HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-15 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
September 15, 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 Linda Meyer, A.A.B.A.P.B.D.
- HandiDart Concerns
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 2014-013-RZ, 23895 124 Avenue and 12507, 12469, 12555 and 12599
240 Street
Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that first reading for
properties located at 23895 124 Avenue; 12507, 12469, 12555 and 12599
240 Street be denied.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
September 15, 2014
Page 2 of 3
1102 2014-061-RZ, 24205 Alouette Road
Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that first reading for
the property located at 24205 Alouette Road be denied.
1103 2014-053-DVP, 10476-10518 McEachern Street (east side lots only)
Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2014-053-DVP to increase maximum
building height for eight uphill lots on the east side of McEachern Street.
1104 Award of Contract ITT-EN14-54: Larch Avenue Road Extension
Staff report dated September 15, 2014 recommending that Contract ITT-
EN14-54, Larch Avenue Road Extension be awarded to Frazer Excavation Ltd.,
that a 5% contingency be approved, that the Financial Plan be amended to
advance funds from LTC 7840, and further that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to execute the contract.
3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police)
1131 2014 Council Expenses
Staff report dated September 15, 2014 providing Council expenses for 2014
updated to the end of August 2014.
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES
1151
5. CORRESPONDENCE
1171
6. OTHER ISSUES
1181
Committee of the Whole Agenda
September 15, 2014
Page 3 of 3
7. ADJOURNMENT
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
bylaws 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:
Maple Ridge Committee of the Whole:
HandyDART, GetonBoard For Better Transit Now, and Taxis
By
Ms. Linda Meyer, A.A.B.A.P.B.D,
Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, councilors and members of the public. My name is Linda Meyer.
Before I tall< about GetOnBoard for Better Transit Now, and taxis. I would like to ask the Mayor
if he mentioned to the Mayor's Council (like he promised) the fact that the disabled symbol is
missing from 2014 Base Plan and Outlook. Also, I am asking the Mayor to lobby the Mayor's
Council and Translink's Board of Directors to have the disabled symbol included in the title page
of the 2015 Base Plan and Outlook. I will keep asking until the disabled symbol is included in the
title page of translink's Base Plan and Outlook. Can the Mayor or one of the councilors please
inform me if they had a chance to pass the resolutions I asked for August 25th, 2014? Also, can
the Mayor please mention the resolutions 1 requested at the annual Union of BC Municipalities?
Moreover, I need the Mayor to discuss the deplorable condition HandyDART service is in. I am
asking the Maple Ridge Mayor (his worship Ernie Daykin) to ask the other Mayors either at the
Council of Mayors or at the Union of BC Municipalities to reject the drastic cuts to HandyDART
that 1 previously mentioned. Also, to emphatically vigorously, categorically, earnestly, seriously,
explicitly et cetera reject, discard, disclaim, and terminate, the irrational, absurd, foolish,
brainless, unbelievable nonsensical, ridiculous, stupid, extreme, excessive, unreasonable,
radical, deranged, demented, illogical, baseless, groundless et cetera fact that Translink's Board
of Directors froze HandyDART service hours for a decade. I realize it is too late for me to ask the
Mayor and councilors to draft a resolution (to present at the annual union of municipalities)
regarding the prior issue. However, I am already lobbying for next year, and I will keep lobbying
until something is done or until I die, whichever comes first.
To refresh everyone's memory today's topics are GetonBoard BC and taxis. For convenience
copied the following GetonBoard BC Internet articles: "HandyDART Riders' Alliance joins transit
improvement coalition GetonBoard BC, and the contact information regarding how to join
GetOnBoard BC.
1 am hoping all of you have had a chance to critically read (analysis) the internet articles, and
this presentation before hand. I am imploring that the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge join GetonBoard BC. 1 will be asking the other cities in Metro Vancouver to do likewise.
The contact information regarding learning more about the process can be revealed by
contacting GetonBoard BC's Community Relations Director, Matt Foulger, at
communityrelation@getonboardbc.ca.
I am asking the Mayor to ask the Mayor's Council for improvements to HandyDART in Maple
Ridge, and for better and more frequent bus service in East Maple Ridge. My prior statement is
in accordance with GetOnBoard BC's transit improvement policy.
1.1
Linda Meyer
H andyDART bus service in Maple Ridge is too limited regarding its service area, and hours of
o peration. For example, Maple Ridge HandyDART (I was told by a HandyDART dispatcher) is the
o nly HandyDART service (within Metro Vancouver) that requires its disabled customers to
transfer HandyDARTs. if a disabled customers needs to see a specialist in Vancouver then they
have to transfer HandyDARTs at the Wal-Mart shopping mall in Port Coquitlam. Moreover,
when I visit Hodgson Orthotics (they make and sell braces) in Coquitlam I (more often than not)
have to transfer HandyDARTs at the Wal-Mart shopping mall in Port Coquitlam. I also have to
wait up 30 minutes between transfers. When HandyDART picks me up I have to wait up to 30
minutes. All of HandyDART's times are approximate. What kind of HandyDART "service" is that
compared to the HandyDART service in the rest of the cities in Metro Vancouver?
N o other city in Metro Vancouver requires HandyDART users to transfer HandyDARTs. So, why
should Maple Ridge HandyDART compel its disabled users to transfer HandyDARTs. It seems to
me that all of the other cities in Metro Vancouver regarding HandyDART are more equal than
Maple Ridge HandyDART. Why. Maple Ridge residents pay the same gasoline tax, and same
hydro levy (which is supposed to pay for Metro Vancouver's public transportation system) yet
we get the worst and the least public transportation service. Since we get the worst and least
public transportation service in Metro Vancouver then we should pay for it on a ratio. Why
should we pay more for services that we are not receiving?
The same logic applies to the East Maple Ridge bus service (notwithstanding the 701 East
Maple Ridge bus) because the bus service operates every two hours. Look out if you miss your
bus because you will have to wait two hours for the next bus. Imagine that....When I moved to
Maple Ridge (I live on the west side of 224th Street) I promised myself that I could not move
o ne inch further east because of the almost non-existence bus service in East Maple Ridge.
N eedless to say, I live in West Maple Ridge.
I was going to discuss the topic of taxis because Translink has replaced some HandyDART busses
with taxis. Unfortunately, I am out of time. At the last meeting the Mayor supposedly moved
the September 15th meeting to September 22nd. However, several days ago I phoned Amanda
G aunt and she told me the Committee of the Whole was going to meet September 15th, 2014.
Consequently, I had to scramble to write my presentation on time. Therefore, I was unable to
discuss the issue of taxis replacing some HandyDART busses because I had not yet researched
the topic thoroughly.
1 will be unable to attend the next Committee of the Whole because I will be in Quesnel visiting
my elderly mother. However, I may be able to attend the October 6th Committee of the Whole
o r the October 20th, 2014 Committee of the Whole. Regardless, I will be back.
I will be back to discuss taxis replacing some HandyDART busses. Moreover, I will also discuss
The Taxis Bill of Rights, which I discovered when doing my research, and the transit
referendum. Here is a tidbit of my thoughts on the transit referendum.
Linda Meyer 3.
The transit referendum is supposed to be held the same time as the municipal elections are
held, which is sometime in early November. I understand the Metro Vancouver mayors are
united in their opposition to the transit referendum. The transit referendum does not need the
approval of Metro Vancouver Mayors. However, if the transit referendum is not worded
meaningfully and clearly it may backfire. Ultimately, there is wise, old saying that goes like this:
"You better be careful what you wish for because you just might get it."
MAPLE R3DGE
brit ak G4umbJ
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 12, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-013-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
23895 124 Avenue
12507, 12469, 12555, and 12599 240 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject properties from RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to allow for a 166 unit strata development consisting of modular homes. The proposed
plot size averages 237 m2 (2500 ft 2) per lot. The subject properties are designated Estate
Suburban Residential, and are located outside of the District's Urban Area Boundary, but are within
the Region's Urban Containment Boundary and the Fraser Sewerage Area. The prescribed zones in
this designation are RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RG -2 (Suburban Residential
Strata), as outlined in Appendix C of the Official Community Plan (OCP). The housing form associated
with this designation is low density single detached or strata housing units with minimum lot areas of
0.4 ha (1 acre), and an average density of 2.5 units per net hectare.
The housing form proposed by this application is modular single storey detached residential units
that could be wheelchair accessible. This application would contribute to the diversity of Maple
Ridge housing stock and therefore the housing form it proposes is supportable. However, this
application proposes residential densities that are not appropriate outside of the Urban Area
Boundary. The application as proposed is for 166 units with a density in the range of 41.5 units per
net hectare, which is similar to the R3 small lot densities found in the Albion growth area (i.e. Country
Lane). The subject site is outside of the Urban Area Boundary, and is considered unavailable for
urban development. On this basis it is recommended that this application be denied.
