Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-17 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA February 17, 2014 1:00 p.m. Council Chamber Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. Note: If required, there will be a 15 -minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor 1. DELEGAT/ONS/STAFFPRESENTAT/ONS- (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 Alouette River Management Society (ARMS) Update • Ken Stewart, President, Greta Borick-Cunningham, Executive Director, and Nicole Driedger, Education Coordinator 2. PUBL/C WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERV/CES Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes. Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 2012-065-RZ, 10501 and 10601 Jackson Road, 10578 2458 Street and PID 010-396-977, RS -3 and RS -2 to R -lb Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7059-2014 to rezone from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS -1b (One Family Urban [Medium Density] Residential) to permit 50 R-1 size lots under the Density Bonus option specific to the Albion Area be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, B, E, F and G of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application. Committee of the Whole Agenda February 17, 2014 Page 2 of 5 1102 2013-118-RZ, 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road, RS -1 and P -4a to CS -1 Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7056-2014 to rezone from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) and P -4a (Place of Worship Institutional and Educational) to C-1 (Service Commercial) to align the current taxi dispatch office use with the appropriate commercial zone be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A and C of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. 1103 2012-054-DVP, 23274 Silver Valley Road Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-054-DVP to increase building height, reduce exterior side year setbacks and reduce front yard setbacks. 1104 RZ/107/10, 23657 and 23651 132 Avenue, First Extension Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/107/10 to permit future construction of 69 townhouse units. 1105 2011-114-RZ, 22810 113 Avenue, First Extension Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that a one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2011-114-RZ to permit 43 townhouse units. 1106 2011-037-RZ, 24311 124 Avenue and 24361 124 Avenue, Final One Year Extension Staff report dated Februaryl7, 2014 recommending that a final one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2011-037-RZ to allow for future subdivision into 4 lots. 1107 Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement LC 154/14, 1388 Avenue and Silver Valley Road Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC 154/14. Committee of the Whole Agenda February 17, 2014 Page 3 of 5 1108 Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement LC 155/14, 1386 Avenue and Silver Valley Road Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC 155/14. 1109 Award of Contract: ITT-EN14-01, Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Contract ITT-EN14- 01, Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements be awarded to Martens Asphalt Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1110 Award of Contract: ITT-EN14-03, 122 Avenue Streetlighting (216 Street to 222 Street) Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Contract ITT-EN14- 03, 122 Avenue Streetlighting (216 Street to 222 Street) be awarded to Crown Contracting Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERV/CES (including Fire and Police) 1131 Disbursements for the month ended January 31, 2014 Staff report dated Februaryl7, 2014 recommending that the disbursements for the month ended January 31, 2014 be approved. 1132 2014 Election - Appointment of Officers Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Ceri Mario be appointed Chief Election Officer for conducting the November 15, 2014 Maple Ridge general local election and that Tonya Polz be appointed Deputy Chief Election Officer for the November 15, 2014 Maple Ridge general local election. 1133 2013 Council Expenses Staff report dated February 17, 2014 providing information on Council Expenses for 2013. For information only No motion required Committee of the Whole Agenda February 17, 2014 Page 4 of 5 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERV/CES 1151 Joint Leisure Services Model Review Staff report dated February 17, 2014 providing information on a review of the Joint Leisure Services Model. 1152 Funding of Alouette Home Start Society's Iron Horse Youth Safe House Staff report to be circulated separately 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 6. OTHER ISSUES 1181 7. ADJOURNMENT Committee of the Whole Agenda February 17, 2014 Page 5 of 5 8. COMMUNITY FORUM COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to ask questions of Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing by-laws that have not yet reached conclusion. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to the individual members of Council. The total time for this Forum is limited to 15 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a response will be given. Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future of this community. For more information on these opportunities contact: Clerk's Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca Checked by: Date: slk 1APLE RIDGE eFlEr.h s carr .1a01: District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-065-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7059 - 2014 10501 and 10601 Jackson Road, 10578 245B Street and PID 010-396-977 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential). The applicant intends to choose the Density Bonus option within the RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone, which is specific to the Albion Area, enabling single-family lot sizes of 371 m2. The required amenity fee of $3,100.00 for each lot with an area less than 557m2 will be collected by the Approving Officer at the subdivision approval stage. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. RECOMMENDATIONS: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; v. School District Boards, greater boards and improvements district boards; and vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies. and in that regard it is recommended that no additional consultation be required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and; That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7059 - 2014 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, B, E, F and G of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application. 1101 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: South: East: West: Morningstar Homes Ltd. Allard Contractors Ltd Montcalm Aggregates Ltd, Inc No 92144 Westwood Gravel Ltd Lot: 8, Section 10, Township 12, NWD Plan 18280 Lot 1, Section 10, Township 12, NWD Plan 72103 Lots 5 and 6, Section 10, Township 12, NWD Plan 75957 Low/Medium Density Residential, Conservation Low/Medium Density Residential, Conservation RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) with a Density Bonus through the Albion Community Amenity Program Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential,Conservation Use: Albion Park Zone: P-1 (Park and School) Designation: Park Use: Single Family Residential Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District and RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential,Conservation Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Vacant, Inactive Gravel Extraction site Single Family Residential 4.63 hectares (11.4 acres) 245B Street, 106 Avenue Urban Standard -2- b) Site Characteristics: The development site consists of four lots on the west side of Jackson Road, between 104 and 106 Avenues with a total area of 4.63 hectares (11.4 acres). As a former gravel extraction operation, the site has been extensively excavated over many years and there is little natural landscape remaining. A tributary to Maggie Creek originates in the northwest corner and flows west from the site. There is a steep bank along the Jackson Road frontage as a result of gravel extraction that is sparsely vegetated with deciduous trees. The site has been covered with fine silt material from the gravel crushing operation and has been re -graded several times. c) Project Description: The applicant has requested to rezone the development site from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) for a subdivisin of approximately 60 lots (Appendix C). The applicant intends to choose the Density Bonus option within the RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone, which is specific to the Albion Area, enabling single-family lot sizes with a minimum area of 371m2. The Community Amenity Program is detailed in Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6996 - 2013, which will permit the following: For the RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone, the base density is a net lot area of 557m2. A Density Bonus is an option in the RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone and shall be applied as follows: a. An Amenity Contribution of $3,100 per lot will be required in any subdivision containing one or more lots with an area of less than 557m2, payable when the Approving Officer approves the subdivision. b. The maximum density permitted through the Density Bonus option is: i. minimum net lot area of 371m2; ii. minimum lot width of 12.0 m; iii. minimum lot depth of 24 m. c. Zoning requirements consistent with the R-1 (Residential District) zone will apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone. The proposed development consists of approximately 50 R-1 (Residential District) sized lots, amounting to an Amenity Contribution of approximately $155,000.00. The final number of lots and amenity contribution will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision. The development will be accessed from 245B Street and from 106 Avenue. The steep grade on the west side of Jackson Road will prohibit any road or driveway connections, but will allow a walkway near the existing water filling station on Jackson Road. New on-site roads are proposed that would run south from the 106 Avenue cul-de-sac, parallel to Jackson Road, with a road connection to the north end of 245B Street. Future road and lane connections are proposed to the south end of 245B Street when the remaining lands on 245B Street develop. An existing lane at the northeast corner will be extended to connect with 106 Avenue. -3- At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to Second Reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is located within the Albion Area Plan and is currently designated Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation. For the proposed development an OCP amendment will be required to amend the Conservation boundary to encompass the proposed park in the northwest corner of the site. The application is in compliance with the following Albion Area Plan Community Amenity Program policies: 10 - 4 A Density Bonus through the Community Amenity Program will be permitted on lands designated Low Density Residential, Low -Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential in the Albion Area Plan. 10 - 5 Where a Density Bonus option is utilized in a single-family subdivision, an Amenity Contribution is to be applied to all of the single-family lots in the subdivision that exceed the base density permitted in the zone. 10 - 7 Maple Ridge Council may consider Density Bonuses as part of the development review process for Albion Area Plan amendment applications seeking a land use designation change that would permit a higher density than currently permitted. 10 - 8 A Density bonus will only be permitted on those lands that are located entirely within the boundaries of the Albion Area Plan and Urban Area Boundary. The application is also in compliance with the Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6996 - 2013 that permits a Density Bonus option in the Residential Low/Medium Density designation in the Albion Area Plan. The applicant intends to apply the Density Bonus option to this project, as discussed above in the Project Description. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the four properties, located at 10501 and 10601 Jackson Road, 10578 245B Street and PID 010-396-977, from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) with a Density Bonus, to permit future subdivision into approximately 60 single family lots. The application of the Density Bonus, which is specific to the Albion Area Plan, will permit the applicant to reduce the single-family lot size from the RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) base density of 557 m2 to 371 m2. An Amenity Contribution of $3,100 per lot for each lot that is less than 557 m2 is required, as discussed in the Project Description above. -4- Any variations from the requirements of the Density Bonus zone of R-1 (Residential District) for lots less than 557 m2, or from the requirements of the RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone for lots greater than 557 m2 will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the OCP, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for: • All areas designated Conservation on Schedule "B" or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule "B", or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan; • All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 %; • All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Natural Features Schedule "C" to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. Advisory Design Panel: A Form and Character Development Permit is not required because this is a single family project, therefore this application does not need to be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to first and second reading of the required OCP amending bylaw, the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. e) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Parks Department; e) School District 42; and f) Canada Post. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between first and second reading. -5- f) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. g) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999 as amended: 1. An OCP Application (Schedule A); 2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B or Schedule C); 3. A Development Variance Permit (Schedule E); 4. A Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule F); 5. A Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); 6. A Subdivision Application. The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: The development proposal is in compliance with the policies of the OCP. Justification has been provided to support an OCP amendment to adjust the Conservation boundary in the northwest corner. It is, therefore, recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to Second Reading. It is recommended that Council not require any additional OCP consultation. It is expected that once complete information is received, Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7059 - 2014 may be amended. The proposed layout has not been reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations governing subdivision applications. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and must be approved by the District of Maple Ridge's Approving Officer. "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT Senior Planning Technician "Original signed by Christine Carter" for 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 - Subject Map Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7059 - 2014 Appendix C - Proposed Subdivision Plan -6- N N o- h i 144 , ti 79 PARK 98 W lWWW w� r 806 0 145 URE DR. N ryv`O y 81 Og 'o "' V. rn 'a y 82 0 146 ,= 91 ti K 0 15 0 16 BCP 0 17 14851 Nps �� Rem. 83 Q'C7�147 �Os's Ptn 0 N 1°sq fre a, o a h 86 85 .g' 18 88 87 eC. o tiaoy ry ry�o 1 148 ,06.0°8 N 1 2 of S 7) 84 N SK 6 50 0 P 75 957 3 4 1 1060 1 �o d 11 5o' P 18280 P 75 957 C.) 1060 6 m 10 5ge 10 10587 6 70 70,00 11 13 'oso 12 1 > I SP 15 406;8,� ' s 7os0706,6. 9Q 16 os6. 1 C . 3 ,os, 7 0692 8668,Q317'0,5• ss, ' ,co 70,6 '088 2 31 70 7 18 o 30 s5 °sse 9 6 1• 70 6,7 ?off '0029 j 70585 18 046 5 20 70,69 70 28 rO 3 662 '06 66 2''Q $ 5 21 Subject Properties '° 7054 '05,7 1 Sas 26 36 10583 P 75957 10040 s Al, '°644b 10 36.x0 25 37 10578 P 72103 0,36. 3q 22/004 F. 636 38 39 4 24 ^ ^ m 1 P 72 100 '0630 2-M 7053 ' N N N 10579 1 1 m 23 ' 7 22 02 M 10,65 10570 4p820 27 70S2 72 m o_ 10 6 73 v 706-7 297 821 . 3 U 10543 10 1067 6 26 30 °S5> s2o X703 114� 11 CO 4 10529 8 10530 'os7 225^ 311 7n706.7 08j3 10616. 71 747 23 'P 10 7 113 7080, 0 4fL N33 06p9 70,1 70 7406776'8 10300`'2240'080 2` z 4 °806. 706 0 69 76, �OS7' 1087 Q8 0507 0, °so 087211, 3 11 n 10481 m N 7 68 10501 1046 21 F�o49> 0800 77° S 705p,, a° 7046. s 20 367 4°493 1 'Dass 66 7 7 499 70,02 111 10 2 19 37, o 8o 04 ,, q o4g 110 is 1048 9 490 18 387 OxBS 70 6.O 65 �p 77734 3 5 0468 109 ' '048086 64 504,'8> 108 L 'U 700460 167 40970x> �4,7 1046488 63 23456 2 107 Toa>3 10 10469 9 10q>s �e 704> N MUL 1045>, 15 41 ' 7046.6.0 14 42704668 0 7o4jz 6 62 83 $10469 4' 7046.8 s 106 - 124 0oso 13 2 1°46. - 104,3 7046 105 P 18280 84 W 2 10 0 70462 EPP 1 6544 m f. '04806. 11 590 850667 104562 1034 126 443'0x69 ��y 104, 10451 8 70 46 10 45,4 3466. ° 8 ------ 1447 4 10470 58 10440 9 4670 49 4- 1°462 1044E 102 b \ 8610445 44 70 8 n� o, S 1 57 °448 10442 101 194,006. 7 ' 56 87 10441 obi^ 100 P 72 100 $7'0x39 1p °x38 4x4 10438 127 704 6 4 4 55 88 1043 5 9046 �� 10 704208 5 -- 7043 89 10431 • 050 10432 99 4 54 104js 170 426 EPP 32314 1042E 98 1 70470 3 521 459 PARK 047 90 u, 91 M 92 0 93 0 94 — 95 n 1041E 97 128 2100 10441 R 2 '0x06 1 5310455 EPP 34124 4- N N N a a 104o8 96 104 AVE. 2848 1p396 1039 v 039p2' 149 3 105 v 104103 CV o o a 102 CO 3 101'106 0 N CO v 99 CV 106 v 10362 98 103 107 ss 30 50 s> 3366 703,1 90m 10378 51 co 91 92 co BCP 93 01 23574 94 95 . 96 ,- M 97 103g' 08 N 109 L\ N Scale: 1:2,500 Ci'..fPitt Meauows it _ ++-�� ! ° 10501 /10601 Jackson Rd/ 10578-245B St & 84317-0700-8 r ,� i N �gaum��FAl Ifs' 12 .. ivram -' �NIZM'ITrOr .7,_.li tiglibmi ' `� CORPORATION O F THE DISTRICT OF wililigria ..,;,_=°T 4]VI 1, sVal• ` ill's :II"' 1 F - 4• I MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE District of I British Columbia PLANNING DEPARTMENT . T Langley ^r} 1 a I i I 7A ii. ;1 DATE: Feb 11,2014 2012-065-RZ BY: JV FRASER R. APPENDIX B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7059-2014 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7059-2014." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 8 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 18280 Lot 1 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 72103 Lot 5 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 75957 Lot 6 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 75957 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1609 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 37 16 40 PARK > �- co 140 '..' 3 111o6�, Berlina ,r 4 ��G > 137 Q .06 10656 2 349 S b 10653 "''en 136 4/ 141 97 °� posy 10650 1 .17ios: ss 135 142 op 77 @� 133 143 'o 21 1®®� NGS 76 PAR` 134. . m 78 - / BCP 13498 144• �O ry 79 PARK A. 145 Os iO ry0' 806 BCA MLCLURE DR. m tl" o ,� ry0 81 82 /2so9� Q 6-146• 10616 42 PARK F3 15 16 BC• $ 17 148.1 „ osq� AT m •em. 83 ' 147 ps5 Ptn of 18 85N 1 /@CA' ' n0 mm' 148 0 °°u N 1/2 of SE 1/4 @C' /)9 / 84 ]'9j> � SBC C,217_176 77 \...\6O0 �N I P39911 SK 6504E 10640 1 PARK P 75937 osol a 11 _ P 18280 B \ . 1 3 4 P 75957 10606 _\ 0592 2 ,- \H\s / 0BCP 3948. BCP 39484 6 / 03'0300\11 1 se 12 100070E88 3 rn 10590 a g 10 \Se o 1 os' / ' os> 1 1• 1 os > A, >osoo° 9, 1g osz 3 , 1058 a 248 ST. > 105884 m p0 BCP 2952 RW 7595: �/ 025 i IO 00302 ,! 17'08.��' Oso 32 9'‘.P.3 7 33 10586 5 ,1 9 _ I - RW 75958 OZ sse 1 18 P00 333 30 • 10563 r L 10585 CO 0sse 5 20 '0539 o 28 /a4j — Sy / 1 35 1°SS 552 2 Q '1,R' 10553 U2146. 43 10550 6 10582 BCP 29522 / 5 I ^ 'Q 044 210551 'ps46260' ]4Q� 3610543 10580 7 m 8 10563 P 75957 1 1 a 10578 I 1p34o 0 4^ 10sgat' 105, sop 25 37 P 72103 3,b 22064 @24 / 38 II 39 IF 40141 9 1 , P 72100 5 10°00s 2AA Sap �PS3 N N N 10570 10579 1 2-3 8 7 0 'CP 3948.E :C q@46 22 '84 245 ST. EPP 14530 10558 O o 8 2 10565 10570 7 P 323 7 ,p E2 .2323 7 szY 10548 4' a x319�o°sz> 6FA., 0 0 m 3 I o 10543 6 o ,273� 02, 26 30 '2 szo 71 >p7 11 '. �1 EMT• / l 6 10536 AA W ]; ''2.1022 ^ 11p1p5j3 95o 70 410 23114 0515 ` � — 5 0526 \" m 4 10529 8 10530 w, 0 1p3j0 69 75>p 01> 100111 ' \ 17 os s0fi 24, 3242 �ps 20 p2 • , pS ]050° 68 7�p5 5j1 1051211 J / ' 1 — 16544 \� EPP 20700 2458 ST. y'Q34 / 10590 7 10501 >°496 Fp1p4q> 5 10500 10512 p 67 o4 111 '1195 10492 20 3.101] 493 495 6 °9 10g ' N 10480 44 10502 2 — — I 10495 , 10499 19 7104 09 040 6. ,i 1049° ti I9g9 °2 110 d ?0485 10400 18 380 os 0109 1°4 y r., e 1 10489 '110477 10492 3 logo 17 39 01 4 e2 0 108 9999 19411 — — — ' W 10 \ J \ 1.....0469._ — — — - 1041 16 40 63 /pp� 4r� 1048? 107 R IN 12ry10471 > 104864 — — — -.N 10410°15 41,1043 941862 ••72 10418 o/ x1210485 104 14 421 409 104 0409 106 10476 5 9 3 ,. 10 10 5° 13 °40s y >2 61 400 a '°�%24, 0459 400 105 °0408 EPP 45 00 � P 18280 02 ///71451211W ,� 10493 10430 12 431 @ 19 60 10• M 21453 1":.17.: 10466 6 a 9 WI W r 10455_I I m�V� 10 602 59 /IM 8 0451 59 101 45 8 104 6 10406 103 N / /4046 7 10470 II 01p45s 8 9 10 58� x610445 B,y 466p4g0 57 M 10448 102 / 101 10458 194452 /; 1048g° 10442 W P72100 104446 x1'$$ 6Q�trk 10438100 127 ''''.0 104508 ,0480 91•!0g0g 5510435 1p43 99 10445 I 10 °429 89 10431 zp .' 140 1044 4 420 54 10432 tfA 98 /� 23. 1 1 51 ,. 0 3 52, 91 • 3E2PgP32316 93 94 95 10428 971 128 \ P 72100 10441 PARK 41 53 1 g110 EPP 3412• N N N N21i 21i 10416 10408 96 s 104 AVE. 104 AVE. 104 AVE. %lip, 341111141 48 10e 10e 10e 10o 10o41 10a 99a s8 1 /• 1. / ii �2 1 90 g AV,` 91 nn 92 BCP 93 r 23' 94 r 74 95 r 96 r 97 • 1 / .1 / 24 o 1038 AVE 038,11/ � 23 x/ U m Aro, X88 I e ii / CW8 03]9 ' / Ntrh/89 1035, a 10360 `'�87 BCP `8386 235'4 `'�85 `'�84 `'�8� / h , 11 > /22 r MAPLE Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: RIDGE ZONE AMENDING 7059-2014 1609 RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Lii, N SCALE 1:3,500 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia APPENDIX C 7r- TTTTTT-> yT i 1 1 105A AVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BENCHMARK: DEVELOPER: ALL ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE IN METRES. INFORMATION ON EXISTING UTILRIES MAX NOT BE ELEVATIONS ORE DERIVED FROM BENCHMARK COMPLETE OR ACCURATE. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 851-0702. LOCATED ON JACKSON AVENUE. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXPOSE LOCATIONS OF All NORTH OF 10411- AVENUE EXISTING UTILITIES AN0 ADVISE THE ENGINEER OF ELEVATION = 76410M GEODETIC DATUM. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. MORNINGSTAR HOMES LTD. 2nd FLOOR — 946 BRUNETTE AVE COOU11LAN, BC a3( 1C9 TEL 038 FAX 604-521-0078 ENGINEER: CoreGroup minzEgmEmh LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 320-8988 FRASERTON COURT 409866Y. BC V5J 51-8 tel (604)299 0605 fax (604)299 0629 NOTES GRAPHIC SCALE -10 0 10 20 SCALE: 1:500 N0. DATE REVISIONS ENG. DESIGN 0N. DRAWN B.C. APPROVED C.N. DATE FEB. 3. 2014 SCALE 1:1000 JACKSON RD. & 104 AVE. PRELIMINARY KEYPLAN MAPLE RIDGE, BC PLAN 1 OF 1 REV. 0 0 14/02/03 PRELIMINARY KEYPLAN CN N0. DATE REVISIONS ENG. DESIGN 0N. DRAWN B.C. APPROVED C.N. DATE FEB. 3. 2014 SCALE 1:1000 JACKSON RD. & 104 AVE. PRELIMINARY KEYPLAN MAPLE RIDGE, BC PLAN 1 OF 1 REV. 0 Ocep Avvrs GrwrgFign2c District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-118-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7056-2014 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road, from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) and P -4a (Place of Worship Institutional and Educational) to CS -1 (Service Commercial) to align the current taxi dispatch office use with the appropriate commercial zone. Council approved a Temporary Commercial Use Permit for the subject property in 2006 for the same taxi business; however this permit has expired. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. RECOMMENDATIONS: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required specifically with: i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; v. School District Boards, greater boards and improvements district boards; and vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies; and in that regard, it is recommended that no additional consultation be required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7056-2014 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A and C of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999. 1102 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owners: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: South: East: West: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Sohan Mehat Sohan Mehat and Satvinder Dhaliwal Lot 1 District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP17822 Commercial and Institutional Commercial RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) and P -4a (Place of Worship Institutional and Educational) CS -1 (Service Commercial) Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Vacant RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Urban Residential Vacant (under application 2013 -078 -CU) RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Commercial Single Family Residential RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Commercial Single Family Residential RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Commercial Taxi Dispatch Office (expired Temporary Commercial Use Permit) and accessory vehicle refueling Taxi Dispatch Office and accessory vehicle refueling 0.375 ha (0.9 acres) 119 Avenue Urban Standard -2- b) Site Characteristics and History: The subject property is located in West Maple Ridge and fronts Dewdney Trunk Road, which is classified as a Major Corridor in Figure 4 of the Official Community Plan. There is an existing single family home on the property, which is being used for the principal taxi dispatch office use. The business license was originally issued as a home occupation trade license in January 2004. The owner applied to amend the Official Community Plan to designate the subject property as a Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area, when the owner was seeking to formalize the commercial business and install a propane tank to fuel the cabs in 2004. Through the Temporary Commercial Use Permit process, access to the property was restricted from Dewdney Trunk Road, and the main access is via 119 Avenue on the southern property line. c) Project Description: The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to bring the zoning into alignment with the existing taxi dispatch office use and accessory vehicle refuelling use. The use had been permitted under a Temporary Commercial Use Permit that was approved by Council in 2006 (CU/047/04). At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to second reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, Official Community Plan designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is located in West Maple Ridge and is currently designated Commercial and Institutional. For the proposed development, an OCP amendment will be required to re -designate the site to Commercial to allow the proposed CS -1 (Service Commercial) zoning. Due to the site's location on Dewdney Trunk Road outside of the Town Centre, and based on Policy 6-23 (a), this development is subject to the General Commercial policies of the OCP. The applicable objective and policy are as follows: "Objective: To respond to emerging market trends and shopping preferences of Maple Ridge citizens, and to permit greater flexibility in the range of permitted commercial uses. Policy 6 - 23 General Commercial lands are lands designated Commercial on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan that are: a) located on the Lougheed Highway, west and east of the Town Centre; ...." The CS -1 (Service Commercial) zone aligns with the General Commercial category. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject property located at 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) and P -4a (Place of Worship Institutional and Educational) to CS -1 (Service Commercial), to permit a taxi dispatch office use. A text amendment to -3- the CS -1 (Sercice Commercial) zone is required to add taxi dispatch office as a permitted principal use. No development variances are anticipated. Development Permits: No new construction is proposed with the subject application, therefore a Commercial Development Permit application is not required to address the current proposal's compatibility with adjacent development, and to enhance the unique character of the community. A landscape plan and security deposit will be required through the rezoning application to enhance the existing building and screen the parking area. Development Information Meeting: As there is an OCP amendment, a Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to second reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. e) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) License, Permits & Bylaws; d) Fire Department; and e) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and departments not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. This evaluation will take place between first and second reading. f) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. g) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999 as amended: 1. An Official Community Plan Application (Schedule A); and 2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C) The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. -4- CONCLUSION: The development proposal is in compliance with the Official Community Plan, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. It is recommended that Council not require any further additional OCP consultation. "Original signed by Amelia Bowden" Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" for 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 - Subject Map Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw 7056-2014 -5- 41 572 44N m 12116 D 12124 21 EPP 3 099 5 2O 12087 12080 N LMP 5691 34 P 29188 37 19 0 m 22 ,n 23 u> 24 N 25 N 26 ,n 27 N 28 in 29 ,n 2 3 4 5 12113 22 12110 12083 U N U v a a a a u> u� .n N v' N H 12079 Ca \ N N N 0 N o N N N N /N G co A 0� 18 206 AVE. ' 6 35 ^co RQ 1217 P 83 237 17 6 N a J 1206 s 12091° 1 6 120, a o 10 8 m 0 1 Rem 2 3 a 2 0,1 12 0 ' 0 9 0 N 1205 2 123 16 1207 0 N 1204 s 1204 07 a 7 36 1207 4 1 6, 11 5 J v I� 12073 120 15 ' zo6e3 41203 1203 0 F 00 ' $ 48 12065 1205 12025 M i12F6 co,-512020 0 2 N 1206 8 P 29 781 0- 5 ^ 13 a a 1204 e N 14 LMP 691 12016 6 N 12010 12012 P 76 038 1 10 70 1 1204 1205 8 DEW DN EY TRU NK ROAD o n oL°49 N P 29781 3 6 1203- Rem 26 1203; o 1204 0 7 o r. °' M o c O Rem \ 12019 P 30 456 8 12021 B LMP 40767 ' Subject Property t1 1 Rem 29 12030 12021 9 7 0 C Rem 1 N E c N °'— M -eV--1201 m 2 30 P 30 31 954 32 33 LMP 34007 M cr Nn R M N �, a12013 / ^ N c N1 a BCP 17822 DEW DN EY TRUNK ROAD 119 AV E. co v 1 �9 m •I`F i O N 1 BCP 1643 Rem1 P 98 01 m A P 76 445 34007 D LMP 33 673 NLO N LMP 25177 A P 64073 N . N 75 O o N m G N Pcl. 'One' LMP 46838 UG N N N O H EED H W Y. W N O ----------o N 119 AVE. P 87 086 1 ,--- m F) N A, (P 87 ,L\,, N Scale: 1:2,500 Ci'..fPitt Meauows _ - , ! i 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road �.yailL rr^� Lr I O Modi :�— rel- ! 5k�d r ' CORPORATION O F THE DISTRICT OF '-�'�■�-'!' yFov.� ��� `'" >>� ���� ads ' `� '� ■� -- ! "lam MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE District of � British Columbia PLANNING DEPARTMENT Langley 11 , ;/ ' DATE: Feb 11,2014 2013-118-RZ BY: JV FRASER R. APPENDIX B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7056-2014 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7056-2014." 2. PART 2, INTERPRETATION, is amended by adding the following in alphabetical sequence: TAXI DISPATCH OFFICE means a use for the dispatch of taxi vehicles including parking and refueling of taxi vehicles. 3. PART 7, COMMERCIAL ZONES, SECTION 708, SERVICE COMMERCIAL: CS -1 is amended as follows: SUBSECTION 1, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, is amended by the addition of the following: v. taxi dispatch office 4. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1 District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP17822 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1608 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to CS -1 (Service Commercial). 5. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER I 12138 r I 0 CO 12116 1 0 N D 21 12124 LM F� 11279 EPP 30995 Q11 30 7,n 01 1087 12080 <5., LMP 5691 34 P 29188 \:,;,,5,.7 19J— 0 — .n 44 22 RW +n 23 18394 24 25 26 ui 27 ,c 28 29 2 3 4 5 h1 12113 22 12110 3' - — 1 083 v v U —u0— v 4 cfl v v ro — v rn v o —`— ,n ,n N —L— 0) R,- ,n ,n — ,n — ,n _ — — RW 18394 o In 12079 N it N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N o N c_ N N O —---- A ��0 18 1206 AVE. I a 35 -CO QQ ^ M 12075 N P 83237 LMP 5692 j 172p15co v J 6 12oss 12091 -0, co r 12067 D 2 12061/ ___3_/ a o 1 0 0 8 1 QT Rem 23 12011 o 0 9 N 0 0 12052 16 12070 12045 12040 0_ o, 7 7 81 36 12074 11 12035 a 12073 _ — — __ O I 12061 1 15 12ps8 .. 4 120303 • CD X12038 48 12065 RP 72981 CD 00 P 7313' J N N N Nc V'c.ii4 206B ST. 79 �/ N 12025 'c, -I' f, a 112026 \ \ntw Rem 24 1 66 1 Ng- co co 12 / 5 F 12020 0_1 2 11 9 --- 7S 12068 P 29781 11 ^ 13 N 298 N 1 14 a LM' 5691 �/ g 12015 6 12010 12031 12012 �� P 7603812015 / 1 I 10 � 1 00 0) o) 0, r 12058 3 N DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD ,o o D_ 49 N P 29781 r 12037 M 6 M E RwA, Rem 26 w 12033 d 7-- Rem 24 / P 26434 20620/` 12040 I / 1co I I a EP 83164 Rem R� N N N 12019 P 30456 �� W 8 12029 N 111 1m ° LMP 40767 RP 8184 c967 \�� Rem 41� \1 0�s� \ Rem 29 v 12030 a 12025 9 1 N A GG DO N A 12010 W I1-1 11N C o xl 1 1I 71 1 Rem 1 �� N 1 N co 1 w _o \ coo 2 1 12013 / \ 30 nl(7 \ N ��6,v. P 30954 31 D 0 32� 33 I LMP 1 4007 1 BCP 25878 (leas)BCP lR 79675 17822 EP 7: ale) LMf'138298 (leas-) LMP 38378 — RW 83136 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD LMP 38985 AVE. I CD 11 1 100 110 112 11� 11 11 779 qGF o 1 BCP 1643 N Rem 1 P 9801 CD RP 13792 N A P 76445 I I LMP 37752 (easement) P 64073/ 0, 119 AVE. N 11 LMP 37751 (lease) 11 D 75 Pcl. 'One' LMP 46838 11C 1 1 �7- ---Lo , %SMP ., _ v P 87086 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 7056-2014 Map No. 1608 From: RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) P -4a (Place of Worship & Educational District) To: CS -1 (Service Commercial) A. N SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE $relish CoLufnbIa TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 23274 Silver Valley Road District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: February 17, 2014 2012-054-DVP CoW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application 2012-054-DVP has been received in conjunction with rezoning, subdivision, and development permit applications to permit the future subdivision of the subject property, located at 23274 Silver Valley Road, into six single family lots. The requested variances are to increase the building height for five proposed lots, reduce the exterior side yard setback for two proposed lots, and reduce the front yard setback for one proposed lot. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2012 -016 -VP be approved. Council considered rezoning application 2012-054-RZ and granted first reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6936-2012 on June 26, 2012. Council granted first and second reading for Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7001-2013, and second reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6936-2012 on June 25, 2013. This application was presented at Public Hearing on July 16, 2013, and Council granted third reading on July 23, 2013. Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2012-054-RZ on February 25, 2014. The watercourse protection development permit application 2012 -054 -DP was approved on December 27, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-054-DVP respecting property located at 23274 Silver Valley Road. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Damax Consultants Ltd. Affinity Homes and Designs Inc. Lot 3, Section 33, Township 12, NWD Plan 20132 Medium Density Residential, Low/Medium Density Residential, Low Density Urban, Open Space and Conservation Low/Medium Density Residential, Low Density Urban, Open Space and Conservation RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) and RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) 1103 Surrounding Uses: North: South: East: West: Use: Single Family Residential, Pedestrian Walkway Zone: RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential, Low Density Urban and Conservation Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential, Low Density Urban and Conservation Use: Conservation (North Alouette River) Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Conservation Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential and Low/Medium Density Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.936 ha (2.3 acres) Access: Silver Valley Road and Blaney Road Servicing requirement: Full Urban Standard Lot Size: 558 m2 - 1,900 m2 Concurrent Applications: 2012-054-RZ, 2012 -054 -SD, 2012 -054 -DP b) Requested Variances: The applicant is requesting the following variances to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No 3510 -1985: For proposed lot 6: 1. Part 6, Section 601, C. (3) (c) (i): To reduce the front yard setback for the RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) zoned lot from 7.5 metres to 6 metres. For proposed lots 1-5: 2. Part 6, Section 601, C. (9) (b): To increase the maximum height for proposed RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zoned lots from 9.5 metres to 11 metres. For proposed lots 3 and 5: 3. Part 6, Section 601, C. (9) (c) (iii): To reduce the exterior side lot setback from 3 metres to 1.5 metres. -2- c) Project Description: The proposed development involves rezoning and subdivision of the subject property to allow for six single family lots. Three lots will front onto and be accessed from Silver Valley Road. The remaining three lots will be accessed from an extension of Blaney Road, currently accessed from a temporary access road on a statutory right-of-way over two existing single family lots. Once Blaney Road permanently connects with Silver Valley Road or 232 Street, the statutory right-of-way located on the two single family lots will be eliminated, allowing homes to be constructed. This is anticipated to take place once lands further south develop. The eastern third of the subject property is characterized by steep slopes and the North Alouette River. This portion of land will be dedicated for conservation purposes through the rezoning process. A larger RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) lot will back onto the conservation area and transition to smaller RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) lots further to the west. An equestrian trail is proposed in the conservation area that will connect with existing trails to the north. d) Planning Analysis: Zoning Bylaw: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The accompanying rezoning application 2012-054-RZ proposes to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) and RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) to permit the future subdivision of six lots under application 2012 -054 -SD. The applicant has requested several variances to the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw and the following rationale for support is provided by the Planning Department: 1. Part 6, Section 601, C. (3) (c) (i): To reduce the front yard setback for proposed lot 6 from 7.5 metres to 6 metres. This variance will create consistency with the front yard setbacks of proposed lots 4 and 5 on the west side of Blaney Road, which will be zoned RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential. 2. Part 6, Section 601, C. (9) (b): To increase the maximum height for proposed Tots 1-5 from 9.5 metres to 11 metres. This variance will create consistency with the maximum height of proposed lot 6, and other homes in the area. This variance also aligns with proposed changes for height in the draft Zoning Bylaw for the RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential zone. 3. Part 6, Section 601, C. (9) (c) (iii): To reduce the exterior side lot setback from 3 metres to 1.5 metres for proposed Tots 3 and 5. As the road dedication adjacent to proposed lots 3 and 5 is for a stormwater management pond and a pedestrian walkway, rather than for road access to the lots, this variance will allow for the equivalent setback of an interior side yard setback instead of the larger exterior side yard setback. -3- CONCLUSION: The proposed variances to building height and setbacks are supported by the Planning Department. The purpose of the requested variances is to bring the front yard siting and building height for the two zones in line with one another. Furthermore, the purpose of the road dedication on the northern property lines of proposed lots 3 and 5 is for a stormwater pond and a pedestrian walkway; therefore, the smaller setback consistent with an interior side yard setback, is supportable. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered, and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2012-054-DVP. "Original signed by Amelia Bowden" Prepared by: "Original signed Amelia Bowden Planning Technician 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 - Subject Map Appendix B - Proposed Variances -4- APPENDIX A 19 13868 13 13869 Q 6 13859 13866 12 2013861 it - ,Q 2 5 g5� 13868 2 1386 2 13 13855 .f EP 4 2 3 y 13842 6 21 138410 2 13831 M 20 Rem cl B 13825 13828 4 1380 5771 5 13802 $ 19 13811 ® 10 13703 13jg611 13792 g 1813795 I 1378213802 137 13g02 try /3783 Q 13782 12 N BCP 42823 10 81 13772 11 16 137 13782 3 U 8 iv 73��s 13 U PARK 65 '% /3773 CO m� 15 ' 137'2 4 a6> 13762 12 14 7 ,�r� 1372 13763 13762 14 13 Subject Property 13752 6 1350 13753 15 /( RD t VALLEY ul COON C‘IN N N 3 P 20132 P 2 2 132 P 20132 4 P 2409 8 *P P162 N200'9 0) 0 v N 0 0274 N Scale: 1:2,000 CMea i ofows Pitt •l _ r 23274 Silver Valley Road � ° may. ��yn fYf „i...rte 13 I o M f �,.�-y��y E��4lcfllre 1=51 � ' � j'' CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF . mi rl='aL� `_ '11'x'' Pr 4--P4n. 1 .gr CLa eel -� II 1, ' YCf}'W`� R��, -40 LI v�,,-+_ _ •y I MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 District of �I "It - Langley= m lac,rm=.: DATE: Jun 3, 2013 2012 -054 -VP BY: JV ASERR. � APPENDIX B BCP 42823 PARK To reduce exterior side lot setback from 3m to 1.5m for Lot 3 & 5 Rem pa B Pt R,7 5 Rem 3 To reduce front yard setback from 7.5m to 6m y P 20132 11324 To increase maximum height from 9.5m to 11.5m for Lots 1-5 P 2409 N 200' 9 RS -1b RS -1 2012-054-R2 nftaTE �� clzr xr. Cfa h rng.Fl •C4 _ _ Pvwaea� 0W 1.S a vnn_ •bf. VgDi.ICtha'- •r• Or S1 F¢IMOL•4 DIA4 /x. \fes VNJ IOFn._ _- vaF. •1iw 52E. MAIyyEEpp�app"3TC+, .50. RO mitexI TOti D•L'E FAOO.E.••aG v au c'vEa'" n--� .. -- - '4/0 8143[' 1tP*LL11.14111 ea•iLNWnta FACCIA !l )L 'I —� WPM. ••CPO UM �SID.E'•CAS r 4(- �11 1 fA•C6tN10r OEFh•fiO4 AMMO ODP. FRONT ELEVATION (LOT 9 - PMAeE 5) 30 -0 `-� TILOS VN0400140 --SOLO LEI•111.4 �----_SCONE F•Ca4 •SLh1fD •II.Q yea wrtccw _r Fl`[ jwxnaai-n FaiN • x•. IllDrcn4 IJILMOCIr ALS .of r (D MO 11 • I •ama REAR ELEVATION L,Z(CL� tz4 (7) • T:ePn 1 It 1.110. RIGHT ELEVATION Voila. WARM. r.A.MMIITIS' Y60.I0 IO:PI3016D41 r••••"at •••1m 1GEc Oi[r,o.., SOQN•rEFe.- .•evaL . . CL�O{MIGr/p14l1tlryCW * � TrAI Y✓i:r. FD• _ _ rEcr�`c°•wro • X • 41 051 PL10ffD.xm .. 1.EDn.e...O 10.1"11..Ytl 4, �••�f[•R�0we M0 COteCAM . IanRMEr OW Mt mon LEFT ELEVATION VS7LL /1PY41101. CA -CLAMP.* IMD6OISIMCO. *00 UIDYi MOIMU Gn a.-• 5. MO. •Aa*i tA.1o.• damax consultants ttd! 103.1800 west lith ave. vancanier, b.c. vel 1r3 te1.604 224 6827 dantax®telus.net 41. MAPLE RIDGE Orep Floats Gr Iran fre,'gn« District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/107/10 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Rezoning - First Extension Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 and Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6779-2010 23657 and 23651 132 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant for the above noted file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to permit a future construction of 69 townhouse units in the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone and the remainder south east portion to RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone. The proposed RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone correlates with the "Medium-high Density Residential" designation of the Silver Valley Area Plan. The southern property is impacted by a tributary of the Maple Ridge Park Creek which crosses diagonally through the south-east portion of the site (Appendix A). An Official Community Plan amendment is required to Figures 2, 3C and 4 to re -designate the south-eastern portion to "Low Density Residential" and adjust the conservation boundary around the creek. RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/107/10 and that the following conditions be addressed prior to consideration of Final Reading: i. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security deposit of a security including non-refundable monies for the multi-purpose trail, as outlined in the Agreement; ii. Amendment to Schedule "C" of the Official Community Plan; iii. Amendment to Part VI A of the Silver Valley Figure 2- Land Use Plan, Figure 4 - Trails/Open Space Plan and Figure 3C River Village Plan in the Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan; iv. Park dedication as required; v. Consolidation of the townhouse development site; -1- 1104 vi. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; vii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office protecting the Visitor Parking. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Wayne Bissky Owner: Michael Karton Legal Description: OCP: Lot: A, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: 23796; PID: 009-289- 941 and Lot: B, Section 28, Township: 12, Plan 23796; PID: 009-290-214 Existing: Medium -High Density Residential, Conservation and Open Space Zoning: Existing: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) and RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: 133rd Avenue and Single Family Residential Zone: R-1 (Residential District) zone Designation: Medium -High Density Residential South: Use: 132nd Avenue and Single Family Residential Zone: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Conservation, Low Density Residential, Open Space and Medium -High Density Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and proposed RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Conservation, Low Density Residential and Medium -High Density Residential West: Use: Existing Single Family Residential and future townhouse proposal by Portrait Homes Rock Ridge Ltd. Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential); and proposed RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium -High Density Residential -2- Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Multi -Family Residential (Townhouses), Conservation and Single Family Residential (south east corner) Consolidated Site Area: 1.97 Hectares (4.88 acres). Access: 133rd Avenue and 132nd Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: DP/107/10, DVP/107/10 and 2012 -045 -DP (WPDP) This application is to permit a future construction of 69 townhouse units in the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone and the remainder south east portion to RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone to permit a single family house. The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaw/s 6778-2010 and 6779-2010: • First Reading Report was considered on December 22, 2010 • First Reading was granted January 11, 2011 • The Second Reading Report (see attached) was considered on January 21, 2013 • Second Reading was granted January 22, 2013 • Public Hearing was held February 19, 2013 • Third Reading was granted February 26, 2013 Application Progress: The applicant has been working actively to meet Council's conditions. The existing house was demolished recently and the property is now vacant. The Storm water Management and Erosion Sediment Control plans have been finalized. Most of the legal documents have been finalized, except for the Rezoning Servicing Agreement. The District's engineering staff is coordinating with the applicant's engineer of record (Wedler Engineering LLP) on the final revisions of the off-site servicing drawings. A multi-purpose trail is anticipated to be built through the dedicated conservation area to access the "Cedar Park" when the property on the east of the subject site (23711 132nd Avenue) develops. The options for this proposed trail were reviewed by the District's Park Department and finalized. The developer will be paying in trust monies so that the trail may be built by the Parks Department, at a future date when the connection through the eastern property is established. It is anticipated that final approvals for this development application will be sought within a couple of months. Alternatives: Council may choose one of the following alternatives: 1. Grant the request for extension; 2. Deny the request for extension; or 3. Repeal Third Reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing. -3- CONCLUSION: The proposed land use is in compliance with the land use designation of the Silver Valley Area Plan. OCP amendment is required to adjust the conservation boundary. Some height and setback variances along with retaining wall height variances are being sought. This will be discussed through a Multi -Family Development Permit and Variance Permit report at a future Council report. The Advisory Design Panel has reviewed the project and all the concerns have been addressed through design revisions to the Panel's satisfaction. This proposal will enhance pedestrian connectivity for this neighbourhood through the future multi-purpose trail connection to the Cedar Park; dedicate environmentally sensitive area (approximately 21% of the consolidated site area) for conservation purpose and add enhancement works (cleaning, re -planting) around Maple Ridge Park Creek. Most of Council's conditions have been finalized except for the Rezoning Servicing Agreement. The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension. It is recommended that a one year extension be granted. "Original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by Rasika Acharya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UDC, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" for Approved by Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP 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 - Subject Map Appendix B - Second Reading Report -4- APPENDIX A I./.A) I 13332 -I tj t 1 7 b v ��� Q 0 11 m 13325 13326 19 l3 472$ 16 ry0 ��ti /� �� ti�� A�6 $ 29 23737 M 138317 ¢ 133 tib er, 12N 16 13319 13320 20 �C, ti 1°j 15 `t, 33s 23741 13313 N 133 ti� y�6 4:7330 14 13 ti3 12 7 d 17 13312 21 rt, 31 23742 23743 d 13309 133 4 10 23687 11322237451 12 cn 3 4 rn 5 n 6 7 ro 8 9 rn n23691N 13305133( nn <0 <0 <0 (0 CD CD CD CD 23746237475 NN 0/3 r° N N N N N N N N N N2369713 / 33 4 13301`N. � q_ P. 133 AVE. N 27 I 13295 1/ N2183289 PA R K� 1 132 M N 1913283 Subject Properties 13295 26 2 13. 119277 13275 132 13245 21 B P 48 92 5132 00 1,. 3 13265 P 47 60 3 CL 0 4 m i co co13257 N 1321 Co Co 24 5 13251 132! 13260 23 (V o_ 6 1323 13235 coco co co fV P 47 60 3 °�° 7 c- 13225 132: 13227 22 20 A 0 8 m 13215 1322 — 13215_ 57 M N N. M N N LO- CO N N4 ,n 9 13205 1321 — — — — — — — — N N CO 13165 O (O P 2637 CO Rem 1 O n C7 N n M N LMP EP 1 37 25 A P 2637 ,L4 N Scale: 1:2,000 Ci a foPitt Mea•lows -- *+ " 23651 /57-132 Ave I Ili 0 yE .g co E. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF mi rE='pL^^I ` J.1 - � r?P --ii_2-- 1 . + 1II P " "' Cf}'W`� t��, LI I. LI y MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 District of �� a, _ Langley= - 7E mi.— ,rMl=�' DATE: Jan 17, 2013 RZ/107/10 BY: JV ASER--' 4 Orep Aaars Groan" 1-M400c District of Maple Ridge APPENDIX B TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: January 21, 2013 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/107/10 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 and Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6779-2010 23651 and 23657 132 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council gave First Reading to a rezoning application (RZ/107/10) on January 11, 2011. The proposal is to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential zone) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential zone) to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential zone), to permit a future construction of 69 townhouse units and the remainder south east portion to RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone. The proposed RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zoning complies with the Silver Valley Area Plan designation of the Official Community Plan. The southern property is impacted by a tributary of the Maple Ridge Park creek which crosses diagonally through the south-east portion of the site. An Official Community Plan amendment is required to Figures 2, 3C and 4 to re -designate the south- eastern portion to "Low Density Residential" and adjust the conservation boundary around the creek. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 be given First and Second Readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 2. That in accordance with Section 879 of the Local Government Act opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting, and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 3. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 4. That it be confirmed that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778- 2010 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6779-2010 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and 6. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading. i. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii. Amendment to Schedule "C" of the Official Community Plan; iii. Amendment to Part VI A of the Silver Valley Figure 2- Land Use Plan, Figure 4 - Trails/Open Space Plan and Figure 3C River Village Plan in the Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan; iv. Park dedication as required; v. Consolidation of the townhouse development site; vi. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; vii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office protecting the Visitor Parking; viii. Removal of the existing buildings; ix. An Engineer's certification that adequate water quantity for domestic and fire protection purposes can be provided; x. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance with the regulations. xi. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the property owner will provide a Site Profile for the subject lands. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Wayne Bissky Owner: Michael Karton -2 Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: South: East: West: Lot: A, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: 23796; PID: 009-289- 941 and Lot: B, Section 28, Township: 12, Plan 23796; PID: 009-290-214 Medium/High Density Residential, Conservation and Open Space RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) and RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Use: 133rd Avenue and Single Family Residential Zone: R-1 (Residential District) zone Designation: Medium/High Density Residential Use: 132nd Avenue and Single Family Residential Zone: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Conservation, Low Density Residential, Open Space and Medium/High Density Residential Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Conservation, Low Density Residential and Medium/ High Density Residential Use: Existing Single Family Residential & Proposed Multi -Family Residential (townhouses) Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential); proposed RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Companion Applications: Single Family Residential with a vacant log house Multi -Family Residential (Townhouses), Conservation and Single Family Residential (south east corner) 1.97 Hectares (4.88 acres). 133rd Avenue and 132nd Avenue Full Urban Standard DP/107/10, DVP/107/10 and 2011 -045 -DP (WPDP) -3- b) Project Description: The development site (Appendix A), located at 23657 and 23651 132 Avenue, within the Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan, consists of two legal lots with a consolidated area of 4.88 acres. The two lots will require consolidation. The site gradually slopes down from the north east corner to the south and south west corner. A tributary of the Maple Ridge Park Creek runs diagonally through the south east portion of the southern lot. Environmentally sensitive area around this creek must be protected through park dedication within the 15.0 metres setback from the top of bank of the creek. Currently a log house sits on the southern property within the required environmental setback area, which will need to be removed as a condition of Final Reading of the bylaws. The existing equestrian trail along the south side of 132nd Avenue will remain and may need widening and upgrading when the properties on the south develop. The proposed Site Plan (Appendix D) shows main access to the site from 133rd Avenue leading through the site to connect to 132nd Avenue on the south. A total of 69 townhouse units (ranging in size from 1154 ft2 to 2101 ft2) are proposed in 16 blocks (of 3 to 5 units each) serviced by a 6.0 metres wide strata road with sidewalk on one side. Blocks 1, 2 and 3 facing 133rd Avenue have a street presence with direct pedestrian walkways to the municipal road. Each unit has its own parking in either tandem or a two car garage, giving a total of 138 parking spaces for residents. The required 20 visitor parking stalls (including three handicapped parking stalls) have been distributed near Block 4, 8, 10, 15 and 16. A community garden is proposed near Blocks 9, 10 and 12, facing west. The proposed building materials include: Cedar Shakes, Vinyl Siding; Vinyl windows; Cultured stone veneer; Duroid Roofing Shingles; painted wood trims, fascia boards, brackets, railing and skirt boards; aluminum railing and prefinished metal gutter and downspout (Appendix E). The proposed rain and storm water management scheme utilizes means such as infiltration of site run-off through absorbent landscaping, rain gardens, bio swales, central green space between units, permeable pavers for the side walk of the strata road and visitor parking stalls and staggered landscaped beds. A balance of native, decorative and low maintenance planting species have been proposed to differentiate between private, semi -private and public spaces (Appendix F). The total proposed usable open space and common activity area is designed for active and passive recreation of the future residents and meets the requirement of the proposed zone. A Community Garden along with a shed and composting area is proposed in the western area near Blocks 10 and 12 (Appendix D). c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site (Appendix A) consists of two legal lots within the Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan. The subject properties are located just outside of the 400m defined "River Village" hamlet boundary which is intended to be the main Commercial centre in the Silver Valley Area Plan. The northern property is predominantly designated "Medium/High Density Residential" except for a very small portion (1%) designated "Conservation". The RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) -4- zone correlates with the "Medium/High Density Residential" designation and also provides a transition in density between the single family development to the north, to the more dense developments intended within the River Hamlet Centre. The southern property is predominantly designated "Medium/High Density Residential and Conservation" with a small portion (1%) designated "Open Space". The small "Open Space" designation is in the south east corner of the southern lot. Open spaces in the Silver Valley Area Plan are meant to be linked through developments to form a network of greenways throughout Silver Valley. Specific to this site, the open space requirement will be satisfied through a dedication of up to 21% of the land area for park. The "Conservation" designation is due to a tributary of the Maple Ridge Park Creek, running diagonally on the southern property, around which environmentally sensitive area must be protected through park dedication. Currently a log house sits on the southern property within the required 15.0 metres environmental setback area. This structure will need to be removed or demolished as a condition of Final Reading. The south eastern corner, beyond the 15.0 metres environmental setback, is proposed to be zoned RS -1 (One family Urban Residential) to comply with the surrounding "Low Density Residential" designation. An Official Community Plan Amendment is required to adjust the conservation boundary around Maple Ridge Park Creek and re -designate the remainder portion (south-east corner) of the site to "Low Density Residential". Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 23657 and 23651 132 Avenue from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential zone) to permit future construction of 69 townhouse units and the remainder south east portion as RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone. The proposed RS -1 zone (One Family Urban Residential) requires a minimum lot size of 668 m2 and the remainder portion in south eastern corner of the site is 734 m2 in size and triangular in shape (Appendix D). Future access to this lot will be from 132nd Avenue. The proposed RM -1 zone (Townhouse Residential District) is intended for low to medium density townhouses and multi family residential buildings. A maximum density of 0.6 times the net lot area is permitted along with a 50 m2 basement area per unit. A density of 0.57 times the net lot area and total lot coverage of 33.2% has been proposed for this project. This zone requires a minimum usable space of 45 m2 for each three-bedroom and 30 m2 for each two-bedroom unit. This zone also requires a Common Activity area of minimum 5 m2 per unit. The proposed Useable Open Space and Common Activity Area including a tot lot (7490.8 m2 in area) is combined and located near block 15. blocks 6, 7 and 8 (see Appendix D). The RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone specifies the following setbacks: 7.5 metres from front, rear and exterior side yard; 4.5 metres from an interior side yard for a wall with no windows to a habitable room and 6.0 metres from an interior side yard for a wall with a balcony or a window to a habitable room. Maximum permitted height in this zone must not exceed 10.5 metres and 2.5 stories. Some minor variances for setback, height, stories of certain units and retaining wall height, are being sought, as outlined below. -5- Proposed Variances: The variances sought by the applicant can be categorized into setbacks, building height, building stories and retaining wall height exceeding 1.2 metre height. These variances will be explained in detail in a future Council report and are expected to be similar to those sought by other Silver Valley projects. There are no variances being sought for parking. Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: As per the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone requires two parking spaces per unit for residents plus 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors, requiring a total of 152 parking spaces (138 for residents and 14 visitor parking stalls) for 69 units proposed. The proposal is in compliance of this requirement. All the proposed 69 units have their own tandem or double car parking garages and the visitor parking stalls are well distributed as shown on the Site Plan (Appendix D). Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan, a Multi -Family Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the Official Community Plan, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required for this development proposed within 50 metres of the top of bank of the Maple Ridge Park Creek. The purpose of the Watercourse Protection Development Permit is to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration/ enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Advisory Design Panel: On December 11, 2012, the Advisory Design Panel reviewed the proposal for form and character. The panel recommended this proposal moving forward with the following concerns to be addressed by the applicant as the design develops and submitted to staff for follow-up: • Consider providing a barrier to prevent through traffic through the site • Consider reversing the elevation treatment on the end elevations of Building 1 and any other buildings with similar treatment • Consider using a consistent treatment of the cultured stone on all elevations • Look at the corner/bottom trim at the cedar shingle panel • Consider providing a stronger architectural detail at the entry stair and railings • Revise the note regarding the trees in the rain garden area • Confirm the engineered treatment of the grass in the country Lane • Consider changing the design of the higher retaining walls with the use of a green wall system • Consider providing a hedge along the west property line -6- • Consider providing outdoor patios for Units 1 through 11 • Consider reducing the gravel areas between the building blocks • Consider providing space for more street trees between Units 5 & 6 and 9 & 10 • Consider providing stepping stones through rain garden for access to community gardens • Confirm proper landscape maintenance access for all yards • Consider relocating street trees closer to sidewalk on 133rd Ave • Consider means to make sidewalks continuous throughout the site All the above stated concerns were addressed through design revisions and reviewed by the panel to their satisfaction. Development Information Meeting: On January 9, 2013 the applicant and his team of consultants conducted the "Development Information Meeting" at the Yennadon Elementary School Library at 23347 128t" Avenue Maple Ridge, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. As per Council Policy 6.20, invitations were mailed to adjacent property owners, advertisements were placed in the local paper and a notice was attached to the development sign on site. This was an informal drop-in meeting. All the proposed drawings were displayed for the interested attendees. A sign in and comment sheet were provided. The development team was present at the meeting to explain the rezoning process, time -line, design details of the proposal and address any concerns. This meeting was attended by nine (9) people with the following comments: • Overall concern was about development in the Silver Valley preceding a new school or lack of schools in general, especially with Yennadon School running full; • There was a concern expressed about lack of proper transit in the Silver Valley Area in general; • There was a question if a hydrology study was done for the proposed Storm Water Management for the site. It was explained that the civil engineer takes into account the typical storm/rain water volumes anticipated on site after construction; • There was a request to remove the Alder Trees along the southwest side of the property; • A written comment on improvement of the existing equestrian trail on the south of 132nd Avenue was provided. The southern shoulder of 132nd Avenue is narrow so the request was to explore if the existing trail could be moved to the northern side of 132nd Avenue and widened to 2.0 metres; • There was a comment on the street facade facing 133rd Avenue; • Positive comment was heard about the 20 visitor parking stalls proposed for this development; -7- The development on the corner of 237A Street and 132nd Avenue has already set the pattern of the separated side walk, anticipated to continue west along the northern side of 132nd Avenue until it reaches 236th Street. This application is anticipated to upgrade the northern side fronting their property up to the corner of 237A Street. District will reimburse the costs for upgrading the frontage of the District owned park land at 23735 132nd Avenue (approximately 55m metres in length), after the construction is complete. To be able to have a consistent streetscape along the northern side of 132nd Avenue, it is appropriate that the equestrian trail remain on the southern side of 132nd Avenue. d) Environmental Implications: A tributary of the Maple Ridge Park Creek runs diagonally through the south east portion of the southern lot. Environmentally sensitive area around this creek must be protected through park dedication within the 15.0 metres setback from the top of bank of the creek. The development proposal is within 50.0 metres form top of bank of the Maple Ridge Park Creek, hence subject to a Water Course Protection Development Permit and the associated refundable security for any clean up and enhancement works. The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment report and a Water course Protection Development Permit application that is under review. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and determined that there is no road dedication required, however all the required off-site services do not exist. The deficient services and upgrades which are required to be provided through a Rezoning Servicing Agreement include the following: Ditch enclosure, removal of culverts, under -ground utilities, new separated side walk, new concrete barrier curb and gutter, street trees and street lights facing 133rd and 132nd Avenue, up to the corner of 237A Street. 132nd Avenue needs to be repaved from the north side of the road to the edge of the water main cut in the road from the corner of 237A Street west across the site frontage. District will reimburse the costs for upgrading the frontage of the District owned park land at 23735 132nd Avenue (approximately 55m metres in length), after the construction is complete. Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the Development Permit is completed they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will increase their budget requirements. Fire Department: The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant. The applicant has ensured that all these will be addressed through the Building Permit drawings at a later date. -8- Building Department: The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant. The applicant has ensured that all these will be addressed through the Building Permit drawings at a later date. f) School District Comments: A referral was sent to the School District office and no comments were received. g) Canada Post Comments: A referral was sent to the Canada Post office and no comments were received. h) Intergovernmental Issues: Local Government Act: An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 882 of the Act. The amendment required for this application (Appendix B), is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments. The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact. i) Citizen/Customer Implications: A Development Information Meeting was conducted on January 09, 2013 where the neighbours had an opportunity to express their concerns. This along with a future Public Hearing is considered adequate opportunities for citizens to voice their concerns regarding the proposed development. -9- CONCLUSION: The proposed land use is in compliance with the land use designation of the Silver Valley Area Plan. Some minor height and setback variances along with retaining wall height variances are being sought, which will be a subject of a future Council report. This proposal will dedicate environmentally sensitive area (approximately 21% of the consolidated site area) for conservation purpose, along with enhancement works around Maple Ridge Park Creek. It is recommended that First and Second Readings be given to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 and that Second Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6779-2010, and that application RZ/107/10 be forwarded to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UDC, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" for Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by David Pollock" for 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 - Subject Map Appendix B - OCP Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6779-2010 Appendix D - Proposed Site Plan and Site Sections Appendix E - Proposed Building Elevations & rendering Appendix F - Proposed Landscape Plan, Section and details - 10 - IwJi IJJSL "Itj tI 7 b lv � ��� 3 Q J 11 m 13325 13326 19 ��ti 1::' 16 rt'1�� A�6 $ 29 472$ 23737 3 co 138317 ¢ 133 "�`O Lam' 12N 16 13319 13320 20 R`5 0 15 �� ti 1°j 30 33s 23741 13313 n N 133 ti� ��`t, y�6 �3 14 13 ti3 12 7 o_ 17315 13312 21 rt, 31 23742 23743 d 13309 133 4 10 23687 11322237451 12 cn 3 4 rn 5 n 6 7 ro 8 9 rn n23691N 13305133( nn (0 (0 (0 (0 CO CO CO CO 23746237475 01123 NN r° N N N N N N N N N N2369713 / 33 4 13301`� ql_ P`I� 133 AVE. N 27 I / ,- 13295 N2183289 PA R K� 1 132 M N 1913283 Subject Properties 13295 26 2 13. 119277 13275 132 13245 21 B P 48 92 5132 r. 3 13265 P 47 60 3 a m 13257 1 co N 1321 (0 24 5 13251 132! 13260 23 (V o_ 6 1323 13235 coco co 01 fV P 47 60 3 °�° 7 c- 13225 132: 13227 22 20 A 0 8 m 13215 1322 — 13215_ 57 M N N. M N N ,N. S, up N CV N ,n c',:), 9 1321 NN. N 13165 O (O P 26 37 CO Rem 1 O n C7 N n CO N LMP EP 1 37 25 A P 2637 ,L4 N Scale: 1:2,000Jr�=�' Ci a foPitt Mea•lows -- *+ "� 23651/57-132 Ave I RI 0 fYf 3 M �yn ` I y_ E. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF mi rE='pL^^I ` J.1 r?P --ii_2- � ~ lil "� "' YCf}'W`� �4�, LI v_ y 4 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 District of �� a, Langley= - 7E mim— DATE: Jan 17, 2013 RZ/107/10 BY. JV ASER� CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6778-2010 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Section 10.3 Part IV - Silver Valley Area Plan, Figures 2, 3C and 4 of the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6778-2010 2. Figures 2 and 3C are hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot A Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 23796 and Lot B Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 23796 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 805 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby re -designated to Conservation and Low Density Residential; and 3. Figure 4 is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot A Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 23796 and Lot B Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 23796 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 847, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by removing from and adding to Conservation. 4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 2013. READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 2013. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 2013. READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 2013. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D.20 . MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER 2 13335 W 13336 17 7 , rb 1.) ,J � �6 e� V c) 6 \ 6 nb L� \ 4 10 * 14 c0 co N ALTO Ito 13321 13322 M M M M EPP 9002 - 113331 13332 18011 ti� oyo ry�o o�7'Li..s\�o yg 5 0 3f30 4 17 4 4'2 92; 2 51ti 9 237 A ST. - 15 m 3327 13328 11� Icn 135325 ao °I 13326 19 N h$ rygo 5O F 06 6. 2• g 4 16 �� 23 131 3 1 c+� 13317 8 13318 d 2 „, N. ��6ry �1/4� 2307'$ \ 16 13321 13322 1 1619 13320 20251 ti� 3 15 30 2374 13313 13314 I 1 I a M oL I �h' ��ti y0�� 14 13 ti� 12 ti 23138 2 7 17 13317 ¢ Li)N 13318 a 17 I W 13315 d 13312 21 �b� CP 9631 ti 31v 23743 136309 l 1331018 23787 23791 Nr N� 13313 14r' I 1 J 8 9 10 23687 23742 11 1 d 6 m • 13312 i 23 1— 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 32 13305 a 13306 - 1 In M rn r` co M m rn I` co 23691-' _ _ ..... 23745 13309 ! o co f.,:, cv co N co M co v co in co co 'o co I� co co co 23746 23747 5 h 19 :I# n w\ �N 13305 r� M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N M N i 23697 33 1 3 \ X13301 4 I / u� M 20 1 p, I Z.�� C3 , aJ Adit, • 72484 LMP 35468 133 AVE. / 1 10 c 1 13292 1 € PARK 13295 11 13282 2 13275 12 oro 13276 ^ r- rn 21 P 48925 I0 3 IT:13265 13 a 13268 m u- m B 8 Ia Im cn 14 1326015 C r. P 47603 16257 M N IN 0) 5 13250 ........„...------- \ )9 8 co rn h. 24 IN- I� 13251 132AAVE. — 13260 M23 N a a Im 6 / 16 13238 a, ; 1 rq I/ 13235 17 P. co N P 47603 1 r,- 7 13230 `— BC 35 1 13225 o_ 13227 / 1258 CO 18 13220 CO V — 22 20 1 13215 Y M 13215 a 34 *PP157N <0 N — // i r- ,n I 9 1 13205_ — 19 13210 \ d — N 132 AVE. N , v N N BCP 2. N CO LMP 38113 --/ 13165 co P 2637 Ntv Rem 1 r- LMP N 7404 EP 13725 A 13160 P 2637 I 4 VADLI RIDG- OFFICIAL C Ov Bylaw No. 6778-2010 Mau No. 805 From: Medium/High Density Residential, v\ITY Conservation DLA\ AV and Open =\DI\G Space To: 1 Conservation Low Density Residential L\ N SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 2 13335 W 13336 17 rt,7 , 'b 1? ,J* � V 6 \ 6 nb `t, \'\ 10 14 c0 W N q123� coo) `1',, I 13321co 13322 M M M M EPP 9002 1 13331 13332 18 01 ti� oyo ry4) 6��7...7 \�o yg 5 0 ,,e 4 17 ti� 4'2 "92 ° ? 5A'l' 9 237 A ST. 15 m 3327 13328 11� Icn 135325 ao °I 13326 19 N h$ tiyo SO F �6 6. 2 g 4 16 �� 23 137 3 1 m13317 8 13318 o 2 „, N. ��6ry b�� 2307'$ y \ 16 13321 13322 1 16 13319 13320 20251 ti� c cb 30 3 15 2374 13313 13314 I 1 I� a CO Loi �h°6$��1 14 13 ti� 12 'IT 23738 2 7 17 13317 ¢ 13318 a 17 IW 13315 d 13312 21 �b� ,b CP 9631 ti 31 23743 v 13310 -1- 23787 23791 Nr N� N 13313 14'" 1 J 8 9 10 23687 23742 11 1 0_136309 T • 13312 i 23 1— 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 32 13305 a 13306 1 0 M N rn N- Lo M m rn N- Lo 23691 _ _ — 23745 4I 13309 i o D D D N D M D v D 'n tD tD co tD (0 tD co co 237465 23747 19 tr mow\ �N 13305 r� M N M N M N M N M N co N M N 0) N M N M N co N i 23697 33 1 3 \ 4 1 X01 4 , / y M 20 1 N I Z.�� C3 , aJ Adit, • 72484 LMP 35468 133 AVE. / 1 10 1 132x2 1 € PARK 13295 11 13282 2 13275 12 oro 13276 ^ rn 21 P 48925 Ic�o 3 IT:132x5 13 a 13268 m u- m B 8 la_ 1m 14 1326015 C a P 47603 1x257 M N 0)5 13250 /" \ )9 8 CD 24 IN - i� 13251 132AAVE. 13260 c) 23 N a a Im 6 / 16 13238 in ; 1 `1 V 13235 17 P. co N P 47603 1N- 7 13230 `— BC 35 1 13225 o_ 13227 CNI 1 U 8 CO 18 13220 m — 22 20 1 13215 Y M 13215 o_ 34 *PP157 M N Ol Lo M r I 9 1 13205_ — 19 13210 \ d — co N N 132 AVE. N N N BCP 2. —N GO LMP 38113 --/ 13165 co P 2637 Ntv Rem 1 r- N LMP N 7404 EP 13725 A 13160 P 2637 1 4 VADLI RIDG- OFFICIAL C Ov Bylaw No. 6778-2010 Mau No. 847 Purpose: 0 To Add To Conservation v\ITY DLA\ AV =\DI\G To Remove From Conservation N SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6779-2010 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6779-2010." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot A Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 23796 Lot B Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 23796 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1501 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) and RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 11th day of January, A.D. 2011. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 2013. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 2013. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2013. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 213335 W 13336 17 /A. 'b 1? ,J � �6 '1,e� V 6\ 6 nb `L� \� 10 * 14 to W cc,', coo ALTO -7..S�j Ito 13321 13322 M M M M EPP 9002 1 13331 13332 18 01 ti� oyo ry^o 6��7 yg 5 0 e 4 17 ti� 4'2 "92 ° ? 9 237 A ST. w 15 m 11� 3327 13328 Icn 135325 ao °I 13326 19 N h$ `ti5A'l' tiyo SO F �6 6. 2 g 4 16 �� 23 137 3 1 m13317 8 13318 d 2 „, . ��6ry b�� 2307'$ y \ 16 13321 13322 1 13319 13320 20251 rt?' 3 15 30 2374 13313 13314 I 1 I� a CO Loi �h°6$��1 y0�� 14 13 ti� 12 ti 23738 2 7 17 13317 ¢ 13318 a a 17 I W 13315 a 13312 21 �b : C P 9631 `L 31to 23743 136309 133108 1.0 1 23787 23791 Nr N� N 13313 14r' 1 J 8 9 10 23687 23742 11 1 a T • 13312 i 23 1— 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 32 13305 a 13306 1 In M N rn I` co M m rn I` co 23691 _ _ — 23745 4I 13309 I o N M v 'n 0 0 co CO I-- 0 co co 237465 23747 19 mow\ �N 13305 r� M N M N M N M N M N co N M N M N co N M N co N / 23697 33 1 3 \ T 4 1 X01 I / y M 20 1 , I Z. e171' C3 , aJ Adit, 72484 LMP 35468 133 AVE. 1 1 / ( 10 c 1 113292 1 PARK 13295 11 13282 2 13275 12 rrte.. 13276 ^ rn 21 P 48925 I0 3 IT:13265 13 a 13268 m u- m B 8 la Im 1- cn 14 1326015 C a P 47603 16257 M N 0)5 13250 /" • )9 8 co 24 I� 13251 132AAVE. 13260 c+) 23 a 1m 6 16 1 _ 13238 cq V 13235 17 P. - N P 47603 1 r•- 7 13230 `- BC 35 1 13225 0_ N 13227 125 8 m 18 13220 m V — 22 20 I 13215 Y M 13215 a * 34 M N - ,n I 9 1 13205_ 19 13210 \ d PP157 I — CO N CO N 132 AVE. M i""', N BCP 2f N CO LMP 38113 --/ 13165 co P 2637 N Rem 1 r- LMP N 7404 EP 13725 A 13160 P 2637 I 4 /ADL= Bylaw No. Mau No. From: R 6779-2010 1501 RS RS DG= /0\= AV -3 (One Family Rural -2 (One Family Suburban =\D Residential) Residential) \G To: 1 RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) ,/: N SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 10 WALE WI UN MIMED.. W •3.1 PRELIMINARY ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCT ON masse* 37772.c,s4u1 7Tr02 l.auumcrloor,.16 Zoning Bylaw Area Compliance Calculations UM A Cann.(114wptl,6 30.4,02.7 snap Ares 40.4612 Floor Prop 464.,mlFlear Area .Non H.0ttede) 5.83,2 064616171 Floar Nae (H 321.606 Nw - 50112 d 536.2 S2 FT+Nm14414602 Arse). Al 5e 612 d.MM by zoning bytes MannwAne 62312 54p0,Flax Nes(010.3Staf2 594332 01140024,7,6471S10 6.1 Coon 042640W 610 mtNr19. w2,0- 44146 Oan94, 15041) Tali Sale(IncludesNM (Includes 31 g 290004 OrAV (Number of USW 7911612 1276,12 1592312 1,714 446 566761614,(101514 F45 510.2412 Unlit 306,649x6 34634 46.2 544,2 02612 44.26+2 26.2.62 362.1 541 m2 106.6462. 10349..6132 .195 3 323.7612 Sub -Total of Sin Co33.52 316.7 .2 2630. UnnD VtlOV End1 2 4.361.2 5.e5a'n 467172 45911 31612 3.212 3-4.2 4512 72.2 74m2 329612 534n0 46.11n2 44 2. 