Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-01 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor 1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS – (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 2015-069-RZ, 10366 240 Street, RS-2 to R-3 Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7207-2016 to rezone from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit a subdivision of approximately 13 lots be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedule A of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with information required for an Intensive Residential Development Permit and a Subdivision application. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA February 1, 2016 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes. Committee of the Whole Agenda February 1, 2016 Page 2 of 4 1102 2015-345-RZ, 12106 230 Street, RS-1 and RS-3 to R-1 Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7205-2016 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit future subdivision into two single family residential units be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedule B of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879- 1999, along with information required for a Subdivision application. 1103 2015-396-DVP, 12158 252 Street Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-396-DVP to reduce the level of servicing as stated in the Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993 to a rural standard. 1104 2011-114-DVP, 22810 113 Avenue Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2011-114-DVP to reduce the minimum front and interior side setbacks for specific blocks, to increase the maximum building height on specific blocks and to reduce the minimum requirements in the horizontal unencumbered radius to living space for specific units. 1105 2011-114-DP, 22810 113 Avenue Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2011-114-DP to permit a 43 unit townhouse development consisting of 8 buildings under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. 1106 Contract Renewal Award: Electrical Contractor Services Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that the Electrical Contractor Services Contract with Boileau Electric and Pole Line Limited be renewed for an additional two years and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the contract. 1107 Contract Renewal Award: Traffic Flagging Services Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that the Traffic Flagging Services contracts with Ansan Industries Ltd., Go Traffic Management Inc., and BCRS Road Safe Inc., be renewed for a one year period and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the contracts. Committee of the Whole Agenda February 1, 2016 Page 3 of 4 1108 Award of Contract ITTEN-15-75: Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2 Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that Contract ITT-EN15- 75, Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2, be awarded to Timbro Contracting (A Partnership), that a project contingency be approved, that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract and further that the existing Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. contract for Engineering Services for Silver Valley Reservoir be amended to increase the budget. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 Sale of City Property at 20309 Chigwell Street Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that staff be authorized to complete the sale of City-owned property at 20309 Chigwell Street to Earl Hansen. 1132 Vacant/Abandoned Building Amending Bylaw No. 7186-2015 Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Vacant/ Abandoned Building Amending Bylaw No. 7186-2015 be given first, second and third readings. 1132 Audit & Finance Committee Terms of Reference Staff report dated February 1, 2016 recommending that the Audit & Finance Committee Terms of Reference be approved. 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 Committee of the Whole Agenda February 1, 2016 Page 4 of 4 6. OTHER ISSUES 1181 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. COMMUNITY FORUM Checked by:________________ Date: ________________ 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 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-069-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7207-2016 10366 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-3 Special Amenity Residential District to permit an approximately 13 lot subdivision. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. Pursuant to Council’s resolution, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7207-2016 be given first reading; and That the applicant provides further information as described on Schedules A of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999, along with the information required for an Intensive Residential Development Permit, Subdivision application and the additional information outlined in this report dated February 1, 2016. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Hub Engineering Inc. (Mike Kompter) Owner: Gurinderjeet S Toor and Sukhjinder K Toor Legal Description: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, Plan NWP13554 OCP: Existing: Medium Density Residential Proposed: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: R-3 Special Amenity Residential District Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential 1101 - 2 - South: Use: Single Family Residential & Proposed Townhouses 2012-119-RZ Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential East: Use: Residential (Proposed Townhouses 2013-080-RZ) Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential West: Use: Townhouse Complex Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.649 HA. (1.6 acres) Access: 240A Street and rear lane parallel to 240 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Previous applications: RZ/033/08 (expired November 27, 2015), DP/033/08 and SD/033/08. b)Site Characteristics: The subject site is 0.649 Ha. (1.6 acres) in size and slopes gently down toward 240 Street from east to west. The proposed subdivision continues the pattern established by the