This report will review this application in light of previous Council decisions about extending the
Urban Area Boundary, and the 2004 Council decision to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban
development as part of the review of the OCP. A number of alternatives are outlined for Council
consideration including developing the subject properties in compliance with the OCP at densities of
2.5 units per net hectare, or working with staff to increase the density at a level not exceeding 12
units per net hectare based on a density bonus framework to accomplish a range of housing tenure
diversity, affordability, and special needs housing. A third alternative is to direct staff to undertake a
policy review of the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation, with a comprehensive
servicing capacity and traffic assessment in relation to growth management and the OCP policy
framework. It should be noted that this third option is likely not achievable until 2016.
1101
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That first reading for properties located at 23895 124 Avenue; 12507, 12469, 12555, and 12599
240 Street be denied.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc.
Owners: Jacqueline Vanier
Daniel and Christine Olson
Karen Campbell
0790573 BC Ltd.
Legal Descriptions:
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP3017
Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP10558
Lot: 3, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP10558
Lot: A, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP9912
Lot: A, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP9912
Estate Suburban Residential
Urban Residential, Conservation
RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Yet to be determined
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Agricultural and Estate Suburban Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Agricultural and Suburban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential (Rural)
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential (Intensive Urban Strata)
-2-
Site Area: 13.8 ha (34 acres)
Access: 240 Street (both south and north, via Fern Crescent), 239
Street
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
b) Site Characteristics:
The five subject properties are located to the south of the Silver Valley Horse Hamlet in the vicinity of
240th Street and 124th Avenue. The South Alouette River bisects two of the five properties, with the
majority of the lands located south of the river. Portions of the properties are located above an
aquifer and are also located in the localized floodplain of the South Alouette River. A number of
watercourses are located on or adjacent to the subject properties in addition to the South Alouette
River including two branches of Latimer Creek, Latimer Channel and two indefinite watercourses.
Four of the five subject properties are currently accessed via 240 Street, constructed to a gravel
road standard on the south side of the river. The fifth property is currently accessed via 124th
Avenue.
c) Project Description:
The development proposal is for a total of five properties totalling approximately 13.8 ha (34 acres)
of land in the northwest corner of 124th Avenue and 240th Street. The applicant proposes to rezone
the subject properties to enable a strata development of 166 residential strata lots approximately
237 m2 (2500 ft 2) in size, each of which would contain a modular rancher home that is constructed
elsewhere and placed on the property. Based on preliminary discussions with the applicant, the
modular home product is proposed to resemble a regular single storey home, the only differentiation
being the methods and location of construction.
The development spans a significant distance, and proposes three main accesses. One access is
from 240 Street on the south side of the South Alouette River, and a second access is from 239
Street. These two entrances will service the 134 lots proposed on the south side of the river. The
third access is located on the existing unopened 240 Street road allowance located on the north
side of the river via Fern Crescent. This entrance will provide access to 32 lots proposed on the
north side of the river. Other elements of the proposal include park dedication for conservation
purposes of Latimer Creek, Latimer Channel, and South Alouette River; a nature interpretive centre,
as well as several parking and common areas.
d) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. For the proposed
development to proceed, an OCP amendment would be required to amend the Urban Area Boundary
in order to re -designate the site to Urban Residential to allow the density as proposed by the
applicant. Portions of the site will also need to be designated Conservation. Multiple sections of the
Official Community Plan have relevance to this application. They are as follows:
• Chapter 3, Neighbourhoods and Housing, which discusses compatible development,
expansion into the Urban Reserve, and density bonusing for specific housing options;
• Chapter 5, Natural Features, which discusses floodplain development;
• Chapter 6, Employment, which discusses development adjacent to agricultural land;
-3-
• Chapter 8, Development Permit Area Guidelines, which creates special requirements for
certain forms of development and for the protection of natural features and ecologically
significant land; and
• Appendix C, which aligns specific zones with land use designations.
Land Use Designation and Neighbourhood Context:
The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. Section 3.13 of the
Official Community Plan states the following regarding the Estate Suburban Residential land use
designation:
The Estate Suburban Residential designation permits single detached or duplex housing in
areas outside the Urban Area Boundary.
The zones prescribed by this designation are RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RG -2
(Suburban Residential Strata). The permitted densities average 0.4 hectares (1 acre) per dwelling
unit. The Estate Suburban Residential designation indicates that the subject properties are outside
of the District's Urban Area Boundary, but could be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring
approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District as they are within the Fraser
Sewer Area.
Aspects of this proposal are supportable as it would meet a specific housing need. However, the
proposed 166 units would amount to over 40 units per net hectare, which represents a significant
increase in density.
The supportable density land use designation of the Estate Suburban Residential is 2.5 units per net
hectare, or 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots, which would amount to a total of 10 units on the subject site.
The following OCP policy guides development in the Estate Suburban Residential land use
designation:
Policy 3-14 Urban level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate
Suburban Residential.
Density Bonusing:
The Official Community Plan contains provisions that could be used to support an increased number
of units than that prescribed by the zone and land use designation. Through these provisions, an
applicant would receive greater development potential (generally more residential units) in exchange
for providing a specific community benefit. These benefits could include:
1. Ecological, which could pertain to the protection of features such as significant stands of
trees or parkland above what would normally be required
2. Affordable, rental, and special needs housing provisions contained within the development
proposal.
3. Community Amenity, which would allow a financial contribution for a specific community
amenity. Currently, this provision is only allowed in the Albion area.
A density bonus approach for tree protection purposes is currently under consideration by Council for
another application within this neighbourhood, at 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue (2014-054-
RZ). The proposed densities of this nearby application are equivalent to the RS1-c Zone, or 1200 m2
(13,000 ft2) lots.
-4-
The potential of this application to meet specific housing needs could be considered in a density
bonus formula. Policy 3 - 30 of the Official Community Plan would support such an initiative, as
follows:
Maple Ridge will consider density bonus as a means of encouraging the provision of
affordable, rental and special needs housing, and amenities.
It is noted that the applicant has emphasized that this higher density housing form would be an
accessible and affordable form of home ownership. The estimated market value per unit would be
under $300,000.00 and these units have potential to be wheelchair accessible'.
This consideration would require further investigation and a commitment to specific measures such
as: accessible units, rental secured in perpetuity through a Section 905 Housing Agreement; and/or
non market houing units; and one level rancher styled units. All these suggestions are supported
through current OCP policies and are reaffirmed in the draft Housing Action Plan.
If a density bonus was applied to this proposal that was consistent with the Dogwood Avenue
application, with similar densities, the total number of units would be approximately 48 over this 4
hectare development site. Further discussion about density bonusing is included further in this
report.
Based on the land use context of the Horse Hamlet, Official Community Plan policies do not support
the development of lands north of the Alouette River as part of this development proposal. The
portions of the subject properties on the north side of the river are geographically separated from the
land on the south side of the river, and are best considered in relationship to the large RS -3 (One
Family Rural Residential) lots already established along the south side of Fern Crescent. In
consideration of this context, the development of this area should remain in accordance with the
Estate Suburban Residential land use designation. It should also be noted that the dedication of
this area could be used as a density bonus provision that would allow for increased density in the
larger developable southern portion of the site.
This application proposes urban levels of density, with a proposed lot size of 237 m2, in an area of
Maple Ridge that has not been designated for urban development, and whose neighbourhood
context is a mix of large lot suburban and agricultural parcels. Properties along 239 Street and in
the Academy Park neighbourhood have been developed in accordance with the Estate Suburban
Residential designation, characterized by 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots and high improvement values,
indicating that these adjacent properties are not likely for infill and re -development in the
foreseeable future. As development of these lands has occurred in accordance with the stated
direction of the community, subsequent developments should be sensitive to this context
Additionally, large agricultural lots are located south and west of the subject properties; and an
established neighbourhood with a variety of historic lot size is located north of the development site
adjacent to the Silver Valley Horse Hamlet.
This development cannot proceed as proposed without an OCP amendment to re -designate the
subject properties to Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include it within the District's
Urban Area Boundary. As the development proposal cannot be supported based on Policies 3-2 and
3-14, the Planning Department does not support an Official Community Plan amendment to include
the subject properties within the District's Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use
designation to Urban Residential.
It should be noted at this time that the proposed development and its affordability are entirely market driven.
-5-
Urban Area Boundary Adjustment
There are several key OCP policies that do not align with expanding the Urban Area Boundary to
include the subject properties and develop them to an urban density as proposed by the applicant.
These policies are outlined and discussed below, and in subsequent sections of this report.
Policy 3 - 22 Maple Ridge will avoid non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary.