544 42 59.232 1059612 1102612 1529469 1134462 3.226 011 1221 aql Ole332 110.2312 Utd2 unitWndE uE)E UnOE EM 3 2 846,44.91 3 2.6.5 3 9od007, 3 060207 S 6.32620 483.2 426.2 426.2 48.5612 16.5332 3.1612 146452 15.1.2 14.11 312 14.2162 7.3332 7.2.2 7 446 727.2 7.2612 7.1 642 7.2.2 7_452 7.24-2 72612 53.432 644.2 970 m2 63,6 .2 65.3552 43.2. 54512 68.7,62 67.7.62 65.0,22 57.4 .2 652.2 114.2 7351,2 5430,2 1100132 1364+0 7419612 7493.2 137.6 5442 113.1612 151.5 332 1513_1 412 160 1 .2 152 2612 12163623 1425.96 165349111 1,702 NA 1,639017 2 5 3 1 2 2305.2 662 4.2 423.0 462 143.3132 214 .4.2 611.6,37_ 53.'.2 114.9.2 34.232 214312 702.2 1325,12 Unrt F 344333.01 61,934 56072 2.4 64.2 7412 56542 N 1 352 466.2 434612 „6� 301204 Un13 F 12111E 37)16 End 1 End 2 End 3 a 33112441 a Baseam Seaman at 3542 .1 1E11112 -11. 63.2 55.2 5.6.2 74612 74.2 7.442 7612 7.412 7.472 6566,2 567542 51.63,2 609.2 607.2 69.7542 564 m2 66.4 m2 60.9612 1243rd 1242112 125762 133 2 612 136.1 462 475.5,12 1.492 e0 1.400195 1.418 4,311 2 1 2486.2 124.212 125742 12063,2 55.03,2 659.2 flMfl SWIG Un4 1262 End.3 Endo 39033 30.6.E 3236,6.116 313e51e31 7y:L4'a12 1247¢ 34I .2 44 2 3.2 *19.}' X464 55.2162 95.4.9 293712 til4Q 5339 52112 114.2 55.2 $5234: 10302 10.3612 613.2 5312 bY?>SA 1104623 99612 K2.2 67.3,62 12'4423: 14 keg 149.0 750.2 096,62 'SOII; !isms 07472 967.2 72.2712 _�0�'`�' 3l�Iq. *MM. 144.7612 145 8612 132.3 612 .146.72,2 1447312 1566.2 162.0372 2Asssis 2066 as, 2,196 pt 1.743.0 3 1 1 3 946403 144,702 1454.2 3370462 110:14-_-111.461.2 62.4542 967612. 2376612 Ta1M *3104.. 59 .762 •40.27806* Terri Aey. FSRm2 65453612 =62,572.5! Tsui C3460242 4.936.5.2 =33.2% 3x220110.90,2152,3 bolos dediwd03N• 19.765&612=1179 he 1.6132ne144404v41+60.1144.3 26122604364'. 14.676.3 m2=1.66646 FSR 530334E=0.6 3Nat Oen!. Nw • 7555271• FSR016snm • Aw64 Comity (Max 0.61. Gran Ana of R441d.666415444640614) 6.9270. .3893 ha =96.06999 n 6.556.3172 • 0,563. = 92.51989 n .331.7.2 •3,5104 014 0.5727 9,1.29.2.2 =25256,0020 72321620 Non 46d4d4 aldlydbde56e3mrhs1 Zonina lnfo7n9atior em , o6n Pa5ad•....1•w n2v ec m. a9.a2 2gW0.d022211n,4Swine 13- 724021p 12 527561450000.52120 Cam ...eM6w10+4050 PO 3/..24 72.+1311, 5.12E 1010.1 01•123796 Iy..064,44,, w2,1 0..27931 22..9 . t1o••2.2_44s,ery6•ae•r311C6ma1 RWl 1,1401,1 s 53 ;5 411.65.1 x12 BnM4WA... .61.32.6.,6 21,6.67016 L4IM NA74344 750.14245 3nmwh: 1. 5•.743.35'. 551 ere $,5w0 1.156.1.66046,413. v3 �4cx50T14tl4 ♦5,611 M bpl. 541., 1.121.01, 16.36916 1.1,•_ FM. .4.4• 1.6• mnless s .6M54e 6......62..7 ars 116. 6.5 m.-1.361 t 4Eer4,4 WE. •13. !000_4 5.2.2, -4513 .••••11........6•11•1.1...1.1300 nl=v361.11.b14 0.3. d 71wwbra .1.. v. e•Mlmq.• c[warm Ad.b004. 0m275n1 3e...• mr,rfenn Rd n541..a•am •311.,4..6911142.431012 •345.21 .1:41,01.1.91,1., 02.5..41 930.10.1. 450 - . -21149.2 3 206 -220411 •4233,22 3.5,454..........614.• 1w.mw�w.me4.• 7 5•..11 05432 4 AUM P•a•.- 03 -1363&122 2126.35,46 S,.!. 4,1232-23 I -,F1 1-fµ12 s Noss Yak Srn..9: 91.19s42e. I.lt5 0 3.5.2M.* ed a. na.21,44.2.4.•e.+3ma,15m.._.e .. owed., ...a. •.�5..n•6n9m...n . •61.4° ua....5wua6:95..4.64•16. .ean1n�6•Magog 2.1.4 1 112 50_ t oaf -1 A A 214.97m A1.9 I `,' Road C 50910415120444,,, a ma o r 3-,:,,,y 7 I 4114* Olp 4 „o 1 I; k 67.321, ____' 1111 411 410 7 rt•s• 33 air • �. !� • \fie 2 • I I'. /11 - -RoadCt 3-9_ --.30.-.50. Pro•osed Site Plan Z A&1 191 35651461W91,33 til ill Iv hi fill gig 522 17,2012 1.1.1111 A1.2 12% a a 10 SCALE WHIN PRIMP] ON 2C%, I1) PRELIMINARY ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION till Unit E UM E / - _. n 7 ^; 76, 1 6 €111111 Q UI . 9 24 24 4.1 Enlarged Site Plan with Proposed Site Grading {� mo� i55WLopRAY.41 .5 ± jt• 014 110 !! E 2th rt E8 3 @ Enlarged Site Plan North Dec 17.2012 1215 AIA LL \7r�_a¥oaYNOT WHIN Enlarged Site Plan with __ed Site m INGLIEID DRAWINGS R f t| %%b� fill 151 !11 0 jib! Enlarged Site Plan South oak 0.17.2012 Seek Cnnhn 12111 A1.5 Unit 1E (Ere 1) UM 2E ,13,21,21') PRELIMINARY ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1311r20,01s5ws ME HOT MAL wsIIc*roMAK. UM 2E(Em 2) 2G=£° J West Elevation '11=r�N:1i.«. .-021.21.0232331121 2)1525 (Ere 2) 10125 213,7 South Etevatione_ UM 1E(EM 1) 4 Exterior Materials 2 04.501.5125,&a+. asi;ry. 51pw56mw... 5 0.12,1212 rinr4, Dow M1NM1.1G 11 • P1312.121114,32 e3..we.m.ewtl e • .2 9122,2 2•24..1 121,41521.24. 0 33 12 e444. W.. wNY 2Vt0 2 51,pw4 4 0.6.2- S4 may, . 1 .152.31.3-1•20..13.22,11 17 11 71 14.322 «,1,13221 1..1. ”3311- 13:.:2,1F7, =w33.t51.5441.42.15.02.4 111.1 --_, , ,. 33, afs`ra12a East Elevation North Elevation 3 XIUN3dd'd ISS3EApy.ww(:5 Black 1 Elevations DKK 11, 2012 4.1144.1 WS IAA 12341. 0. 2 A3.02 West Elevation Ll/VIE (End ,t Sb -S' SOW SOBGLr WHSJ PRN+[oc.ARo+o(x'.9+1 PRELIMINARY ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .1,,,.707:7A¢1..13.+1..1,weieerma1,v. UMSESEnd0) ., (.) Nfl SE (End S) =rx l;) South Elevation rr- North Elevation Exterior Materials f OJ\ald 3qv 9 Okra4 Mena 9.1.11161 4 E.* Caw. f hradf a 6Nb41.1Thn • 1,11•4111•19.,..6.1 11 P•11104 Wood RAIN riklasPftel Rd„ 11.1.16011.41117 15 1,16,0vd.Swb tOwrwwrt 14 Von16 s i Fe .1n70« 13.411.11111.111160113 Ana Dec1,201 Semis 06. 1.1 .111i p 1236 A3.04 West Elevation sd�la�e •1���� Pw r, ra:1m E0'7841v-- f wze worm �e so,�-: _ East Elevation �' �A.1oro.�oarwisn Mt"-J81N Ora BE (End B) :ar Uk UM 10E Ftl'.5' TO SCALP 4,ONP1.711210NAPCHw De 2.1 PRELIMINARY ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION n'Mm,PAc4Alt.011wAESJ Crloo Unit 11E(Erd 1) Ua2 2E(ed1) b3• Ural 10E aa• Ur*SE (End 3) North Elevation -""s�s5e idr' Exterior Materials 1 COM.] Skne e e.. . 0_ �4Deer P NNN 2x6 eed 115. Momleel 2e12 2.1118 ▪ ir.. MPaFwt� �tl PNn BWw ViceeTerotkal .Ir. R▪ ehashed ma*, Dansecul wlrSO, - La. AA. Fdear21 Vir0c.a..sww 1.1,4 n,-irq.s,ma.,1 Fre. Enhe ISSUED DfINVIIPIS Block 3 Elevations 2 CbE6 AM 0 Et -f,1 141 life Dec 17. 2012 Oman 14111.1101 P�;.ni0 ex,P A3.06 Unit 12H on ,a UNI 15F �u A' TONGUE nps.a1 PRELIMINARY ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0161n51a.•..0.70 pis,. eearw..l5[167 rlooru,CE `I"J ua m 1OFlo2) Exterior Materials a.— UV 16 uun 7.06, South Elevation East Elevation 1 Block 4 Elevations Dee 17, 2012 Prole.° 1995 A3.08 1.111111.1.1.0./ 1410111101,1111. PRELIMINARY ONLY NOT POK CONSTRUCTION 51,61,4111.101111.1....C.0 04 .1. Site Aerial Rendering 0,6 rd. Seale 1.11.1.11 11,111.11.1 A5.01 SLAN �1 1 awwITE: FPaso is LEGEND 1, MAIN ROAD 2. CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND 3, GARDEN PLATS p, PRIVATE RESIDENCE. REAR YARD S, PRIVATE RESIDENCE, ENTRY PATO d, PEDESTRIAN PATH 7. ENHANCED RIPARIAN SETBACK, SEE ENVIRONMENTAL D, SPECIAL PAVING BAND DN ROADWAY 9, ENTRY SIGNAGE ID, NATIVE FOREST 10GE PLANING 11. CONIFER HEDGEROW 12. DRIVEWAY 13. VLSOUTCSPARNHG 14. RETANED TREES 15. AODRCNAL CONIFER PLANTING 16, RIPARIAN BARRIER FENCE, SEE LAN05CAPE DETAILS 17. RESIDENTIAL ENTRY FENCE 10. STREET TREE 19. DENCH 20. PRIVACY SCREEN 21. RAN GARDEN/DIOSWAEE 22. COUNTRY LANE 23. CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 24. CAST N PLACE CONCRETE WALL 25. AEBRA SLOPE GREEN WALL 26. STEPPING STONE PATH GTE 6[1.1.6A1.16AW .o1APUNNMs a MArap w F .ndP...Y..... .... PaN. A.5 m{.Pm I..r....en WNW. a.St...4 . 0 * mnfern aL� 4,n u�BY m. e.6 .aneyBu eP..R A.A Poem 21001.113 WM= 306 C... ..,. P+.. ate. fr. Mt we..e...,..., n.w.o.a Ina Wan. 1.2...~� NF.N.s.. n.a 11 20 11 ...Sa.Pn1 N.Yee.• ]41h wWal 24,4 MM. ' ` J— .011�1v. �...w.0.0 4e2Mwnaw. r.rNwer n W ® �xeemanna 31 PE...* a6eMG. Pad xt Wena 4r.W Now n .d Nara lee ea my...11m mow. pM Sa.ca,acce Ma. Akm.n ped u..�.2 Ln�.Bue,.Y np. tlna. n,a.ma4uw th,.Pa .eenaa o.u..i� twe'J ml ;to A.er..nyu. p4 At Nh+��..a.. vl,u.n Ya. F.Avb .m..a FLOUR LIST.SIORA SLOPE WALL 111.666 21.12.1131.1.211. Irrr. 14a. 11.6.662/.01.212 Gmr.�a.enn uGS L 4 rp 6Y1 n2d Ms.s..Wq.eer 542.42( w n ePx wWai R.�n w � •P�i, •rea 11416 puma 117..6 war aAUNT 1.1111.120. 2[uAnnAPn �fES.PhME lM w�nu4rT T F0.1 oppNiiw aaruew.ev- W Z LU M I. SHARP R DIAMOND Lanekaapaitosaaactuno Ina • 23657 132nd Maple Ridge x2/l4T/m- 11451 eed 21067 102nd Mama SITE PLAN 742.0 0/2 Ch4*70 BY L 100 Unit E re, nsl Unit E 7 Unit E 6 Unit E M a IE: TI (�(I 5,6� I'j } PLANTING PLAN NORTH �1 J ssnh: I:lv] IF oiatx41/0; , 1474 69 ,_ .•MARP & DIAMOND W WomgArelilloolumye. irroN 23657 132nd Maple Ridge 1,4I01(10 .23651 x,413057 PLANTING PLAN NORTH SWOT lnC.rr,O• D,m. 9Y 9Mrred 9y L 102 VIEWING PLAZA DETAIL PLAN f Sc+M: 1x00 OTYPICAL UMTS ALONG MAIN ROAD PLAN 5c0IN 1:100 0 1 3 5 i1 �KIDS PLAYGROUND DETAIL PLAN . Sar. 1:100 4OTYPICAL COMMUNITY GARDEN DETAIL PLAN uac moo LEGEND 1. MARI ROAD 2. CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND 3. GARDEN PLOTS 4. PRIVATE RESIDENCE, REAR YARD 5_ PRIVATEAESDENCE, ENTRY PATIO G. PEDESTRIAN PATH 7, ENHANCED RIPARIAN SETBACK, SEE ENVIRONMENTAL B. SPECIAL PAV►VG RAND ON ROADWAY 9. ENTRY WAAGE 10. NATIVE FOREST EDGE PLANTING 11. CONIFER HEDGEROW 12. DRIVEWAY 13. VISITOR'S PARKING 14. RETAINED TREES 15. ADOTKRNAL CONKER PLANTING 16. WPARUW BARRIER FENCE, SEE LANDSCAPE OETAR5 17. RESDENTLAL ENTRY FENCE 18. STREET TREE 19. BENCH 20. PRIVACY SCREEN 21. RAW GARDEN/BIOSWALE 22. COUNTRY LANE 23. CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 24. CAST RN PLACE CONCRETE WALL 29. SERRA SLOPE GREEN WALL 25. STEPNNG STONE PATH SNAKE. a DIAMOND MIN Eaa4wq A+m,:uaiwb Ins 23657 132nd Maple Ridge 12/102.(10 L13651 a,.703551 132m1ANIp DETAIL PLANS D ItlY' I"J00 'C KIael Of RrrAprz Rgx1100 —_--...-08-281 90.01' L 101 M..r P ri r OPIp AoLLs Grranr NFY� E District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-114-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Rezoning - First Extension Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6868 - 2011 and Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6869 - 2011 22810 113 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant for the proposed development located at 22810 113 Avenue, the subject property (see Appendix A), has applied for an extension to this rezoning application under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999. This development proposal is to permit 43 townhouse units under the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2011-114-RZ and that the following conditions be addressed prior to consideration of final reading: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security as outlined in the Agreement; iii. Amendment to Schedule "1" of 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan of the Official Community Plan (OCP); iv. Road dedication as required; v. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; vi. Registration of a Statutory Right -of -Way plan and agreement at the Land Title Office for a storm sewer through 11275 Burnett Street; vii. Registration of a Cross Access Easement Agreement at the Land Title Office; viii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office protecting the Visitor Parking; -1- 1105 ix. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks; and x. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the property owner will provide a Site Profile for the subject land. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Atelier Pacfic Architecture Inc. - Brian Shigetomi NAG Construction Co. Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 2, District Lot 402, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LMP39949 OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Companion Applications: Low -Rise Apartment Ground -Oriented Multi -Family RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) Park RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Park Haney Bypass, Canadian Pacific Railway and Park RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Highway, Park Single Family Residential RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Low -Rise Apartment Townhouse RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) Ground -Oriented Multi -Family Vacant Townhouse 0.925 ha (2.28 acres) Newly constructed extension of 113 Avenue Urban Standard 2011 -114 -DP, 2011 -114 -VP This application is to permit43 townhouse units. Details of the development can be reviewed in the second reading report (see Appendix B). The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaws 6868 - 2011 and 6869 - 2011: • First reading of Zone Amending Bylaw 6869 - 2011 was granted on November 8, 2011. -2- • Second reading of Zone Amending Bylaw 6869 - 2011 and first and second readings of OCP Amending Bylaw 6868 - 2011 was granted January 22, 2012. • Public Hearing was held February 19, 2013. • Third reading of Zone Amending Bylaw 6869 - 2011 and OCP Amending Bylaw 6868 - 2011 was granted February 26, 2013. Application Progress: The applicant is working towards completing most of the terms and conditions to be met prior to final reading of Zone Amending Bylaw 6869 - 2011. The major outstanding item is the approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) due to storm drainage design concerns. This issue is close to being resolved based on new design plans, which are currently being reviewed by MOTI. Alternatives: Council may choose one of the following alternatives: 1. Grant the request for extension; 2. Deny the request for extension; or 3. Repeal third reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing. CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT Planning Technician "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by. Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP 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 - Subject Map Appendix B - Second Reading Report -3- APPENDIX A 4" 11 491 " 21-14/487 P 71 276 4 e> co 11 49 222 4 0 _J 11490 1 2 Park "'13 N B f 32 85 N c'' N LMP 13592 46. 7148323 fl RI 11 488 CP Ag' 774iy 74 24 V. v-,,,, a4 NWS2885 A x ,g 2 ', B� 2S 11 422 s, LMP ::5(EPSA64l) LMP 9 560 LMS 1258 LOTS 11384 BC 10 P 14 624 \11372 LMP 10788 N` 9 11352 P 14624 11 375 operty P14624 LMP39046 :u:ct .77 LMP 39949 co P 14624 ^ 11327 Qz a_ 6 7 m 11318 726' 11 , 0 5 Rem A N u, 7 7j2e 11313 p EP 14217 Ma 4 3 11 298 7j2j9 6•44,), F 6yAgSS 11 299 CID Q B Rem 14 m N 19750 N - �.......... 03 rn `•• a. N 11285 7129P 44•10 A < a MS 72 O 7/255 77 A 18 1 ' Rem. 282a4 Mop• 13 n. 20 772)8 B ^ It) Q 7 77 79) 252 12 le 7 ° �O A®17255 47i4o fP N Scale: 1:2,500 Ci _.f Pitt Mea•lowsLo\,. _ �� "�► j 22810-113 Ave I al 0 go ih.4 yn fYf Zii. ii 13 M � ,ma y-` E'��tgcfllrni�.i 1•=, !' to i.- EL .- CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF Jy .mit ffiz � �u !' Iik, � I � o �- 4n. 1 . C:La eEeE -� - E: . �""� �% Kt L� ,.„,, ! . _ _., MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT District of ` Wig �I twit_ Langley �Yi►] �� ,rMl=_j DATE: Jan 15, 2013 2011-114-RZ BY: JV ASER--' Orep Aaars Groan" 1-M400c District of Maple Ridge APPENDIX B TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: January 21, 2013 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-114-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Second Reading Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.6868-2011 and Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6869-2011 22810 113 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit a 43 unit townhouse development. This application requires an amendment to the Official Community Plan to redesignate the land use from High Density Residential to Ground -Oriented Multi -Family and is located within the Town Centre Incentive Program area. On November 8, 2011, Council gave First Reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6869-2011 to rezone this property from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) and considered the early consultation requirements for the OCP amendment. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6868-2011 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 2. That in accordance with Section 879 of the Local Government Act opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6868-2011 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting, and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 3. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6868-2011 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; and 4. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6869-2011 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and 5. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading; i. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security as outlined in the Agreement; iii. Amendment to Schedule "1" of 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan of the Official Community Plan; iv. Road dedication as required; v. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; vi. Registration of a Statutory Right -of -Way plan and agreement at the Land Title Office for a storm sewer through 11275 Burnett Street; vii. Registration of a Cross Access Easement Agreement at the Land Title Office; viii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office protecting the Visitor Parking; ix. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance with the regulations. x. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the property owner will provide a Site Profile for the subject land. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Atelier Pacfic Architecture Inc. - Brian Shigetomi NAG Construction Co. Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 2, District Lot 402, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LM P39949 OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Low -Rise Apartment Ground -Oriented Multi -Family RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) -2- Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Park Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Park South: Use: Haney Bypass, Canadian Pacific Railway and Park Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Highway, Park East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low -Rise Apartment West: Use: Townhouse Zone: RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Ground -Oriented Multi -Family Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Townhouse Site Area: 0.925 HA. (2.28 acres) Access: Newly constructed extension of 113 Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2011 -114 -DP, 2011 -114 -VP b) Project Description: The applicant proposed to rezone the subject property from RS-3(One family rural Residential) to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit the development of 43 townhouse units. The subject property is triangular in shape and is sloped from the north to south. Each of the townhouse units are strategically positioned on the property to take advantage of the views of the Fraser River and park to the south. At present, the site is vacant and cleared of all natural vegetation. Approximately one third of the units have double wide garages while the remaining units having tandem style garages. The units along 113 Avenue are designed to have a street front appearance with entry doors, gates and walkways out to the street. The townhouse units backing onto the single family homes to the east have full walkout basements with at -grade patios and ample windows to allow natural light into the enclosed spaces. Each of the side sloping units steps down with the grade of the property which in turn produces a row home appearance. Site access is proposed from 113 Avenue which will be extended eastward by the developer. Currently, 113 Avenue is dead -ended at 228 Street and is unconstructed from 228t" Street to Burnett Street. Slope stabilization work on the District Park property opposite the development on -3- the North side of 113 Avenue is required and will be a condition of the Rezoning Servicing Agreement. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Town Centre Area Plan, involving a change in designation of the subject site from Low -Rise Apartment to Ground -Oriented Multi -Family. This change, which results in a reduction of density for this site, is supportable based on the similar surrounding uses of townhouse and small lot single-family to the north and west of the site. It is anticipated that the adjacent lands to the east of the subject site will redevelop into townhouse . The applicant made the request to change the designation, due to soft soils found on the site and the significant expense that would be incurred to prepare the site for a low-rise density development. The subject site was designated in the Town Centre Area Plan for low-rise apartment use, which followed in line with the proposed land -use designations in the Town Centre Concept Plan that was endorsed by Council in 2005. In 2007, an application was received in the Planning Department for a low-rise apartment on the subject site, respecting the proposed designation in the Town Centre Concept Plan. As the 2007 application was still in progress when the Town Centre Area Plan was prepared in 2008, the low-rise apartment designation was respected and remained as such in the final plan. Zoning Bylaw: The property meets the minimum lot width, lot depth and lot area requirements of the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. A preliminary review of the development plans revealed that the proposed development will require five variances to the Zoning Bylaw. These variances are outlined in the Development Variance Permit section below. Proposed Variances: The applicant is requesting that Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone be varied as follows: 1. Part 6, Section 602 (6) (a) of the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone in the Zoning Bylaw to reduce the required setback for the proposed townhouse development from 7.5 metres from the front property line to 6.0 metres to provide a stronger street presence for the units facing 113 Avenue; 2. Part 6, Section 602 (7) (a) of the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone in the Zoning Bylaw to increase the overall building height from 10.5 metres to 11.13 metres to incorporate architectural dormers on the downhill sloping buildings on Unit Block 1, 2, 3 and 4; -4- 3. Part 6, Section 602 (7) (a) of the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone in the Zoning Bylaw to increase the number of stories from a maximum of 2 1 stories to three stories on Unit Blocks 5 and 6. This variance is to allow better use of the rear yard space on the side sloped buildings, which are abutting the rear yards of neighbouring single family residential properties; 4. Part 6, Section 602 (8) (c) (i) of the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone in the Zoning Bylaw to vary the minimum requirement of 15 metre horizontal unencumbered radius to living space for Units 8B, 9B, 19B, 20B, 33C, 34C, AND 35C. This variance is requested due to the triangular shape of the property; and 5. Part 4, Section 403 (4) (b) (1) of the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone in the Zoning Bylaw to increase the maximum allowable reduction from the minimum setback of 1.25 metres to 2.42 metres. This is to allow an increase in depth of the entry porches and balconies for the better enjoyment of the occupants. The variance applies to Unit Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Off -Street Parking Bylaw: As per Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, the RM -1 zone requires a minimum of 2 stalls per dwelling unit, 0.2 stalls per unit for guest parking and 1 accessible parking stall (including in the total visitor stalls) for the 43 townhouse unit development. The applicant proposed to provide a total of 86 residential stall and 13 visitor stalls, which are a total of 4 visitor stall over the required minimum. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan, a Town Centre Development Permit application has been submitted which will be the subject of a future report to Council. This development is also located within the South View precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan and is required to provide a variety of housing choices for people who choose to live in the town centre. The proposed development provides this variety in housing type as it offers both double wide and tandem width units, making affordable housing available to the area. The key guideline concepts of the South View precinct state that the development should incorporate the following principles into the development: 1. Promote North and South View as distinctive, highly livable multi -family neighbourhoods; 2. Create pedestrian friendly, ground -oriented, multi -family communities; 3. Maintain cohesive building styles; 4. Capitalize on important views; 5. Provide private and semi -private green space; 6. Provide climate appropriate landscaping and green features; and 7. Maintain street interconnectivity. -5- The proposed development demonstrates these principles as it is a ground oriented multi -family development with traditional design elements, maximized views of the Fraser River, and adequate open space for the residents. Community connectivity will also be enhanced with the construction of 113 Avenue along with internal walking paths to community amenity spaces. The landscaping uses natural planting throughout the property as well as in the on-site bio -filtration facility located on the south east corner of the development. Advisory Design Panel: The current application was presented to Advisory Design Panel on September 11, 2012. The Panel raised a number of concerns related to the building design and quantity of landscape materials provided on the plan. Since that time, the developer revised the drawings to reflect the necessary design changes and the plans are now acceptable to the Planning Department. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held on July 31, 2012 at the Maple Ridge Public Library by the staff of Atelier Pacific Architecture. There were approximately 10 to 15 local residents and interested parties that attended the meeting. Seven people signed the "sign -in sheet" and five people provided comments on the development. Although most of the attendees favoured the proposed townhouses, concerns were raised regarding the high volume of traffic along 228 Street and the already limited amount of on -street parking. These issues are anticipated to be addressed by the construction of 113 Avenue from 228 Street through to Burnett Street as additional street parking will then be available in front of the townhouse site and along the south side of the District park property. d) Environmental Implications: The development site has several geotechnical concerns as stated in Levelton's Geotechnical Site Assessment report dated June 23, 2008. Significant soils remediation and special soils considerations will be required during the construction phase of the development to address the fill material that was deposited on the site in the past. Recommendations discussed in the Levelton report will need to be followed. To meet the Watercourse Protection Bylaw, the developer will be required to construct a bio -filtration and detention pond on the southeastern corner of the site. This facility is necessary to treat the stormwater runoff prior to being discharged into the Metro Vancouver Fraser River wetlands south of the Haney Bypass. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department will require a Rezoning Servicing Agreement for the proposed development. The Rezoning Servicing Agreement will include the construction of 113 Avenue from -6 228 Street to Burnett Street and the infill of the drainage ditch along the southern property line, adjacent to the Haney Bypass. Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the development is completed they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. The Manager of Parks and Leisure Services has advised that the maintenance requirement of $25,00 per new tree will increase their budget requirements which depends on the number of street trees determined at the Development Permit stage through the landscaping plans. f) Intergovernmental Issues: Local Government Act: An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 882 of the Act. The amendment required for this application, (insert amendment), is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments. The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact. Ministry of Transportation A referral was sent to the Ministry of Transportation as the development is adjacent to the Haney Bypass. On May 24, 2012, Planning received preliminary approval from the Ministry of Transportation for one year for the proposed rezoning application. The Ministry of Transportation confirms that no site access will be permitted to the Haney Bypass and that they have no immediate plans to further widen the Haney Bypass at this time. g) Citizen/Customer Implications: While the proposed development application is not in compliance with the Official Community Plan, it is viewed by the neighbouring properties to be a better fit with the neighborhood as the townhouse form is consistent with the existing townhouse development to the west. -7- CONCLUSION: It is recommended that Second Reading be given to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6868-2011, that Second Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6869-2011, and that application 2011-114-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Ingrid Milne" Prepared by: Ingrid Milne Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" for Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by David Pollock" for 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 - Subject Map Appendix B - OCP Amending Bylaw Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw Appendix D - Site Plan Appendix E - Building Elevation Plans Appendix F - Landscape Plans Appendix G - Site Sections/Streetscapes -8- 411 491 "" 21-144i/487 P 71 276 43 va 11492 52 CO OA 11 44 4e> g0 _J 11490 2 1 2 Park n13 B 02 32 ' 85 N H12 N LMP 13592 46. 77483 23 RI 11 488 CP Ag' 174iy 7 24 )7 vim a4 NWS2885 A x s lg 2 '�� 665 11422 ON � LMP 25 825 LMS 37"7 S2 'ss A 114 PARK 4S (EPS 641) LMP 9 560 BCP 33 406 LMS 1258 LOTS 11384 m 10 P 14 624 11 372 LMP 1 078 8 7.` 9 11 352 P 14624 11 375 1 13 AV E. Subject Property P 14 624 LMP 39046 o ry LOT LMP 39949 00 10 7 co ^ch rn 111327 P 14624 Q^ z o_ 6 7 m 11 318 126) 11 0 5 Rem N u, 7 77.4 11313 p EP 14 21 7 Ma 4 3 m 11 zss 7/279 7/4,), AF 6yA45 11 299 Q M B Rem 14 m N 19750 N CO CD `•• a. N 11285 77 .9P A <4,16, ifroo r i i 0 a D_ /2O 17255 1 li A 18 RP 3736 B • Rem. 262a4 Mop cz20 13 1726 7 B ^ �� A Q 262 12 p * '® 11255 N�, '267,>� 40 5 fP Lo\,. N Scale: 1:2,500 Ci _.f Pitt Mea•lows _ �� "�► j 22810-113 Ave I ! yn fYf 13 .,:71 �� �� 1•il !' E. i to EN m. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF .min rE-�Lria �!' >! SOL nian ?P I � o - �- 4n. C:La eEeE -� -d E: . �""� P% Kt L� ! •;7) _ ..., trl MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT District of --III __ � Langley - m.— 7E Jrmi=.: DATE: Jan 15, 2013 2011-114-RZ BY: JV ASER--' CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6868-2011 A Bylaw to amend Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 6425 - 2006 as amended WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Section 10.4, Schedule 1 Town Centre Area Land - Use Designations; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6868-2011." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot: 2, D.L.: 402, Plan: LMP39949 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 815, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby redesignated to Ground -Oriented Multi -Family. 3. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the 8th day of November, A.D. 2011. READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 20 . PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 20 . READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 20 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER / \-'1/4' is T. cps' I Q/ / LMP2531, i LMS3 '7 's2 pss I / / / A \ 7�4us \ \ BCP 3609 _ / 7 PARK / 2 / EPS 641 i \ ) L\ \ —_ — \ LMP 9560 \ \ BCF 33406 _ - LM S 1258 / \I 1 A,.\ \ \ LOTS \ \ BCP 33407 11384 //- / / / / \; \ co N \ \ 10 \ \ 11372 P 14624 , 1 ^y — — — — — — LMP 10788 \ 9 1135 P 14624 11375 _ — LMP 9562 \ 8 \ p \ P 14624 1133$\ LMP 39046 \ o N LOT 2 N LMP 39949 \ a)"P>\ co 10 7 \ ' \ \tCO \ co 11327 P 14624 \ \ Q6 7'237 0 ��- 07 \ d 0� 11318 72g) \ \ �� A�ciT 7C txv c) 1111313 i. EP 4217 M'Rem AC 7 4 5728a 11299 ro J 11298 Q \ ,� 2y, AN, 9Y eyAco ) B Rem 14 mV \ 3 2,9 P 19750 11275 A 9SS co 9p8 d ,, c"." 1A1285 N 294 // \ 2 1127. d Z 7 <M Al 18 \\ \11265 728�8u \ \ \ \ ws9s . , 7S\, / RP 3736 B R 3 ""N ^� \ 2 C4 77,77Q4 B N wt , 1925 �o� l p 000 .1 p 4 QQNA`s i,s, 40 4.4 se VADLI RIDG- OFFICIAL C OV Bylaw No. 6868-2011 Mau No. 815 From: Apartment — Low Rise To: Ground—Oriented Multi—Family V ,\ITY DLA\ AV =\DI \G L/0\ N SCALE 1:2,490 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6869-2011 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6869-2011." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 District Lot 402 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan LMP39949 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1546 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 8th day of November, A.D. 2011. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 . PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 . READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 . APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , A.D. 20 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER i - ' \ i /Q/ ��` s prn ' i /v�% s� p�� \ 4 0 LMS3'7A o� 11422 C " • n1 v LMP 250 I / ,/ 77u\BCP36092 /PARK/'// (EPS \ \ LMP 9560 \ \\ BCP 33406 -- -- LMS 1258 — --' \ \ \ \ \ 3 33407 1 / //\ \` / \ • 1- N \ \ \ 10 P14624 \ 11372 1 y 1' ti� _--- LMP 10788 \ \ 9 11375 11332 P 14624 LMP 9562 \ 8 •-p/y\ P 14624 11\ LMP 39046 o \ N LOT co 10 7\ u' \ 11327 \ LMP 39949 a P 14624 \ c�ti '�07 \ 0.11318 \ , qti 11 o \ Aq up Rem A �,\ 7 \ c4,�C 11313 fp. P 14217 Mb \ 11298 11299 \ 411/4 CO 5 ? \ \ \ 9j4�L AN,B co Rem 14 mV 9Y eyA P 19750 \ \ 4(74%1 �7 9SS N 11285CID N 294 \ \ \ /C),9(49 \\\ 908 a 0 A Q <4L1S 1 J 77 A28., \ Rem. ry18 ^ff \\ 13 84�"� .,� Q \ 40 co \\ 41 \ 1.• s9s7S \ / / �O \ \ P 42- \ v/ RP 3736 \ \ B \ \ VADL= Bylaw No. Mau No. From: To: R 6869-2011 1546 RS RM DG= /0\= AV -3 (One Family Rural -1 (Townhouse Residential) =\D Residential) \G !.......\ N SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Iiiii 11 It t� cM ■ii _y'I � A 1' '�� : I� � 111 I li ,_,, UIiMhi�i�lL' JIMIIil tlitlli�nJ I•ISI•ImI�I�Mhlid!�I M1Ilj11.V57 ;,EI P1;l ,.4l H a n ey By - P a s s PROPOSED TOWNHOUSEDEVELOPMENT 2 2 8 1 0 - 1 1 3 t h AVENUE, MAPLE R I D G E, B. C. NAG CONTRUCTION LTD. c/o DAMAX CONSULTANTS LTD. ATELIER PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE INC. ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION/ ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FEBRUARY 2012 PROJECT NORTH DP -1.1 ZONING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1:300 Haney By -Pass PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT 22810 - /13th AVENUE, MAPLE RIDGE, B.C. NAG CONSTRUCTION LTD. cio DAMAX CONSULTANTS LTD ATELIER PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE INC. ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FEBRUARY 2012 H a n y B y s no • O PROFILED ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES - BLACK O WINDOW, DOOR & GABLE TRIMS PAINTED WOOD FASCIAS COLOUR: RENSAMIN MOORE. WHITE. 1 2222-22 OVERTICAL VINYL HOARD AND BATTEN - KAYCAN WHITE. O VINYL. WINIII)W FRAMES ®HORIZONTAL VINYL. SIDING COLOUR: KAYCAN - AZURE BLUE MST HORIZONTAL VINYL SIDING 5 COLOUR: GENTL:K - MIDNIGHT SURF 0652 RP, GUTTERS. ALUMINUM RAILINGS & FEASIIINGS COLOUR. WHIT E 0 STAINED CEDAR SHAKE 0 PAINTED WOOD POSTS - WHITE ® CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT 2 2 8 1 0 1 1 3 t h AVENUE, MAPLE RIDGE, B. C. NAG CONTRUCTION LTD. c/o DAMAX CONSULTANTS LTD. ATELIER PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE INC. ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICAT1O II ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FE 6F UAW.' 2012 DP -O.03 COLOUR/MATERIAL ARCHITECTURAL AESTHETIC DESIGN RATIONALE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT THE 131511110 PR0PERIT 11 A TM...WEAR WR &AWED- SLOPED LOT LOCATED AT THE COMIER OF 1,111.1 AVE AND HANET RT PASS 141E CURRENT LANDUSE DESIGNATNNFISLOIN H1EEAPARTMENT IMIN R RS.S DONE FANNY RURAL RESIOFl1T1AL12CNE DES1CH1T.OH TIE PROPOSAL TS TO AMEND THE OCP LAND uSE OESIGNTION FROM 501* RISE APARTMENT TOEROAED INDENTED Mu2TFFNM.Y WITH A REZOHIMG DESIGNATION OF PAI -1 TO AUGM FOR THE 111101010 DEVELOPMENT OF IO TOIYNI1USE INUITS 511101NTLY- THE LANDS DIRECTO. TO THE HORN. AND SOLER OF THE PROPOSED 911E ARE 0(110INTED AS PARK. MALE FOUR SINGLE 1AMR1 PROPERNES ARE SITUATED CH NE LAND DWECTLY TO THE FAST. WEST CF LIE 911E R DESIGNATED AS WOUND CREATED MULTEAMA.1 AND AS CUNENTITOCCLN'E0 fn RESKTENTW. TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS OPYEII THE 0150AL NATURE OF T11E STYE AND TTS 5URRWN0TIO AREAS. A LONER DOWN DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF WOUND ORIENTED TAUTEN/NT TOWNHOUSES NAY B E PREFEPIRE TO DE NEIGXIQIFWG RESIIEHTS OVER A 56V RISE APARTMENT 0(YEL5PME11 MAT wAS PFEEmouSLYPROPOSED. T1E PROJECT C0NFCFRAS TO TRE DEVELOPMENT AE 9ES15N PRexIPLES IF SPECIFICITY. PLACE -MAKING. 004MU1tl11 MUNE ANDA MORE DENSE. WEAN ENVIROIWENT AS DUNNED IN THE METE ROSE OFEUL CLIEMNTY PLAN. THE GRGwTGO01NTED New GUIDELHES FON MANN VENTRE AREA LAND -USE GUIDELNE0 A5 WELL As MLLn-FAMILY DEVELCnTENT P ERN, AREA GJICELRNESTHE PROJECT RESPECTS AND IS INFORMED IN THE FARINA/ LANDSCAPE OF THE AREA, AND NR0300 IRE DESIGN ACCESSIBILITY Nm 4IEIYSCAPES ATTELW11 TO FOSTER A FREN0LT ANO SAFE PEOEST0511 Cm-Rua/ENT 11.0 FORA. cF DEVELOPMENT NOCK/ED DT THE FIVE CORNERSTONE PHFICIPLES OF TNF MAPLE RIDGE OFFGNN COMMUIPT1 PLAN: ENVIRONMENT FIRST -LAND INFORMS DEVELOPMENT BONE 1OPOORAPNF ISRESPECMD AND NE DEVELOPAENT FOLLOWS THE DIES OF THE LAA VAN MINIMUM REGJ1101NO DESIGN AND SORE DF BI•.0544 PROTECTS ACCESS TO vEWB, n ey By EMHA)CEs PR1VACY11•m LNABIUTT SUSTAINABLE APPROACHES - BALANCE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL S ECONOMICAL BENEFITS FORM OF DEVELOPMENT r NPAL TOVMNOUSES• CREAT.50 A DENEMED RES15E1TML EINIRQP4NT Alt SE11015 ASIDE A LARDED OPEN SPACE DC. THE DENEFN CF NE RCEEI IT5 AIA TIE GC.MKN151 THE PROJECT TEL 8E INCORPORATING PEST .MNADEIENT PRACTICES IEM P.SI THROUGNOUT AND 11E DEVELOPER TS LOONHG TO 115CLuCE R SUSTNw1HLETY STTGTEOT FORT/ENDED/ECM w LL ASIDE SITE ADAPTABILITY - ALTERNATIVE HOUSING FOR YOUNG FAMILIES FORM OF LEVELOVNENT PROPOSES APPROA:E.MTELT .,100 SOFT. UMTS NAVY DOA wAULOUT 1 5A1 -L11 BASEMENTS TO ACCO,0I0p5TE OROyl11101N0AE5 RVID ENCOUNN E AF ALTERNATTlE• HOUSING FORM TO UNCLE FAMKT OAELI1NGS HEALTHY & INTEGRATED COMMUNITY - INTEGRATION BETWEEN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT HOUSING, OPEN SPACE AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACHIEVE A NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY THAT IS ALIVE AND HEALTHY A LAR[£ CE1F1hALLT LocAtES dfi000R 41050tT AREA SERIES TO TE THE 001010P,ENT TODETIER. PREKEDE A SENSE 01 AN VREORATE0 COMMI4111. TT1E CENTRAL NEWT/ AREA ALSO SERVES AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE TOMIgJ11S PATINE TEE 5EMSELFIENT AND FLAILS TEE RESTl!M5 A140 hE COAMJNRYS LNNIO, WOWONG IND RECREAT.HIL WEDS PROJECT SPECF1 LANDMARK GATEWAYSI ENTRT FEATORES ARE PROPOSED AT PERDETER AND NEW CAMERAE SPACES AND FOSTER *SPEC/FE'EEH3E0FKALE-. FORM OF DEVELOPMENT FORM OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES B BLOCKS COMPRNED OF 5 MAH LMT TYPES. FACT BLOW a EFEEI ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ WU HINE AN APPEATENCE OF SIEFPEO RCM ROOMS VIM EACH WE 4A100 DEAFLY ACCESS TO WNW ANDA GARAGE OFF Ary INTERNE, STRATA ROAD. ME CMTS FACPIG TEN N AVEME ARE DE51f{Fp TO FR011 OR NAVE TEE APPEND/ICE ZF FRONT/N0 ORM A PUREE ROE THROWN MEC/ PEDESTRIAN 11NECT10,4 FROM THE SIlEWRLUI ANO TNRCAEAT APPRCPIWTE TREATMENT OF EATERi011S LE/11 SEVRES HIL1 INCORNORATE 1(415(011 AND PATES WwEREVER POSSRLE TOF001ODE ADEQUATE PRIVATE TO Sp11•PRNATE ENTERER SPACES FOR 110 RESDENTS ARCHITECTURAL AESTHETIC 11.E PNCEO E0 ARCHITECTURAL FCR ' AN0 CI1PACTER FOR THE HANE1 DT -PASS TO11410U9ES ARE INTENDED TO EVCIE IMAGES OFA 5£505£ REACH HOU95 WAWA WA AE5TIE'T10.. NC WON AESTIE1IC CELE5RATES A tIFESrltE TNA, ENCOURAGES AN APPAECNTICN OF KAMYNE WHEN TES Al WELL WITH TIE NA1RAI SCENIC E1IVFROM,ET11 OF MAPLE RIDGE. TIE CLEAN DEEP FORMS OF TRE 9UROPIO ACT AS A COH1 1PORARP 9AONOROP TO A MORE TTN1DN10NAL DE1I0N AE411ETIO 51 ACCENTLNTUA WEED ROOFS. 1NOOD =LUMLY AID NEN WOW TRP/3 PRONOVICEO METE CAEP05. FASCIAS AE MEMOS COTRBENT THE MEDICAL EPEES OF TIE BURCN0 ACC/NT1ATRy THE *DANE THEME AND ANNE AOONTOWA EM001E{NT 10 THE DEMON GEIERNIE VINNSES OF WARE DINTREUIE TO 1EE TIME OF APPRECNT1NG NATURE BY 41101441015410510111051011111111101510001. NATURAL DONT Arm VE WS W1T1rl THE FARROW OF THEIR HOMES. TEE Taw/NEWS 111.141 ARE RASO EOUIPP50 HEN BOLDINES, PAT101 MEW DEaS PRONMG AREAS CF 511500/0 LNWG SPACE THAT NIMEAELY CONMECT THE RESIDENTS .ATH 11EIR SURRCA NOMG INVERC DIENT. A CENTRALLY LOCATED CCA111W ACTNATY AREA TIES TIE DE1T10PAEM TWINER AHI DEMANDER ALIIIPED SENSE OF COMMUNITY. TIE WWETBY-ASS DEVELOPMENT SEEKS TO HARMONIZE IEEE AND EMARUFLHFM. PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT NAG CONTRUCTION LTD. c/o DAMAX CONSULTANTS LTD. ATELIER PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE INC. ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT PERLIITAPPLICATIOF4I ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FEBRUARY 2012 DP -0.04 ARCHITECTURAL AESTHETIC/ DESIGN RATIONALE e • c = i dr�ll�lll, IEIII _ _ ..,illlllll — I Iigi -ll1 Ilulpl 10 1 Illi 1 P0�1 Ilio I ` o Illoi 1 `Ion lllo I 1°© 1411 1= .