Ridge Public Art Steering Committee. This is not duplicated under this development permit’s security. - 6 - CONCLUSION: This development permit is for the first phase of the development of the former MOTI / Cottonwwod site with about 125 Townhouses. This phase complies with overall comprehensive scheme for the site development and the OCP DP guidelines. Therefore, it is in order for Development Permit 2015- 297-DP to be issued by Council. “Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP 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 Paul Gill” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Comprehensive Polygon Development Plan Appendix D - Site Plan and Site Statistics Appendix E – Character and Colour Schemes (three variations) Appendix F – Streetscape Appendix G – Sample Plan and Elevations of Building on flat area of site Appendix H – Sample Plan and Elevations of Building on sloping area of site Appendix I – Landscaping Plans and details Appendix J – Cul-de-sac with Public Plaza DATE: Jul 10, 2018 FILE: 2015-297 23025/23054/23060/23075 LOUGHEED HWY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:4,700 BY: LP Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of Marsh Indefinite Creek Lake or Reservoir Marsh APPENDIX A DATE: Jul 10, 2018 FILE: 2015-297 23025/23054/23060/23075 LOUGHEED HWY City of PittMeadows District ofLangley Di s t r i c t o f M i s s i o n FRASER R. ^ PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2016´ Scale: 1:4,700 BY: LP APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-105-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 13245 236 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application 2016-105-DVP has been received for the subject property, located at 13245 236 Street, in conjunction with a Rezoning application, Multi-Family Development Permit application, Wildfire Development Permit application and Natural Features Development Permit application. The requested variances are to: 1.Reduce the minimum front yard setback for Blocks 1 and 2 from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to 2.1m (6.9 ft.) to the building face and 1.4m (4.6 ft.) to the roof overhang; 2.Reduce the minimum rear yard setback for Block 6 (Unit 22C1) from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to 5.7m (18.7 ft.) to the building face; 3.Reduce the minimum interior yard setback for Blocks 2 and 3 from 6.0m (20 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.) to the deck; and to 4.7m (15.4 ft.) to the deck for Block 3; 4.Reduce the minimum exterior yard setback for Blocks 6 and 7 from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to 5.5m (18.0 ft.) to the building face; and 4.4m (14.4 ft.) to the decks; 5.Increase the maximum building height for Blocks 1, 3, 4 and 5 from 11m (36 ft.) to 11.76m (38.6 ft.) at its tallest point; 6.Reduce the minimum required Useable Open Space minimum dimension of not less than 6m (20 ft.) for Blocks 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to 4.5m (15 ft.); 7.Increase the maximum retaining wall height from 1.2m (4 ft.) to 4.1m (13.5 ft.) at its highest point. Council will be considering final reading for Rezoning application 2016-004-RZ on July 24, 2018. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2016-105-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-105-DVP respecting property located at 13245 236 Street DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Archstone Projects Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 39 Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 40978 303 - 2 - OCP: Existing: Medium/High Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Multi-Family Residential Zone: RST-SV (Street Townhouse) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), under application for RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential East: Use: Multi-Family Residential Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), under application for RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Neighbourhood Park; Medium/High Density Residential; Conservation Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Multi-Family Residential Site Area: 0.78 ha (1.93 acres) Access: 236 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Project Description: The subject property is located in the River Village of the Silver Valley Area Plan and is approximately 0.78 ha (1.93 acres) in size. The subject property is bound by a proposed townhouse development to the south, a proposed townhouse development to the west, Larch Avenue and street townhouses to the north, and a townhouse development to the east. Larch Avenue has been constructed in a new alignment further north of the property; therefore, the adjacent road right-of-way to the north of the property will be maintained as a trail. The north-eastern portion of the subject property is higher in elevation and slopes down towards the south-west. There is a considerable amount of vegetation and tree cover on the subject property (see Appendices A and B). The applicant is proposing a townhouse development consisting of 31 units to be accessed from 236 Street. A common activity area is proposed along the northern property boundary. There are significant trees located on the western property boundary that will be retained through a tree protection covenant. Retaining walls will be required to mitigate the grade changes on site. The - 3 - architectural aesthetics of the proposed development will utilize ‘West Coast’ inspiration, incorporating the natural environment into the design. c) Variance Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for Multi-Family developments. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variances and rationale for support are described below (see Appendix C): 1. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 6, Section 602, 6. a): To reduce the minimum front yard setback from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to: i. 4.5m (15 ft.) to the building face for all units in Block 1; ii. 2.2m (7.2 ft.) to the decks for Block 1; iii. 2.1m (6.9 ft.) to the building face for Unit 5C1 in Block 2; iv. 1.4m (4.6 ft.) to the roof overhang for Unit 5C1 in Block 2. The front yard setback is supported as it improves the street presence and aesthetics of the development; as well, the variance to Block 2 allows for the significant trees in the south west corner to be retained. 2. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 6, Section 602, 6. a): To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to: i. 5.7m (18.7 ft.) to the building face for Unit 22C1 in Block 6. The rear yard setback is supported as it allows adequate area for a central outdoor amenity space. 3. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 6, Section 602, 6. a): To reduce the minimum exterior yard setback from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to: i. 5.5m (18 ft.) to the building face for Blocks 6 and 7; ii. 4.4m (14.4 ft.) to the deck for Blocks 6 and 7. The exterior yard setback is supported to enable a functional buildable area and appropriate rear yard space, due to the setbacks created with the significant trees on the western section of the development. 4. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 6, Section 602, 6. b): To reduce the maximum interior yard setback from 6.0m (20 ft.) to: i. 3.8m (12.5 ft.) to the deck for Block 2; ii. 4.7m (15.4 ft.) to the deck for Block 3. The side yard setback is supported from a liveablity perpective for future residents to allow decks for Blocks 2 and 3. 5. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 6, Section 602, 7. a): To increase the maximum building height from 11m (36 ft.) to: i. 11.76m (38.6 ft.) for Block 1, and 4; ii. 11.36m (37.3 ft.) for Block 3 and Block 5. - 4 - These increases in height are supported as there are steep grades on the property and grade differences between the front and back of each unit. Generally, the building faces along the street side (236 Street) are below the allowable building height requirement with minor sections of roof gable peaks extending beyond the 11m maximum allowable height. Adjacent neighbours will not be impacted by the height increases due to the higher grades … 6. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 6, Section 602, 8. d) and Part 2, Interpretation: To reduce the minimum required Usable Open Space per 3 bedroom unit from 45m² (454 ft²), with a minimum dimension of not less than 6m (19.7 ft.) to: i. 4.5m (15 ft.) for Block 1; ii. 5.4m (17.7 ft.) for Block 5; iii. 5.2m (17.1 ft.) for Unit 12C in Block 3; iv. 4.9m (16.1 ft.) for Unit 13C2 in Block 3; v. 5.8m (19 ft.) for Block 6; and vi. 5.9m (19.4 ft.) for Block 7. These variances are supported as the shortfall of 26m² (280 ft²) of Usable Open Space is provided in Community Amenity Space. Overall, the required amount of Community Amenity Space is 155m² (1,668 ft²) and 184m² (1,980 ft²) is being provided. 7. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 4, Section 403, (8): To increase the maximum retaining wall height from 1.2m (4 ft.) to 4.1m (13.5 ft.) at its higest point. This increase in retaining wall height is supported due to the sloping grades on the site. Best efforts were made to minimize grading differences along the perimeter and adjacent property lines. The retaining walls along the west side of the site, adjacent to the significant trees, are proposed to protect the grades as much as possible. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. - 5 - CONCLUSION: The proposed variances are supported as there are steep grades on the property and significant trees to be retained on site. Supported variances also contribute to desirable street presence and functional buildable areas within the development. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2016-105-DVP. “Original signed by Adam Rieu” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adam Rieu Planning Technician “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 Paul Gill” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Proposed Variances DATE: Jul 9, 2018 2016-105-VP.2 13245 236 Street PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 2018-111-DP2013-087-RZ 2013-087-VP 2013-087-DP 2016-207-DP 2016-208-DP 2015-373-RZ 2015-373-VP 2016-306-DP 2016-031-RZ 2016-370-DP 2015-373-DP 2015-155-RZ 2017-134-DP 2016-031-DP 2017-133-DP 2018-190-RZ 2016-149-DP ´ Scale: 1:2,500 BY: LP Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Apr 11, 2016 2016-105-VP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,530 13245 236 Street Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B - 2 - South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), under application for RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential East: Use: Multi-Family Residential Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), under application for RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Neighbourhood Park; Medium/High Density Residential; Conservation Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Multi-Family Residential Site Area: 0.78 ha (1.93 acres) Access: 236 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2016-004-RZ, 2016-004-DP, 2016-106-DP, 2016-105-DVP b) Project Description: The subject property is located in the River Village of the Silver Valley Area Plan and is approximately 0.78 ha (1.93 acres) in size. The property is bound by a proposed townhouse development (2016- 031-RZ) to the south, a proposed townhouse development to the west (2016-087-RZ), Larch Avenue and street townhouses to the north, and an existing townhouse development to the east. Larch Avenue has recently been constructed in a new alignment further north of the property; therefore, the adjacent road right-of-way to the north of the property will be maintained as a trail (see Appendix A). The north-eastern portion of the subject property is higher in elevation and slopes down towards the south-west. There is a considerable amount of vegetation and tree cover on the subject property (see Appendix B). The applicant is proposing a townhouse development consisting of 31 units to be accessed from 236 Street. A common activity area is proposed along the northern property boundary. There are significant trees located on the western property boundary that will be retained through a tree protection covenant, as well as a row of hedges along the northern property boundary. Retaining walls will be required to mitigate the grade changes on site. A Wildfire Hazard Assessment has been received from Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. and was prepared by a Registered Professional Forester qualified by training or experience in fire protection engineering, with at least two years of experience in fire protection engineering and with assessment and mitigation of wildfire hazards in British Columbia. c) Planning Analysis: The Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines are intended for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk for wildland fire and where this risk, in some cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. - 3 - A Wildfire Development Permit is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for areas within the Wildfire Development Permit area, as identified in the OCP. The Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines are to work in concert with all other regulations, guidelines and bylaws in effect. This development respects the key guidelines as outlined in this section with comments provided by the Registered Professional Forester: 1. Locate development on individual sites so that, when integrated with the use of mitigating construction techniques and landscape management practices, the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced; The proposed development plan involves limited tree retention. Treatments, in the form of specific tree removal and pruning, have been recommended to mitigate wildfire hazard. 2. Mitigate wildfire impacts while respecting environmental conservation objectives and other hazards in the area; There are no significant environmental conservation areas on the development site. Pruning of the significant trees has been recommended in the southwest corner of the subject property. 3. Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; All forested areas have been assessed and delineated into fuel types. Fire behaviour potential of these areas has been analysed. These findings have driven the recommended fuel treatments. 4. Manage the interface forest fuel components, including vegetation and structures, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression, containment and minimize adverse impacts. Recommendations include pruning of trees, as well as appropriate removal and dispersal of slash material and woody debris. d) Financial Implications A security in the amount of $600.00 will be taken as a condition of the Wildfire Development Permit to ensure the removal of a hazard tree. - 4 - CONCLUSION: This application is consistent with the Wildfire Development Permit Key Guideline Concepts (Section 8.12.1) and Guidelines (Section 8.12.2), and in consideration of the Home Owners FireSmart Manual (BC Forest Service Protection Program). Therefore, it is recommended that this Wildfire Development Permit 2016-105-DP be approved. “Original signed by Adam Rieu” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adam Rieu Planning Technician “Original signed by Michael Van