The subject properties are bounded by Agricultural and Estate Suburban Residential designated
land. Expansion of the Urban Area Boundary to include these properties is therefore not
supportable. Additionally:
Policy 2 - 6 Maple Ridge supports and maintains the Urban Area Boundary recognizing the role that
it has on limiting urban expansion, preserving community character, reducing land
speculation within the Agricultural Land Reserve and protecting the agricultural land
base, and in providing for the efficient delivery of services. Adjustments to the Urban
Area Boundary:
a) will only be supported if the District has an adopted Agricultural Plan;
b) will be considered in cooperation with the Agricultural Land Commission and
Metro Vancouver; and
c) will only be conducted during a Comprehensive Official Community Plan review,
or Council directed Comprehensive Urban Area Boundary review, and
applications considered outside of either review are considered premature.
Policy 2-6 outlines the importance of maintaining the Urban Area Boundary as a way to preserve
community character and protect agricultural lands. The policy also outlines the circumstances
required in considering an adjustment to the Urban Area Boundary. The Urban Area Boundary was
considered by Council in 2009-2011 as a component of the Regional Growth Strategy review, and no
changes were directed at that time.
Thornhill Urban Reserve:
In addition to the above noted Urban Area Boundary policies of the OCP, an Urban Area Boundary
adjustment and OCP amendment to Urban Residential is also not supportable due to the decision to
allocate the Thornhill area as a future Urban Reserve growth area. Prior to the adoption of the
Official Community Plan in 2006, there was significant dialogue about retaining the Thornhill area as
an Urban Reserve. In 2004, consultant services were retained to evaluate where to accommodate
population growth in the community. Growth options included expanding northward (on lands that
included the subject properties) or retaining Thornhill for future growth. After consideration of the
consultant's report and public input, Council directed that Thornhill be retained for future growth in
the Official Community Plan.
On December 13, 2004, Council passed the following resolution:
That Option 2 (Status Quo - Thornhill) be indicated as Council's preferred option during the
public consultation phase of the review of the Official Community Plan.
-6-
The 2006 Official Community Plan was adopted with the retention of Thornhill as the Urban Reserve,
defined as a land use designation which identifies lands identified by the District for long term future
urban level services and housing, subject to compliance with Section 1.3.5 of the OCP. In addition,
specific triggers were established indicating when development could proceed. Policy 3-24 states
the following:
Policy 3 - 24 Maple Ridge will retain the Thornhill area as a long term Urban Reserve area. Urban
development will not be supported in the Thornhill Urban Reserve Area until the
population threshold exceeds 100,000 people for the District and the residential
capacity within the existing urban area is approaching build -out.
As there are significant implications for future growth patterns in Thornhill, the urban density
proposed for the subject properties is not supportable.
Agricultural Interface:
The subject properties are adjacent to land located in the Agricultural Land Reserve to the west and
south of the site. The following OCP policies apply to development adjacent to agricultural land:
Policy 6 -12 Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by:
b) requiring agricultural impact assessments (AIAs) and Groundwater Impact
Assessment of non-farm development and infrastructure projects and identifying
measures to off -set impacts on agricultural capability;
c) preserving larger farm units and areas by using appropriate buffers such as
roads, topographic features, watercourses, ditching, fencing, or gradually reduced
residential densities on properties adjacent to agricultural land;
As a requirement of development on the subject properties, an Agricultural Impact Assessment as
outlined in item b) above would be required. An agricultural buffer would also be used to reduce the
impact on the existing agricultural properties.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties located at 23895 124 Avenue,
12507, 12469, 12555 and 12599 240 Street from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to enable a
strata development of 166 lots, each of which would contain a modular single storey home that is
constructed elsewhere and placed on the property. Appropriate Zoning Bylaw amendments will need
to be created, and are dependent upon direction by Council.
Development Permit:
The proposed development would be situated on portions of the site that are entirely within the
floodplain of the south Alouette River. A Natural Features Development Permit would be required,
and the services of a qualified professional would be required to determine site specific flood
construction levels. Bringing in sufficient fill to raise this high density development sufficiently could
have potential impacts on adjacent environmentally sensitive lands and could alter river flows on
high flow periods. On this basis, it should be noted that the proposed single storey accessible
housing form could prove challenging at this location.
-7-
e) Intergovernmental Implications:
The subject properties are designated General Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy and are
located within the Urban Containment Boundary. The General Urban designation indicates that the
subject properties can be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring approval from the Greater
Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, as they are within the Fraser Sewer Area.
Consequently, this regional designation gives Council some flexibility to direct land uses on Estate
Suburban Residential designated lands, as no regional approvals are required in order for this
application to proceed as proposed. Although the subject properties are not considered available for
urban levels of development under OCP policies, Council may consider using density bonusing to
achieve specific housing benefits as outlined in Policy 3-30.
f) Interdepartmental Comments:
Engineering Department:
To service the proposed development the level of engineering services currently provided will require
upgrading including significant transportation, water, sanitary and drainage work. To address the
increased demand placed upon the municipal systems the developer would initially be required to
evaluate the water network and downstream sanitary sewer for any capacity upgrades. In addition
the property is serviced by a "deadend" watermain and a secondary water connection (looped
system) will need to be provided, this may require directional drilling under the Alouette River and a
pressure reducing station. The sanitary system would also need to be extended from Abernethy Way
including the construction of a pump station and a 750m forcemain. Access is currently provided by
a gravel road and would require upgrading to a rural standard from the intersection of 141 Ave. The
upgrades identified form a preliminary review of the development, additional unknown factors may
be identified when the engineering referral is circulated. Consideration to a future 240 Street bridge
crossing and associated fill and/or structural footprint may need to be assessed with this
application.
Further Engineering review would be required upon receipt of Council direction as it relates to the
potential development of this site and lands in this vicinity.
g) Alternatives:
The development concept is supportable in its form and character, and because it provides for an
alternative housing form, a range of unit sizes, and responds to a known community need. However,
the proposal cannot be supported under the Official Community Plan based on the urban level
density being proposed. Three alternatives to the recommendation are outlined below for Council's
consideration.
Alternative 1: Support Application as Proposed
The first alternative is to support the application as proposed for 166 units. If Alternative 1 is
preferred, Council will need to direct staff
to bring forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading, and to identify the additional information
the applicant is required to provide in accordance with Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-
1999. It is important to recognize that there significant implications to this approach, which is not
recommended.
-8-
Alternative 2: Short Term Deferral: Density Bonus Framework Using Densities Similar to RS -lc Zone
The second alternative is to develop the subject properties to a higher density than currently
supported in the OCP using a density bonus framework for affordable, rental, or special needs
housing, and /or for ecological diversity and the retention of forested lands. This approach is similar
to the nearby Dogwood Avenue application that proposes increased residential densities in exchange
for tree protection. Resulting densities would be consistent with the RS -lc Zone.
If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to work with the applicant to bring
forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading, and to identify the additional information the
applicant is required to provide in accordance with Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
Alternative 3: Long Term Deferral: Estate Suburban Residential Designation Review
Should Council wish to explore supporting urban densities above the RS -lc Zone, or other potential
alternatives for developing the subject properties not outlined in this report, a third alternative is to
conduct a policy review of the Estate Suburban Residential designation. This alternative would
involve Council directing staff to prepare a policy review of the entire Estate Suburban Residential
land use designation, affecting approximately 207 hectares (512 acres) of Estate Suburban
Residential designated land. A similar review was recently completed for the Albion Area Plan. It is
noted at this time that the Planning Department does not have the capacity to undertake this review
until the Albion Flats and Hammond Area Plans are completed.
If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to conduct this study, noting the
subject application will be deferred until the policy review is completed.
CONCLUSION:
The housing form proposed by this application is single storey ground oriented detached residential
units that could be wheelchair accessible, which would contribute to the diversity of Maple Ridge
housing stock. The housing form it proposes is supportable and aligns with the goals of the Housing
Action Plan. However, this application proposes urban densities, with 166 units and an average
density of 41.5 units per net hectare, compared to the 10 units currently permitted under the Estate
Suburban designation.
This report has reviewed the subject application in light of applicable OCP policies that speak to
Urban Area Boundary adjustments, neighbourhood compatibility, and the Estate Suburban
Residential land use designation. Previous Council decisions about extending the Urban Area
Boundary, and the 2004 Council decision to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban development as part
of the review of the OCP have also been summarized. In summary, it is recommended that the
rezoning application as proposed by the applicant be denied, as the proposal does not comply with
the following OCP Policies:
• Policy 3-14, which does not permit urban densities in the Estate Suburban Residential
designation;
• Policy 2-6, which stipulates the circumstances of when an Urban Area Boundary can be
considered;
• Policy 3-22, which does not allow non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary;
• Policy 3-24, which allocates Thornhill as an Urban Reserve for future urban growth.