•I 111111111„1111111111 -111111111111lllllIiilll — ,IIIII111111111!IIIIIIII — ���� 1 r � -=1=1"'-"1=1 ,EEEilllllll Ii1111111111 Ililloli mill) it . 111 i Iil. E I�� to■! I:I Imo. : ,_. .. .' ---_ - _--- _ .�� - IIII1IIIIIIII1II 111111111-1 flail InI to l INI = .. 1;411.. Fa .IIII IIII IIII IIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIl1 IIIIIm 1II IIII f� - Iol ... 1EillIIII IIII IIII fill Illi ��fl��111 ■■ ■■ ■! ■11 ::l:i:.i�I1!IiullI i■riI. .I•.i.ri.l� 111:';1111111111"r1� w :1.11 - r r1NEih. HiQI�I Io■I rA11111io■I II���1111oi 1101 11 lo■Il��!�111[ io■IIf��■ u. .r n, 1 %i1 INV Ia Il�l1I� �I Ia i I@lll� >,I Io ` II�III_� Flo 11�111� Flo i 11�11�� �o1 1r1 �N O I, =?1I! --1..1111111111111i _11.'11 ; lslN11.111111111111e----- _ _ —LI E.] �u. w■ ■■ i■ •■ ■■ •■ ■■ .■ •■ 'ol CEDAR OPTION EMPHASES ON GABLES BLOCK 8 - ARTICULATION STUDY �u= soy INFO ON FENCE LAYOUT INTERNAL ROAD 71. nw euwanou ND].AveNT pLl W '14C INTERNAL ROAD 11 1.1 1•.100 PLAYGROUND -MATERIAL PLAN upynght reserved This drawing and design isn c mu at all ties remals the exclusive property of JHL DesIan Croup Inc.and cannot be used without the Iand sope a rehitect's written consent. .111.6 JHL Design Group Inc. Landscape Architecture + Urban Design TO 604 263 8013 eGUE eOraCT TRE Nov.12 Proposed Townhouse Develpment 22810 -113th Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC MA JL INFO ON FENCE LAYOUT/ PLAYGROPUND-LAYOUT PLAN/ PLAYGROUND -MATERIAL PLAN 4 3 XIGN3ddd ▪ loht r,se, Tilts drueng und ,lesogn and d i al limes roma,. th, irclusoc property of JHL our, Inc Uncl ounnot he ustd without the tond,,pe anfhit,t's writh, cons,nt. JHL Design Group Inc. LandscapeArchitecture + Urban Design 604-243-8613 ro,, I-866-2,-9554 14011-1SI 11150 Tr. Proposed Townhouse Develpment 22810 -113th Avenue, Maple Ridge BC •fl.f LANDSCAkPLAIlr PLAPinNO DF_SIGN L-3 wl11► - 111111111112=1.111kii_71_ iI■illPI moll It a3s �s wca d �'L7== ve_ .5?1511 ggre _= •i4/10 . •• 49•101100101; ..10•101•101•1*1•01 1 (7,.pyight reserved. This drawing and design Is and 01 ail times remains the exclusive property of OHL IGroup Inc and cannot be used without the I.md»plli architect's written consent JHL Design Group Inc. LandscapeArchilecture + Urban Design 50 Proposed Townhouse Develpment 22810 -113th Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC JL ELL 1ANDZCAPE PIANi PIAH1RQG DESIGN L-4 T IF lcpyiaht r. ,rued. This hawing and design is and at all dol.'s r s the v.wluswe property of JHL Dosign l oup In .0nd cannot be nsed without the landsape a, ehitect's mitten roneent. n.e JHL Design Group Inc. LandscepeArchitecture + Urban Design 1:150 Nov .12 �r� nnr Proposed Townhouse Develpment 22810 -113th Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC J LANBSCAPe PINY PlNlnNH DQBIOiN L-5 x nin-ricd rIrifJfif'Irk- 1T11iii11f 11 V II II 111 1IU000ULDJLUL.I V.C,JDEN PEACE HICAIE ,ET<II 7 WOODEN FENCE DETAIL -3 HIGH WOODEN FENCE I!0 WOODEN FENCE DETAIL- 6' HIGH 4.7 ruirall FLAN SLALE 1. 3L. LLL3A IIU6 MAIL BUR AREA TRELLIS DETAIL L cpright resarord. [Iris dror331 030 d.3e'Ign it dnd 1 ull times Iim ins [hv e:cluslve I. Mt,yl ty 31 :IHL Oa:pnl303 In, 0331 56660-1 be us -ed without thl yrjpe rondof3 15615 wrlt15! :9nsSn1 JHL Design Group Inc. LandscepeArchitecture + Urban Design 130 11° ,12 IL 6550** n1u Proposed Townhouse Develpment 22810-113h Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC g{11- MILE tam DETAILS L-6 //zit-) 1 If�II IPI I1T t u. d. y , - f,,� L.7 77 1 w I1 r�i} �- 1 $ - 9{ z m z •fl k \ -rk s 1 p }}((yjj, in v 1=10M 4 MPI Oaep Aaars Dream ik,gr'. District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-037-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Final One Year Extension Application 24311 124 Avenue and 24361 124 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council granted a one year extension to the above noted application on January 8, 2013. The applicant has now applied for a final one year extension under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. The purpose of the application is to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to allow for future subdivision into 4 lots. RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, a one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2011-037-RZ (property located at 24311 124 Avenue and 24361 124 Avenue) and that the following conditions be addressed prior to consideration of final reading: i) Road dedication as required; ii) Removal of existing deck on proposed Lot 1; iii) A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance with the regulations; iv) Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the subdivider will provide a Site Profile for the subject lands. 1- 1106 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Pasquale De Luca Pasquale and Celeste De Luca Legal Description: Lots 49 and 50, Section: 22, Township: 12, NWD Plan: 43885 OCP: Existing: Estate Suburban Residential Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 1.62 ha (4 acres) Access: 124 Avenue Servicing requirement: Rural This application is to permit future subdivision into four lots no smaller than 0.4 hectares each. The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaw 6817-2011: • First Reading was granted May 10, 2011 • Second Reading was granted November 8, 2011 • Public Hearing was held December 13, 2011 • Third Reading was granted December 13, 2011 2- Application Progress: The applicant is in the process of completing most of the terms and conditions to be met prior to Final Reading of the Zone Amending Bylaw. The major outstanding items are road dedication, removal of the existing deck on proposed Lot 1, and a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. Alternatives: Council may choose one of the following alternatives: 1. grant the request for extension; 2. deny the request for extension; or 3. repeal third reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing. CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a final one year extension. "Original signed by Siobhan Murphy" Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MA, MCIP, RPP 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 J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Second Reading Report -3- APPENDIX A 00 122 CO CO v 12561 LMP 123 0 0 Rem 64 12525 125AVE. • P43885 83 2552 P43885 80 P 70i798 2 EPPI1414 2 56 55 CO M 125 AVE. P43885 54 — SUBJECT PROPERTIES LMP 2744 2 48 49 NI P43885 50 CD 0_ 12497 2 co co 12475 12447 2 P 3118 N 190' 12 12375 Rem 12 12355 11 12307 i I P438 75 2530 P4381 76 2490 2460 2 2440 P438 78 12420 21 2384 20 12370 CV m 12342 LN Scale: 1:2,500 24311/61 124 AVENUE 1 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Dec 17, 2012 FILE: 2011-037-RZ BY: PC 4 MhPI ; F Orep Aaars Groan" 1-M400c District Of Maple Ridge APPENDIX B TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: November 7, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-037-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6817-2011 24311 and 24361 124 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential). This application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6817-2011 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and 2. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading: Road dedication as required; ii. Removal of existing deck on proposed Lot 1. iii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance with the regulations. iv. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the subdivider will provide a Site Profile for the subject lands. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Pasquale De Luca Pasquale and Celeste De Luca Legal Description: Lots 49 and 50, Section: 22, Township: 12, NWD Plan: 43885 OCP: Existing: Estate Suburban Residential Zoning: Existing: Proposed: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 1.62 ha (4 acres) Access: 124 Avenue Servicing requirement: Rural b) Project Description: The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential), in support of a future subdivision into four lots no smaller than 0.4 hectares each. The existing homes are proposed to be maintained; although the deck of one of the homes will need to be removed to meet zoning requirements. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The proposed rezoning to RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) is in accordance with the subject properties' designation as Estate Suburban Residential in the Official Community Plan (OCP). Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the properties located at 24311 and 24361 124 Avenue from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to permit the future subdivision into four one acre lots. The applicant has requested a relaxation to the side yard setback for proposed Lot 1. The proposed variance will be the subject of a future report to Council. d) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has noted that there are no services required in support of this rezoning application. As a result, no rezoning servicing -2- agreement is required. The Engineering Department has further determined that road dedication is required along the subject site frontage. Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks Department has reviewed the application and has noted that a road shoulder equestrian trail exists on 124 Avenue that will need to be considered in the development servicing plans for this application. e) Environmental Implications: The subject properties are located adjacent to land within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and the applicant has completed an Agricultural Impact Assessment and a Groundwater Impact Assessment in support of the proposed development. CONCLUSION: This application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6817 - 2010 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician Approved by: Charles Goddard, BA, MA Acting Director of Planning Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer AB/dp The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw 6817-2011 Appendix C - Subdivision Plan -3- 122 0 CO v 12561 LMP 123 0 Rem 64 12525 125 AVE. P43885 83 2552 P43885 80 P 701198 2 EPP11414 M 2 125 AVE. 56 55 54 P43885 SUBJECT PROPERTIES LMP /I 2744 2 48 49 NI P43885 50 a 2 12497 12475 12447 co co 0I 2 P 3118 N 190' 12 12375 Rem 12 12355 11 12307 i I ' P 438 7:5 2530 P4519 76, 12450 2460 2 2440 P438 78 12420 <1 2384 12373 2342 LN Scale: 1:2,500 Cit .f Pitt __ Mea..,.ws 1 7 District of Langley FRASER Rfr- 24311/61 124 AVENUE MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Dec 17, 2012 FILE: 2011-037-RZ BY: PC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6817-2011 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6817-2011." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 49, Section 22, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 43885 Lot 50, Section 22, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 43885 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1519 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 10th day of May, A.D. 2011. READ a second time the 8th day of November, A.D. 2011. PUBLIC HEARING held the 13th day of December, A.D. 2011. READ a third time the 13th day of December, A.D. 2011. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 24209 LMP 123 1 Rem 64 P 70 98 1 2 EPP 1414 1 2 12530 � cN Tr N 12525 N. N O co N N N N N M M coco V V / 125 AVE. 125 AVE. P 438E 0 Tr N 0 CO N N 0 co\ co 0 Tr L) CL LL N N P 43885 12497 1 r 76 12490 0 56 55 54 53 0 1--- `a a 12475 2 1 12460 2 12447 12440 LMP 2744 LMP 12745 P 43885 1 v ,7) w ` P 438 1 'n ININ Tr 2 Tr 48 CV N 49 M Tr N 50 M N s a 2 N TrN 78 12420 N N 124 AVE. P 3118 21 0 12384 J N190' 1220 N a 12370 12375 LMP 34711 Rem 12 12355 N 12342 11 VAPP Bylaw No. Mau No. From: To: R 6817-2011 1519 RS RS DG= /0\= AV -3 (One Family Rural -2 (One Family Suburban =\D Residential) Residential) \G ,A, N SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia PROPOSED SUBDMSION OF LOT 49 AND 50 SEC.22 TP.12 N.W.D. PLAN 43885 10 5 0 25.0 50.0 Scale 1:1000 October 24,2011 'Wade & Associates B.C. Land Surveyors Maple Ridge & Mission H2916—01A Phone 463-4753 54 55 Plan 53 43885 48 Plan 43885 25.00 1 0.400 ha 47.82 58.82 2 0.400 ha 38.00 58.84 3 0.400 ha 38.00 25.00 4 0.400 ha 50 47.83 1! Plan 71164 2 OAD 124 AVENUE (Plan 43885) N 190' 12 Plan 3118 244 STREET MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: E08-015-1164 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer 06-2240-20 MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement LC 154/14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A developer has subdivided land at 138B Avenue and Silver Valley Road. Part of the subdivision servicing is considered to be excess or extended servicing in accordance with the Local Government Act. The extended servicing benefits adjacent properties. Latecomer Agreement LC 154/14 provides the municipality's assessment of the attribution of the costs of the excess or extended servicing to the benefiting lands. RECOMMENDATION: That with respect to the subdivision of lands involved in subdivision 2012 -015 -SD located at 138B Avenue and Silver Valley Road, be it resolved: 1. That the cost to provide the excess or extended services is, in whole or in part, excessive to the municipality and that the cost to provide these services shall be paid by the owners of the land being subdivided, and 2. That Latecomer Charges be imposed for such excess or extended services on the parcels and in the amounts as set out in the staff report dated February 17, 2014; and further 3. That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC 154/14 with the subdivider of the said lands. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The attached map identifies the lands which are involved in the subdivision and those which will benefit from the excess or extended services and land to which the developer provided services via a private agreement. The cost breakdown for each excess or extended service is shown on attached Schedule A. In addition, a copy of Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC 154/14 is also attached for information purposes. 1107 b) Strategic Alignment: Administration of excess or extended services legislation complies with the Smart Managed Growth element of the Corporate Strategic Plan. The administration procedure supports the requirement for a developer to construct municipal infrastructure in support of land development and recognizes that the infrastructure may provide benefit to other land. c) Policy Implications: Part 26, Division 11, of the Local Government Act provides that where a developer pays all or part of the cost of excess or extended services, the municipality shall determine the proportion of the cost of the service which constitutes excess or extended service and determine the proportion of the cost of the service to be attributed to parcels of land which the municipality considers will benefit from the service. Latecomer Agreement LC 154/14 will provide such determination for Subdivision 2012 -015 -SD. CONCLUSION: A developer has provided certain services in support of Subdivision 2012 -015 -SD. Some of the services benefit adjacent lands therefore, it is appropriate to impose Latecomer Charges on the benefitting lands. Latecomer Agreement LC 154/14 summarizes the municipality's determination of benefitting lands and cost attribution and also establishes the term over which such Latecomer Charges will be applied. "Original signed by Stephen Judd" Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng. Manager of Infrastructure Development "Original signed by David Pollock" Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer TG/ m i Schedule A TYPE OF EXCESS OR EXTENDED SERVICE 1. EXTENDED NOMINAL SERVICE SERVICE # BENEFITTING COST OF COST PER BENEFIT LOTS BENEFIT LOT ATTRIBUTED BY PROPERTY EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION Water Main Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer 6 6 6 $20,625.00 $3,438.00 Lot 3, Plan 13776 RN 73989-0400-9 3 x $3,438.00 $43,690.00 $7,282.00 Lot 3, Plan 13776 RN 73989-0400-9 3 x $7,282.00 $32,750.00 $5,458.00 Lot 3, Plan 13776 RN 73989-0400-9 3 x $5,458.00 A total of all of the aforementioned services for each property is as follows: Property Amount of Benefit Lot 3, Plan 13776 $48,534.00 RN 73989-0400-9 Page 1 4 PARK 15 73976 Refl. SILVER VALLEY RD 3 DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY BENEFITTING PROPERTIES 28 mAorro 23 AVE. DEWDN:Y TRUNJ N SCALE: N.T.S. MAPLE RIDGE l3ntlsh Color W CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EXCESS CAPACITY/EXTENDED SERVICES AGREEMANT LC 154/14 DATE: JAN 2014 FILE/DWG No LC154-2014 EXCESS CAPACITY LATECOMER AGREEMENT LC 154/14 -- 2012 -015 -SD THIS AGREEMENT made the day of , 2014 BETWEEN: Jaskar Developments Ltd. P.O. Box 29513 Maple Ridge, BC V2X OV2 (Hereinafter called the "Subdivider") AND: OF THE FIRST PART THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, a Municipal Corporation under the "Municipal Act", having its offices at 11995 Haney Place, in the Municipality of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia (Hereinafter called the "Municipality") WHEREAS: OF THE SECOND PART A. The Subdivider has developed certain lands and premises located within the Municipality of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, and more particularly known and described as: Lot A, Section 33, Township 12, NWD Plan BCP51083 (Hereinafter called the "said lands"); B. In order to facilitate the approval of the subdivision of the said lands, the Subdivider has constructed and installed the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services shown on the civil design drawings prepared by Damax Consultants Ltd., File no. J-08-434-2, sheets 1 to 13 of 13 (Rev. A) and marked "Reviewed" by the Municipality June 26, 2012. Project No.E08-015-1164. (Hereinafter called the "Extended Services"); C. The extended services have been provided with a capacity to service the said lands and other than the said lands; D. The Municipality considers its cost to provide the Extended Services to be excessive; E. The Subdivider has provided the Extended Services in the Amount of $97,065.00. Page 1 of 3 F. The Municipality has determined that Lot 3, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 13776 Roll Number 73989-0400-9 (the "Benefitting Lands") will benefit from the Extended Services; G. The Municipality has imposed as a condition of the owner of the Benefitting Lands connecting to or using the Extended Services, a charge (the "Latecomer Charge") on the Benefitting Lands in the following amounts: Lot 3, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 13776 Roll Number 73989-0400-9 • $3,438.00 per lot to a maximum of $10,314.00 for direct connection to the watermain on Silver Valley Road from the centerline of the intersection of 138B Avenue to 64m south of that point. • $7,282.00 per lot to a maximum of $21,846.00 for direct connection to the storm sewer on Silver Valley Road from the manhole at the intersection of 138B Avenue to 63m south of that point. • $5,458.00 per lot to a maximum of $16,374.00 for direct connection to the sanitary sewer on Silver Valley Road from the manhole at the intersection of 138B Avenue to 65m south of that point. plus interest calculated annually from the date of completion of the Extended Services as certified by the General Manager - Public Works & Development Services of the Municipality (the "Completion Date") to the date of connection of the Benefitting Lands to the Extended Services; H. The Latecomer Charge when paid by the owner of the Benefitting Lands and collected by the Municipality shall pursuant to Section 939 (7) of the Local Government Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c.323 be paid to the Subdivider as provided for in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE AS AUTHORIZED BY Section 939 (9) of the Local Government Act R.S.B.0 1996, c. 323, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Latecomer Charge, if paid by the owner of the Benefitting Lands and collected by the Municipality within fifteen (15) years of the Completion Date shall be paid to the Subdivider and in such case payment will be made within 30 days of the next June 30th or December 31st that follows the date on which the Latecomer Charge was collected by the Municipality. 2. This Agreement shall expire and shall be of no further force and effect for any purpose on the earlier of the payment of the Latecomer Charge by the Municipality to the Subdivider, or fifteen (15) years from the Completion Date, and thereafter the Municipality shall be forever fully released and wholly discharged from any and all Page 2 of 3 liability and obligations herein, or howsoever arising pertaining to the Latecomer Charge, and whether arising before or after the expiry of this Agreement. 3. The Subdivider represents and warrants to the Municipality that the Subdivider has not received, claimed, demanded or collected money or any other consideration from the owner of the Benefitting Lands for the provision, or expectation of the provision of the Extended Services, other than as contemplated and as provided for herein; and further represents and warrants that he has not entered into any agreement with the owner of the Benefitting Lands for consideration in any way related to or connected directly or indirectly with the provision of the Extended Services. The representations and warranties of the Subdivider herein shall, notwithstanding paragraph 2 of this Agreement, survive the expiry of this Agreement. 4. The Subdivider (if more than one corporate body or person) hereby agrees that the Municipality shall remit the Latecomer Charge to each corporate body or person in equal shares. 5. If the Subdivider is a sole corporate body or person, the Municipality shall remit the Latecomer Charge to the said sole corporate body or person, with a copy to the following (name and address of director of corporate body, accountant, lawyer, etc.): 6. In the event that the Subdivider is not the owner of the said lands, the owner shall hereby grant, assign, transfer and set over unto the Subdivider, his heirs and assigns, all rights, title and interest under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their respective Corporate Seals, attested by the hands of their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf, the day and year first above written. SUBDIVIDER Subdivider - Authorized Signatory Subdivider - Authorized Signatory DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE Corporate Officer - Authorized Signatory Page 3 of 3 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: E08-015-1163 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer 06-2240-20 MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement LC 155/14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A developer has subdivided land at 138B Avenue and Silver Valley Road. Part of the subdivision servicing is considered to be excess or extended servicing in accordance with the Local Government Act. The extended servicing benefits adjacent properties. Latecomer Agreement LC 155/14 provides the municipality's assessment of the attribution of the costs of the excess or extended servicing to the benefiting lands. RECOMMENDATION: That with respect to the subdivision of lands involved in subdivision 2012 -014 -SD located at 138B Avenue and Silver Valley Road, be it resolved: 1. That the cost to provide the excess or extended services is, in whole or in part, excessive to the municipality and that the cost to provide these services shall be paid by the owners of the land being subdivided, and 2. That Latecomer Charges be imposed for such excess or extended services on the parcels and in the amounts as set out in the staff report dated February 17, 2014; and further 3. That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC 155/14 with the subdivider of the said lands. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The attached map identifies the lands which are involved in the subdivision and those which will benefit from the excess or extended services and land to which the developer provided services via a private agreement. The cost breakdown for each excess or extended service is shown on attached Schedule A. In addition, a copy of Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC 155/14 is also attached for information purposes. 1108 b) Strategic Alignment: Administration of excess or extended services legislation complies with the Smart Managed Growth element of the Corporate Strategic Plan. The administration procedure supports the requirement for a developer to construct municipal infrastructure in support of land development and recognizes that the infrastructure may provide benefit to other land. c) Policy Implications: Part 26, Division 11, of the Local Government Act provides that where a developer pays all or part of the cost of excess or extended services, the municipality shall determine the proportion of the cost of the service which constitutes excess or extended service and determine the proportion of the cost of the service to be attributed to parcels of land which the municipality considers will benefit from the service. Latecomer Agreement LC 155/14 will provide such determination for Subdivision 2012 -014 -SD. CONCLUSION: A developer has provided certain services in support of Subdivision 2012 -014 -SD. Some of the services benefit adjacent lands therefore, it is appropriate to impose Latecomer Charges on the benefitting lands. Latecomer Agreement LC 155/14 summarizes the municipality's determination of benefitting lands and cost attribution and also establishes the term over which such Latecomer Charges will be applied. "Original signed by Stephen Judd" Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng. Manager of Infrastructure Development "Original signed by David Pollock" Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer TG/ m i Schedule A TYPE OF EXCESS OR EXTENDED SERVICE 1. EXTENDED NOMINAL SERVICE SERVICE # BENEFITTING COST OF COST PER BENEFIT LOTS BENEFIT LOT ATTRIBUTED BY PROPERTY EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION Water Main 6 $30,800.00 $5,133.00 Lot 3, Plan 13776 RN 73989-0400-9 1 x $5,133.00 Lot 16, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0501-4 2 x $5,133.00 Lot 17, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0502-6 2 x $5,133.00 Storm Sewer 6 $82,920.00 $13,820.00 Lot 3, Plan 13776 RN 73989-0400-9 1 x $13,820.00 Lot 16, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0501-4 2 x $13,820.00 Lot 17, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0502-6 2 x $13,820.00 Sanitary Sewer 6 $50,000.00 $8,333.00 Lot 3, Plan 13776 RN 73989-0400-9 1 x $8,333.00 Lot 16, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0501-4 2 x $8,333.00 Lot 17, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0502-6 2 x $8,333.00 Page 1 A total of all of the aforementioned services for each property is as follows: Property Amount of Benefit Lot 3, Plan 13776 RN 73989-0400-9 Lot 16, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0501-4 Lot 17, Plan 27891 RN 73989-0502-6 Page 2 $27,286.00 $54,572.00 $54,572.00 4 PARK 15 Rerr SILVER VALLEY RD 3 DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY BENEFITTING PROPERTIES 28 mAorro 23 AVE. DEWDN:Y TRUNJ N SCALE: N.T.S. MAPLE RIDGE l3ntlsh Color W CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EXCESS CAPACITY/EXTENDED SERVICES AGREEMANT LC 155/14 DATE: JAN 2014 FILE/DWG No LC155-2014 EXCESS CAPACITY LATECOMER AGREEMENT LC 155/14 -- 2012 -014 -SD THIS AGREEMENT made the day of , 2014 BETWEEN: Silver Valley Projects Ltd. #100 - 1450 Creekside Drive Vancouver, BC V6J 5B3 (Hereinafter called the "Subdivider") AND: OF THE FIRST PART THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, a Municipal Corporation under the "Municipal Act", having its offices at 11995 Haney Place, in the Municipality of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia (Hereinafter called the "Municipality") WHEREAS: OF THE SECOND PART A. The Subdivider has developed certain lands and premises located within the Municipality of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, and more particularly known and described as: Lot B, Section 33, Township 12, Plan BCP 51083 (Hereinafter called the "said lands"); B. In order to facilitate the approval of the subdivision of the said lands, the Subdivider has constructed and installed the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services shown the municipal works and services design submission by Damax Consultants Ltd., File No. S-08-434-2, sheets 1 to 13 of 13 (Rev. A) and stamped "Reviewed As Noted" by the Municipality June 26, 2012. Project No.E08-015-1163. (Hereinafter called the "Extended Services"); C. The extended services have been provided with a capacity to service the said lands and other than the said lands; D. The Municipality considers its cost to provide the Extended Services to be excessive; E. The Subdivider has provided the Extended Services in the Amount of $163,720.00. Page 1 of 4 F. The Municipality has determined that Lot 3, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 13776 Lot 16, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 27891 Lot 17, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 27891 (the "Benefitting Lands") will benefit from the Extended Services; G. The Municipality has imposed as a condition of the owner of the Benefitting Lands connecting to or using the Extended Services, a charge (the "Latecomer Charge") on the Benefitting Lands in the following amounts: Lot 3, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 13776 R/N 73989-0400-9 • $5,133.00 for a direct connection to the watermain on Silver Valley Road north of the centerline of the intersection of 138B Avenue. • $13,820.00 for a direct connection to the storm sewer on Silver Valley Road north of the manhole at the intersection of 138B Avenue. • $8,333.00 for a direct connection to the sanitary sewer on Silver Valley Road north of the manhole at the intersection of 138B Avenue. Lot 16, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 27891 R/N 73989-0501-4 • $5,133.00 per lot to a maximum of $10,266.00 for direct connection to the watermain on Silver Valley Road. • $13,820.00 per lot to a maximum of $27,640.00 for direct connection to the storm sewer on Silver Valley. • $8,333.00 per lot to a maximum of $16,666.00 for direct connection to the sanitary sewer on Silver Valley. Lot 17, Sec. 33, Tp. 12, NWD Plan 27891 R/N 73989-0502-6 • $5,133.00 per lot to a maximum of $10,266.00 for direct connection to the watermain on Silver Valley Road • $13,820.00 per lot to a maximum of $27,640.00 for direct connection to the storm sewer on Silver Valley. • $8,333.00 per lot to a maximum of $16,666.00 for direct connection to the sanitary sewer on Silver Valley. plus interest calculated annually from the date of completion of the Extended Services as certified by the General Manager - Public Works & Development Services of the Municipality (the "Completion Date") to the date of connection of the Benefitting Lands to the Extended Services; Page 2 of 4 H. The Latecomer Charge when paid by the owner of the Benefitting Lands and collected by the Municipality shall pursuant to Section 939 (7) of the Local Government Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c.323 be paid to the Subdivider as provided for in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE AS AUTHORIZED BY Section 939 (9) of the Local Government Act R.S.B.0 1996, c. 323, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Latecomer Charge, if paid by the owner of the Benefitting Lands and collected by the Municipality within fifteen (15) years of the Completion Date shall be paid to the Subdivider and in such case payment will be made within 30 days of the next June 30th or December 31St that follows the date on which the Latecomer Charge was collected by the Municipality. 2. This Agreement shall expire and shall be of no further force and effect for any purpose on the earlier of the payment of the Latecomer Charge by the Municipality to the Subdivider, or fifteen (15) years from the Completion Date, and thereafter the Municipality shall be forever fully released and wholly discharged from any and all liability and obligations herein, or howsoever arising pertaining to the Latecomer Charge, and whether arising before or after the expiry of this Agreement. 3. The Subdivider represents and warrants to the Municipality that the Subdivider has not received, claimed, demanded or collected money or any other consideration from the owner of the Benefitting Lands for the provision, or expectation of the provision of the Extended Services, other than as contemplated and as provided for herein; and further represents and warrants that he has not entered into any agreement with the owner of the Benefitting Lands for consideration in any way related to or connected directly or indirectly with the provision of the Extended Services. The representations and warranties of the Subdivider herein shall, notwithstanding paragraph 2 of this Agreement, survive the expiry of this Agreement. 4. The Subdivider (if more than one corporate body or person) hereby agrees that the Municipality shall remit the Latecomer Charge to each corporate body or person in equal shares. 5. If the Subdivider is a sole corporate body or person, the Municipality shall remit the Latecomer Charge to the said sole corporate body or person, with a copy to the following (name and address of director of corporate body, accountant, lawyer, etc.): 6. In the event that the Subdivider is not the owner of the said lands, the owner shall hereby grant, assign, transfer and set over unto the Subdivider, his heirs and assigns, all rights, title and interest under this Agreement. Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their respective Corporate Seals, attested by the hands of their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf, the day and year first above written. SUBDIVIDER Subdivider - Authorized Signatory Subdivider - Authorized Signatory DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE Corporate Officer - Authorized Signatory Page 4 of 4 MAPLE RIDGE British Co lumb la District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: E02-010-179 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Award of Contract ITT-EN14-01: Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The temporary traffic circle at Kanaka Way and 234A Street, constructed with plastic delineators was installed two years ago as a trial installation to address the congestion around Kanaka Creek Elementary School. The District's approved Capital Plan has a project to replace the temporary traffic circle with a permanent concrete traffic circle and curb extensions. The project scope consists of installing concrete curb and gutter, catch basins, traffic circle, asphalt paving, streetlighting, signage, landscaping and new pavement markings with the overall objective of improving traffic safety at the intersection. The Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements Project was tendered on January 16, 2014 and closed on February 11, 2014. The lowest acceptable tender price was submitted by Martens Asphalt Ltd. of $184,838.71 excluding taxes. There are sufficient funds in LTC 8690 and LTC 8861 to complete the project. The intersection improvements are anticipated to commence on March 28, 2014 to coincide with the start of Kanaka Creek School Spring Break and anticipated to be completed in approximately 4 weeks with substantial completion before Kanaka Creek School commences on April 28, 2014. Council approval to award the contract is required for the work to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Contract ITT-EN14-01, Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements, be awarded to Martens Asphalt Ltd. in the amount of $184,838.71 excluding taxes; and THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The temporary traffic circle at Kanaka Way and 234A Street was installed in April 2012 to address the congestion around Kanaka Creek Elementary School as part of the Safer School Travel Program. 1109 An Open House was held on December 3, 2013 at Kanaka Creek Elementary School to present the proposed design. The majority of the comments received were supportive of replacing the temporary installation with a permanent concrete traffic circle. Other comments received were to improve the signage for directions on how to drive through the traffic circle, improve crosswalk locations, and install fencing to direct pedestrians to the marked crosswalks. These improvements were accommodated in the current design that balances these objectives. The project scope consists of installing concrete curb and gutter, catch basins, traffic circle, asphalt paving, streetlighting, signage, landscaping and new pavement markings. Tender Evaluation: The contract for the Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements was tendered on January 16, 2014. The tender closed on February 11, 2014 and five compliant tenders were received ranging from $184,838.71 to $228,620.00. The following five tenders received are listed in order from lowest to highest price: Martens Asphalt Ltd. Imperial Paving Ltd. Winvan Paving Ltd. Jack Cewe Ltd. LaFarge Canada Inc COB Tender Price (excluding taxes) $ 184,838.71 $ 190,795.00 $ 198,965.00 $ 203,620.00 $ 228,620.00 Staff have confirmed that the Martens Asphalt Ltd. tender is compliant with tender requirements and the contractor is suitably qualified to undertake the works. b) Desired Outcome: Council approval to award the contract for the Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements to Martens Asphalt Ltd. c) Strategic Alignment: The Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements Project supports the following key strategies identified in the District's Strategic Plan: • Maintain and enhance a multi -modal transportation system within Maple Ridge; • To provide citizens with safe, efficient alternatives for the movement of individuals and goods. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Construction will commence when the scheduled Kanaka Creek Elementary School Spring Break starts and attempts will be made to minimize the impact to residents and businesses in the neighbourhood. The road is expected to remain open to traffic throughout the construction. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Operations Department has provided input to the design. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: There are sufficient funds in LTC 8690 and LTC 8861 to complete the project. The projected expenditures are as follows; 2014 Contract Cost (excluding taxes) Consultant Design Fees Contingency (10% of contract cost) Total Projected Project Cost CONCLUSIONS: $ 184,838 $ 15,000 $ 19,000 $ 218,838 The tender price of $184,838.71 excluding taxes by Martens Asphalt Ltd. for the Kanaka Way and 234A Street Intersection Improvements is the lowest tendered price. It is recommended that Council approve the award of the contract to Martens Asphalt Ltd. "Original signed by Jeff Boehmer" "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" Submitted by: Jeff Boehmer, PEng. Financial Trevor Thompson, CGA Manager of Design and Construction Concurrence: Manager of Financial Planning "Original signed by David Pollock" Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer MG MAPLE RIDGE British Co lvmbia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: EO2-010-161 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Award of Contract ITT-EN14-03: 122 Avenue Streetlighting (216 Street to 222 Street) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 122 Avenue Road Improvements Project from 216 Street to 224 Street is in the District's approved Capital Plan as a multi-year, phased project. The project objectives are to improve multi- modal transportation for the corridor by providing improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities, and provide traffic calming measures with curb extensions and traffic buttons. Due to funding constraints, the project was split into four phases; Phase 1, from 216 Street to 221 Street was completed in 2012. Phase 2, from 221 to 222 Street was completed in 2013. Both Phases 1 & 2 were pre -ducted to accommodate installation of streetlights in 2014. Phase 3, 122 Avenue streetlight installation from 216 Street to 222 Street includes the installation of 47 streetlights. Phase 4 is the portion of 122 Avenue from 222 Street to 224 Street and is scheduled for design in 2014 and construction in 2015. The Phase 3 contract was tendered on January 16, 2014 and closed on February 11, 2014. The lowest acceptable tender price by Crown Contracting Ltd. is $139,225.00 excluding taxes. There are sufficient funds in LTC 8910 to complete the project. The installation of the streetlights is anticipated to commence in early March 2014 and expected to be completed in approximately 6 weeks. Council approval to award the contract is required for the work to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Contract ITT-EN14-03, 122 Avenue Streetlighting (216 Street to 222 Street), be awarded to Crown Contracting Ltd. in the amount of $139,225.00 excluding taxes; and THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The 122 Avenue Road Improvements project identified a need to improve the facilities on this corridor for pedestrians and cyclists to promote multi -modal transportation. Phase 1 of the 122 Avenue road improvements from 216 Street to 221 Street consisted of constructing concrete curb and gutter with an asphalt multi -use path on both sides of the roadway, storm sewers, catch basins, three traffic buttons (small traffic circles), curb extensions, and new pavement markings. 