Dop” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Michael Van Dop Deputy Fire Chief “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 Paul Gill” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Site Plan DATE: Apr 11, 2016 2016-105-DP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 13245 236 StreetLegend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Apr 11, 2016 2016-105-DP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,530 13245 236 Street Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-004-DP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: Development Permit 13245 236 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Multi-Family Development Permit application has been received for the subject property, located at 13245 236 Street, for a 31 unit townhouse development consisting of seven buildings, under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. This application is subject to the Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Area Guidelines, which establish the form and character of multi-family development, with the intent to enhance the existing neighbourhood with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs and minimize potential conflicts on neighbouring land uses. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-004-DP respecting property located at 13245 236 Street. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Archstone Projects Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 39 Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 40978 OCP: Existing: Medium/High Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Multi-Family Residential Zone: RST-SV (Street Townhouse) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), under application for RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential 305 - 2 - East: Use: Multi-Family Residential Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), under application for RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Neighbourhood Park; Medium/High Density Residential; Conservation Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Multi-Family Residential Site Area: 0.78 ha (1.93 acres) Access: 236 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2016-105-DP, 2016-004-RZ, 2016-106-DP, 2016-105-DVP b)Project Description: The subject property is located in the River Village of the Silver Valley Area Plan and is approximately 0.78 ha (1.93 acres) in size. The subject property is bound by a proposed townhouse development to the south (2016-031-RZ), a proposed townhouse development to the west (2013-087-RZ), Larch Avenue and street townhouses to the north, and an existing townhouse development to the east. Larch Avenue has been constructed in a new alignment further north of the property; therefore, the adjacent road right-of-way to the north of the property will be maintained as a trail (see Appendix A). The north-eastern portion of the subject property is higher in elevation and slopes down towards the southwest. There is a considerable amount of vegetation and tree cover on the subject property (see Appendix B). The applicant is proposing a townhouse development consisting of 31 units to be accessed from 236 Street. A common activity area is proposed along the northern property boundary. There are significant trees located on the western property boundary that will be retained through a tree protection covenant, as well as a row of cedar hedges along the northern boundary. Retaining walls will be required to mitigate the grade changes on site. The architectural aesthetic of the proposed development will utilize ‘West Coast’ inspiration, incorporating the natural environment into the design. c)Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan The subject property is located just north of the intersection of 236 Street and 132 Avenue, within the River Village of the Silver Valley Area Plan. The Official Community Plan (OCP) designation for the subject property is Medium/High Density Residential, which allows both single family and multi- family housing forms. Silver Valley Area Plan Policy 5.2. states: River Village is located along a main arterial route in the Silver Valley area, on Fern Crescent, between Maple Ridge Park to the south and an escarpment to the north and east. Principle 5.2.2 a) identifies that the “River Village is to be a complete community, with a main shopping street, integrated multi-family housing, mixed-use buildings, civic buildings and community facilities, including a high school, and an elementary school.” - 3 - Densities of 30-50 units per hectare are encouraged for the River Village area and may include attached as well as detached fee-simple housing. The proposed RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) development, at 31 units per 0.78 hectare, is approximately 40 units per hectare, and therefore complies with the Medium/High Density Residential designation of the Silver Valley Area Plan. A Multi-Family Residential Development Permit is required for all new multi-family development. Section 8.7, Multi-Family Development Permit Area Guidelines of the OCP aims to regulate the form and character, as outlined below. This development respects the key guideline concepts as outlined in this section: 1. New development into established areas should respect private spaces, and incorporate local neighbourhood elements in building form, height, architectural features and massing. “This proposed infill project is complementary to the many new townhouse projects in the area. It respects the existing context (neighbourhood in transition with setbacks, solid fencing, landscaping and compatible massing).” 