-9-
The development proposal is not in compliance with the OCP, and would require an amendment to
designate the subject properties Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include the subject
properties within the Urban Area Boundary. As outlined in this report, these required amendments
do not align with the OCP, and, therefore, it is recommended that this application be denied.
"Original signed by Diana Hall"
Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA, MCIP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Proposed Site Plan
- 10 -
7/.//
I
I
i
I
ry
126 AVE Q
1
/ ,
60.
/
/ \
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
/
1
/
1
'
I
N.__-`
Scale: 1:3,500
Cit _.f Pitt
Measows__
_
X 9
i
23895 124 AVENUE & 12469, 12507,
12555 & 12599 240 STREET
-- i.
i.2
.�:
, - is i
4,31.0....,...4.=
'= g
t'
J'E" '�
_
-
.�
:�
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
Y
Wim°-_arlim
.-4_ I a
i:,,,,
'
ji,Imp-
,
-�"-
ai
. ,I.
*..440
MAPLE RIDGE
MAPLE RIDGE
District
I
British Columbia
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Langley
I
o
%11/4
_
DATE: Feb 19, 2014 FILE: 2014-013-RZ BY: PC
a n— I0j
FRASERR.
f z,
Zf
( 1.4 U1,31'1'5
•
APPENDIX B
z3�-1-14sT +16; S
/C611v,W►to,- Neo,
1\1 9 6. (Air Joe Critt
0,a4A
i
46 /
• 4`
•
•
w••• • •
I I`YY ARCHITECT
I ' I I' I -I C IV
I; vKK"1'
ARCHREC URE !JUAN OESIGH INTERIOR DESIGN
.i. i.i �i. it �Ii��ai Til .:n x.1 i .
C 3z UNwTs)
1
eTc)LiLlimuOTY.E
isc
im
MAPLE RIOGE
9nt ah l'..�• ..
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 15, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-061-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
24205 Alouette Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to allow for 41 lots. The proposed development includes 24 RS -lc size lots with a
minimum area of 1200m2 (0.30 acre); and 17 RS -1 size lots with a minimum area of 668m2 (0.17
acres), attached as Appendix B.
The subject property is designated Estate Suburban Residential, and is located outside of the
District's Urban Area Boundary, but is within the Region's Urban Containment Boundary and the
Fraser Sewerage Area. The prescribed zones in this designation are RS -2 (One Family Suburban
Residential) and RG -2 (Suburban Residential Strata), as outlined in Appendix C of the Official
Community Plan. The housing form associated with this designation is low density single detached
with a minimum lot area of 0.4 ha (1 acre) and or strata housing units an maximum density of 2.5
units per net hectare.
This report will review this application in light of previous Council decisions about extending the
Urban Area Boundary, and the Council decision to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban development as
part of the Official Community Plan.
Official Community Plan policies do not support amendments to include the subject property within
the District's Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential.
Therefore, it is recommended that this application be denied.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That first reading for the property located at 24205 Alouette Road be denied.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc.
Debbie L. Raymond
That portion of NW 1/4 Section 22, Township 12, lying east of the
east bank of the South Alouette River and east of Parcel "C" (Ex
Plan 5712) and also lying north of SRWPIan 3041, NWD
1102
OCP:
Existing: Estate Suburban Residential
Proposed: Urban Residential, Conservation
Zoning:
Existing: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: RS -lc (One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential), and
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: 128 Avenue (unmaintained gravel lane), and
Rural Residential
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
South: Use: Vacant municipal land, and Rural and Suburban Residential
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and
RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
East: Use: Rural Residential
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), under application (2013-
115-RZ) for 7 Suburban RS -2 zoned lots)
Designation: Suburban Residential
West: Use: Alouette River, and common property for Single Family Strata
Residential
Zone: RG -2 (Suburban Residential Strata)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing Requirement:
b) Site Characteristics:
Rural Residential
Urban density Single Family Residential
8.348 ha (20.6 acres), developable portion is estimated to
be 4 ha (10 acres)
128 Avenue
Urban Standard
The development site is located southeast of the Alouette River, south of the 128 Avenue road right-
of-way to the west of Alouette Road. The land slopes down from the steep embankment on the
municipal lands south of the site, sloping towards the Alouette River on the north and west with a
steep embankment down to the river. Current development of the site includes a house, barn,
several out buildings and horse paddocks. Watercourses, swales, a pond, and steep slopes have
been identified on the site, as well as forested areas some of which are significant sized trees. An
equestrian trail and small watercourse are located within the 128 Avenue road right-of-way, and
recent construction activity for the sanitary sewer main extension on 128 Avenue included
improvements to them. The property is located outside of the District's Urban Area Boundary (UAB),
but is within the Regional Urban Containment Boundary and the Fraser Sewerage Area.
-2-
c) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 8.4 ha (20.6 acre) property to allow a subdivision of 41 single
family urban lots. The proposed development includes 24 RS -lc size lots with a minimum area of
1200m2 (0.30 acre); and 17 RS -1 size lots with a minimum area of 668m2 (0.17 acres). The net
developable portion of the site is estimated at 4 hectares (10 acres).
An environmental assessment of the site has not been completed by a Qualified Environmental
Professional to establish the developable area. An initial environmental context map was prepared
by the Environmental Section (attached as Appendix C) to identify a preliminary approximation of the
developable area. Additional information is required to accurately determine density. The unknown
quantity of roads needed to access the future lot complicates this issue further. However, based on
density currently permitted on the OCP (i.e: 2.5 units per net hectare for RS -2 development), the
estimated potential lot yield of the site would be 9 to 10 lots.
The applicant's proposal for 41 lots on a 4 ha (10 acres) site is equivalent to a density of 10 units
per net hectare or 24.7 units per acre. This unit count is significant (4 times higher) than the
permitted density in the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation. If approved, this
proposal would have important implications to the entire Estate Suburban Residential designation
and the residential policy structure of the OCP.
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:
i. Official Community Plan:
The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. For the proposed
development an OCP amendment would be required to re -designate the site to Urban Residential to
allow the density as proposed by the applicant and Conservation for protection of the watercourse
and riparian areas.
Multiple sections of the Official Community Plan have relevance to this application. These are as
follows:
• Chapter 3, Neighbourhoods and Housing, which discusses compatible development, and
expansion into the Urban Reserve;
• Chapter 5, Natural Features, which discusses protection of watercourses, riparian areas,
wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and forest areas;
• Chapter 8, Development Permit Area Guidelines, which creates special requirements for
certain forms of development and for the protection of natural features and ecologically
significant land; and
• Appendix C, which aligns specific zones with land use designations.
The planning implications of this development proposal in the context of the above mentioned
sections are significant and are outlined below.
-3-
Land Use Designation:
The development site is currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. Section 3.13 of the
Official Community Plan states the following regarding the Estate Suburban Residential land use
designation:
The Estate Suburban Residential designation permits single detached or duplex housing in
areas outside the Urban Area Boundary.
The prescribed zones in this designation are RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RG -2
(Suburban Residential Strata), as outlined in Appendix C of the Official Community Plan. The
permitted densities average 0.4 hectares (1 acre) per dwelling unit. The Estate Suburban
Residential designation indicates that the subject property is outside of the District's Urban Area
Boundary, but could be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring approval from the Greater
Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District as it is within the Fraser Sewer Area.
Policy 3-14 of the OCP policies below guide development in the Estate Suburban Residential land
use designation:
Urban level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate
Suburban Residential.
Policy 3-15 Maple Ridge will support single detached and two-family residential housing in Estate
Suburban Residential areas. The Estate Suburban Residential land use designation is
characterised generally by 0.4 hectare lots.
This application proposes urban levels of density in an area of Maple Ridge that has not been
designated for urban development, and whose neighbourhood context is a mix of large lot rural
properties. This development cannot be supported as proposed without an OCP amendment to re-
designate the subject properties to Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include it within
the District's Urban Area Boundary. As outlined above, the development proposal does not comply
with the OCP and cannot be supported based on Policies 3-14 and 3-15. The policies of the Official
Community Plan do not support an amendment to include the subject properties within the District's
Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential.
Density Bonusing:
The Official Community Plan contains provisions that could be used to support an increased number
of units than that prescribed by the zone and land use designation. Through these provisions, an
applicant would receive greater development potential (generally more residential units) in exchange
for providing a specific community benefit. These benefits could include:
1. Ecological, which could pertain to the protection of features such as significant stands of
trees or parkland above what would normally be required
2. Affordable, rental, and special needs housing provisions contained within the development
proposal.
3. Community Amenity, which would allow a financial contribution for a specific community
amenity. Currently, this provision is only allowed in the Albion area.