1110 Phase 2 of the project extended from 2221 Street to 222 Street and was built to the same standard as the first phase and involved construction of concrete curb and gutter and 3.Om wide asphalt multi -use paths on both sides of 122 Avenue. Phases 1 & 2 did not include streetlights but were pre -ducted for future installation. Phase 3 of the project is the installation of streetlights from 216 Street to 222 Street and is included in the District's approved Capital Plan for 2014. Phase 4 will be the remaining portion of 122 Avenue from 222 Street to 224 Street and is scheduled for design in 2014 and construction in 2015. Tender Evaluation: The contract for the 122 Avenue Streetlights (216 Street to 222 Street) was tendered on January 16, 2014. The tender closed on February 11, 2014 and four compliant tenders were received ranging from $139,225.00 to $232,080.00, excluding taxes. The following four tenders received are listed in order from lowest to highest price: Crown Contracting Ltd. Fraser City Installations (1989) Ltd. Transwestern Electric Ltd. Fraser Excavating Ltd. Tender Price (excluding taxes) $ 139,225.00 $ 151,060.00 $ 153,860.00 $ 232,080.00 Crown Contracting Ltd. was the sub -contractor for the Phase 1 and 2 pre -ducting of streetlights on 122 Avenue from 216 Street to 222 Street. Staff have confirmed that the Crown Contracting Ltd. tender is compliant with tender requirements and the contractor is suitably qualified for the works. b) Desired Outcome: Council approval to award the contract for the 122 Avenue Streetlighting (216 Street to 222 Street) project to Crown Contracting Ltd. c) Strategic Alignment: The 122 Avenue Road Improvements Project supports the following key strategies identified in the District's Strategic Plan: • Maintain and enhance a multi -modal transportation system within Maple Ridge; • to provide citizens with safe, efficient alternatives for the movement of individuals and goods; • Promote alternative modes (pedestrian, bike, public transit) of travel to reduce reliance on the automobile. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Due to funding constraints, the reconstruction of 122 Avenue from 216 Street to 224 Street was split into four phases; Phase 1 (from 216 Street to 221 Street) was constructed in 2012; Phase 2, from 221 Street to 222 Street to be completed in 2013, Phase 3 installation of streetlights and Phase 4, from 222 Street to 224 Street is scheduled to be designed in 2014 and constructed in 2015. The estimated construction duration for Phase 3 is approximately 6 weeks, starting in early March through April 2014. It is anticipated that there will be minor traffic disruptions on 122 Avenue and the road should remain open at all times. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: There are sufficient funds in LTC 8910 to complete the project. CONCLUSIONS: The tender price of $139,225.00 excluding taxes by Crown Contracting Ltd. for the 122 Avenue Streetlighting (216 Street to 222 Street) is the lowest tendered price. It is recommended that Council approve the award of the contract to Crown Contracting Ltd. "Original signed by Jeff Boehmer" "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" Submitted by: Jeff Boehmer, PEng. Financial Trevor Thompson, CGA Manager of Design and Construction Concurrence: Manager of Financial Planning "Original signed by David Pollock" Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer MG 4I MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council Committee of the Whole FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Disbursements for the month ended January 31, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The disbursements summary for the past period is attached for information. All voucher payments are approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor and a Finance Manager. Council authorizes the disbursements listing through Council resolution. Expenditure details are available by request through the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION: That the disbursements as listed below for the month ended January 31, 2014 now be approved. GENERAL $ 8,182,806 PAYROLL $ 1,432,021 PURCHASE CARD $ 98,195 $ 9,713,022 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and provided authorization for expenditures to deliver municipal services. The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan. b) Community Communications: The citizens of Maple Ridge are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial disbursements. 1131 c) Business Plan / Financial Implications: Highlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution • GCL Contracting & Engineering - 232 St. bridge replacement $ 182,308 • G.V. Sewerage & Drainage - Jun-Dec'13 DCC collections $ 553,459 • G.V. Water District - water consumption Oct 2 to Oct 29/13 $ 452,228 • G.V. Water District - water consumption Oct 30 to Nov 26/13 $ 424,629 • Imperial Paving - Downtown improvements Lougheed Hwy $ 166,135 • Mainland Civil Works Inc - Hampton Street local area service $ 318,419 • Minister of Finance - 2013 school tax requisition $ 648,028 • Municipal Insurance Assoc. - 2014 insurance assessment $ 360,809 • No. 265 Seabright Holdings Ltd. - latecomer agreement $ 204,094 • RG Arenas - Ice rental Aug, Nov & Dec & curling rink expenses $ 177,767 • Willis Canada Inc - 2014 property and all risk insurance $ 232,206 d) Policy Implications: Approval of the disbursements by Council is in keeping with corporate governance practice. CONCLUSIONS: The disbursements for the month ended January 31, 2014 have been reviewed and are in order. "Original signed by G'Ann Rygg" Prepared by: G'Ann Rygg Accounting Clerk II "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" Approved by: Trevor Thompson, BBA, CGA Manager of Financial Planning "Original signed by Paul Gill" Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA GM - Corporate & Financial Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer gmr VENDOR NAME Aecom Canada Ltd BC Hydro BC SPCA BDO Canada LLP Billesberger, Valerie Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd CUPE Local 622 Chevron Canada Ltd City Of Pitt Meadows Dell Canada Inc Douglas College - Fin Dept Falcon Homes Joint Venture Falcon Homes Ltd Family Education & Support Ctr Fitness Edge FortisBC - Natural Gas Fraser River Pile & Dredge Inc GCL Contracting & Engineering Glentel Inc Gr Vanc Sewerage & Drainage Grant Hill (GP) Ltd Greater Vanc Water District Greater Vancouver Regional Dis Imperial Paving Interprovincial Traffic Sery Jacks Automotive & Welding Justice Institute Of BC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - JANUARY 2014 DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT National Benchmarking Initiative Sewage System Rehabilitation - Cottonwood Leachate Pond Electricity Contract payment 2013 Financial statement audit Document Management Oct 1- Dec 31/13 Maintenance: Anderson Pump Station Banners Christmas Decorations Haney House Leisure Centre Rock Ridge Reservoir Street Lights Traffic Lights 256 Street Reservoir Dues - pay periods 14/01 & 14/02 Gasoline & diesel fuel Airport Governance Study Contributions from sport field users Pitt Meadows Family Rec. Centre - phone, internet, copier costs SEI - cost share 3rd party costs - film company Fleet radio system replacement Dell laptop for IS Lease overpayment Town Centre investment incentive DCC fee refund Town Centre investment incentive Security refund Community network coordination Fitness classes & programs Natural gas Port Haney wharf repairs 232 Street bridge replacement ESS radios Fire Dept. radios Fleet radio system replacement SCADA radios for water pump station upgrade Jun - Dec'13 DCC collections Refund street lights and access culvert fees Water consumption Oct 2 to Oct 29/13 Water consumption Oct 30 to Nov 26/13 Recycling remittance overpayment Mosquito control program Water sample analysis Downtown improvements Lougheed Hwy (226-228 St) Traffic signal replacements Fire Dept equipment repairs Fire Dept training programs 19,656 5,167 208 1,270 7,318 92 377 16,991 2,497 269 5,113 8,715 56,420 4,790 1,717 550 18,070 2,265 16,523 37,293 1,500 64 64 137,972 6,630 452,228 424,629 17,434 375 2,065 AMOUNT 24,823 107,713 27,527 23,135 16,170 34,136 33,215 81,417 72,192 20,335 19,013 28,023 55,316 25,000 15,129 34,762 33,075 182,308 144,730 553,459 36,950 876,857 19,874 166,135 20,496 17,127 26,957 Lafarge Canada Inc Mainland Civil Works Inc Manulife Financial Maple Ridge & PM Arts Council Medical Services Plan Microsoft Licensing, GP Minister Of Finance Municipal Insurance Assoc Municipal Pension Plan BC No 236 Seabright Holdings Ltd No 265 Seabright Holdings Ltd Panorama LMS 4011 Pedre Contractors Ltd Pitt River Quarries Ltd Raincity Janitorial Sery Ltd Receiver General Canada - GST Receiver General For Canada Remdal Painting & Restoration RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd RGH Pacific Emergency Services Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Rogers, Simon & Jennifer Telus Tempest Development Group TGK Irrigation Ltd Thomas G Andison Law Corp In Trust Road salt Hampton Street local area service - utility & road construction Employer/employee remittance Arts Centre contract payment Jan Program revenue Dec Employee medical & health premiums Annual software licensing 2013 school tax requisition 2014 Insurance assessment Insurance deductibles Employer/employee remittance Latecomer agreement Latecomer agreement Strata fees Jan & Feb River Road waterworks & sanitary sewer at 236 St Roadworks material Janitorial services & supplies: Firehalls Library Municipal Hall Operations Randy Herman Building RCMP South Bonson Community Centre Holdback release GST remittance - Dec'13 Employer/Employee remittance PP13/26 & PP14/01 Painting: Firehall Haney Place bus loop Leisure Centre Library Municipal Hall RCMP Tamarack Lane washroom Ice rental Aug, Nov & Dec Curling rink operating expenses Nov & Dec Traffic signal replacements Quarterly operating grant Jan - Mar Monthly contract for recycling Weekly recycling Litter pickup contract Recycling station pickup Roadside waste removal Recycling depot onsite oil interceptor Latecomer agreement Telephone services Dec & Jan Annual software support Albion Sports Water Play Park Hammond Stadium Park Sports Field Security refund 50,867 22,886 360,809 7,022 6,222 6,022 2,934 2,953 4,348 3,112 4,375 2,830 875 3,679 9,420 461 2,291 406 167 164,722 13,045 109,721 497 1,725 308 87 22,027 76,116 17,081 78,137 318,419 140,234 73,753 37,612 141,095 648,028 367,831 380,612 59,460 204,094 20,619 100,861 20,719 32,796 18,790 611,047 17,298 177,767 16,783 58,294 134,365 29,491 17,531 57,196 93,197 217,955 Total Energy Systems Ltd Urban Lumberjack Tree Services Van-Kel Irrigation Warrington PCI Management Willis Canada Inc Workers Compensation Board BC Young, Anderson - Barristers Disbursements In Excess $15,000 Disbursements Under $15,000 Total Payee Disbursements Payroll Purchase Cards - Payment Total Disbursements January 2014 Maintenance: Firehalls Leisure Centre Maple Ridge Fairgrounds Maple Ridge Museum Municipal Hall Operations Pitt Meadwos Family Rec. Centre Pitt Meadows Heritage Hall Pitt Meadows Museum RCMP South Bonson Community Centre Whonnock Community Centre Brush/tree removal at water reservoirs Tree trimming from traffic lights & signals Computer irrigation control system Hammond Stadium Park Sports Field Advance for Tower common costs Tower expenses Dec 2014 Property and All Risk Insurance Employer/Employee remittance 4th qtr 2013 Professional fees Nov & Dec PP14/01 & PP14/02 3,021 6,745 249 259 5,958 5,186 1,684 483 193 1,696 2,955 410 28,839 17,929 682 18,611 28,004 1,237 29,241 60,000 894 60,894 GMR \\mr.corp\docs\Fin\05-Finance\1630-Accts-Payable\01-General\AP Disbursements\2014\[Monthly_Council_Report_2014.xlsx]JAN'14 232,206 81,390 57,209 7,278,251 904,555 8,182,806 1,432,021 98,195 9,713,022 4 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 4200-01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: 2014 Election - Appointment of Officers EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Local Government Act requires Municipal Councils to appoint a chief election officer and a deputy chief election officer for the November 15, 2014 local government election. RECOMMENDATIONS: That pursuant to Section 41(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act, Ceri Marlo be appointed Chief Election Officer for conducting the November 15, 2014 Maple Ridge general local election with power to appoint other election officials as required for the administration and conduct of the 2014 general local election; and further That Tonya Polz be appointed Deputy Chief Election Officer for the November 15, 2014 Maple Ridge general local election. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The Clerk's Department is assigned responsibility for conducting local government elections. It is recommended that Ceri Marlo, the manager of this department, be appointed the Chief Election officer. Tonya Polz has extensive experience conducting elections having served as the Deputy Chief Election Officer for the last four elections in Maple Ridge. b) Business Plan/Financial Implications: These positions are allotted for in the election budget contained within the Clerk's Department budget. "Original signed by Ceri Mario" Prepared by: Ceri Mario, CMC Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program "Original signed by Paul Gill" Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer :cm 1132 MAPLE RIDGE 9r3lish Columbia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 17 -Feb -2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W. SUBJECT: 2013 Council Expenses EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In keeping with Council's commitment to transparency in local government, the attached Schedule 1 lists Council expenses for 2013. The schedule is also available on our website. RECOMMENDATION: Receive for information Discussion In the interest of transparency and accountability, Council expenses will be itemized and reported monthly. "original signed by Catherine Nolan" Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CPA, CGA Manager of Accounting "original signed by Paul Gill" Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA GM, Corporate and Financial Services "original signed by Jim Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer 1133 Schedule 1 2013 Council Expenses Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Ashlie, Cheryl January February March April RM South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala Gaming Centre Event MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Business Excellence Awards May June July August MR Community Foundation - Golf Fundraising Tournament September UBCM Conference - Vancouver Urban Development Institute - Annual Summer Event October Inclusive Workplace Workshop RM Hospital Gala November MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - AGM December Salvation Army Dignity Breakfast Bell, Corisa January Local Gov't Leadership Academy - Leadership Forum RM South Asian Cultural Society -Annual Gala February Local Economy Summit Gaming Centre Event Mileage for 2012 656.67 20.60 95.00 10.00 90.00 75.00 45.00 25.00 175.00 39.00 50.00 677.27 604.00 - - 1,281.27 571.26 428.33 March April MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Business Excellence Awards MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year BCRPA Membership May BCRPA Conference - Whistler 1,049.30 LMLGA Conference - Harrison Hot Springs 694.44 June FCM Annual Conference - Vancouver 1,481.04 July Mileage (January -July 2013) August September UBCM Conference - Vancouver 1,887.31 Urban Development Institute - Annual Summer Event October CivX - Open Government, Open Data, Open Future 185.00 Meadowridge by Moonlight Gala Inclusive Workplace Workshop 20.60 RM Hospital Gala November MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - AGM CMHC - Vancouver Housing Outlook Conference 265.00 Greater Vancouver Home Builders Assoc - Luncheon December MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Christmas Luncheon 95.00 10.00 75.00 90.00 65.00 250.00 175.00 39.00 49.99 35.00 356.31 317.20 60.00 6,582.28 883.99 673.51 60.00 - 8,199.78 Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Daykin, Ernie January February RM South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala BCRPA - Local Gov't voting membership Gaming Centre Event MRPM PLS Commission - luncheon March Breakfast meeting with PM Mayor & CAO April MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Business Excellence Awards MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year May LMLGA Conference - Harrison Hot Springs June FCM Annual Conference - Vancouver MRPM PLS Commission - Retirement luncheon July August September MR Community Foundation - Golf Fundraising Tournament UBCM Conference - Vancouver (BC Mayors Caucus) October Inclusive Workplace Workshop November December Open Government, Open Data, Open Future MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Christmas Luncheon MRPM PLS Commission - Appreciation luncheon 702.37 735.00 95.00 20.60 225.00 95.00 10.00 75.00 90.00 45.00 35.00 60.00 16.34 11.74 15.24 13.15 1,777.97 350.00 60.00 56.47 2,244.44 Dueck, Judy January February Gaming Centre Event 10.00 March April MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year 90.00 May Mileage January - May 172.84 June July August September MR Community Foundation - Golf Fundraising Tournament 45.00 October November Mileage July - November 176.15 MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - AGM 39.00 December 184.00 348.99 - - 532.99 Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Hogarth, Al January February March April South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala Gaming Centre Event MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Business Excellence Awards MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year May June FCM Annual Conference -Vancouver Mileage November 2012 July PIBC Conference - Vancouver Mileage July 2013 1,488.16 1,832.25 August September UBCM Conference - Vancouver 1,861.88 October Zero Waste Conference 75.00 RM Hospital Gala Urban Development Institute - FV Mayors Panel Lunch 65.00 November MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - AGM December MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Christmas Luncheon Salvation Army Dignity Breakfast 95.00 10.00 75.00 90.00 175.00 39.00 35.00 50.00 47.18 23.66 5,322.29 569.00 70.84 - - 5,962.13 Masse, Bob January February Gaming Centre Event 10.00 March April MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Business Excellence Awards 75.00 MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year 90.00 May LMLGA Conference - Harrison Hot Springs 543.47 June FCM Annual Conference - Vancouver 1,334.87 July August September UBCM Conference - Vancouver 616.90 October Inclusive Workplace Workshop 20.60 RM Hospital Gala 175.00 November MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - AGM 39.00 December MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Christmas Luncheon 35.00 Salvation Army Dignity Breakfast 50.00 2,515.84 474.00 2,989.84 Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Morden, Michael January February March April Gangs and Guns Symposium (cancellation fee) South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala Gaming Centre Event MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Business Excellence Awards MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year May June July August MR Community Foundation - Golf Fundraising Tournament September UBCM Conference - Vancouver October Inclusive Workplace Workshop RM Hospital Gala November MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - AGM Community Heritage Commission Networking Conference Greater Vancouver Home Builders Assoc - Luncheon December MR -PM Chamber of Commerce - Christmas Luncheon 75.00 1,245.18 20.60 25.00 95.00 10.00 75.00 90.00 45.00 175.00 39.00 49.99 35.00 1,365.78 613.99 1,979.77 Totals 18,241.43 3,678.98 1,093.34 120.00 56.47 23,190.22 410* MAPLE RIDGE British Colombia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 0640-30-01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W. SUBJECT: JOINT LEISURE SERVICES MODEL REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A review of the Joint Leisure Services (JLS) model was included in the 2014 business plan. As part of this year's work plan, staff will be securing the services of an external individual or firm with expert knowledge of joint service delivery models and strong financial analysis skills to conduct a review of the JLS model. The project will include an analysis of the benefits and constraints of the joint service delivery model including financial, and will recommend an optimum model to meet the needs of each community in the future. RECOMMENDATION: No resolution required. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The JLS model was adopted by the District of Maple Ridge and City of Pitt Meadows in 1994. It was formalized through an agreement and bylaws, and was made operational through the formation of the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services Commission (the Commission). The Commission currently has operating authority for the provision of parks, leisure and cultural services in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Previous reviews of this model were conducted in 2002 and 2010. Following each review the model was refined utilizing some of the review recommendations. A copy of each review report is attached. Project Scope: • To identify the benefits associated with the JLS model as well as any constraints. • To assess the financial benefit that a joint service delivery model provides to both municipalities. • To suggest a recommendation on an operating model for the delivery of parks, recreation and cultural services for the future. • If the resulting recommendation suggests maintaining a joint service delivery model, then it will also include recommendations on how to improve the current service delivery model. 1151 Joint Leisure Services Model Review 2 The Project Team overseeing the 2014 review will include an individual or firm external to both municipalities with expert knowledge of joint service delivery models and financial analysis skills who will provide independent oversight of the project and the resulting recommendations. All of Council will be highly engaged in the review process once this individual or firm is in place. The staff portion of the project team will be responsible for supporting the successful outcome of this project, and each will bring a unique lens that will contribute to a balanced approach. The General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation will provide insight into current operating practices while the Manager of Financial Planning with the District of Maple Ridge and the Director of Finance and Facilities with the City of Pitt Meadows will bring particular insight into ensuring that the financial interests of each community are well represented. It is anticipated that the review process will begin in March 2014 and will conclude by June 2014. A draft schedule of the project timeline has been attached. b) Desired Outcomes: Project outcomes will include a measure of the benefits associated with the JLS model as well as any constraints. A financial analysis will also form part of the review. In addition, the review will recommend a model for the delivery of parks, recreation and cultural services for each community for the future. If that recommendation includes the maintenance of a joint service delivery model, then an outcome will also include recommendations on how to improve the current JLS model. c) Strategic Alignment: A review of the JLS model will determine the optimal operating model to deliver good quality parks, recreation and cultural services to our citizens and customers. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Citizen's satisfaction with Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services and their use of these services is measured a number of ways including through customer comment cards, program evaluations, facility exit surveys, service focus groups and a random sample survey which is conducted in both municipalities every three years. The survey is a requirement of the Joint Leisure Services Agreement and the next version will complete just prior to this review process. This and other research will be available as an input to the review of the JLS model. Citizens and customers will benefit through the identification of the most appropriate operating model with which to deliver good quality parks, recreation and cultural services as identified through this review process. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Manager of Financial Planning will be a key member of the staff team supporting this project including the financial analysis. Joint Leisure Services Model Review 3 f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: This project is identified in the 2014 work plan. Funding in the amount of $15,000 has been allocated to this project within each municipal budget. Each municipality will contribute 50% of the project cost. CONCLUSIONS: The review process is timely given that the Joint Leisure Services Agreement indicates a 3 year review cycle. In 2010, the resolution that was passed scheduled the next review for 2015. Since then, both Councils have asked that this review be conducted in 2014. It is anticipated that this process will result in a greater understanding of the benefits and constraints associated with a joint service delivery model and identification of the most desirable operating model for the delivery of parks, recreation and cultural services for the future. `Original signed by Kelly Swift' Prepared by: Kelly Swift, General Manager Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services `Original signed by Trevor Thompson' Concurrence: Trevor Thompson, Manager, Financial Planning `Original signed by Jim Rule' Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer :ks Attachments: 1. Draft Schedule of Joint Leisure Services Review 2. Report (dated March 26, 2010 to Commission meeting of April 8, 2010 with attachments: A. 1992 Investigative Report B. Joint Agreement and Bylaws C. 2010 Master Plan Consultant Recommendations D. 2009 Commission Evaluation E. 2002 BDO Dunwoody Report F. Financial Analysis Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services An Investigative Report 1992 12 21 Submitted By The Joint Leisure Services Review Committee: Councillor Jim Clements (Co -Chair) Councillor Jim Peters (Co -Chair) Councillor Scott Leaf Councillor Rochelle Bodnarchuk Trustee Bridget Trerise (School District 42) Trustee Nel Joostema (School District 42) Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Appointees: Ed Dempster Andy Cleven Ron Reichelt Bruce McLeod Ken Clarkson Jerry Sulina (Administrator, Maple Ridge) Ken Wiesner (Administrator, Pitt Meadows) Mike Murray (Parks and Recreation Director, Maple Ridge) Ex Officio Members: Mayor Belle Morse (Maple Ridge) Mayor Bud Tiedeman (Pitt Meadows) Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services An Investigative Report Table of Contents Acknowledgments 1. Executive Summary/Recommendations 2. Introduction 4. Methodology 5. Shared Services 7. Alternative Models Considered 8. Benefits 11. Recommendations 16. Next Steps 18. Appendices: A. Terns of Reference B. Shared Services Report C. Joint System Information (Matsqui/Abbotsford, North Vancouver City/District, Langley City/District, Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation District) D. Visitation Sub Committee Recommendations E. Financial Considerations Report F. Parks Administration in Municipal Government G. Committee Minutes H. The Benefits of Parks and Recreation Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report Acknowledgments The committee would like to acknowledge the involvement of Mr. Tom Meier and Mr. Ron Alexander at the outset of the committee's work. Both are past members of the Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation Commission and their efforts to get things started were greatly appreciated. The commit tee also acknowledges Elinor Dickson and Linda Kelly for their clerical support. Between the two of them they successfully transcribed (and deciphered) minutes, mademeeting arrangements and prepared agenda materials in an expeditious and professional manner throughout the project. Further acknowledgment is due to Brian Johnston of Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants who assisted the committee on two occasions with- out fees despite our obvious reliance on his experi ence and expertise. The Matsqui/Abbotsford Recre ation Commission, including Mayor Kandal of Matsqui and Mayor Ferguson of Abbotsford, Ken Yates and other staff from the area were extremely helpful as were the North Vancouver Recreation Commission, Gary Young and staff members from North Vancouver City and District. The Committee would also like to recognize the patience and support of the two municipal Councils, the School Board and the Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation Commission, without which the project could not have continued over such an extended period. Finally, and most importantly, we acknowledge the residents and groups from our two municipalities and the many ways in which they have demonstrated how well cooperation can work to avoid duplication and improve service. We hope to follow their example shortly. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - Page 1 Executive Summary Introduction Parks, Recreation and Cultural Master Plans were com- pleted in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows in the last two years. Both recommended the development of a joint parks and leisure services delivery system. Several joint organizations/agencies already operate successfully in the two communities. Historically Pitt Meadows resi- dents have comprised 15% to 20% of the participants in leisure services provided in Maple Ridge. The investiga- tive committee was formed in the Fall of 1991 with the terms of reference listed in appendix "A" to this report. Methodology During the past year the committee reviewed both master plans, determined which services should be investigated for sharing, conducted an investigation of other joint systems, completed a benefits analysis and prepared recommendations in the form of this report for consid- eration by both Councils, the School Board and the Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation Commission. Shared Services The proposal includes the joint delivery of the following services: Open Space (Planning, Development, Mainte- nance, Scheduling); Recreation Facilities (Planning, De- velopment, Maintenance, Scheduling, Programming); General Program Operations (Youth Programs etc.); Sup- port to Community Groups; Marketing; Policy Develop- ment (Fees and Charges etc.) Alternative Models Considered Inter Municipal Agreements (By laws) were considered along with Regional District Arrangements and Indepen- dent Facility Operating Agreements. Inter Municipal Agreements currently in place in North Vancouver and Matsqui/Abbotsford were studied in detail as the pre- ferred model. This alternative was selected as it was felt by the Committee to provide the two Councils with an acceptable level of control and the greatest potential benefit to the residents.' Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 2 Executive Summary (cont'd.) Benefits The Committee researched the benefits of Parks and Leisure Services in general as well as the benefits of a joint delivery system. In the first instance documented evidence was presented on the personal, social, eco- nomic and enviromnental benefits of ensuring ad- equate parks and leisure services are available (appendix "H").The benefits of working together included; 1. Equal access for residents to all facilities and programs in both communities (without restric tion) 2. Improved public service and consistent stan dards of service from a single parks and leisure service agency, 3. A larger technical support base for Pitt Meadows residents and Council 4. Coordinated service planning and delivery which avoids duplication and; 5. Cost savings ($302,000 per year for Pitt Meadows in 2002 and $140,000 per year for Maple Ridge assuming implementation of both master plans over the next ten years). Recommendations 1. That the two Councils, the Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation Commission and School Board endorse the proposal in principle and instruct the Committee to obtain public input on the report recommendations prior to final consideration and the development of a legal agreement. 2. That the proposal include an Inter Municipal form of agreement featuring: a) A Parks and Leisure Services Commission comprised of three members of each Council including both Mayors as well as a representative of the School Board, b) An Advisory Committee made up of citizens appointed by the Commission, c) No weighted voting, d) Limited capital cost sharing, e) Shared operating costs based on population, f) The Commission being established as an independent employer and; g) Support services being contracted at cost by the Commission to Maple Ridge. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - Page 3 ( Introduction Both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows have recently completed Parks , Recreation and Cultural Master Plans and both of these plans emphasized the neces- sity (given limited resources) of the two municipali- ties working more closely together to meet the short and long term leisure needs of area residents. Strong recommendations were made in both documents sug- gesting that a joint leisure services function should be explored. The timing was felt to be particularly im- portant since Pitt Meadows does not currently have any parks and recreation staff and will require addi- tional staff support in order to implement master plan recommendations. The arguments were simple ..:that money could be saved and services maximized if both municipal government�c, ponied their recn»rcceg for parks and recreation. Many examples of this kind of relationship already exist in B.C. and across North America for the reasons noted above. There are many local examples of other services for which similar decisions have already been reached. A single R.C.M.P. Detachment, School District 42 and well over one hundred community organizations provide services to residents in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Historically Pitt Meadows residents have comprised between 15% and 20% of the participation in leisure services pro- vided by Maple Ridge over the past several years. In the Fall of 1991 an investigative committee was formed to explore the possibility of establishing a joint parks and leisure services function. Representa- tives of both Councils, the Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation Commission, the public at large and key personnel were appointed to the committee. Repre- sentatives from School District 42 were appointed later on in the process in 1992. The committee's terms of reference were developed cooperatively by both municipal councils and are contained in appendix "A" to the report. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 4 Methodology Several Steps were identified as being appropriate both in the terms of reference and during early committee meet- ings. Steps one through six involved numerous meetings of the committee which were carried out from September 1991 to November 1992. These are described below: 1. Complete a review of both Parks, Recreation and Cultural Master Plans, along with a review of current operations and determine which operations within the parks and recreation function ought to be shared. The committee members were each provided with copies of the plans and met collectively with the author , Brian Johnston to explore this subject. The result was a report and recommendation for further investiga. tion endorsed by both Councils (Appendix "B"). 2. Conduct an investigation of joint delivery models in B. C. A survey was completed includ- ing the collection of pertinent by laws and agree ments ( Appendix "C") and was followed up by a committee meeting to discuss the pros and cons of each arrangement and establish the type of agreement preferred by the committee. A bylaw agreement between two municipalities was pre ferred to a regional district approach and to the approach used by Langley City and District where they have established separate agreements for each shared facility. 3. Conduct interviews with the various partners to the agreements now in place in Matsqui/ Abbotsford and in North Vancouver (between the City > District). These were carried out by a sub committee and involved discussions with politicians and staff in both cases. The sub commit tee then prepared recommendations for consider ation by the larger group as to the preferred arrangement (Appendix "D") Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 5 Methodology (cont' d.) 4. Review the subcommittee recommendations and establish the committee's recommendations on structure.This process involved several meet ings, including a briefing meeting with the School Board and a second meeting with Brian Johnston and Ken Yates. It also involved the review of two papers on the Parks Maintenance Function (Appendix "F"). 5. Review the financial aspects of the proposal. A report was prepared and circulated and is included in appendix "E". 6. Review the draft report and consider the next steps in the process. The committee made amendments to the draft report and discussed the next steps. 7. Brief both Councils, the School Board and the Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation Commis sion. If endorsed proceed to next step. If not request further instructions.* 8. Hold Public Information Meetings and record public input. If generally endorsed pro ceed to next step. If not review input and consider alternatives with Council/School Board/Commis sion Involvement. * 9. Draft and adopt the Legal Agreement/By law. The time frame for this is unknown.* 10. Disb conunittee, form Joint Commis sion implement the agreement. * *Note: Steps seven to ten are proposed to be carried out during 1993. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 6 Shared Services The first report prepared to address this subject is contained in appendix "B" and was presented to both Councils and the Maple Ridge Commission for their review and endorse- ment. Although other areas seemed clear the subject of park maintenance was addressed at some length later on in the review. The two papers included in appendix "F" were considered and the earlier decision that this function should be shared was reaffirmed. In short the committee agreed that the following functions/services should be part of a joint parks and leisure services model; 1. Public Open Space (Planning, Development, Maintenance, Scheduling) 2. Recreation Facilities (Planning, Development, Maintenance, Scheduling, Programming) 3. Program Development (Youth, Seniors, etc.) 4. Support to Groups (Leadership Development, Fund raising, Planning, etc.) 5. Marketing 6. Policy Development It is of importance to note in any discussion of shared services that both municipalities recognize the extremely important role played by community organizations, other agencies and the private sector in the provision of many recreation services. The committee agreed that this is a priority and should be supported and encouraged to con- tinue no matter what arrangement is arrived at between the two municipalities. Itis the goal of the committee and both municipalities (as stated in their master plans) to ensure the present level of voluntaryism is retained and, where pos- sible, expanded in the future. Several times during the discussions the subject of School District grounds maintenance was raised as another func- tion which should be considered. The committee members felt it was likely there were benefits to be gained by a single agency maintaining/managing all sport fields. However, it was determined that a separate agreement would be re- quired between the School District and a new Ridge Mead- ows Parks and Leisure Services Commission to implement such a change. \ 1 Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 7 Alternative Models Considered Types off Agreements A survey was completed of several municipalities involved in joint leisure service models. They responded to several questions and provided copies of the pertinent legal docu- ments which describe their arrangements. All of this infor- mation is contained in appendix "C". There were three types of agreements reviewed: 1. Inter Municipal Agreements (An agreement between two municipalities in the form of a bylaw adopted by both). 