2. Transitional development should be used to bridge areas of low and high densities, through means such as stepped building heights, or low rise ground oriented housing located to the periphery of a higher density developments. “The project appears to be 2 storeys from the public street and 2.5 storeys along the property lines.” 3. Large scale developments should be clustered and given architectural separation to foster a sense of community, and improve visual attractiveness. “The development is clustered and designed as a unified form and character, yet has enough variety through material choice and colour to add visual interest.” 4. Pedestrian circulation should be encouraged with attractive streetscapes attained through landscaping, architectural details, appropriate lighting and by directing parking underground where possible or away from public view through screened parking structures or surface parking located to the rear of the property. “Extensive landscape planting is provided along entry of the project. The development entry is marked with an entry gate and low stone walls. Residential parking is concealed in garages while visitor parking is screened with landscaping.” Zoning Bylaw The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit the future development of approximately 31 townhouse units (see Appendix C) A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves the following variances: 1. Reduce the minimum front yard setback for Blocks 1 and 2 from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to 2.1m (6.9 ft.) to the building face and 1.4m (4.6 ft.) to the roof overhang; - 4 - 2.Reduce the minimum rear yard setback for Block 6 (Unit 22C1) from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to 5.7m (18.7 ft.) to the building face; 3.Reduce the minimum interior yard setback for Blocks 2 and 3 from 6.0m (20 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.) to the deck; and to 4.7m (15.4 ft.) to the deck for Block 3; 4.Reduce the minimum exterior yard setback for Blocks 6 and 7 from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to 5.5m (18.0 ft.) to the building face; and 4.4m (14.4 ft.) to the decks; 5.Increase the maximum building height for Blocks 1, 3, 4 and 5 from 11m (36 ft.) to 11.76m (38.6 ft.) at its tallest point; 6.Reduce the minimum required Useable Open Space minimum dimension of not less than 6m (20 ft.) for Blocks 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to 4.5m (15 ft.); 7.Increase the maximum retaining wall height from 1.2m (4 ft.) to 4.1m (13.5 ft.) at its highest point. Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 – 1990 requires that the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone provide two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit, plus 0.2 spaces per dwelling unit designated for visitors. There are 31 dwelling units proposed, therefore, 62 resident parking spaces are provided and 7 visitor parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, which is in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. d)Advisory Design Panel: The Advisory Design Panel (ADP) reviewed the development plans for form and character of the proposed development and the landscaping plans at a meeting held on October 18, 2017. The Panel provided the following comments, which have since been resolved, as outlined below by the project architect: Provide alternate solution in case hedge row of trees won’t be saved during the construction. Hedge row of trees will be retained with a Tree Protection Covenant. Provide site sections to show transition including different types of retaining walls and transitions. Details have been provided for retaining walls. Provide exterior stairs for exit and entry. Exterior balcony stairs have been added. Show light wells where necessary for occupied basement areas. It has been determined that light wells are not necessary as the basements have windows that are above grade or units have been provided with doors into rear yards. Consider moving entrances forward where possible. Unit entrances have been moved out an additional 1.8 m to reduce the recessed alcove into the units. This will maintain a covered entry and will provide feature lighting and defined unit entrances. e)Environmental Implications: The subject property slopes from the northeast to the lowest point in the southwest corner. Review of the relevant environmental reports by the various consultants indicate that the site can support the proposed development. An approved Stormwater Management Plan and associated covenant - 5 - have been included to ensure stormwater discharge meets the appropriate criteria. Several trees will be