The subject application has not proposed any specific community benefit and at this time is not
eligible for consideration of a density bonus.
However, a density bonus approach for tree protection purposes is currently under consideration by
Council for another application within this neighbourhood, at 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue
-4-
(2014-054-RZ). The proposed densities of this nearby application are equivalent to the RS1-c Zone,
or 1200 m2 (13,000 ft2) lots.
If a density bonus was applied to this proposal that was consistent with the Dogwood Avenue
application, with similar densities, the total number of units would be approximately 48 over this 4
hectare (10 acre) development site. Further discussion about density bonusing is included further
in this report.
This development cannot proceed as proposed without an OCP amendment to re -designate the
subject property to Urban Residential and Conservation, as well as include it within the District's
Urban Area Boundary. The development proposal is inconsistent with Policies 3-2 and 3-14, and
therefore, required amendments to include the subject properties within the District's Urban Area
Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential are not supportable.
Urban Area Boundary Adjustment
There are several key OCP policies that do not align with expanding the Urban Area Boundary to
include the subject property and develop it to an urban density as proposed by the applicant. These
policies are outlined and discussed below, and in subsequent sections of this report.
Policy 3 - 22 Maple Ridge will avoid non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary.
The subject property is adjacent to lands that have been developed in accordance with the Estate
Suburban Residential designation. Expansion of the Urban Area Boundary to include this property is
therefore not supportable. Additionally, Policy 2-6 states the following:
Maple Ridge supports and maintains the Urban Area Boundary recognizing the role that
it has on limiting urban expansion, preserving community character, reducing land
speculation within the Agricultural Land Reserve and protecting the agricultural land
base, and in providing for the efficient delivery of services. Adjustments to the Urban
Area Boundary:
a) will only be supported if the District has an adopted Agricultural Plan;
b) will be considered in cooperation with the Agricultural Land Commission and
Metro Vancouver; and
c) will only be conducted during a Comprehensive Official Community Plan review,
or Council directed Comprehensive Urban Area Boundary review, and
applications considered outside of either review are considered premature.
Policy 2-6 outlines the importance of maintaining the Urban Area Boundary as a way to preserve
community character and protect agricultural lands. The policy also outlines the circumstances
required in considering an adjustment to the Urban Area Boundary. The Urban Area Boundary was
considered by Council in 2009-2011 as a component of the Regional Growth Strategy review, and no
changes were directed at that time.
Thornhill Urban Reserve:
In addition to the above noted Urban Area Boundary policies of the OCP, an Urban Area Boundary
adjustment and OCP amendment to Urban Residential is also not supportable due to the decision to
allocate the Thornhill area as a future Urban Reserve growth area. Prior to the adoption of the
Official Community Plan in 2006, there was significant dialogue about retaining the Thornhill area as
an Urban Reserve. In 2004, consultant services were retained to evaluate where to accommodate
population growth in the community. Growth options included expanding northward (on lands that
included the subject properties) or retaining Thornhill for future growth. After consideration of the
-5-
consultant's report and public input, Council directed that Thornhill be retained for future growth in
the Official Community Plan.
On December 13, 2004, Council passed the following resolution:
That Option 2 (Status Quo - Thornhill) be indicated as Council's preferred option during the
public consultation phase of the review of the Official Community Plan.
The 2006 Official Community Plan was adopted with the retention of Thornhill as the Urban Reserve,
defined as a land use designation which identifies lands identified by the District for long term future
urban level services and housing, subject to compliance with Section 1.3.5 of the OCP. In addition,
specific triggers were established indicating when development could proceed. Policy 3-24 states
the following:
Policy 3 - 24 Maple Ridge will retain the Thornhill area as a long term Urban Reserve area. Urban
development will not be supported in the Thornhill Urban Reserve Area until the
population threshold exceeds 100,000 people for the District and the residential
capacity within the existing urban area is approaching build -out.
As there are significant implications for future growth patterns in Thornhill, the urban density
proposed for the subject property is not supportable.
ii. Zoning Bylaw:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property located at 24205 Alouette Road from RS -3 (One
Family Rural Residential) to allow a subdivision of 41 single family urban lots. The proposed
development includes 24 RS -lc size lots with a minimum area of 1200m2 (12,917 ft2); and 17 RS -1
size lots with a minimum area of 668m2 (7190 ft2, attached as Appendix B.
e) Intergovernmental Implications:
Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy establishes regional land use designations and sets an
Urban Containment Boundary. The subject properties are designated General Urban in the Regional
Growth Strategy and are located within the Urban Containment Boundary. The General Urban
designation indicates that the subject properties can be serviced with sanitary sewer without
requiring approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, as they are within
the Fraser Sewer Area.
Consequently, this regional designation gives Council some flexibility to direct land uses on Estate
Suburban Residential designated lands, as no regional approvals are required. Although the subject
properties are not considered available for urban levels of development under OCP policies, Council
may consider using density bonusing to achieve specific community benefits as outlined in Policy 6-
62. However, the applicant has not proposed on the subject property a sufficient level of affordable,
special needs or rental housing provisions, or conservation, park or tree preservation to justify
density bonusing considerations for this property.
-6-
f) Interdepartmental Implications:
i. Engineering Department
To service the proposed development, the level of engineering services currently provided will
require upgrading, including significant transportation, water and drainage work. To address the
increased demand placed upon the municipal systems the developer would initially be required to
evaluate the water network and downstream sanitary sewer for any capacity upgrades. In addition,
the property cannot be serviced by a "dead-end" watermain, therefore, a secondary water
connection (looped system) will need to be provided. This may require directional drilling under the
Alouette River and installation of a pressure reducing station.
Access to the property is currently provided by an unmaintained gravel road accessed from Alouette
Road and will require upgrading to an urban standard from the intersection of 128 Avenue and
Alouette Road. The upgrades identified above form a preliminary review of the development, and
additional unknown factors may be identified when a referral to the Engineering department is
circulated.
ii. Environmental Considerations
The known watercourses on the property include the Alouette River and 2 tributaries. In addition, a
recent visit to the development site noted additional watercourses that have not been identified on
the District's Streamside Setback Assessment Map. Setbacks to steep slopes on or adjacent to the
site are required. A geotechnical assessment will be required, including a plan showing the
geotechnical setback lines from the slopes. The proposed subdivision layout does not appear to
take the existing watercourse situation on the subject property into adequate consideration.
There are a number of significant trees on the site, especially within the watercourse setback area,
have been tagged by a surveyor or forester. A qualified professional will need to prepare an arborist
report and tree survey with recommendations for tree retention where possible, possible tree
replacement, and a hazard assessment.
Approval of a Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit is required prior to
any disturbance on the site, particularly the removal of any trees within 50 metres of any
watercourse. An Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment will be required.
Assessment of natural hazards, including floodplain and geotechnical, will also be required.
g) Alternatives:
The OCP policies do not support an OCP amendment to include the subject property within the
District's Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential. Three
alternatives to the staff report are outlined below for Council's consideration.
Alternative 1: Support Application as Proposed
The first alternative is to support the application as proposed for 41 units. If Alternative 1 is
preferred, Council will need to direct staff to bring forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading,
and to identify the additional information the applicant is required to provide in accordance with
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. It is important to recognize that there significant
implications to this approach, which is not recommended.
-7-
Alternative 2: Short Term Deferral: Density Bonus Framework Using Densities Similar to RS -lc Zone
The second alternative is to develop the subject property to a higher density than currently supported
in the OCP using a density bonus framework for:
• affordable, rental, or special needs housing, or
• ecological diversity and the retention of forested lands.
This approach is similar to the nearby Dogwood Avenue application that proposes increased
residential densities in exchange for tree protection. Resulting densities would be consistent with
the RS -lc Zone.
If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to work with the applicant to bring
forward a zone amending bylaw for first reading, and to identify the additional information the
applicant is required to provide in accordance with Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
Alternative 3: Long Term Deferral: Estate Suburban Residential Designation Review
Should Council wish to explore supporting urban densities above the RS -lc Zone, or other potential
alternatives for developing the subject property not outlined in this report, a third alternative is to
conduct a policy review of the Estate Suburban Residential designation. This alternative would
involve Council directing staff to prepare a policy review of the entire Estate Suburban Residential
land use designation, affecting approximately 207 hectares (512 acres) of Estate Suburban
Residential designated land. A similar review was recently completed for the Albion Area Plan. It is
noted at this time that the Planning Department does not have the capacity to undertake this review
until the Albion Flats and Hammond Area Plans are completed.
If this alternative is preferred, Council will need to direct staff to conduct this study, noting the
subject application will be deferred until the policy review is completed.
CONCLUSION:
This report has reviewed the subject application in light of applicable OCP policies that speak to
Urban Area Boundary adjustments and the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation.