2. Regional District Agreements (Where parks and recreation is a regional district function agreed to by all parties) 3. independent Facilities Agreements (Where two parks and recreation departments exist and contract with each other on the operation of those facilities which benefit both) The pros and cons of each were recorded in the minutes of the committee's November 7th, 1991 meeting (appendix "G"). The second option was ruled out largely because the Councils would not have final authority over the budget and would, in effect, have less control than in the other options. The third option was problematic in that it still resulted in there being duplicate parks and recreation administrations and a fragmented standard of service. Standardized levels of Service The primary advantage of the first option was felt to be that there is a single administrative function and a standardized level of service across the two communities. Another advantage is the control the Councils have over the annual budget since it requires approval from both.A drawback is that the budget will be set at funding the level of service acceptable to both Councils which may be higher or lower than the present standard. In fact a level of service re- quested by one Council would not be provided unless it is approved by the other (or funded 100% by the former). Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 8 Alternative Models Considered (cont' d.) Two Inter Municipal Options Within the Inter Municipal Category the committee ex- plored two arrangements. The fust is presently in place in Matsqui/Abbotsford and the second is in North Vancouver. Both arrangements work well according to the parties involved although in each case there were some minor issues on which they were working. The committee investigated these two models more inten- sively by following up with a visitation to each area, since they were favored following the initial review. The sub committee that attended these meetings spoke to Council members, Municipal staff and Recreation Commission staff as well as "at large" appointees (in North Vancouver). Commission /Advisory Committee Structure The primary difference between the two is the make up of the Commission. In North Vancouver the Commission includes one Council member and one at large appointee from the City, two Councillors and two appointees from the District, a School Trustee and a representative of the Advisory Committee. In Matsqui/Abbotsford the Commis- sion is made up of the Mayor and two Councillors from each municipality plus three School Trustees. The Commission in North Vancouver is supported by an advisory committee as well which is made up of umbrella group representatives. Matsqui/Abbotsford advisory committees are only formed on an ad hoc basis for specific projects. Each of the two models has its strengths and weaknesses which were abundantly debated during committee meet- ings. To be more specific, it was felt that the strength of the North Vancouver model was its community involvement and avoidance of political parochialism, while the Matsqui/ Abbotsford model was felt to offer an appropriate forum for several members of the two Councils to come together regularly to establish leisure service standards and policies. This was felt to be positive in that it avoids an arms length debate happening from separate Council tables which could damage the partnership. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 9 Alternative Models Considered (cont'd.) The Commission as an Independent Employer Another significant feature of both models is that the Commission is an independent employer. This avoids the potential for employees being caught between the Com- mission and the Municipality which is the employer of record if there is ever a serious conflict between the two. There was considerable discussion of this subject at the October 22nd, 1992 meeting (see appendix "G") with a consensus being reached by the committee that the Com- mission should be an independent employer with support services contracted to Maple Ridge to take full advantage of the potential cost savings (Le. Personnel, Information Services, Finance and Fleet Management etc.). It was also noted that being an independent employer would ensure the residents of both municipalities recognize the staff are working for them and not for one of the partners first and the other second. If independence is not possible to the degree described then strong public imaging would be required to avoid this problem. Labour Relations It was recognized that discussions would have to take place with the Canadian Union of Public Employees on this approach since both Municipalities operate with the same CUPE local but separate bargaining units. A satisfactory arrangement which would support the concept of the Commission as a separate employer and recognize the seniority of current employees in each of these bargaining units (as is presently the case)would have to be achieved. The committee also suggested that any clause in the agreement between the two municipalities which allows for the partners to opt out would have to address how the labour relations issues are to be handled/shared under these circumstances. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 10 Benefits Benefits of Parks and Recreation The benefits of Parks and Recreation have been well documented in a recent publication of the same name which is included in this report as appendix "H". The booklet provides documented evidence in support of several "benefit" statements a few of which are listed below; 1. Personal Benefit Regular physical activity is one of the very best meth- ods of health insurance for individuals.Active Living, 'generally through the opportunity of Leisure, is directly related to personal health ( physical, social and mental). Leisure provides the opportunity to lead balanced lives, achieve our full potential and gain life satisfaction.The skills we develop through discretionary activity, lei- sure and personal avocations build confidence, self- PetPPm, trentalhealth and feeiings of su ss. 2. Social Benefits Leisure opportunities for youth provide positive life- style choices and alternatives to self-destructive behav- ior. Youth that enjoy full and active lives are much less likely to turn to self-destructive behavior (e.g. drug abuse, suicide). Recreation/adventure activities help build confidence and self esteem in youth. When they feel good about themselves they operate more effec- tively and productively in our communities, families and schools. Parks and open spaces bring beauty to an area while giving people satisfaction and improving their quality of life. People need the diversity provided by natural spaces interspersed within an urban setting. Such diver- sity provides aesthetic value by adding color and beauty and contributes to health and well being. Integrated and accessible leisure services are critical to the quality of life of people with a disability and disadvantaged individuals. Increasingly, individuals who have been previously institutionalized are capable of reentering community life. Leisure provides the opportunity for others to get to know and support them while they are developing key life skills. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 11 Benefits (cont' d.) 3. Economic Benefits Leisure provides opportunities for community involve- ment and shared management and ownership of re- sources. Community run volunteer supported services are cost effective and responsive. Pay now or pay more later! Investment in Recreation as a preventive health service makes sense. Physical and mental health achieved through recreation and balanced life-styles reduces expensive health care costs. 4. Environmental Benefits Investing in the environment through parks and the provision of open space in residential areas leads to an increase in neighbourhood property values through ac- cessibility to environmentally friendly green spaces and associated recreation opportunities. Parks and Recre- ation Departments can provide education about the protection and preservation of natural areas and the appropriate use of outdoor resources. Benefits of workin together 1. Benefits of equal access Residents will benefit from having equal access to facilities in both communities (no delayed registration or non resident fees). 2. Public Service Benefits Residents from both communities will also benefit from having to deal with only one agency for such items as facility bookings, program registration, leisure counsel- ling, etc. and will not have to contend with varying standards of seice. 3. Technical Resource Benefits Pitt Meadows residentswill also benefit from having access to a large technical support base. Collectively personnel in the Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation Department have over one hundred years of experience working in the Leisure Services, field and hold degrees and diplomas in Recreation Administration, Horticul- ture, Maintenance Management, Biological Science, Physical Education, Kinesiology, Sports Medicine, Therapeutic Recreation, Youth Work, Volunteer Man- agement, Gerontology and Aquatics. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 12 Cost Saving Benefits Figure One Average Parks and Leisure Services Annual Operating Cost Per Capita $70 – $60 j $50 – $40 U $30 – g $20 – $10 – $0 — Pitt Meadows 1992 Annual Operating Cost Per Capita - Current `vY'riJ).v JYN40YOtiG..� Maple BC Mun. BC Mun. MR/PM Ridge over 5000 5000- Combined 1992 pop.- 15000 1989 pop. 1989 $80 $60 U 8 $40 A $20 . $o Annual Operating Cost Per Capita 2002 Assuming Parks, Recreation and Cultural Plan Implementation Pitt Meadows Independent 2002 :r; ---I Maple Ridge MR/PM Joint Independent System 2002 2002 *Note: The savings per year in 2002 from a joint system are estimated to be $302,000 for Pitt Meadows and $140,000 for Maple Ridge. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 13 Benefits (cont'd.) 3 Technical Resource Benefits (cont'd.) Other staff have specialized trades training in car- gentry, refrigeration and electrical work while sup- port Departments provide expertise in purchasing, computer technology, personnel and financial man- agement. Several staff have also chaired and par- ticipated in provincial and national committees on the leading edge of the leisure services industry. 4. Benefits of Coordinated Planning/Services Planning facilities and services through one agency will ensure the avoidance of unnecessary duplica- tion and best possible use of available resources. For example the ultimate development of an aquat- ics facility in Pitt Meadows should be completed with consideration for how it will fit with and complement the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre's program delivery. Sport field development and planning for a performing arts facility to serve the entire area should also be coordinated. Additional examples are evident in the area of program ser- vices. For instance youth and senior's programs operating in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge should be able to coordinate special events and out trips more easily. 5. Cost Saving Benefits A brief report on the cost effectiveness of working together has been prepared and is included in appendix "E" to the report. In summary it identifies the 1989 average leisure services cost per capita in B.C. communities over 5000 population ($62.00) and the average cost per capita for communities between 5000 and 15000population ($64.00). Fig- ure One (previous page) compares these figures to the 1992 figures for Maple Ridge ($57.00) and Pitt Meadows ($22.00). It also identifies the average cost if the present costs were simply added to- gether and shared over the entire Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows population ($50.00), as well as the costs per capita ten years from now for the two commu- nities operating independently (P.M.- $77.00✓ M.R.- $61.00) .R:$61.00) and together ($59.00) assuming full implementation of the Parks, Recreation and Cul- tural Plan recommendations for both communities. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 14 Benefits (coned.) 5. Cost Saving Benefits (cont'd.) Since Pitt Meadows has not had a full service system it is difficult to justify a joint services model as being cost effective compared to their present costs. However, there is no question that substantive savings can be achieved by working together if Pitt Meadows wants to bring the, standard of service up to levels comparable to other communities of similar size and implement the recom- mendations in their Parks, Recreation and Cultural Plan. A detailed review of service priorities will be required to establish the precise costs involved over time. Since the public expectation will include new services in Pitt Mead- ows immediately the cost of these will have to be added to the shared cost of simply combining our two current operations. The number of joint delivery systems which already exist both locally and across the continent provide ample evidence that they can and do work and that they are cost effective. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 15 Recommendations The following recommendations have been debated at length by the committee and represent the consensus of the group. They are felt to reflect the most appropriate joint parks and leisure services model for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and are based on a primary recommendation to proceed with the process and develop an agreement. The investigative committee believes a joint service is in the long term best interest of the residents of the two communities, particularly in light of the substantial ben- efits of an effective recreation delivery system (Appendix "H"), and recommends that both Councils consider enter- ing into an agreement which incorporates the following key elements; 1. A Parks and Leisure Services Commission which is made up of the Mayor and two Councillors from each municipality and one School Trustee . The Chair would be elected annually by the Commission members. This is intended to respond to the requirement for signifi- cant political involvement. 2. An Advisory Committee to the Commission with ap- pointees from a broad cross section of the public ap- pointed by the Commission .One or two members of the Commission would attend Advisory Committee meetings in a liaison capacity. This provision is intended to ensure a continuing opportu- nity for community input. 3. No weighted voting. Weighted voting was discussed and not felt to be required by the committee Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services -An Investigative Report - page 16 Recommendations (cont'd.) 4. Limited capital cost sharing. Some capital cost sharing may be required such as the initial purchase of additional equipment required to service both municipalities (such as specialized turf management equipment). The cost of building facilities which serve the combined population and are not likely to be duplicated in both municipalities (such as a performing arts facility) may also make some sense and it was not felt to be appropriate to entirely rule out this type of sharing. Both the Matsqui/Abbotsford Commission and the North Vancouver Commission recommended against complete capital cost sharing to avoid ownership conflicts if the partnership were to dissolve. It was particularly important to avoid the requirement of having to pass a referendum in both municipalities if the proposed facility is to be located at some distance from one of the two partners. Another key element of any agreement would have to be a clear defini- tion of what constitutes a capital expenditure as opposed to a maintenance expense. 5. Sharing all operating costs based on population. This was felt to be the simplest and fairest approach to cost allocation. 6. The Commission being established as an independent employer accountable to the taxpayers through Council representation on the proposed Commission. The reasons for this recommendation were addressed in the last section of the report. 7. Support services being contracted at cost by the Coma mission from Maple Ridge (i.e..Financial Managemen1, Personnel, Information Services , Fleet Management etc.) This duplicates the arrangements in Matsqui/Abbotsford and North Vancouver. The services are provided at a predetermined cost and included in the Commission's operating budget. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report - page 17 Next Steps The methodology of the project was explored in an earlier section of the report which referred to the steps the committee feels should be considered over the next few months. Following a review and endorsement or amend- ment by the Commission, the School Board and the two Councils the proposal involves holding at least two public meetings to obtain further input. Alternatively, or addition- ally, the Councils may wish to conduct a random survey to obtain the views of the public in response to the recom- mended parameters of the arrangement. Once sufficient public input is obtained and providing it is positive the Administrators of both Municipalities should be asked to turn their attention to the implementation phase, which would involve the development of a legal agreement as well as a transition schedule and procedure. Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services -An Investigative Report - page 18 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of the 22 day of July 2008. BETWEEN AND: THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, of 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 OF THE FIRST PART THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PITT MEADOWS, 12007 Harris Road, Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2B5 OF THE SECOND PART (hereinafter collectively called "the Municipalities") WHEREAS: A. The Municipalities are authorized under the .Local Government Act to provide for Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services; B. The Municipalities are further authorized under sections 14.1,14.2, 14.3 and 154.1 of the community charter to enter into an agreement for a joint function with other municipalities and to establish a joint parks and recreation commission; and C. The Councils of the Municipalities have agreed to enter into a formal agreement on the delivery, of parks, leisure and cultural services in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATTON of the mutual promises in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: • 1 Definitions 1. In this Agreement: (a) "Cost Allocation Formula" shall mean the division of costs among the Municipalities on a percentage basis, pro -rata on the basis of their populations determined annually by the Provincial Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations (BC Statistics Branch), noting that the population estimates provided in one year shall be utilized to establish cost sharing in the following year; (b) "Facilities" shall include those parks, buildings and lands with or without improvements as identified on Schedule "A" attached hereto, which schedule may be amended with the mutual consent of both Municipalities; "Commission" shall mean the joint parks and recreation commission established by resolution by each Municipality and shall be known as the 'Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services Commission'; (d) "Operating Costs" shall mean the total of the net operating expenses calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for municipalities and should be reviewed annually by the auditors for the District of Maple Ridge. A schedule of net operating expenses should be prepared annually and presented in a review engagement report. Such costs shall generally include direct department administration plus overhead for indirect support (office space/computer services/financial services/works yard support and personnel services) calculated at 4.5% of the net total operating costs; "Net Operating Expenses" shall mean all expenses related to services provided by the Commission net of revenues derived therefrom. (0) (e) "Capital Costs" shall mean: (i) those costs related to the purchase and replacement of equipment for which both Councils agree to provide funding and will share ownership and; (ii) those expenditures which exceed $5,000 for new facilities or for improvements to existing facilities or for equipment and facility infrastructure which is replaced on a cycle of five years or more. For the purposes of this Agreement capital costs shall not include routine preventative maintenance expenses of any type which may exceed $5,000 which are completed on a cycle of less than five years nor computer hardware and software costs which shall be treated as operating expenses. (f) "Parks, Leisure and Cultural Services" shall mean those functional areas of service listed below: Public Open Space (including public horticulture areas, trails, boulevards, street trees, parks greenbelts acquired and developed in accordance with standards defined in Schedule "A" to this agreement and not including Cemeteries and Golf Courses) (a) Planning (the process of community consultation and design) 2 (b) Development (the process of construction and contract administration related thereto) (o) Maintenance ( the ongoing maintenance of the asset required to facilitate public use but not including lifecycle replacements of equipment or furnishings) (d) Scheduling/Coordination (the process of managing bookings and user group requests, facilitating group meetings and all other processes related thereto) (e) Managing business arrangements and leasing etc. For clarity maintenance shall not include litter pick up or emptying garbage receptacles on boulevards or municipal streets. Recreational Facilities (including historic sites and museums and not including public libraries) (a) Planning (b) Development (c) Maintenance (d)Scheduling/Coordination (e) Managing business relationships and leasing etc. Organizational Services (a) Program Development and Delivery (i.e. Youth, Seniors, Cultural Activities, etc.) (includes community consultation, program design, staff and volunteer recruitment, training and supervision, contract negotiation and management where appropriate, and all other processes incidental thereto) (b) Support to Community Groups (includes Leadership Development, Organizational Development, Fee for Service Agreement Development and negotiation, Promotion, etc.) (c) Marketing (d) Fund-raising (e) Policy Development (f) Customer Service (includes research, the provision of timely information, processing admissions processing registrations, completing facility booking contracts and providing support to the public utilizing services at Commission facilities and programs including customers with special needs). For clarity this list does not include Emergency Response Planning, which is covered under a separate agreement, nor does it include Social Planning functions or any services related to social planning (i.e. Homelessness, social housing, family counselling, etc ). It is noted that a limited amount of liaison with social service groups is necessary to effectively refer clients who have needs other than those related to Parks and Leisure Services to the appropriate agencies. 3 Commission 2, The Commission shall be comprised of the following members: (a) three members of each Council including both Mayors, (b) three members of the School District No. 42 Board of Trustees including the Chair, and (c) six citizens at large members two of whom shall reside in Pitt Meadows and four of whom shall reside in Maple Ridge to be appointed by the Councils of the communities in which they reside. 3. All members of the Commission shall have the privilege of full participation in the discussion and debate on the matters placed before it and will also have the right to place motions on the floor for consideration in accordance with standard rules of order, and all members shall be entitled to vote on matters placed before the Commission. 4. The Commission shall (a) function as an independent policy making body; (b) have operating authority for the provision of parks, leisure and cultural services and for entering into agreements and contractual obligations within the limitations of approved budgets in accordance with the authority delegated to the Commission by bylaws adopted by both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Councils. (c) have authority to spend money within a budget approved by the Municipalities. (d) utilize the services of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows staff and various contractors as deemed appropriate to deliver services noting that the District of Maple Ridge shall be the primary employer of staff resources; (e) establish such ad hoc committees as may be required from time to time to provide the Commission with advice on specific policies, proposals and initiatives; (f) elect a Chair from among its members each year in February who shall preside over the proceedings of all meetings of the Commission for the corning year (g) elect a Vice Chair from among its members each year in February to preside over the meetings of the Commission for the coming year if the Chair is absent. (h) submit to the Municipalities by the first of October each year the business and financial plan for operating costs and capital costs for Parks and Leisure Services; (i) meet a minimum of one time each month with the exception of the month of August; 0) forward minutes of all meetings to both Councils, provide regular reports of the activities of the Commission to each of the Councils every three months and submit an Annual report before the end of April each year for the prior year; and 4 (k) enter into an agreement of cooperation with School District No. 42 which addresses such issues as the reciprocal use of facilities, the joint maintenance and development of combined sites and coordination of program services. Municipalities 5. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the Councils of the Municipalities shall: (a) review all business and financial plans submitted by the Commission and approve the level of operating funding for the current calendar year determined to be appropriate by the Councils by the third Monday in January; and provide final approval by May 15th in each year; (b) review and indicate preliminary approval or disapproval of additional operating funds for all proposals by the Commission for new parks and facilities constructed in either municipality in advance of said parks and facilities being finally designed and constructed during the annual review of the business and five year financial plan and thereby authorize the addition of such parks and facilities to Schedule "B' of this agreement; (0) consider all other matters listed in Schedule "C" to this agreement. 6. It is acknowledged that both parties have adopted the appropriate bylaws under section 176 (1) (g) and 191 of the Local Government Act to delegate the authority outlined in this agreement to the Commission and have adopted such other bylaws as may be required to give effect to the Agreement. Withdrawal by Municipality 7. Either Municipality may withdraw from this Agreement by giving notice in writing to the other Municipality, not less than twelve months prior to the effective date of the withdrawal. 8. In the event of withdrawal by either Municipality, the Municipalities acknowledge that the District of Maple Ridge may have surplus staff who were hired to fulfill the terms of this Agreement, The District of Pitt Meadows agrees to make every effort to employ staff originally hired by Maple Ridge to provide services in Pitt Meadows who would otherwise be displaced by such a withdrawal, and in the event that Pitt Meadows initiates the withdrawal from the agreement, to pay the District of Maple Ridge the cost of any severance pay or other damages due to those who cannot be relocated in this fashion. The distribution of shared capital assets which have been purchased jointly by the Municipalities shall be negotiated at the time of withdrawal. Such distribution shall be based on the original capital investment and the current value of the asset of each Municipality at the time of purchase. 5 Review 9. This Agreement shall be reviewed every three years. The review shall include survey research to confirm consistent levels of satisfaction by residents in both communities. It shall also include a review of operating costs similar to that provided in the 2002 review report on this subject and a review with each Council of the terms of the agreement. • New Facilities and Parks 10. Nothing in this Agreement precludes either Municipality from incurring capital expenditures related to the provision of Parks and Leisure Services. Such capital expenditures may be incurred for such items as park development or facility construction, but shall not be limited to such items. Such capital expenditures will be funded by the Municipality which will own the capital asset. 11. Cost sharing, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement for the operating costs of new facilities must be approved by the Councils of the Municipalities in the process of considering the Commission's annual business and financial plan. If not approved by both Councils the Council constructing the facility shall determine if it wishes to operate the facility independently by covering 100% of the operating costs related to the facility. Payment of Operating and Capital Costs 12. The City of Pitt Meadows agrees to pay to the District of Maple Ridge its share of operating and agreed upon shareable capital costs for each calendar year which share shall be determined by multiplying the approved budget by the Cost Allocation Formula. As at the date of this Agreement the City of Pitt Meadows' share of the costs as determined by such formula is approximately 19.57% of the total costs and the Municipalities understand and agree that the exact percentage may vary from year to year depending upon the populations of the Municipalities as established by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations (BC Statistics Branch) in its official population estimate in the year previous to the budget year in question. 13. The City of Pitt Meadows will remit to Maple Ridge payments on a semi-annual basis (March 31 for the period January 1 to June 30 and September 30 for the period July 1 to December 31) for the City of Pitt Meadows' share of the costs based on the approved financial plan. The actual costs incurred shall be identified at year end and the difference between the amount paid and the actual assessment shall be remitted by Pitt Meadows following receipt of an invoice for that amount. Conversely should the actual operating costs be less than anticipated Maple Ridge will issue a refund cheque for the difference between the actual cost incurred and the amount paid in advance The City of Pitt Meadows hereby agrees to pay its share of the costs to the District of Maple Ridge on the above noted schedule and in the event of delays to pay interest on any outstanding amounts at the current Bank prime rate of interest. To the extent that the District of Maple Ridge operating cost includes severance benefits accrued prior to the initiation of this agreement in 1994 those costs shall not be considered shareable in the financial plan. 6 14. The City of Pitt Meadows will invite the General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation or his/her designate to participate fully as a member of the District of Pitt Meadows Corporate Management Team and the General Manager or designate shall make every effort to participate in the activities of the Corporate Management Team, to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration where possible. Insurance 15. Each Municipality shall be responsible for insuring its properties against loss and for its own liability insurance. The cost of such insurance, including the cost of claims shall be funded by the Municipality owning the property.. Only the costs for property insurance and insurance related to the fleet of vehicles utilized for the delivery of parks and leisure services shall be shareable. Differential Development Standards 16. Where higher standards for neighbourhood parks and landscaping than those identified in the 2002 Master Plan for Parks Recreation and Culture are applied to new residential development (after the date of this agreement) the ongoing maintenance costs for higher standard amenities shall be borne by the Municipality in which the development is situated possibly through a specified area levy or other mechanism selected by that Municipality. For clarity with respect to Park Standards Schedule "A" shall apply Water Charges 17. As water charges are not currently assessed to public facilities or parks in both municipalities water charges shall not be shareable. Once and if water charges are applied in both communities they shall be included as shareable operating costs for the purposes of this agreement. General Provisions 18. No amendment or alteration to this Agreement, and no waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and sealed on behalf of all Parties to the Agreement. 19. Whenever the singular or masculine is used the same shall be construed as meaning the plural, feminine or body corporate or politic wherever the context or the parties so require. 20. This Agreement and every provision hereof shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, as the case may be. 21. Should any provision of this Agreement be or become illegal, invalid or not enforceable, it shall be considered separate and severable from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in force and be binding upon the parties hereto and be enforceable to the fullest extent of the law. 7 Execution Date: THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE by its authorized signatories. Y M D Party(ies) Signature(s) 20:lD1lz8 orporate Officer RONALD DAVID RIACH CORPORATE OFFICER THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PITT MEADOWS by its authorized signatories: • Corporate Officer Laurie Darcua Director of Legislative Services SCHEDULE "A" Parks and Open Space Development and Maintenance Standards The standards shall include the following definitions which are intended to define the base standard which will be applied in both communities as new areas are developed, to ensure consistency with respect to the fair distribution of costs and services. The intent is to ensure the standard in all or part of one community which is being sustained through general revenue fund support from both communities is not greater than the standard in the other community unless funding from other sources is derived to maintain the increased standard. • Base Standard The base standards with respect to the acquisition, development and the resulting maintenance of parks, open space and trails are those defined from pages 63 to 70 in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Master Plan for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows (attached). These standards have been applied consistently in each of the two communities for several years. For clarity landscaped medians and pocket landscaped areas on public property adjacent to arterial roads and entrances to the two municipalities are considered part of the base standard. • Not Included in Base Standard With respect to new development undertaken from 2002 onward the base standard does not include tot lots in small lot developments which are essentially replacing the typical tot lots in strata controlled townhouse developments (which are maintained by the strata corporations). It will also not include landscaped entry areas to new subdivisions or landscaped boulevards in subdivisions which cannot be maintained by adjacent owners. Nor will the base standard include neighbourhood seating areas close to mail boxes or any pockets of landscaping within subdivisions. Should developers wish to implement these higher standards (or be required to do so by the Municipality in which the subdivision is located) an estimate for annual maintenance will be prepared by the Parks and Facilities Department and forwarded to the Planning Department dealing with the subdivision. A specified area bylaw will then be put in place to require annual payments on the tax notice to cover the increased cost of maintenance To the extent possible such bylaws should provide for inflation over time Alternatively the Municipality in which the higher standard is applied may choose to cover the cost through some other means. • Street Trees and Boulevard Areas With respect to street trees and boulevard areas which are contiguous with privately owned property adjacent property owners will be required by bylaw to maintain grassed boulevards and should be restricted from doing anything to street trees to avoid differential maintenance and damage to the integrity of the street tree pattern Street Tree maintenance is considered part of the base standard. • Greenbelts Maintenance on greenbelts established to protect watercourses and other natural features should be minimal with the exception of danger tree management (removal if required) and trail maintenance where a designated trail comprises part of an approved trail network. Trails which are ancillary to a housing subdivision and not part of the larger Municipal trail network shall be dealt with in similar fashion to the tot lots mentioned previously in this schedule. Major stream enhancement shall not be considered as part of the base standard of parks maintenance but shall be considered part of each individual municipality s environmental protection/enhancement efforts. 9 SCHEDULE "B" Facilities to be included in the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Agreement to be administered by the Commission through community organization fee for service agreements and leases private contracts or the Maple Ridge Parks and Community Services Division include but are not limited to: • All municipal, community and neighbourhood parks and all public horticultural and boulevard areas (including street trees) in the Municipalities • Maple Ridge Fairgrounds • all public walking and equestrian trails in the Municipalities (not roadside sidewalks or connector pathways in subdivisions) • all designated greenbelts in the Municipalities • all jointly operated school/park sites and facilities in the Municipalities • Maple Ridge Leisure Centre • Greg Moore Youth Centre • Maple Ridge Arts Centre and Theatre • Maple Ridge Curling Rink • Planet Ice Maple Ridge • Maple Ridge Art Gallery • Centennial Centre • Maple Ridge Museum • Pitt Meadows Museum • Hoffmann Garage • Haney House • St. Andrews Heritage Church • Hammond Pool • Harris Road Pool • Harris Road Field House • Pitt Meadows Recreation Hall • Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre • Pitt Meadows Rinks • Hammond Community Centre • Whonnock Community Centre • Maple Ridge Lawn Bowling Centre • Ridge Meadows Seniors Association Activity Centre 10 Schedule °C" Decisions which must be made by the Municipal Councils acting independently and in their sole discretion (with advice from the Commission) • Annual Operating Budgets • Long Terrn Financial Plans • Annual and Long Term Capital Plans • Parkland Acquisitions • Park and Facility Design Finalization • Parks and Facility Naming • Lease Agreements for Major Facilities (other than short term licensing agreements) • Capital Contracts (i e. Public Private Partnerships) • Adopting Bylaws (Land Use, etc.) • Matters related to the Joint Agreement such as negotiations having to do with the terms of the agreement including the addition or removal of services 11 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6668-2009 A Bylaw to delegate authority to a joint Parks and Leisure Services Commission for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows WHEREAS the Council may, by bylaw, delegate authority to a Parks and Leisure Services Commission;. AND WHEREAS a written agreement has been prepared setting out the terms and conditions of a Commission for Parks and Leisure Services in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Citation 1. This Bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services Commission By-law No.6668-2009." 2. That "Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services Commission By-law No.6568-2008" be repealed Interpretation 3. For the purposes of this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires, "Maple Ridge" means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge; "Municipalities" means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge and The Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows; 'Pitt Meadows" means The Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows. Joint Parks & Leisure Services Commission 4. Pursuant to Sections 176(1)(g) and 191 of the Local Government Act, Council hereby delegates authority to the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission" (the 'Commission") to carry out the duties defined in Section 8 below. 5. The Commission shall be comprised of the following members: (a) three members of each of the two Municipalities' Councils, including both Mayors; and (b) three members of the School District No. 42 Board of Trustees including the Chair (c) six citizens at large members two of whom shall reside in Pitt Meadows and four of whom shall reside in Maple Ridge. 