removed to allow development to occur on the subject property; however, much consideration was given to a significant stand of trees along the west and southwest portion of the site. A Tree Protection Covenant will be registered on site to protect these significant trees as well as a row of cedar hedges along the northern property boundary. No watercourses or significant features are located on or near the subject property, with the exception of the above mentioned significant trees. f)Citizen/Customer Implications: A Development Information Meeting (DIM) was held on November 16, 2017 and Public Hearing was held on February 20, 2018. Final reading of the subject property will also be considered at the July 24, 2018 Council meeting. g)Financial Implications: In accordance with Council’s Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated landscape cost of $428,527.00, the security will be $428,527.00. CONCLUSION: As the development proposal complies with the Multi-Family Development Permit Area Guidelines of the OCP for form and character, it is recommended that 2016-004-DP be given favourable consideration. “Original signed by Adam Rieu” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adam Rieu Planning Technician “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 Paul Gill” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Site Plan Appendix D – Building Elevations Appendix E – Landscape Plans DATE: Jul 9, 2018 2016-004-DP.2 13245 236 Street PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 2018-111-DP2013-087-RZ 2013-087-VP 2013-087-DP 2016-207-DP 2016-208-DP 2015-373-RZ 2015-373-VP 2016-306-DP 2016-031-RZ 2016-370-DP 2015-373-DP 2015-155-RZ 2017-134-DP 2016-031-DP 2017-133-DP 2018-190-RZ 2016-149-DP ´ Scale: 1:2,500 BY: LP Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E KEY DESCRIPTIONREF. HARDSCAPE MATERIALS CONCRETE PAVING INTEGRAL COLOUREDCONCRETEColour: Autumn Gold (5844)Manufacturer: Davis Colour UNIT PAVERS (PEDESTRIAN)Type: HollandColour: Autumn BrownManufacturer: Barkman Concrete UNIT PAVERS (VEHICULAR)Type: NavarroColour: Antique BrownManufacturer: Barkman Concrete RUBBER SAFETY SURFACE SOD 5LD-01 2LD-01 3LD-01 1LD-01 1LD-01 BLOCK RETAINING WALL FEATURE WALL1LD-02 WOOD FENCE1LD-03 BENCHModel: ModenaColour: WalnutManufacturer: Wishbone Site Furniture 4LD-02 WASTE RECEPTACLEModel: Freedom 32Colour: WalnutManufacturer: Wishbone Site Furniture 5LD-02 LOCK BLOCK RETAININGWALLRefer to Architects Drawings GRAVEL SURFACEwith pressure treated timber edge6LD-01 ALUMINUM FENCE/RAIL2LD-03 4LD-01 PERMEABLE PAVERSType: NavarroColour: Antique BrownManufacturer: Barkman Concrete BOLLARD LIGHTModel: Guide BollardColour: Powdercoated BlackSupplier: Landscape Forms 7LD-03 UP LIGHTINGModel: SL-42-PH Compostie IngroundMount: SurfaceSupplier: SLS Lighting 7LD-03 3LD-02 CONCRETE RETAINING WALLRefer to Architects Drawings Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is the property ofvan der Zalm + associates inc. and may not be reproduced orused for other projects without permission. Location: 13245 - 236th STREETMAPLE RIDGE, BC Drawn: VD Z P r o j e c t # : Project: QUARTZ TOWNHOUSES No. Dra w i n g T i t l e : REVISIONS TABLE FOR DRAWINGS Description Date Scale: Approved: Dra w i n g # : Checked: Stamp: CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK ALL DIMENSIONSON THE WORK AND REPORT ANYDISCREPANCYTO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE PROCEEDING.ALL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THEEXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER ANDMUST BE RETURNED AT THE COMPLETION OFTHE WORK. ALL REZONING/DP/PPA/FHA/BPDRAWINGS MUST NOT BE PRICED FORCONSTRUCTION UNLESS LABELED ISSUED FORTENDER/CONSTRUCTION. By: F 604.882.0042P 604.882.0024 V1M 4B9 Suite 1, 20177 97th Avenue Langley, British Columbia info@www.vdz.ca van der Zalm + associates inc. Landscape ArchitectureUrban DesignParks & Recreation Civil Engineering++ 1 Feb 25, 2016ADIssued for Review DP 2 0 1 6 - 0 6 24"x36" Original Sheet Size: MVDZ DJ PCAD 2 April 1, 2016ADIssued for Review 3 April 5, 2016ADIssued for DP Submission 4 Feb. 7, 2017ADIssued for DP Submission 5 April 11, 2017ADIssued for DP Submission 6 May 09, 2017PC Issued for DP Submission 7 Oct 6, 2017ADIssued for DP Submission 8 Nov 15, 2017ADIssued for DIM/DP Submission 9 Dec 15, 2017ADIssued for DP Submission 10 Mar 26, 2018ADIssued for BP Review 11 April 25, 2018ADIssued for BP Review 12 May 11, 2018ADIssued for Building Permit 13 July 3, 2018ADIssued for Building Permit 14 July 16, 2018ADIssued for Building Permit \\V D Z - S E R V E R \ P R O J E C T S \ D E V E L O P M E N T P E R M I T S \ A C T I V E \ D P 2 0 1 6 - 0 6 Q U A R T Z T O W N H O M E S \ D W G \ S H E E T S \ L - 0 8 A M E N I T Y A R E A . D W G 1:50 L- 0 8 AM E N I T Y A R E A 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.50.5m Play equipment LD-026 Rubber safety surface LD-015 1.2m coloured concrete pathLD-011 BenchLD-024 Waste receptacleLD-025 Pad mounted transformer Permeable unit paversLD-014 Property line Retaining wall, refer toArchitects drawings Stepping stump LD-022 Boulder retaining wallLD-017 1.2m gate to match fence Fire hydrant