Previous Council decisions about extending the Urban Area Boundary, and the 2004 Council decision
to reaffirm Thornhill for future urban development as part of the review of the OCP have also been
summarized. In summary, the proposed 41 lots represent a significant density increase on lands that
are designated Estate Suburban Residential. Therefore, it is recommended that the rezoning
application as proposed by the applicant be denied, as the proposal does not comply with the
following OCP Policies:
• Policy 3-14, which does not permit urban densities in the Estate Suburban Residential
designation;
• Policy 2-6, which stipulates the circumstances of when an Urban Area Boundary
expansion can be considered;
• Policy 3-22, which does not allow non-contiguous expansion of the Urban Area Boundary;
• Policy 3-24, which allocates Thornhill as an Urban Reserve for future urban growth.
-8-
Official Community Plan policies do not support amendments to include the subject property within
the District's Urban Area Boundary, or to amend the land use designation to Urban Residential.
Therefore, an OCP amendment to such is not supportable under the OCP policies, and it is
recommended that this application be denied on this basis.
"Original signed by Diana Hall" for
Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT
Senior 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 - Proposed Development Sketch
Appendix C - Environmental Context Map - setbacks
-9-
v
co
co
co
38 0-
24200
P 322 - 35
N,
7,
0
36
P 2622
/ Rem 29 m
/ N
ior
• 034
128 AVE.
128 AVE./ /
P 9364
/
14
/ SUBJECT PROPERTY
ir
/I
CP
LMS 3755
/
/
PART LYIN7E T.QF ALOUETTE RINAR
AND NORTH)OF RLGHT-OF-VVIR
alli.
w
L
D
o
N
N
P 9°41
N.
CO
ALOUETTE RD
0
N
NN"" 1
o
LMS 3755
5
6
67
E
P438N
68
v
N
1
BCP
co
•cr
N
2
44571
co
N
12665
2 P 72087
12621
�
I
_--._.—_. _--_--
126 AVE. 126 AVE.
Scale:
1:2,500
Ciff Pitt9
Mea:ows_
ImolL
:1
,
! a
lis I to
24205 ALOUETTE ROAD
CORPORATION O F
THE DISTRICT OF
=a1itN!
Ihiff"
'
•�iii
.,,5
� i
-F€d:
���=m_
_err
r
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
/ District of
.!/ �--�-------�"---���
Langley ��
o
fa
DATE: Aug 29, 2014 FILE: 2014-061-RZ BY: PC
— - "0'
FRASER R.
c24ni
Ill
RS -1c 33.33
x 40m
APPENDIX B
RS -1 18m
x37.11 m
RS -1 24.74m
x 27 m I 0 10 20 30 Om
d
APPENDIX C
S. Alouette R. floodplain
approximate boundary
15m setback from
tributaries top of ba l
to be field verified
COmmLlnity greeiiway
trail on Parks Fvlaster Plan
location to be determined
The Corporation of the District of rylaple Ridge
makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy
or present status of the information shown on
this map.
Scale: 1:3,000
Legend
Trails
OCP STATUS
DESIRED
- EXISTING
Ponds
Wetbrids
GPS Creek Centrelines
ALR
Slope
Percent
0-14
01 -2.
11.
L
_ _IAbuetie Floadphin(Min.aIEnv.'=='
Alouette Road and 128 Ave.
Site Context Mapl
L1.2..1 -I
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
P_ANNN0 D=}ARfF.1=4T
v--=.
Se:: 2. 2014
FILE: U rafted BY: RS
MAPLE RIDGE
QIN ish tokumhra
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit
10476 - 10518 McEachern Street (east side lots only)
MEETING DATE: September 15, 2014
FILE NO: 2014-053-DVP
MEETING: CoW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Development Variance Permit application 2014 -053 -VP has been received requesting an increase to
the maximum building height from 9.75 metres to 11.0 metres for eight uphill lots on the east side
of McEachern Street. This requested variance is to the same height as Variance Permit 2013-070-
DVP for Lots 28 to 53, 73 to 95 and 114 to 126 of the same development, which Council approved
on October 8, 2013. It is recommended this Development Variance Permit 2014-053-DVP be
approved.
Council considered rezoning application 2012-040-RZ and granted final reading on October 10,
2013. Council considered and approved two earlier variance permit applications for this
development. 2013-027-DVP was approved on June 25, 2013 to allow an increase to the height of
portions of the retaining walls and to reduce the road servicing requirements within the 104 Avenue
and 248 Street right-of-ways where the pedestrian walkways will be constructed. 2013-070-DVP
was approved on October 8, 2013 to allow an increase to the maximum building height on Lots 28 to
53, 73 to 95 and 114 to 126 to 11.0 metres; to allow the driveway for Lot 1 to be located less than
7.5 metres from the intersection; and to allow the existing overhead wiring on Jackson Road to
remain. Council considered and approved the Intensive Residential Development Permit 2013 -027 -
DP for 126 R-3 lots on October 8, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2014-053-DVP respecting the properties
located at 10476 to 10518 McEachern Street (east side lots only).
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Zoning:
Existing:
Morningstar Homes Ltd.
Morningstar Homes Ltd
Lots 106 to 113, Section 10, Township 12, NWD Plan
EPP32314
Medium Density Residential
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
1103
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation Residential Medium Density
South: Use: Single Family
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation Residential Medium Density
East: Use: Single Family
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation Residential Medium Density
West: Use: Single Family
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation Residential Medium Density
Use of Property: Under construction for single family residential
Access: McEachern Street
Servicing: Urban Standard
Lot Size: 352m2 to 521m2
b) Requested Variance:
1. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No 3510 -1985, Section 601C(F)(1): to vary the maximum
building height of the R-3 zoned Lots 106-113 from 9.75 metres to 11.0 metres.
c) Project Description:
These eight (8) lots are part the large 128 lot "Robertson Heights" subdivision that was approved
earlier this year on the site of the former Allard gravel pit. These lots are in the upper east portion of
the development on the east side of McEachern Street. Intensive Residential Development Permit
2013 -027 -DP has been approved which ensures there is a variety of building designs and colour
schemes within the comprehensive design plan for the site.
d) Planning Analysis:
The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family
development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval
process.
The requested variance to increase the maximum building height to 11.0 metres is consistent with
building heights allowed by variance for recent developments in the District. The applicant designed
the buildings to fit the contours of the site and to meet the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment for
height in anticipation that the amendment would be adopted prior to approval of this development.
The buildings are an up -hill design with three storeys facing the street and 2 storeys in the rear. A
portion of the upper gable on the front elevation and a small portion of the peak of the roof will
2-
exceed the maximum height permitted in the R-3 zone. The amount of variance required for each of
these lots will vary due to the slope of the site, but none of the buildings will exceed 11.0 metres.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed variance to increase the maximum building height on the uphill lots to 11.0 metres is
supported because the height variance is consistent with common building practices and with
building heights permitted by variances for new development. The same building height variance to
11.0 metres was approved by Council on October 8, 2013 with application 2013-070-DVP for Lots
28 to 53, 73 to 95 and 114 to 126 of this same Robertson Heights development.
It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer
be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2014-053-DVP.
"Original signed by Ann Edwards"
Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT
Senior 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 - Building Elevation plans
3-
APPENDIX A
6 1 • 0567 Q'V "OSS °b 29 i \ 105 63
Se
los , 2Cp
8 �5s2 2 310553
10550 43
21207055 •S
70
70551 Ips¢ 46 26� 3610543
Ips
qq VF 7053 0 25 37
2270 s 24
s4 l`
7ps N
38
r-
i•
N
39
co
l`
N
40
coco
i•
N
41
4-
N
3 37
22
7052 72
s
7 70520 71 7 0573
N.
114 :111
co
�
0)
N-
11 •�
BCP 36 341
70,7_ 74 3 E
P 2
1
7057
°570 69 70 l70,5-77 s 7ps 81
70505 68 75 '6 7067211
0500 77 s 7050
1
118
10505
Subject
Properties
g96 10495cr)
7�p 70¢99 70602
104 80 44
)'°67
66 ^` 1101 20
490 65 '7/04,9„,.93 70496 10485
,9 4
N
co 109
70¢88 108 121 104 77
' 64 Q 4°9,9/
)3 ( To 87 ��� 70482 ,l' 1210471
45 107
Cr) 123
��- 70475
2
0469 �S`° 704 106 .. 0465
a.
s8 105
12410459
8310463
104 62 Lu
84 /0462
104 124 53
85
10451
10456 103 126
102 A0447
10448
3610445
101
10442 ,,
R
10441
100 '•
10438 127 ��
o
10435
99
10431
10432
98
14
10428
I3g4
95
10418 97 128
M_M
N
N /
10408 96
L\I\
NJ
Scale: 1:1,500;1
Ci
Meatows
.f Pitt
-
'.,.,�
�� 1
j
I
,c
10476-10518 McEachern St
nta_.7...,,
,.......,,,..,.,..k.