6. The members of the Commission shall be appointed by resolution of the respective Council and Board. Citizens at Large representatives shall be appointed by the Council of the municipalities in which they reside and shall serve for three year terms and a maximum of three consecutive terms 7. Each member of the Commission will be entitled to vote on all matters coming before the Commission. 8. The members of the Commission shall serve without remuneration. Procedures 9. The Commission shall: (a) elect a Chair and Vice -Chair from among its membership at the first meeting of each year. All members of the Commission, including at large members, shall be eligible to be elected as Chair or Vice Chair. (b) meet a minimum of once a month unless otherwise determined by the Commission. Duties and Powers 10. The Commission shall (a) function as an independent policy making body; (b) have operating authority for the provision of parks, leisure and cultural services and for entering into agreements and contractual obligations within the limitations of approved budgets; (c) have authority to spend money within an annual budget approved by the Council for Maple Ridge and the Council for Pitt Meadows. (d) operate in accordance with an agreement entered into by the Districts of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. (e) submit to the Municipalities by the first of October each year the five-year financial plan for operating costs and capital costs (f) submit an annual report to the Municipalities by the end of May each year describing the activities of the previous year to the Council. (g) enter into an agreement of cooperation with School District No. 42 which addresses such issues as the reciprocal use of facilities, the joint maintenance and development of combined sits and coordination of program services. 11. As an exception to 10 (b) above the General Manager, Community Development, Parks and Recreation and the Director Parks and Facilities, or their designates, shall have the authority to enter into Caretaker Contracts. Other Committees 12. The Commission shall establish such ad hoc committees as may be required from time to time to provide the Commission with advice on specific policies, proposals and initiatives. READ a first time on the day of , 2009. READ a second time on the day of , 2009. READ a third time on the day of , 2009. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the day of , 2009. MAYOR CLERK program information while reducing the volume of printed material. • Continue pioneering new ideas for service and community building, and provide more "feel good" stones about successes to the media. • Expand research to include partners' programs and issues where possible; share research findings and insights. • Tap into the strength of the web sites of the two communities. • Use the viral marketing and word of mouth appeal, "buzz" effect, to communicate to the community on the benefits of the service blueprint, as the recommendations in the Marketing Plan are incorporated into daily facility operations, program planning and management. • Adopt stronger marketing practices to identify target markets and make sound decisions on product, price, place and promotions. • Continue the focus on an entrepreneurial approach to maximizing the marketing budget by forging strengthened relationships with the business community, considering revenue -bearing market opportunities and partnerships with businesses. • . Integrate community and sports groups into parks and leisure marketing. • Use stories to educate people introducing a system to collect and communicate the stories, as this might help to reach non -participants. • Generate awareness of Legacies Now efforts in coordinating a sports organization province -wide registration system. • Promote other good communication and organization strengthening vehicles. Operations • Increase the communications and marketing budget to at minimum 2.5% of the PLS budget. 7.9 Joint Delivery Description The joint delivery agreement between MR arid PM, which was developed in 1994, requires a 3 year review. There is also an internal annual review, and a financial review every 5 years. The last financial review (Dunwoody) indicated that the agreement was worth keeping. During this Master Plan process all focus groups and the public were asked for their input on the joint delivery system. Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge both continue to grow, and the new bridges will have major effects on land use, population and transportation. In general efforts are made to distribute services equitably between the two communities. The use of specific facilities is affected by the location of the various facilities and population..The random public survey conducted every three years assists in gauging public use and perceptions about.parks, recreation and culture services in the two communities • The annual business planning approach used by PLS results in an integrated plan for MR and PM; it is presented in two separate formats to suit the individual Councils. Analysis Strengths • The joint delivery agreement has worked remarkably well in general. En MAPLE RIDGE AND PITT MEADOWS PARKS RECREATION AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN - DRAFT JANUARY 25, 2010 122 • The public don't perceive a boundary between the two communities in terms of parks and recreation services they are unaware of any issues, and they are happy with the system. The public workshop and random telephone survey corroborate this; residents provided the same high service ratings in both communities. • Joint delivery is highly efficient, e.g., avoiding duplication of facilities and resources, larger base for programs, better facilities, better joint planning This was repeatedly stated by all focus groups. • The financial review, last completed in 2002, determined that the benefits of the system to the partners are greater efficiency and more specialized resources and expertise which are typical of a larger community the size of MR and PM's combined populations. • PLS staff don't perceive a boundary, and get along very well with staff at both communities. • Education, RCMP, sports, health, Chamber, and Rotary are also shared, therefore there is a precedent and others managing at this level. • The sports booking system works well as a joint system. Challenges • There are often challenges with this type of agreement, especially when the two parties do not carry equal weight, since neither party has full control. • Communication is critical with respect to any function which is shared between two municipalities. This has been emphasized by all of those involved in implementing the agreement. As the two communities grow larger this could become more challenging • Managers and coordinators have a higher workload in terms of reporting e.g., two Business Plans with different formats, grant applications, Municipal Advisory Report, duplicate systems and meetings; when Commission is involved they need to do their reporting three times. • There are differences in processes and philosophies between MR and PM Councils, which can challenge staff. • Many policies and procedures are different in each of the two communities, e.g. two separate budgets for capital costs, different procurement procedures, different signing authorities, different contracts with suppliers, different park closure times. • Physically and socially the two communities are different, e.g., different land bases, different economies (PM is mostly agriculture, flood threat heavy industry/transportation hub, strong identity especially among long-time residents; MR is on higher ground, has a different physical and cultural character). • PM would like a stronger relationship and closer day-to-day communication with PLS staff. • Programs may not be offered in both communities and transportation can make accessibility an issue. • Residents need to travel farther to facilities, and the transportation system doesn't support this; the drive time east / west can be long. • There are some challenges with the Agreement, e.g., anything requiring a bylaw (e.g., fees) needs to go to both Councils; some responsibilities are not specifically outlined, e.g., street trees, garbage parking lots. Strategic Objectives • Acknowledge the benefits of the joint delivery model and continue to work on improving it. • • MAPLE RIDGE AND PITT MEADOWS PARKS RECREATION AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN - DRAFT 1 2 3 JANUARY 25, 2010 Recommendations Process/Planning • Ensure that PM and RM have opportunities to express their unique identities, e.g., banners. Management • • Periodically demonstrate the benefits of joint delivery to both partners.. • Work with Commission and the two Councils to solidify one consistent reporting methodology. • Conduct a workshop every 3 years with the Commission, with a third party facilitator, to review and improve the joint delivery agreement and model. • Consider excluding some areas from joint delivery, based on unique requirements in the two communities, with the agreement of both parties, e.g., Museums. Establish criteria for those services which should not be delivered jointly, e.g. where the two communities want to provide divergent service levels • Review the role of the Commission with respect to achieving greater efficiency, e.g , strengthen Commission governance through methods such as reducing Council reporting to items outside of budget envelope, reducing items reported to both Commission and Councils. Continue to stress the importance of open and frequent communication at all levels, e.g., Councils, managers, foremen, and other staff, • Consider increased management staff in the Department to be located in. Pitt Meadows, located in or near Pitt Meadows Municipal Hall when and if the opportunity presents itself • Have cross team meetings with operational staff between Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, not just management. • Hold social functions withMaple Ridge and Pitt Meadows staff to build relationships and trust. 7.10 Operations Description Park maintenance requires a significant portion of the department's budget. Parks are maintained by the municipality in most areas For some small parks (e.g., Dewdney mini park, boulevards adjacent to park, and trails) there is a Local Service Area (LSA) established to contribute funds towards maintenance. If this isn't established in advance, it requires 70% approval of residents therefore it is best to establish LSAs before subdivision. Sawyers Landing has a LSA for the mini parks, and Maplecrest has one for a trail Harrison Landing Park is a concern since it requires a higher level of maintenance than anticipated, since it was originally planned as a more natural park The municipality maintains "OCP' trails; extra trails built by developers are maintained by the development. Others assist in park maintenance in particular cases. Some of the larger parks have a caretaker, e.g., Thomas Haney, Whonnock Lake proposal for one at Pitt Meadows Athletic Park. They live rent free, and they work in lieu of rent for a similar value An Adopt a Park program is in place to help with maintenance (e.g., trimming, litter, dog bags), however it has been difficult to retain interest in this. The Haney Horsemen maintain some trails, however they have trouble keeping up with demands and sometimes use contractors. Prison crews help with grass cutting near the airport, and at Albion Fairgrounds they n MAPLE RIDGE AND PITT MEADOWS PARKS RECREATIONAND CULTURE MASTER PLAN - DRAFT 1 2 4 fal JANUARY 25, 2010 E co z 2 U_ a) 0) N O J N C I (0 c • o ca O Po c o � o a) U) Y2 • E tw E 0 2 o Co m m iss i o n_Eva l u ati o n_200 9_R es u lts respond. hen input is not forthcoming it is solicited by the r Mike Murray. that at times the politics overtakes the meetings if the times. Dap what has been accomplished and it is see and hear the results. ilable to any CAL wishi bers should be provid responsibilities. o drag on. :imes debate gets off track and p into the stream. it was a good idea to have a Citi: etings ound information is always w cions. ,II e1 lE ri e 0 23 c a) ree Agree Disagree Disagree Comm Somewhat Somewhat _ _ C J v (...1 id 9 2 • E the C a)— 0:!) co :0 W V U) 1= =__= 2 O+'I— Q. in u) _ • • • ■ • • • a ■ a • a a a ■ [-I rI N CO N N d' to co 0) c -I to 0) a) CO if) CO e Commission plays a valuable role in Dviding advice to the Municipal �uncils. iinutes are produced in ently and provide •te and deliberation issues Commission in or follow up the Commission feel free to ' r opinion even if it is contrary ated point of view Ttatives feel free to discussion/debate at etings. ff provide all of the informati uired by the Commission to 1 rrmed decision ion mi pprop quate ective 0 Q. ca 0 a) Q. Q i) O (n a' 2 al S o !n 2 a U 2 (i Imo- iE ca co 0) ci N CO to (0 I` Co m m iss i o n_Eva l u ati o n_200 9_R es u lts E (0 z co 0 U __I 0 C C • O (0 cn (0 O W C (0 O 0 • N E 1D E Q 0 Commission_Eval uation_2009_Results been accomplished ana it is 3rthe results. C L co co co CL6 o +7L 10 a) ami CO - -0 -6 "6 O- C +-• 0 C t >, +_-� O •C4-1 . 0 a) tin 'a ❑. bA 0 0 Q. p bA i 'p C 0 C (n O O bLA 4-, I. 'CS 'Q C co, 0 = .. O .0 .� co +0-+ 0 (n U a) n3 E 0 o as C (0 j 0 } U 0 C 0 O a) _ 4-1 O' E N N C U O N (0 (QO Y J Q_ 6 X N Ct Q N_ -p In J o U (0n > 0 n5 0 +- ~ 'a 0 -,-_-4 0 N— ID C 0 1.0 N 0 a) 0 N co U) > O Te 0 "p N _ E O U E O C r3 Q E O° N 0 N Q. C i- i co (t) O _ U a) O 0 O O. U U i' i 'Q .0 (n ..Q N vp- O 71 CO co O O i N 0.....2 (n t "Q co O U) p Q. 5 (0 -0 C 0 O CL c 0 o CO aa (0 >0(13 4) 0 (n 0 U +0+ _ (n (n .0 -- (>6 -t-C) 0 O 0> co 'N 10.0 0 C C@ 0 O O .0 0 p O 'T O N -0 co On E i 4- n U (13 O y C .0 Q CO 2 Cr n E 0 C +O to 0 a (N6 Q. .�, 0 C FH E E 00 O!? 0 O O 0 f0 C C LO 0 — (n 0 v7 0 0+ N NCO Tao a) _ co 0 0 L V) (0 > 0 -0 cf3 y. 0 0 i- (i) t O �a)p C C n> 4- ocoE� � no coo-s�U(np0 (nom C -0 02 Q' SD ce., i' C 0 O U O +-+ E 49 4, 0 0 O .0 i 4- O_ 0 if.) 4p- ro O 0 Q"o o U 2 �+� E O co a00 � O� 0 E m E c� awi Y -04. _ 0 Q_ 0 0 C O E a) O— P2 0 to U -p C .Y C— 7— .N a) C ( a (n a) i C E L (`6 C > L �-+ 0 0 N Q C C O 0 m . +co E N-- 0 5 O E Cs Q w U— - Comm 2 +' F— c) a) o u) m 49 N= O H • • • • ■ • • • s • ■ • • • • • a) a ) L to (B (0 v) b Disagree Somewhat Somewl N CO N N d' In CO N a) E12 Q 07 rl ri (f) 0) c0 10 CD 0) a valuable role in Municipal Les are produced in Commission on or follow up information fission to make an ;ion feel free to n if it is contrary view es feel free to ussion/debate at -nbers are ate orientation ngoing training with the work and ;ommission over the el ku LO_ m E '.'� u) c° Qsa) m >.0 C . o o a) le Commission pl roviding advice to ouncils. agenda and m rely manner leetings are run e ufficient time for n the most impor taff are responsi\ aquests for inforn )vide all of I by the Co decision 0 0 0 E u) O L C :,AC and Cc provided wi and are giv `o do their i Q hi O :rail I a ;ctiven' vear 0 0 ui p U) 0 ° 1 E (3cE O .F., p U L. = c w Q U — r - F- at U F- 00 Z U) O (n i U) +- ri N (1) d t0 CO t� CO C Commission_Eval uation_2009_Results a) O 4-1 O. E a) -C bA E c 0) E E U 0 u) 0 c a) co a) CO O a) 0 O O 4-1 tin O 4-1 T 0 a (0 a) CL 6 tH mproved since last survey. More work to ormation items once they have been a) a) E of the Comm • are out of the respon "0 a) T (0 U 0 a O as - (n n3 •U c C c coO al U a) O C0 E c c i the appropriate venue the ms are dealt wi .0 U bA C 'O i C u) E bA CL U m O E 2 O > a a) E X 11) L O E C O O _C U u) N 4- a) E O O U U Q) a) 44 > U E E W o the minutes but no updates to previously of the time the discussions are just noted O 2 u) 444 idE 0)) "O 4) co c co O 0 C a) E > L n3 o h0 c N fa a) c E O as 0 0 CL" c a to E OE aO a) N O iU O u) at >, 4,4 E O C O co 4' O o o +' n3 s' O E (0;-+44-' C N C U OD O E a) a)) ac 0 O O N c ' U t C (3 (0 0 N 0 4 -- CO -n3 a) E a)`±- 42 Q C E U 0 E;(, 1) CSB n3 O C 4-1 4- .O E N C 00 u) 0 E (-0 0 O u) g0 ci o .n a) L 4-) 4' Eo o 1f=+ u) Co a) O > 0 u) n3 — .0 -O i C 4-- (r6 .°c >.E A > O O C a) \InO O 0 CZ a U Crn n5 o U ® 2 o O -c C La O co Q � co a) E _ o 0) co `' 4-E- (.6 C O +-+ > c O (0 0 0 0 0 o (0 0 EO to° a) N U n3 N C U > O 1 a) E 0 0 • • e comment: a O •=17 (0 E o 2 a O 12 bc0 O (0 E O O 4-1E fl 4J a) :-I O 0 E a) N C 1.10 O 0 > i u) Q) c Q a) a) 0 (0 O >-. U) c C n3 U O Q) a L_ E .O a) U 0 L -a a) c O C co 7.0 n3 4J to C Q. Es Uc C O a 2 a) m � a-+ COCO 14. 4-0 @ CD lap -1-1 (0 h0(0 CD Q) CL) a) aE E E o a) Q) O � a'c a) CO a) a Q C > O co :e co a) 4 C E 0U• U u) a u) o C c- Q O O C E c o O ()444 U L a) E + L O 40- (0 0 U ca co a) a) O 0 y O a O a a (0 a) L 0 0 O c a) .0 444 O 0 to 42 a c a O O E E+� O a) U O a c (0 N Commission so ofte a-' a) C E 0)) a) -C a u) O E C 0 U a) a O t c m 0 0) E E O U 0 a L a) .0 E a) E C L O U a) co >, O a) a) E 0) 4-1 a) c O z +' a) >, "0 0 m O c• a) O• C n3 .Y O 0 � a)0 a 0 alw 4' > -o co a (0 � 2 c ca 4L- 03 T C O CO O 4-1 C t3 -0 C a) nS C U_ co m .0 a O u) n3 0 0 O 021 N_ Y E E O. O U a) co a c 0 0) .0 a) n >J O o C it i_ a E O '� E E 7,2O U 0 >, o E C > Si? 'C6 O 0 i) a) (n E (oai E Q. 0 Commission Evaluation 2009 Results Jan -11-02 09:30am From-BDO Dunw; -4v LLP } 604-688-5137 T-757 P.02 F-431 Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge / Corporation of The District of Pitt Meadows Leisure Services Agreement: Final Draft Assessment Report Report Date: January 10, 2002 Jan -11-02 09:30am From-BDO Dunwoor'" LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.03 F-431 Table of Contents Page Assignment 1 Restrictions and Qualifications 2 Scope of Review and Assumptions 2 Background 2 Overall Findings 3 Summary of Major Recommendations 3 The Leisure Services Agreement: Recommendations 4 Additional Costs Arising from Different Maintenance Standards 5 Litter Pickup 7 Insurance 7 Severance Benefits 7 Planet Ice 7 Community Events / Water Charges 8 Parks and Recreation Support Services Allocation 9 Overhead Charge 10 Computer Software and Hardware 13 Other Facilities 15 Alternatives to a Detailed Cost Sharing Formula 15 Conclusion 16 Appendices Appendix A — Scope of Review Appendix B — Facilities included in Schedule A of the Agreement: No significant cost sharing concerns identified Jan -11-02 09:30am From-BDO Dunwoody LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.04/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY January 10, 2002 PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Corporation of The District of Maple. Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Dear Mesdames/Sirs: 14451 Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows 12007 Harris Road Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2135 RE: Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows Leisure Services Agreement Assignment 1. BDO Dunwoody LLP ("BDO") has been engaged by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge ("Maple Ridge") and the Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows ("Pitt Meadows"), collectively the ("Municipalities"), t� undertake an assessment_of the Leisure Services Agreement dated July 26, 1994 (the "Agreement") between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. 2. Our analysis was directed toward determining whether the Agreement provides for an equitable and efficient sharing of costs incurred and resources expended in providing the services included in the Agreement (the "Services"). Our report provides recommendations on how the Agreement might be modified in order to improve the ease of administration. We understand that this report may be reviewed and relied on by Council and District officials from both Municipalities 3. Our comments and recommendations are based on the information, documents and explanations that were provided to us and are subject to the restrictions, qualifications and assumptions noted in this report. Jan -11-02 09:31am From-BDO Dunwoody LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.05/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISC1JaSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 2 Restrictions and Qualifications 4. This report has been prepared expressly for officials of the Municipalities to assist them in evaluating administrative aspects of the Agreement. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for losses occasioned to the Municipalities or to any other party as a result of the circulation, publication, reproduction or use of this report contrary to the provisions of this paragraph. 5. Our analyses and comments are based on our understanding of the intent, structure and administration of the Agreement. We reserve the right, but will be under no obligation, to review our comments included in this report, and if we consider it necessary, to revise our report in light of any changes in the Agreement or any other information which becomes known to us subsequent to the date of this report. 6. Bill Cox, CA and Mark Weston, CA, both with BDO, were primarily responsible for this engagement and the contents of this report. The partners and employees of BDO do not have any bias with respect to the parties involved in this matter. Scope of Review and Assumptions 7. In preparing this report, we reviewed and relied on certain information summarized in Appendix A. Our comments and recommendations assume that this information is accurate and complete. Background 8. The Agreement established the Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services Commission (the "Commission"), a joint parks and recreation commission committed to creating opportunities for community pride, personal enjoyment and 'healthy lifestyles in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The Commission's mandate is to provide ongoing services in the areas of: - parks, open space and trails; historic sites; community events; sports; fitness and aquatic centres; youth and senior services; arts and culture; and community development. Jan -11-02 09:31am From-BDO Dunwoody LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.06/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFF — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 • Page 3 9. The Agreement defines the services and facilities administered by the Commission and the associated costs that are considered to be shareable, (the "costs"). The Agreement sets forth a cost allocation formula (the "formula") by which the Municipalities share the costs. Overall Findings 10. In general we found that the Agreement was beneficial to both Municipalities. The Municipalities seemed to be working well together and both understood and accepted the cost allocations. Although certain aspects of the Agreement were not entirely clear, methods have been jointly established by the Municipalities to address these. 11. The Agreement is not clear in certain areas, and in other areas creates an undue amount of administrative burden. Our following recommendations contain suggestions for both clarifying and streamlining the Agreement and the cost allocation process. We also discuss in the section, Alternatives to a Detailed Cost Sharing Formula, the possibility of' moving from a cost-sharing basis towards a cost -based fixed amount contract. Summary of Major Recommendations 12. The major recommendations included in this report are as follows: • An administrative charge for the planning and management of capital projects should not be made. • Parks and Recreation Services Department ("Parks and Recreation") staff time for planning and management of capital projects should be included as a shareable cost. • The 3% overhead charge is likely too low considering that it is meant to provide for the use of non -Parks and Recreation staff (Finance, Personnel, Information Services) as well as space occupied in the Maple Ridge business and operations centres. • With the exception of large, system -wide acquisitions (servers, networks, or point of sale software) both computer hardware and software costs, as well as related Jan -11-02 00:31am From-BDO Dunwood° 'lP 604-688-5132 - T-757 P.07/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page4 implementation costs, should be considered as shareable costs allocated in the year. expended. • Planet Ice Maple Ridge should not be treated differently than other recreation and leisure facilities. The net operating expense should be deemed a shareable cost. • Consideration should be given to a grant or fixed price contract approach based on actual annual expenditures as opposed to the current shareable cost method in determining how Pitt Meadows contributes to the services. 13. Pursuant to our terms of reference, our recommendations are not to be made retroactively. The Leisure Services Agreement: Recommendations 14. Carefully defined terms can increase the efficiency with which services covered under the Agreement are administered and compliance with the terms of the Agreement is monitored: Based on our review of the Agreement we make the following specific recommendations relating to the terms and definitions contained therein. Para. 1. (b) • Schedule A should be revised and updated to include a clear description of all services included. Para. 1. (e) • It is our understanding that the terms "net actual expenses" and "net total operating costs" are intended to mean the same thing. As such, we recommend that these terms by replaced by the team "net operating expense", which is defined as "all expenses related to the services provided by the Commission net of revenues derived therefrom. ". • The term "sound accounting principles and practices" should be replaced with "generally accepted accounting principles for municipalities Jan -11-02 09:3Zam From-BDO Dunwnr-'u LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.08/24 F-431 i FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 5 • The term "certified annually by the auditors of the District of Maple Ridge" should be replaced with "net operating expense ... should be reviewed annually by the auditors of the District of Maple Ridge. A schedule of net operating expenses should be prepared annually and presented in a Review Engagement Report ". Para. 1. (f) • The definition of capital costs should be expanded to make it clear that capital costs are not to include a provision for planning costs associated with capital items (which we believe should be considered shareable costs). See further discussion in the section entitled Parks and Recreation Support Services Allocation. • The definition of capital costs should exclude computer hardware and software costs, which should instead be treated as an operating expense. See farther discussion in the section entitled Computer Hardware and Software. Para. 1. (g)(1) and (2) • The terms "planning", "development", "maintenance" and "scheduling/co-ordination" should be defined. Para. 1. (g)(3) ®. The terms "program development and delivery", "support to community groups", "marketing", "fund raising", and "policy development" should be defined, Additional Costs Arising from Different Maintenance Standards 15. Base standards encompassing the acquisition, development and maintenance of parks and open space are defined in the 2001 Parks Recreation and Cultural Master Plan for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Although some differences in service might exist as the system responds to consumer needs and usage factors (for example, grass cutting and the operating hours of community centres), we understand that overall, the standards have been applied in a fair and equitable manner in each of the communities for several years. Jan -11-02 09:32am From-BDO Dunwoor" LLP 604-688-6132.- T-767 P.09/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple .Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 6 16. Inequities may arise when different maintenance standards exist. Some differences currently exist in areas such as boulevard maintenance and expenditures relating to urban forestry and pocket parks. To ensure continued consistency with respect to the fair distribution of costs and services, the Agreement should also define a base standard to be applied to newly developed areas. 17. The intent is to ensure the standard in all or part of one community which is being maintained through general revenue fund support from both communities is not greater than the standard in the other community unless funding is derived from other sources to maintain the increased standard. Standards which exceed the base standard will either be passed along to the developer and residents of the area in which the increased standards have been applied through a specified area charge or will be borne by the Municipality in which the area is situated. We understand that specified area bylaws will be put in place to cover the increased cost of maintenance. 18. It is our understanding that, with respect to new development undertaken from 2002 onward; • the base standard will not include: tot -lots in small lot developments; landscaped entry areas to new subdivisions; landscaped boulevards in subdivisions which cannot be maintained by adjacent owners; seating areas close to mail boxes; or any pockets of landscaped areas in subdivisions. 19. Should developers wish to implement these standards within a subdivision (or be required to do so by the Municipality in which the subdivision is located) an estimate for annual maintenance will be prepared by the Parks and Facilities Department and forwarded to the Planning Department dealing with the particular subdivision. 20. With respect to boulevards and street trees which are contiguous with privately owned property, adjacent property owners should be required by bylaw to maintain grassed boulevards and should be restricted from doing anything to street trees to avoid differential maintenance and damage to the integrity of the street tree pattern. Street tree maintenance will be considered part of the base standard. Jan -11-02 00:33am From-BDO Dunwoody LLP 604-688-5132. T-757 P•10/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUmSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January. 10, 2002 Page 7 Litter Pick-up 21. For purposes of clarification, the Agreement should stipulate that: (i) litter pick-up in any of the jointly administered areas or facilities is provided for by the Commission; and (ii) litter pick-up on boulevards and streets is the unique responsibility of each Municipality. Insurance 22. The Agreement should include a reference to liability and property insurance coverage. At present, each Municipality is responsible for insuring its own properties and obtaining its own liability insurance. The cost of such insurance, including the cost of claims, is funded by the Municipality owning the property and each Municipality is responsible for administering and paying for claims that arise within its respective boundaries. Only the costs associated with property insurance are considered a shareable cost. Severance Benefits 23, It is our understanding that individuals employed by Maple Ridge for over 20 years are eligible for a severance benefit equal to five days pay for each year worked. As the Agreement has been in effect for the last seven years, only the portion of each employee's severance benefit related to the period 1994 to the date of severance is included in shareable costs. We believe that this approach is reasonable, Planet Ice 24. Planet Ice Maple Ridge ("Planet Ice" or the "Complex") was constructed in 1998 as a private/public partnership between Maple Ridge, R.G. Properties Ltd. and R.G. Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd. ("R.G. Arenas"). 25. Per the terms of the Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, for the first five years of the term ending in 2003 Maple Ridge pays R.G. Arenas an amount equal to the sum of: (i) the Municipal annual taxes; (ii) $234.6 thousand payable for the first five years of the Agreement, representing capital payments and; (iii) a base amount of $500 thousand to be Jan -11-02 09:33am .From-BDO Dunwooi- ILP 604-688-5132 .. T-757 P.11/24 F-431 FINAL, DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 8 invoiced monthly. Although not specifically stated in the Agreement, we understand that the $500 thousand relates solely to the Complex's operating costs. 26. The base amount was fixed at the time of negotiations for a period of five years and includes a provision for inflation as measured by increases in the Consumer Price Index at the end of the five-year term. In addition to the base rate of approximately $70 per hour, Maple Ridge is billed $180 per hour for additional ice time beyond the negotiated monthly allotment. It is our understanding that on a 'per hour of ice time' basis, the base rate is considerably lower than the going market rate and the rate charged for the additional ice time is similar to the $177 per hour charged at Pitt Meadows' Twin Rinks, 27. The Agreement does not make reference to Planet Ice. Shareable costs associated with the Complex are based on the 1998 operating costs of the Cam Neely Arena and not on. the actual costs of Planet Ice as invoiced from R.C. Arenas. The current historical -based cost sharing arrangement does not have any provision for inflation, nor does it directly relate to the actual costs incurred by Maple Ridge. We do not believe that this is an appropriate basis on which to share costs. 28. We understand that the amount actually charged under the existing Planet Ice agreement and the amount that would result if the actual net cost to Maple Ridge were multiplied by the Formula, are not materially different. Thus, in order to ensure that any future cost escalations or reductions are shared and to streamline the arrangements, we recommend that cost sharing for the Complex be subject to the same treatment as other shareable costs. Specifically, the shareable costs would include the $500 thousand base rate in addition to charges related to any additional ice time. Community Events / Water Charges 29. Although community events provided for in the Municipalities' parks and recreation budgets are considered shareable costs, some expenditures made by the Municipalities are excluded. In particular, we understand that certain events funded by Pitt Meadows (Canada Day, Remembrance Day, Pitt Meadows Day, Christmas in the Country) are not included in shareable costs. The absence of guidance on when and to what degree these additional costs arc to be treated as shareable might lead to inconsistent treatment of the Jan -11-02 09:34am From-BDO Dunwordv LLP 604-688-5132 . T-757 P.12/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCI) SION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 9 costs and result in inequities. As such, we recommend that, with the exception of overtime charges relating to policing the events, all reasonable costs related to community events be considered shareable. 30. It is our understanding that there are differences in how each municipality treats water charges related to the services. In order for the Agreement to be equitable, it should include a description of how water charges are to be treated. As there are costs associated with the use of all public utilities we agree with the metering of public facilities to allocate the costs, even if on a notional basis. The actual charges, if any, related to water usage can be a matter for later discussion between the Municipalities. Parks and Recreation Support Services Allocation 31. Roughly 85% of the support services charge relates to the salaries, wages and benefits of managers and administrative staff. The remaining 15% consists of bank charges, consulting fees, insurance premiums, office supplies and software support. Maple Ridge currently allocates the total support services cost among approximately 23 cost centres, some of which are shareable based on the Agreement. The allocation is based on a consultative process and management's best estimate. Support service costs incurred by Pitt Meadows are charged back to Maple Ridge. It is our understanding that these costs are limited to postage, photocopying 'or other direct costs. 32. Mr. Murray and his department allocate their hours to different functions. An estimate is made of hours that are spent on areas outside of the Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services items. The cost related to these hours is backed out of the shareable costs. We agree with this concept but suggest that a rough estimate is reasonable in the circumstances. The use of timesheets or other attempts to more accurately track time would not be efficient. 33. The cost of management's time related to the involvement in planning capital projects is also included in support services. These costs are currently allocated at year-end and are based on estimates of the number of hours each individual has spent on planning activities. We understand that there has been some consideration of calculating management's planning costs on a formula basis, namely 10% of the capital cost, a Jan -11-02 09:34am From-BDO Dunwoe' LLP 604-688-5132, T-757 P.13/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 10 practice currently utilized by the Engineering Department. Although we believe that this approach would reduce the amount of time involved in determining the planning costs, we cannot comment on the appropriateness of' the percentage used. If this approach is adopted, we recommend that a range of percentages be used depending on the relative size of the project. 34. Ideally, we recommend a change in process away from a Support Services Allocation charge for capital items. We suggest that all management time related to services included in the Agreement be included as a shareable cost. For example, if Maple Ridge were to capitalize 100 management hours to a new leisure centre, the cost of the 100 hours would be added back to the shareable costs. We consider this fair as managing the parks and leisure services function requires that decisions be made in regard to both capital and operating items. Depending on how the finance department currently tracks hours and allocates costs to other departments, this may simplify the process and reduce the extent to which detailed time logs are maintained. 35. As with any major capital project, management time from non -parks and recreation services departments will be required. We do not suggest that any of this time be allocated as a shareable cost, however it should be taken into account in determining the appropriate level for the Overhead Charge. Overhead Charge 36. One component of `Operating Costs' as defined in the Agreement is an overhead charge (the "charge") relating to indirect support provided by Maple Ridge to Parks and Recreation. The charge is meant to provide for general administrative operating expenses, office space and work yard and shop facilities, in addition to the utilization of services provided by the Finance, Personnel and Information Services departments (collectively "the Departments"), who in aggregate employ over 30 individuals. 37. As presented in Table 1 below, based on information obtained from Maple Ridge, it is. estimated that the Departments provide in excess of 4,300 hours a year of support services to Parks and Recreation. Based on an estimated average wage of $25 per hour, Jan -11-02 09:35am From-BDO Dunwor1" LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.14/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporacion of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 11 the cost to Maple Ridge of providing of these services to Parks and Recreation is approximately $108.5 thousand. ($000s Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Estimated Cost of Providing Finance, Personnel and Information Services to the Parks and Recreation Services Department Department, (Estimated hours/year) Personnel Finance, (Note 1) Information Services, (Note 2) Estimated hourly wage ($) Estimated cost to Maple Ridge Table 1 661 2,434 1,243 4,338 25 108.5 Notes: 1, It was estimated Char, in total, 4,867 hours per year were spent on matters related to the Parks and Recreation Services Department. Total hours have been reduced by 50% to reflect the estimated time related to capital planning. 2, Based on three people devoting 23% of their time to the help desk and one person devoting 5% of their time to CLASS related matters. 38. As further indicated in Table 2, Parks and Recreation occupies approximately 3,100 square feet of office space in the Maple Ridge Business Centre and 3,300 square feet of space in the Dewdney Trunk Road Operations centre. The combined cost associated with Parks and Recreation's use of this space, excluding parking and outdoor storage facilities, is estimated at $59.3 thousand. Jan -11-02 00:35am From-BDO Dunwor' LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.15/24 F-431 FINAL; DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple .Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 12 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Estimated Costs of Office and Other Space Utilized by Parks and Recreation Services Department ($000s) Table 2 Operations Centre, parks and carpentry shops, square foot Multiply by cost factor per square foot, (Note 1) Maple Ridge Business Centre, square foot Multiply by cost factor per square foot, (Note 1) Total 3,294 5 16,5 3,057 14 42.8 59.3 Note 1. Cost factors include common area maintenance costs and are based on estimates provided by the Parlcs and Recreation Services Department, 39. In 2000, the charge, calculated as 3% of the shareable cost allocation, including the Planet Ice charge, was $24.7 thousand (Table 3). If the initial intent of the charge was to provide for fair and equitable sharing of the overhead costs incurred by Parks and Recreation, then the 3% charge most likely understates Maple Ridge's "real" cost of providing resources by approximately $12.1 thousand. Furthermore, this likely understatement does not take into account that the charge was intended to consider Parks and Recreation's usage of information systems (currently over 40 computer workstations, including peripheral hardware and associated office software). 