�t
CORPORATOFION OF
THE F
'-�■�-'!'I
`'"
...gra,,A=0,,,,...
>>� ����
' `��
■■,;,_=°T 4]VI
!
s.=I• ` iIIT _
1 ��r.t'• ,
to
MAPLE RIDGE
MAPLE RIDGE
4
District of
British Columbia
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Langley..,,..,-•1075.___�}
1
•
DATE: Sep 3, 2014 2014 -053 -VP BY: JV
FRASER R.
APPENDIX B
P
1111
NMI
ID 1
ITT -1
1111
111
ID 1 D ID 1
Ir�
'A' ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
J
R1OSIT - 7'— TION
NALL AREA - 443.15 SOFT. a 1.2014 L.D.
MAXINNM U.P.O. - 1.00%0R 6606 SOFT.
PROPOSED U.P.O. - 5.54% OR 55.25 5G.FT.
NALL AREA - 111.s1 SO.FT. a 5.4014 L.D.
MAXIMUM U.P.O. - 13.6893 aR 2425 SG.FT
PROPOSED U.P.O. - 225% OR 4.00 50.FT
— � v t.
R0DP
12
8
8
&
4
10
10
1,
i
_JL_�J
I I
I II
LEFT ELEVATION
f 17
5. � 1
Mf—
NALL AREA -1153.93 50.FT. a 1.2014 LD.
MAXIMUM RP ,O. -1.00% OR 1438 50.FF.
PROPOSED MPG.. - 5.64% 012 64.00 50.FT.
•
•
HIGHEST BUILDING FACE
A5�
11 VW [7AOM)
FDDP
92'-0 1/16" (q.75M1
ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED
BY CONTRACTOR BEFORE START OF
CONSTRUCTION & ANY
DISCREPANCIES REPORTED.
THESE DRAWINGS CONFORM TO
THE LATEST EDITION OF THE 2012
BRMSH COLUMBIA BUILDING CODE
NOTES
GRADE LINES AND UP.0.
GALOhAT10N55HONN REFLECT
6ERERAL CONDITIONS AND DO
NOT REPR: 1T ANY ACTUAL LOT.
ACTUAL 6RA1,1146 TO CONFORM
TO DISTRGT OF MAPLE RIDGE
REGUIREMENT5 AND MEET
APPROVED EN6INEER 16
DR IA41165.
13
r -
>
Z s e."' i
6-i9..9
R1 isi
m rn
nJ
MORNINGSTAR
DEFINING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
946 BRUNETTE AVENUE
C000ITLAM. B.C. V3K 1C9
HEAD OFFICE: (604) 521-0038
FAX: (604) 521-0078
WAW.USSF I00ES.COU
ROBERTSON
I-IEIG1-ITS
O
S
DESIGNED BY:
FREDDY 5ALE
DRAWN 8Y:
010
CHECKED BY:
S.C.
DATE:
.5040 3/2013
SCALE:
V4' = I'.0
SHEET TITLE:
UPHILL
ELEVATIONS
LOT:
106H
3
ADDRESS:
MAPI E RIDGE
MODEL:
FOOERTSON (ii!)
DRAWING:
m
Q -
ama
4
9
m`
\
9
iq
m
9
/111111111011111311111
IL mom
c. 7Il
i
11111..111
MAI
MPL
sal
60
1
0
11
gym
'A' ELEVATION
11111=
Rim nT
r
1•�
1
•
REAR ELEVATION
•
�1mn
mom
6111111
1 1..■ .
11 1
fihilul
RDDP
6HT ELEVATION
NALL AREA -143.13 SOFT. ® 1.2OM LD.
MAXIMUM U.P.O. -1.00% OR 66.06 Sari.
PROPOSED U.P.O. - 5.64% OR 53.25 SO.FT.
r0.531�
{ I II II
II II I I
LLL= IL u4,l J
1
12
8
8
4
10
10
It -
9•75m
HIGHEST BUILDING FACE
�_JL-
-Jb I
I I
I I
I I
1
1
L
-L.
LEFT ELEVATION
VV+LL AREA - 1133.43 SOFT- e 1.20M L.D.
MAXIMUM U.P.O. -1.00% OR 79.38 SO.FT.
PROPOSED UP.O. - 5.64% OR 64.00 SO FT.
•
O
r
(V
N
FDDP
ALLDIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED
BY CONTRACTOR BEFORE START OF
CONSTRUCTION & ANY
DISCREPANCIES REPORTED.
THESE DRAWINGS CONFORM TO
THE LATEST EDITION OF THE 2012
BRITISH COLUMBIA BUILDING CODE
FEMSON: DRAWN.
NOTES
GRADE LINE5 AND UP.O.
CALCULATIONS SHOVC4 REFLECT
GERERAL CONDITIONS AND DO
NOT REPRESENT ANY ACTUAL LOT.
ACTUAL GRADING TO CONFORM
TO DSTWGT OF MAPLE RIDGE
REQUIREMENTS AND MEET
APPROVED ENGINktrzf4G
DRAKM1G5.
I3
MORNINGSTAR
DEFINING SIMILE FAMILY HOMES
946 BRUNETTE AVENUE
COQUETLAM, B.C. V3K 1C9
HEAD OFFICE: (604) 521-0038
FAX: (604) 521-0078
V.V. W.LISTARHOt ES.COIU
ROBERTSON
HEIGHTS
DESIGNED BY:
FREDDY 5.4LE
DRAWN BY:
D QD
DATE:
JLLINIE 3/2013
CHECKED BY:
5 C.
SCALE:
V4'
SHEET 11TLE:
UPHILL
ELEVATIONS
LOT:
106-113
ADDRESS:
MAPLE RIDCF
MODEL:
JACKSON 010
DRAWING:
MAPLE RIDGE
Brit rah Columbia
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 15, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5255-40-167
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Award of Contract ITT-EN14-54: Larch Avenue Road Extension
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Larch Avenue Road Extension Project is in the City's approved Capital Program as part of the
Silver Valley Pedestrian and Road Improvement project. The project objective is to complete a critical
transportation linkage between the Forest Hamlet, River Village and the adjacent neighbourhoods as
identified in the Silver Valley Area Plan. The project scope includes road construction, boulevard and
pedestrian upgrades, drainage works and a section of watermain replacement.
This contract was tendered on August 13, 2014 and closed on September 3, 2014. The lowest
compliant tender price was submitted by Frazer Excavation Ltd. for $243,735.33 excluding taxes.
This does not include watermain work to be undertaken by City crews including two water service
connections and the tie-in to the City watermain. This work is estimated at $15,000 for a total
project value of $258,735.33
The construction of the project is anticipated to commence in October 2014 and is anticipated to be
completed in approximately 6 weeks.
Council approval to award the contract is required for the work to proceed.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Contract ITT-EN14-54, Larch Avenue Road Extension, be awarded to Frazer Excavation Ltd. in
the amount of $243,735.33 excluding taxes; and
THAT a contingency of 5% or $12,936.77 be approved to address potential variations in field
conditions; and
THAT the Financial Plan be amended to advance $48,272.10 from LTC 7840; and further
THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
1104
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Larch Avenue from 235 Street to approximately 85m east is currently an asphalt road
constructed to a minimal service level to provide local access to several driveways. In 2012 a
development application constructed the portion of Larch Avenue west of 236 Street to the
full urban standards as far as the easterly limit of this project. At the time, the City
considered completing the road connection through to 235 Street under the Development
Cost Charge program however additional road dedication was required which then
necessitated property acquisition. Since then, the City has acquired the land and is now in a
position to complete this critical transportation corridor.
The proposed capital project to complete the Larch Avenue corridor includes construction of
two travel lanes, boulevard upgrades and parking along the right of way the City acquired,
temporary boulevard treatments fronting future development lands and the replacement of a
section of watermain. The project will provide a continuous pedestrian and vehicle corridor
between 235 Street and 236 Street.
Tender Evaluation
The contract for the Larch Avenue Road Extension was tendered on August 13, 2014 and
closed on September 3, 2014. Eleven tenders were received ranging from $243,735.33 to
$339,148.00 excluding taxes.
The following eight compliant tenders were received are listed in order from lowest to highest
price:
Frazer Excavation Ltd
Sandpiper Contracting LLP
Mainland Civil Works Inc.
Lafarge Canada Ltd / Columbia Bitulithic
Key -West Asphalt Ltd.
King Hoe Excavating Ltd.
Winvan Paving Ltd.
Jack Cewe Ltd.
Tender Price
(excluding taxes)
$243,735.33
$272,187.00
$272,777.77
$274,925.00
$279,650.00
$287,079.40
$301,316.30
$339,148.00
Staff has reviewed the tenders and the lowest compliant bid was $243,735.33 from Frazer
Excavation Ltd. Frazer Excavation Ltd. has completed a number of projects for the City and is
suitably qualified for the works.
b) Desired Outcome:
The construction of Larch Avenue will provide a critical transportation link between 235
Street to 236 Street which provide alternate road access to the Rock Ridge area. This
connection will also provide improved facilities for pedestrians.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The Larch Avenue Road Extension Project supports the following key strategies identified
in the City'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:
Residents of the Silver Valley area have expressed their desire for alternate access and
egress points to their community. The extension of Larch Avenue will provide a much
needed and called for alternate route for vehicles into the eastern area of Silver Valley.
The estimated construction duration is approximately 6 weeks, starting in October 2014.
It is anticipated that the the work zone will be restricted to local traffic only which impacts
three residents only but the road should remain open at all times.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Operations and Planning Departments have provided input to the design.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The tender price for the project is $243,735.33, in addition $15,000 of watermain work
is to be completed by City crews. The City watermain works brings the total project
construction value to $258,735.33. An additional 5% contingency to address extra
design and construction costs associated with potential variations in field conditions
brings the total project cost to $271,672.10.
The project funding is provided through Capital Projects LTC 8468 and LTC 7840. LTC
8468 is a DCC project for the improvement of pedestrian and road network in Silver
Valley and is being used to fund $223,400 of the project. LTC 7840 is a DCC project
identified to provide collector standard improvements on Larch; approximately 45m of
collector improvements are included in this project and requires that $48,272.10 be
advanced in the Capital Plan. Funding for LTC 7840 is a combination of DCC and Water
Utility Fund.
Based upon the above funding there is sufficient funds to award the contract and cover
contingencies.
CONCLUSIONS:
The tender price of $243,735.33 excluding taxes by Frazer Excavation Ltd. for the Larch
Avenue Road Extension is the lowest tendered price. It is recommended that Council
approve the award of the contract to Frazer Excavation Ltd. It is further recommended that
Council approve a total budget of $271,672.10 to allow for City water works and a project
contingency.
"Original signed by Rachel 011enberger"
Prepared by: Rachel 011enberger. AScT
Engineering Technologist
"Original signed by David Pollock"
Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
"Original signed
by Trevor Thompson"
Financial
Review by:
Trevor Thompson, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
"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
+'
'Oise—
n ixzx
i
L
ER FERN1
iaaee
iiitall
R
{9a�
1311
- 19
15:18:2C191:55
I .r.
RD
13997
1,78!6
1}]1y
IMOD
St
OI3moi
1317h
1916
1a.G1(I
-041321 I3M17
mall.
1911''}
id
1 srdN
IS791
Ian
133<2
S
{z.:.
.-
- -
r-
-
360
18519
I1
131X.
_
133512
}
133,5
I32155
1-
r'
1901 WEI
7'337G
1]}15
T33.51
II
Di70
ism!
a r, !
Vim139—
lac
cm47
19b0
8
DWI
LIM
1397:
'2.1in
1332:.
IS]IO
*Mb
Ina
'
/kit
131:11..xr
1131r•17714
1 Ban.)
1.11111111, *
lam
1]73}
15..e1.,01.Lb
17�F
]$4
{791}
123
1,15]7
13 i 1Yi1$
:Er:
1]5170
13315
11912
n1.4.:0
Y175
VIM
11330
t1=2
17317
4i
!
.di
Bali
5"..
..,.
TM
l
19@.05
1-4
iilit
1-ArILIIAVE. ,R
ram
X
I
.41
PROJECT LOCATION
13210
�._
:•w
-
1 17Zr
•
e
13413
ix A,!
_
-
MALPLE RIFT F
5
Zpor\
xa. e
k
- ::
=P-
r
1'
I -IV
f
'
Larch Avenue Road Extension
Award of ITT EN144
KIIVL_
_:il:rl
D 35 5D 75 1� m
Ez' •
l L.. Ol:•
a� teo 270 aeo t
• r1
d Of
MAPLE RINE ne'�}po-nlor}' OeDIsirld o",__ _. 3[_i
�. .r. ro2Jawleregarchw eaccLra}, :' -- • 'Lobo
o' the II16rm :Mon shaky. VI tis Tao.
n' gle�I
R
'
Departne-t: Ergineerng Dale: Sep 11, 2011
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 15 -September -2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W.
SUBJECT: 2014 Council Expenses
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In keeping with Council's commitment to transparency in local government, the attached Schedule
lists Council expenses for 2014, updated to the end of August. The expenses included on the
schedule are those required to be reported in the annual Statement of Financial Information and are
available on our website.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive for information
Discussion
The expenses included in the attached schedule are those reported in the annual Statement of
Financial Information (SOFI), including those incurred under Policy 3.07 "Council Training,
Conferences and Association Building". The budget for Council includes the provision noted in
Policy 3.07 as well as a separate budget for cell phone and iPad usage.
"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
1 of 1
1131
Schedule 1
2014 Council Expenses
Month of Event
Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Cell Phones / iPads Totals
Ashlie, Cheryl
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September UBCM Conference - Whistler
October
iPad charges
iPad charges
RM South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala
iPad charges
Pitt Meadows Centenial Gala
iPad charges
MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year
Urban Development Institute - Seminar
iPad charges
iPad charges
November
December
Bell, Corisa
January iPad & cell phone charges
February
iPad & cell phone charges
March iPad & cell phone charges
April iPad & cell phone charges
May iPad & cell phone charges
June iPad & cell phone charges
July iPad & cell phone charges
August Cell phone charges
September
October
November
December
95.00
100.00
100.00
30.00
5.35
18.19
18.19
18.19
5.35
5.35
5.35
30.00 295.00
75.97 400.97
93.09
93.09
71.69
71.69
93.09
71.69
75.97
53.50
623.81 623.81
Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Cell Phones / iPads Totals
Daykin, Ernie
January
February
March
April
May
iPad & cell phone charges
BCRPA Membership
iPad & cell phone charges
iPad & cell phone charges
iPad & cell phone charges
LMLGA Conference - Whistler
iPad & cell phone charges
June iPad & cell phone charges
July iPad & cell phone charges
August Cell phone charges
September UBCM Conference - Whistler
October
November
December
Dueck, Judy
January iPad charges
February iPad charges
March iPad charges
April iPad charges
MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year
Urban Development Institute - Seminar
May iPad charges
June iPad charges
July iPad charges
August
September UBCM Conference - Whistler
October
November
December
60.00
1,023.25
54.37
98.50
78.83
77.03
77.30
77.57
73.90
98.97
59.74
1,077.62 - - 60.00 641.84 1,779.46
100.00
30.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
18.19
5.35
30.00 100.00 50.29 180.29
Hogarth, Al
January iPad charges
February iPad charges
March RM South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala 95.00
iPad charges
April Pitt Meadows Centenial Gala 100.00
Business Excellence Awards 75.00
iPad charges
MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year 100.00
Urban Development Institute - Seminar 30.00
May FCM Conference - Niagra Falls 392.50
iPad charges
June iPad charges
Urban Development Institute - Seminar 60.00
July 10 Trends for Smarter Communities 37.07
iPad charges
August
September UBCM Conference - Whistler 54.38
October
November
December
39.59
18.19
18.19
18.19
18.19
18.19
18.19
573.95 370.00 148.73 1,092.68
Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Cell Phones / iPads Totals
Masse, Bob
January
February
March
iPad & cell phone charges
BC Economic Development Assoc - Ministers Dinner
iPad & cell phone charges
iPad & cell phone charges
Chamber of Commerce general meeting
April Business Excellence Awards
iPad & cell phone charges
May Cell phone charges
June Urban Development Institute - Seminar
July
August
September
October
November
December
125.00
32.95
75.00
60.00
55.64
89.88
89.85
89.88
50.29
185.00 107.95
375.54 668.49
Morden, Michael
January iPad charges
February iPad charges
March RM South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala 95.00
Chamber of Commerce general meeting 32.95
iPad charges
April Pitt Meadows Centenial Gala 100.00
Business Excellence Awards 75.00
MR Community Foundation - Citizen of the Year 100.00
iPad charges
Urban Development Institute - Seminar 30.00
May LMLGA Conference - Whistler 806.94
iPad charges
June iPad charges
July iPad charges
August
September UBCM Conference - Whistler 54.37
October
November
December
39.59
39.59
39.59
39.59
39.59
39.59
68.04
891.31 402.95 305.58 1,599.84
Totals 2,787.88 1,275.90 60.00 2,221.76 6,345.54