40. If the identified costs associated with Parks and Recreation's overhead (use of other Department's resources and Maple Ridge business and operations centres) were to be shared in a fair and equitable mariner then, based on the Year 2000's allocated shareable costs of $821.9 thousand, the overhead factor would have to be 4.5% instead of 3.0%. The overhead percentage factor may likely be higher if the intent of the charge is to provide for the use of information systems (see Computer Software and Hardware). Jan -11-02 09,35am From-BD0 Dunwoodu LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.16/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 13 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Analysis of Actual Overhead Charge for 2000 ($000x) Allocated shareable costs including Planet Ice, (2000) Multiply by 3% overhead factor Overhead charge Divide by population factor Implied total overhead costs Estimated costs Finance, Personnel and Information Services departments, (Table 1) Business and operations centres, (Table 2) Training and conference costs, (Now 1) Clerk, (Nate 2) Multiply by population factor Estimated overhead charge Actual overhead charge, 2000 Difference, (estimated and actual overhead charges) Estimated overhead charge as yercentage of Year 2000 allocated shareable costs 4.5% Table 3 821.9 3,0% 24.7 0.1923 128.2 108.5 59,3 15.0 8.4 9l2 0,1923 36.8 24.7 12,1 Notes: 1. Incurred by the Personnel Department. Related to Parks and Recreation Services Department. 2. For the purposes of taking minutes at meetings. The amount is based on an estimated 7 hours per week. Computer Software and Hardware 41. Although some third -party software support costs are included in shareable costs, the acquisition of computer hardware is deemed to be a capital expenditure. All other costs relating to information systems are considered to have been provided for in the 3% overhead charge. 42. Pitt Meadows purchasedand provides for the replacement .of a small number of monitors, computers and printers and basic office application software ("base software") located in the Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre and does not charge back any amount related to its usage. In order to provide the information system infrastructure required to support the parks and Leisure facilities and activities, in absolute terms, Maple Ridge has had to Jan -11-02 09:35am From -S00 Dunwoody LLP 604-888-5132 T-757 P.17/24 F-431 FINAL DRAVI — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge Yanuary 10, 2002 Page 14 acquire and provide for the replacement of considerably more computer equipment and base software. 43. The classification of computer hardware as a capital cost may not be an entirely equitable treatment given the relatively short economic life span of the equipment, and the fact that in some instances updates to base software necessitate hardware upgrades. If the usage of computer hardware was tracked and charged out in a manner similar to that of the equipment charge levied for the use of park equipment, such as large mowers and trucks, the usage charge would most likely incorporate a provision for replacement as well as direct operating costs. This charge might also then be a budgeted item included in shareable costs. Clearly, hardware and software costs cannot be tracked in that manner. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to consider some method for equitably sharing a portion of the future equipment and base software costs incurred by both Municipalities. 44. None of the acquisition costs related to the CLASS System software ("CLASS") have been considered to be shareable costs. This includes approximately $300 thousand for CLASS used at the Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre and the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre. This cost was comprised of $165 thousand for the software and $135 thousand related to internal staff resources utilized during implementation of the system. 45. CLASS was purchased `off th.e shelf' and currently contains modules for point of sales, program and facility reservations and membership management. The system is not serviced by Maple Ridge's Information Services. Department. A service contract has been signed with ESCOM Systems Ltd. and is included in the software support component of support services. The system will soon be expanded to include Internet registration capacity. Approximately $36 thousand of the $80 thousand currently budgeted for software support relates .to the implementation of this new component. Peripheral hardware such as photo identification equipment and bar-code readers are currently considered capital in nature and the costs Thereof are not shareable. 46. In order to ensure that a common standard exists regarding the information systems used by the Municipalites, we recommend that, with the exception of servers, large system- wide type hardware, and wide scale point of sale software, all hardware and base Jan -11-02 08:36am From-BDO Dunwop''".LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 P.18/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 15 software acquisitions be included as shareable costs in the year expended. Larger acquisitions should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the magnitude of the acquisition, it may be appropriate to consider including the amortization of the costs of these larger items as a shareable cost. Other Facilities 47. Based on our discussions we were not able to identify any significant administrative cost sharing concerns relating to the facilities noted in the attached Appendix C. Should you wish us to examine any of these facilities or services in greater detail we would be pleased to do so. Alternatives to a Detailed Cost Sharing Formula 48. The benefits of regional co-operation and cost sharing are clear. Municipal services are expensive and having two Municipalities share in their cost, management and delivery distributes the cost of infrastructure over more users, thus reducing the cost to any one Municipality. Regional approaches to service delivery help eliminate unnecessary duplication of administration and overhead costs and create efficiencies through economies of scale. 49. There are a number of possible cost-sharing formulas. Each has its advocates and critics. The 'right' formula is the one that is most acceptable to all parries concerned and results in costs that are reasonable and equitable to residents of al] municipal ties. 50. Cost-sharing formulas based on usage require the ability to carefully monitor usage. Once the facilities are on line and tools for measuring use become available, some municipalities switch to such formulas. However, given the wide range of facilities and services the Commission administers, a usage -based formula would not be practical. 51. Furthermore, it is our understanding that at the outset of the Agreement the Municipalities agreed that it is a benefit to have such facilities in the community regardless of the extent of use given the benefits to the entire community. Public surveys recently conducted suggest that residents are of the same opinion. Jan -11-02 09:37am From-BDO Dunwor'- LLP 604-688-5132 T-767 P.19/24 F-431 FINAL DRAYF FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 16 52. Population -based cost-sharing formulas are popular. Advocates argue that as population drives the need for services it is the only valid factor in determining cost sharing. These formulas are the simplest to calculate and monitor for compliance. However, some critics charge that population -based formulas are unfair, as they do not accurately reflect use, especially in municipalities with disparate or widely fluctuating populations. This is not so in the case of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows as it is our understanding that the Municipalities' populations are both growing at similar rates. 53. We should also point out the possibility of moving entirely away from a cost-sharing formula to an annual grant or fixed amount payable by Pitt Meadows to Maple Ridge. This would be the simplest of methods as it would not involve a detailed series of calculations at year-end. Furthermore, it would reduce some of the costs associated with administering the Agreement. While terms would be negotiated, we expect that the base amount would begin at a level similar to the current amounts paid by Pitt Meadows and would increase or decrease in proportion to the Commission's annual budget. Although • the issue of whether or not the grant would be considered a 'fee for service', and thus subject to goods and service tax would have to be researched further, we recommend that this grant or fixed fee approach be given further consideration. Conclusion 54. With the exception of items with recommendations mentioned in this report it is our opinion that, from a financial point of view, the terms of the Agreement are reasonably fair and equitable. Administrative streamlining could be achieved by revising the Agreement to ensure that the services provided and the costs to be shared are clearly outlined and carefully defined. Jan -11-02 09:37am From-BDO Dunwoa''- LLP • 604-688-5132. T-757 P.20/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT -- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge January 10, 2002 Page 17 55. Should you wish to discuss the results of our findings or require further clarification in this matter, we would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Yours truly, Bill Cox, CA / Mark Weston, CA /cef Jan -11-02 09:37am From-BDO Dunworr'•• LLP 604-688-5132. T-757 P.21/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Midge Scope of Review Appendix A In preparing this report we reviewed and relied on the following information: • Leisure Services Agreement dated July 26, 1994, between the Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge and the Corporation of The District of Pitt Meadows. • Invoice issued to the Corporation of The District of Pitt Meadows, regarding cost sharing for the year 2000, dated April 4, 2001, including detailed supporting documents. • Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services Department, Business Plan 2001-2005. • Amended and Restated Trust Agreement between R.G. Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd. and The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, dated September 1, 1999. • Invoice, R.G. Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd., dated October 31, 2001. • District of Maple Ridge, Proposed Financial Plan 2002 — 2006, Recreation — Arenas. • District of Maple Ridge, Proposed Financial Plan 2002 — 2006, Community Development, Parks & Recreation. • Letter, Mike Murray to Ken Wiesner, Liability and Property Insurance Coverage, dated March 12, 1998. • Estimate of Personnel Department staff time spent directly on Parks and Recreation issues, prepared by management. • Estimate of Finance Department staff time spent directly on Parks and Recreation issues, prepared by management. • Estimate of Information Services Department staff time spent directly on Parks and Recreation issues, prepared by management. Jan -11-02 09:38am From-BDO Dunwoodv LLP 604-688-6132 T-757 P.22/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of.aple Ridge Scope of Review Appendix A We had various meeting and telephone conferences with the following individuals: • District of Maple Ridge: rake Sorba, Director of Finance. • District of Maple Ridge: Mike Murray, General Manager: Community Development, Parks and Services. • District of Pitt Meadows: Nancy Gomerich, Director of Corporate Services. We completed such other investigation and analysis as Was necessary to complete this report. Jan -11-02 09:38am From-BDO Dunwoory LLP 604-688-5132, T-757 P•23/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge Facilities included in Schedule A of the Agreement: No significant cost sharing concerns identified. Appendix B Based on our discussions with Mr. Mike Murray, we were unable to identify any significant cost sharing concerns with the following facilities: • Maple Ridge Arts and Crafts Studio; • Maple Ridge Boxing Studio; • Maple Ridge Museum; • Pitt Meadows Museum; • Haney House; • St. Andrews Heritage Church; • Hammond Pool; • Harris Road Pool; • Harris RoadField House; • Pitt Meadows Recreation Hall; • Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre; • Hammond Community Centre; • W'honnock Community Centre; • Maple Ridge Lawn Bowling Centre; • Elderly Citizens' Recreation Association Recreation Centre; • Gregg Moore Youth Centre; Jan -11-02 09:38am From-BDO Dunwor'', LLP 604-688-5132 T-757 .P.24/24 F-431 FINAL DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge Facilities included in Schedule A of the Agreement: No significant cost sharing concerns identified Appendix B • Maple Ridge Fairgrounds; • All public walking and equestrian trails in the Municipalities; • All designated greenbelts in the Municipalities; • Maple Ridge Leisure Centre; • Maple Ridge Curling Rinlc; • Maple Ridge Lapidary Workshop; and • Maple Ridge Art Gallery. Operating Budget Comparison (March 9, 2010) Pitt Meadows Comparing The 2010 joint leisure services operating budget contribution from Pitt Meadows ($1,747,917including overhead @ 4.5%) to A stand alone Pitt Meadows operating budget projection for 2010 ($2,234,589 plus overhead) Notes: 1. The 2010 contribution is derived from the Pitt Meadows share of the 2010 budget submission which includes joint administration and support services. 2. The stand alone projection is based upon 2010 budget figures for specific cost centres (not including joint administration and support) based on the previous year's actual operating expenditures for various parks, facilities and programs located in Pitt Meadows. The stand alone projection also includes an independent support services projection based on comparisons to other similar sized communities in the Metro Vancouver region, notably: White Rock (2010 estimated population - 19,312 - based on the BC Stats estimate for 2009 + % growth based on previous year's growth) City of Langley (estimated 2010 population - 25,653) - City of Port Moody (estimated 2010 population - 34,548) None of these municipalities operate an indoor pool. White Rock operates three community centres and one arena. City of Port Moody has five community centres including an Arena and Curling Rink, two outdoor pools and a cultural services section as well. City of Langley manages two smaller community centres and a larger outdoor pool. All three municipalities were checked for their exempt staff structures and their 2010 annual operating budget projections extrapolated to a per capita operating cost to establish a reasonable equivalency to the Pitt Meadows stand alone projection. The information was obtained from each City's posted 2010 financial plan and verified with Finance Department staff to ensure as close as possible to an apples to apples comparison. Although it is currently under review White Rock's 2009 exempt staff structure dealing with Parks and Leisure Services (inclusive of facility maintenance but not including Library Services) included 3.5 positions (facility maintenance was a portion of the responsibility of one exempt position). Their budgeted/actual per capita annual operating cost for Parks and Leisure Services not including the Library, is $116. The City of Langley exempt staff structure includes 5 and a half positions (although two may have responsibilities equivalent to Coordinator level roles in the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows system). Their 2010 budgeted per capita annual operating cost, not including the Library, is $124 The City of Port Moody exempt staff structure includes 4 positions plus several coordinators and front line supervisors. Their 2010 budgeted per capita annual operating cost, not including the Library, is $150. 3. The stand alone projections do not include growth in operating costs for new facilities not yet constructed but recommended for Pitt Meadows in the draft Parks, Recreation and Cultural Plan (i.e. expanded fitness facilities, expanded youth centre, seniors recreation centre and aquatics facilities). 4. Additional capital funding would need to be considered in a stand alone operation for an expanded works yard in Pitt Meadows (to accommodate Parks and Facilities operations) as well as the initial capital investment for parks and facilities maintenance equipment and vehicles Additional office space would also need to be considered along with the initial capital cost for software and software upgrades such as the CLASS system which is standard in most Recreation operations. 5. The following stand alone projections also do not include added costs for Finance, Information Technology and Human Resources support which are provided in the joint system by Maple Ridge and costed at a rate of 4.5% on top of direct costs based on the BDO Dunwoody analysis completed in 2002. Pitt Meadows stand alone projection: 1. Parks and Open Space (2010 budget) 2. Special Events (20% of 2010 budgeted grants) 3. Museum (2010 budget based on actual to Pitt Meadows Heritage Society) 4. Heritage Hall (2010 budget) 5. Youth and Children's Programs (2010 budget) (will increase once youth centre expanded) 6. South Bonson Community Centre (2010 budget) (will increase to $132,680 in 2011) 7. Family Recreation Centre (2010 budget) 8. Outdoor Pool (2010 budget) 9 Arena Operations (2009 actual) 10. RMSS Contribution (2010 budget - 20% share) (costs will rise if new facility constructed ) 11.Arts Council contribution (20% of 2010 budget n i.c. arts centre)$ 12. Marketing (20% of 2010 budget - minimal funding) $ 13.Insurance (actual Pitt Meadows Invoice) $ 14.Bank Charges (20% of 2010 budget) $ 15.Software costs (20% of 2010 budget - likely more given the need for a stand alone system) 16.Office supplies (20% of 2010 budget) 17.Clerical and Customer Service Staff Administrative Assistant Office/Marketing Supervisor - Customer Service Staff (2010 budget) - Booking Clerk 18.Co-ordinators (two positions) 19.Administrative staff (3 exempt - Director, Recreation Manager, Parks and Facilities Manager ) 20. Vehicle/Mileage costs (20% of 2010 budget) Total $425,130 $ 9,375 $ 73,424 $ 47,239 $ 251,482 $ 52,962 $249,315 $ 31,080 $135,000 $ 26,008 19,140 27,228 20,569 6,400 $ 17,740 $ 9,389 $ 64,769 $ 64,769 $ 127,570 $ 54,686 $ 162,844 $351,732 $ 6,738 $2,234,589 (plus required overhead - see note 5 above) Maple Ridge Comparing the 2010 joint leisure services operating budget contribution from Maple Ridge ($7,208,556) to A stand alone Maple Ridge operating budget projection ($7,319,594) Notes: 1. As above the 2010 joint budget contribution is derived from the 2010 budget submission 2 The stand alone budget for Maple Ridge is based on what would be deleted from the joint operation if there were no responsibility for Pitt Meadows venues and programs. The stand alone budget for Maple Ridge anticipates the removal of the first 16 items identified in the Pitt Meadows stand alone budget plus removal of the customer service staff, one booking clerk and one coordinator for a total of $1,636,879. All of these items are currently included in the joint operation budget. It also anticipates removal of the Pitt Meadows contribution of $1 747 917. The net increased cost for Maple Ridge in this scenario is minimal at $111,038. This is what was anticipated when the joint agreement was first entered into. 3. In a stand alone Maple Ridge scenario It was not felt appropriate to remove any of the existing administrative positions from the Parks and Leisure services management structure since the Managers within the system would remain fully engaged in their work with Maple Ridge operations and community groups which would continue to serve both populations (i.e. Arts Council, Ridge Meadows Seniors Society, Sports Council, etc.). Growth of the management structure as the Maple Ridge population grows may be slowed if there was no responsibility for Pitt Meadows operations. 4. The significant financial benefit to Maple Ridge from the joint agreement is the contribution made by Pitt Meadows to the capital cost of facilities and parks located in Pitt Meadows which benefit citizens in both communities. Of course the major benefit of joint service delivery is more coordinated and consistent services for residents of the two communities DRAFT 2014 Timeline for Review of the Joint Leisure Services Model *Scheduled meeting dates. Note: this timeline lists scheduled/milestone dates only and does not include consultation meetings with the Project Team. Date Task Who February 11* Update on Project Team and Scope to Pitt Meadows Council Project Team February 13* Update Commission on project Kelly February 17* Update on Project Team and Scope to Maple Ridge Council Project Team February 15 to March 15 Request proposals Purchasing Sy end of March Select firm Project Team Purchasing By April 7 Hold project planning meeting with successful firm Project Team and Successful firm April and May Facilitate input from Project Team Project Team and Successful firm May Facilitate feedback from key staff Successful firm 1 May 12* Facilitate feedback from Maple Ridge Council Successful. firm.. May 13* Facilitate feedback from Pitt Meadows Council .a Successful firm June 9* Report back to Maple Ridge Council Successful firm June 1.0w Report back to Pitt Meadows Council Successful firm *Scheduled meeting dates. Note: this timeline lists scheduled/milestone dates only and does not include consultation meetings with the Project Team. • Wows PARKS & LE SURE SERVICES Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission Report SUBJECT: Joint Leisure Services - Agreement Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The agreement between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows for the joint delivery of parks and leisure services has been in place since 1994. The agreement includes a requirement that a review be completed every few years to: a. ensure the agreement is still meeting the needs of the citizens in the two communities and b. identify any areas where the agreement may need to be improved. The intent of this report is to complete the review and provide any recommendations which may result from that analysis. The background research referenced in this report includes: a. findings of the consultants who are completing the 2010 Parks, Recreation and Cultural plan based on focus group discussions, random sample survey work and their, own experience working with service providers across the country; b. the results of the 2009 evaluation of the Parks and Leisure Services Commission; c. an analysis of program registration compared to population d. an analysis of random telephone survey results completed in the Fall of 2008 (to be repeated in 2011) e. a report prepared in 2001 by BDO Dunwoody (auditors for both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows), f. a financial analysis completed internally and reviewed by the 2010 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Master Plan consultants and both City and District senior staff which identifies the cost efficiencies inherent within the joint delivery framework. RECOMMENDATION: That the 2010 Joint Leisure Services Review Report be received for information and that the next detailed review be completed in 2015; and further, that the recommendations identified in the 2010 Parks Recreation and Cultural Master Plan with respect to the joint delivery system be implemented at the earliest opportunity. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: As noted above the agreement was initiated in 1994. The attached document (Attachment "A" - Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services - An Investigative Report) was completed at the end of 1992 following adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plans in both communities (completed independently but by the same Joint Leisure Services Analysis 2010 #1 consulting firm). Both plans recommended the pursuit of a joint delivery model. The investigative report which followed identified the anticipated benefits to the citizens of the two communities of a joint delivery system and provided recommendations on initiating the joint service which led to the agreement. A copy of the current agreement and bylaws are also attached (attachment "B"). Consultant Reviews There have been two reviews of the joint delivery model by consultants working in the field of parks and recreation since 1994. The first review was completed in 2001 by Brian Johnston of Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants. The most recent review was completed in 2009 by Catherine Berris and Bernie Asbell (attachment "C"). Both reviews were required as part of the development of comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Cultural Plans and have indicated the joint delivery model is worthwhile continuing. In other words both consultants feel comfortable recommending the joint operating model as an effective and efficient vehicle for delivering the overall recommendations of the master plans they developed. To be more specific the Berris/Asbell analysis was founded on survey data and interviews with various staff from both Municipalities, Municipal Councils and over seventy community organizations. The results of this research are reflected in the following quotation: "The public don't perceive a boundary between the two communities in terms of parks and recreation services, they are unaware of any issues, and they are happy with the system. The public workshop and random telephone survey corroborate this; residents provided the same high service ratings in both communities." (statistically valid and independent results) With that said there are still several recommendations contained in their report intended to strengthen the model and they follow: "Recommendations: Process/Planning • Ensure that PM and RM have opportunities to express their unique identities, e.g., banners. Management • Periodically demonstrate the benefits of joint delivery to both partners. • Work with Commission and the two Councils to solidify one consistent reporting methodology. • Conduct a workshop every 3 years with the Commission, with a third party facilitator, to review and improve the joint delivery agreement and model. • Consider excluding some areas from joint delivery, based on unique requirements in the two communities, with the agreement of both parties, e.g., Museums. Establish criteria for those services which should not be delivered jointly, e g., where the two communities want to provide divergent service levels. (for services which should not be centralized) • Review the role of the Commission with respect to achieving greater efficiency, e.g., strengthen Commission governance through methods such Joint Leisure Services Analysis 2010 #2 as reducing Council reporting to items outside of budget envelope, reducing items reported to both Commission and Councils. Continue to stress the importance of open and frequent communication at all levels, e.g., Councils, managers, foremen, and other staff, • Consider increased management staff in the Department to be located in Pitt Meadows, located in or near Pitt Meadows Municipal Hall when and if the opportunity presents itself • Have cross team meetings with operational staff between Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, not just management." In summary the consultants who are in the business of working with communities throughout Canada on parks and recreation delivery systems recommend continuation of the model but with regular reviews to ensure fine tuning as required Commission Evaluations Governance for the joint system is provided by the Parks and Leisure Services Commission which has evolved considerably since 1994. That evolution has been informed and guided by regular evaluations of the Commission by it s members since the Commission's inception The Commission's current structure includes three members of each Council including both Mayors, three members of the Board of Trustees (School District 42) including the Chair and six at large appointees (two from Pitt Meadows and four from Maple Ridge) Several changes have been made to the Commission over the years leading to the current structure. The Commission has some independent authority for operating parks and facilities and for providing programs within an approved annual budget (approved by the two Councils). This authority has been delegated to the Commission by the two Councils. The delegation of this authority is critical to ensure the decision making process is as streamlined as possible. Otherwise some decisions would require going to the Commission first for inter -municipal dialogue and then to the two Councils independently for a decision. If either of the Councils did not wish to proceed with a recommended action at that point the cycle would need to begin again before a decision is reached. Despite the need for streamlining some decisions requiring by laws and a few other decisions spelled out in the bylaw which structures the Commission (budget, park design and naming and matters dealing with the joint agreement) are left to the Municipal Councils The most recent Commission evaluation which was completed in the Fall of 2009 is attached to this report (attachment "D") and reflects general satisfaction with how the model is working. While there are some suggestions for improvement, unlike previous reviews, no structural recommendations came from the Commission members' follow up discussion of these results. Registration Analysis 'BC Stats" is the Provincial Government agency responsible for completing annual population estimates. According to the BC Statistics Branch the 2009 estimated population for Pitt Meadows was 17,915 (19.28% of the total combined population) and the estimated population for Maple Ridge was 75,051 (80.72% of total) In 2009 the total number of participants registered in programs offered by Parks and Leisure Services was 22,319. Of Joint Leisure Services Analysis 2010 #3 that number 79% were Maple Ridge residents and 18% were Pitt Meadows Residents (3% were residents from other communities). Household Participation Rates The reported usage rates for major facilities operated jointly through Parks and Leisure Services (determined through random sample telephone surveys completed in 2008) did indicate some variation of resident usage depending upon where the facility is located However, all rates demonstrated significant use by households from both communities. The percentage of households from each community who used the listed facilities during the year prior to the survey follow: Facility %of Household use in the past year Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Leisure Centre PM Family Rec. Centre Parks Trails Sport Fields Arts Centre Planet Ice Pitt Meadows Arena 69% 18% 81% 77% 40% 52% 49% 29% 57% 52% 77% 75% 54% 36% 33% 36% Citizen Satisfaction Rates The percentage of households reporting satisfaction levels as good or excellent on various criteria in the two communities (2008 surveys) is summarized below: Criteria Range of services Quality of services Appearance of parks/facilities Services easy to get to Safety Maintenance of Parks/Facilities Overall Satisfaction with Services Maple Ridge 84% 79% 80% 80% 74% 76% 81% Pitt Meadows 84% 79% 79% 84% 74% 73% 79% The surveys reported above were completed to a level which is statistically valid in each of the two communities to ensure the results could be accurately compared. Group Service Area Analysis Just like the School District, the Chamber of Commerce, the RCMP and most of the social service agencies in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows a large percentage of the seventy groups involved in the focus group sessions for the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Plan serve citizens in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. These groups represent most of the non profit organizations and agencies involved in delivering leisure services to residents in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, with varying levels of support from the Parks and Leisure Services Department. Well over 75% are constituted to serve residents in both communities while an Joint Leisure Services Analysis 2010 #4 even greater percentage of the total number of groups have residents from both communities in their membership. In terms of customer service it is far easier for groups like this to relate to one Parks and Leisure Services Department. 2002 BDO Dunwoody Analysis This report was completed in 2002 by the auditors for both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and was commissioned as an integral part of the last detailed review. The report is included here as attachment "E' and Involved an analysis of the cost sharing model to ensure the fair distribution of costs and value of the joint model. Several recommendations were made as a result of the review which have subsequently been implemented, including the preparation of an annual review report on cost sharing by the auditors as part of the two Municipalities' annual audit. The cost to complete the 2002 report was $10,841 in addition to a significant amount of staff time Since that report is felt by both the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Finance Departments to have been sufficiently detailed and since staff have been informed that the cost to complete an update would be equivalent or greater than the expenditure in 2002 it has not been duplicated for this review. Both Finance Departments have indicated they are confident that the report remains valid and that its recommendations were and remain sound. In summary the 2002 analysis by the two Municipalities' auditors found the agreement was worthwhile and should be continued. "In general we found that the Agreement was beneficial to both Municipalities. " The report did go on to make several recommendations related to adjustments in cost sharing which have subsequently been implemented and recommended the auditors conduct an annual review report as part of the audit. This too has been implemented. Financ'al Analysis - Pitt Meadows On Its Own Attachment `F' includes a draft budget for a stand alone Parks and Leisure Services operation in Pitt Meadows in 2010 which can be compared to the 2010 Pitt Meadows contribution to the joint operation. There are a number of assumptions which must be made in order to develop the stand alone model (described in the attachment). The 2010 joint parks and leisure services budget has been adopted by both Municipal Councils and is based on actual operations. The assumptions in the stand alone model have been reviewed with representatives of both Finance Departments, ( Dean Rear, Director of Finance for Pitt Meadows and Paul Gill, General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services for Maple Ridge) and the two Municipal Administrators, Jake Rudolph (Pitt Meadows) and Jim Rule (Maple Ridge). The intent of their involvement was to provide oversight to the exercise. The stand alone model anticipates net annual operating expenditures of $2,234,589. or, stated another way, a per capita expenditure on annual operations of $123. By comparison the Pitt Meadows share of the 2010 budgeted operating cost is $1,747,917 or $95 per capita Joint Leisure Services Analysis 2010 #5 To provide further support to these projections staff reviewed the per capita operating budget analysis prepared in 2003 by Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants Unfortunately the research has not been duplicated since That analysis suggested that smaller communities generally have a higher per capita annual expenditure than larger communities. Despite the lack of updates since 2003 the net per capita operating expenditure levels for many communities at that time, particularly the smaller communities in the region (i.e. White Rock, City of Langley and Port Moody), were considerably greater than $95. To verify the data as much as possible without duplicating the entire effort, more up to date operating budget comparisons have been made with White Rock, Port Moody and the City of Langley. In the case of the first two the facilities are roughly comparable to those in Pitt Meadows (including arenas and community centres and in the case of Port Moody two outdoor pools and a small performing arts venue as well). The City of Langley operation does include an outdoor pool and two relatively small community centres but not a municipally supported Arena. In all three cases the annual net operating cost per capita continues to exceed the $95 figure currently allowed for in the Pitt Meadows 2010 budget. Operating Cost Comparison Municipality Est. Pop. C ty of Langley 25,653 C ty of Port Moody 39,998 (2009) C ty of White Rock 19,312 City of Pitt Meadows Alone 18416 Joint w MR 18416 Dist. of Maple Ridge Alone 76176 Joint w PM 76176 Net Op.Cost $3,191,640 $4,938,140 (2009) $2,237,988 $2,234,589 $1,747,917 $ 7,319,594 $7,208,556 Per Capita $124 $150 $116 $123 $ 95 $ 96 $ 95 As a further verification one of the major assumptions used to prepare the stand alone budget model was to identify an exempt staff structure comparable to the exempt staff structures of Port Moody, the City of Langley and White Rock. The stand alone model for Pitt Meadows suggests three exempt positions dedicated to Parks Recreation and Culture while the Port Moody structure identifies four exempt roles, the City of Langley identifies five to six exempt roles (the Facilities Maintenance Supervisor has responsibility for all Municipal Buildings) and the City of White Rock identifies three and a half exempt roles (currently under review). Frnanciai Analysis - Maple Ridge On Its Own In terms of the financial implications for Maple Ridge if a stand alone operation was implemented Pitt Meadows 2010 budgeted contribution to the overall Parks and Leisure Services budget is $1,747,917. based on operational cost sharing proportionate to population. The amount Maple Ridge would reduce from this budget if it had no responsibility for Pitt Meadows parks, facilities and programs would be approximately $1,636,879. (see attached analysis). While that leaves a relatively small operating cost saving at this time for Maple Ridge by continuing with the joint function going it alone would Joint Leisure Services Analysis 2010 116 mean Pitt Meadows would be less likely to consider the addition of more significant capital expenditures for facilities like a second indoor pool to serve the combined population. That would result in a greater probability that Maple Ridge would have to do so sooner than would otherwise be the case covering 100% of both the capital and operating cost. Of course there are many other benefits to citizens resulting from a joint parks and leisure services function relating to consistency of services, easier one stop access for groups, etc b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome of this report is a review of the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Agreement and consideration of any recommendations coming from that review. The objective is to ensure the best possible service delivery to citizens of both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows using available resources. c) Strategic Alignment: Both Councils' direction has been to explore and maintain effective partnerships as important service delivery mechanisms. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The intent is to provide quality services to citizens in a cost effective manner by sharing resources between the two communities. Implementing the noted recommendations will assist in achieving this goal even more effectively over the long term. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Establishing a Pitt Meadows Area Manager Position is felt to be appropriate at the earliest opportunity. Staff are working toward implementing the position within the approved financial envelope. CONCLUSIONS: The Joint Parks and Leisure Services agreement between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows must be reviewed every few years to ensure it continues to be the most effective approach to parks and recreation service delivery for citizens in the two communities The evidence supports continuation of the present model as well as implementation of the recommendations contained in the Parks, Recreation and Cultural plan relating to the agreement. Staff concur with those recommendations and will proceed with implementation once they are endorsed by the Commission. 7719/LL 9'repared Mike7urray Title: General anager Date: 20.0 03 26 Attachments: A. 1992 Investigative Report B. Joint Agreement and Bylaws C. 2010 Master Plan Consultant Recommendations D. 2009 Commission Evaluation E. 2002 BDO Dunwoody Report F. Financial Analysis Joint Leisure Services Analysis 2010 #7