R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) subdivision to the south. RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) lots abut the subject site to the north, an existing townhouse development is across 240 Street to the west. Rezoning applications abut to the west and a portion of the site to the south for townhouse projects. There is an existing dwelling and accessory building on the site that will be removed to accommodate the proposed subdivision. There are trees located toward the eastern part of the site. An arborist report will be required to explore the retention potential. c)Project Description: The proposal to rezone the subject site from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) would permit a subdivision of approximately 13 lots with a minimum lot area of 213 square metres. The proposed layout, although not reviewed by the Approving Officer, is a continuation of the established pattern to the south. The density of the project makes it subject to an Intensive Residential Development Permit application being made and being considered for issuance by Council together with final reading. The project will also require a development variance permit. The variance is for overhead wiring along the frontage of 240 Street and to permit a temporary narrower lane along a 5 metre segment near proposed Lot 10 until the adjacent lands to the north develop. - 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. Pursuant to Council’s resolution, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is located within the Albion Area Plan and is currently designated Medium Density Residential. The proposed R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) is in compliance with the current designation. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 10366 240 Street from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit an approximately 13 lot subdivision. The minimum lot size for the proposed zone is 213 square metres. Any variations from the area, dimension or yard regulations of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the OCP, an Intensive Residential Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on high standards in aesthetics and quality of the built environment, consistent with the emerging urban character of the immediate surrounding area. The site is not a Natural Features or Watercourse Protection Development Permit Area; however, the development will need to comply with the “Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 6410- 2006 for three tier stormwater/rainwater management dealing with site source controls for managing water volumes, runoff rates, and water quality on site. Advisory Design Panel: An Intensive Residential Development Permit does not require a review by the Advisory Design Panel. The architectural and landscaping plans will be reviewed by staff against the form and character guidelines established in Section 8.8 of the Official Community Plan for intensive residential development. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is not required for this application as it complies with the land use designation in the Albion Area Plan and Council Policy 6.20 does not require such a meeting if there are less than 25 dwelling units (lots) proposed. - 4 - e)Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after First Reading, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a)Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c)Fire Department; d)Building Department; e)Parks Department; f)School District; g)Utility companies; and h)Canada Post. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between First and Second Reading. f)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.A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B); 2.An Intensive Residential Development Permit Application; and 3.A Subdivision Application. Also, additional information is also required to establish a suitable stormwater management strategy for the subdivision. 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 OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant First Reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to Second Reading. - 5 - 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 City of Maple Ridge’s Approving Officer. “Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP Planner “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7207-2016 Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan DATE: Jan 8, 20162015-069-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 10366 240 Street2011 ImageLegend Stream Edge of River Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Jan 8, 2016 2015-069-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 10366 240 Street 2011 Image Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7207-2016 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 City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7207-2016." 2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot “A” Section 3 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 13554 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1657 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District). 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 APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX C 10422 10406 2398610337 10322 10328 10340 10346 10358 10386 10420 2402710267 241022413624156241372414110320 10352 10366 2402210343 10336 241082411024113241182412310350 10380 10390 10309 10294 24028241242414010428 10270 10307 10319 10349 10355 241042409324122241252414410389 10331 240862410124107241112411610310 10456 10313 10337 2406024108241092411224121241292413210370 2396010316 10332 2410324105241141043610410 10416 10325 240612410624117241202412824133104 AVE.240 ST.103 AVE. 102B AVE.240A ST.BCP 461621 P 22743 BCP 364076 B 6 10 NWP7139 P 14750 P 14750 39 30 4 43 PARK P 20434371L M P 3 5 0 3 0 5 PARK 4 P 60014 5 9 P 8149 1617 PARK 43 25 P 9393 P 10921 32 41 2 375 4 28 1 A P 10921 12 18 8 LMP 48057 31 35 BCP 3139 BCP 10009 BCP 45800 BCP 8155 4 11 14 Rem 7 P 13554 P 13554 23 42 40 37 29 3 42 3 BCP 45801 A 8 P 11176 9 22 BCP 36407 24 P 10921 33 34 BCP 3139 BCP 1010 376 BCP 100093702 2 P 21769 A PARK 7 19 28 34 373 Rem. Pcl. A 3 P 37992 Rem 1 3641 LMP 51757 26 38 4 27 37 44 45 K 1 374 (EPS 763) A 7 13 15 Rem D B 21 PARK 36 35 36 33BCP 36408BCP 36409BCP 10010LMP 3936916.5BCP 10011BCP 52219´ SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) 7207-20161657 APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-345-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7205-2016 12106 230 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 12106 230 Street, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Residential District), to permit future subdivision into two single family residential lots. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. Pursuant to Council resolution, this application is exempt from the Community Amenity Contribution Program, because it is only proposing one additional lot. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7205-2016 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedule B of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Fred Worthy Owner: Arde Developments Ltd., INC.NO. BC1049963 Legal Description: Lot 32, Section 20, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 24720 OCP: Existing: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Urban Residential 1102 - 2 - South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Residential Site Area: 0.12 ha. (0.30 acres) Access: 230 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b)Site Characteristics: The subject property is approximately 0.12 ha. (0.30 acres) in size, is generally flat, and is bound by single family residential properties to the north, east, and south, with 230 Street to the west (see Appendix A and B). Trees are located along the southern perimeter. c)Project Description: The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit future subdivision into two lots. The proposed lot size of 538m2 – 695m2 will ensure compatibility with existing lots in the surrounding neighbourhood. The existing residence will remain on the northern portion of the property, with the new lot proposed on the southern portion (see Appendix D). Access for the new lot is proposed to be off of 230th Street. 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 OCP designates the subject property Urban Residential, and development of the property is subject to the Major Corridor infill policies of the OCP. These policies require that development be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, with particular attention given to site design setbacks and lot configuration with the existing pattern of development in the area. The proposed rezoning to R-1 (Residential District) is in conformance with the Urban Residential designation and infill policies. No OCP amendment will be required to allow the proposed R-1 (Residential District) zoning. - 3 - Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 12106 230 Street from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit future subdivision into two lots. The minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is 371m2. The proposed lots will be larger than required, at 695 m2 and 538 m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. 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) Licenses, Permits and Bylaws; c) Operations Department; d) Fire Department; e) School District; 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. f) 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. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B ); and 2. 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 OCP, 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. - 4 - 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 City of Maple Ridge’s Approving Officer. “Original signed by Therese Melser” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Therese Melser 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7205-2016 Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Nov 16, 2015 2015-345-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT 121A CHERRYWOOD DRIVEEAGLE A V E .GEE ST.230 ST.230 ST.AVE. GROV EAPPL E 2115 12084 12169 23011 12164 1214822981 1213612116 12130 12141 12144 12170 2145 2300712152 12085 12022 12165 12124 12094 23 0 0 3 12053 12114 12064 2300912153 12154 2311812036 2300512155 12127 2308023060229911213712067 121342155 23075230742295412146 12105 12056 12144 23056121382311 9 1216 8 229502307012164 1216322951 12140 12106 12142 12149 12173 12134 12048 1216622976 23013 2311 5 12169 230712135 2296112107 1214012174 12161 12159 1214112095 12057 12104 12145 12064 229401213512041 23 0 6 4 12151 12147 23068 121392306712163 12157 12074 2125 230862175 12173 12073 SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,500 12106 230 Street 2011 Image APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Nov 16, 20152015-345-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT 121A CHERRYWOOD DRIVEEAGLE AVE.GEE ST.230 ST.230 ST.AVE. GROVEAPPLE 12164 12115 12084 12169 23011 1214822981 12116 1213612144 12141 12130 12153 12170 12152 2300712022 12085 12053 230 0 32300912124 12067 12094 2311812064 12036 12155 12154 230052299112127 2308012145 12137230601213412048 12165 121382297612114 230742295412155 12056 23119 231222307512168 12146 12105 12164 1214422951 12140 230562307012147 12163 12163 12166 12149 12134 1214212106 12173121742296112175 12159 2311512169 12104 230732307123013 12145 22950121332294112161 12107 12073 1214012057 12151 2306712074 1213512064 2308612041 23068 2294012175 230 6 4 12173 1213912125 12135 1214112095 12157 SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,500 12106 230 Street2011 Image Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7205-2016 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 City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7205-2016." 2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 32 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 24720 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1656 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-1 (Residential District). 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 APPENDIX C 229212295012064 12057 12073 12116 2300912155 12148 121392307012134 12164 12165 230 0 31214223056 230 6 4 1213512115 12125 1215522936 12144 12154 12107 12127 12169 12153 230751214012095 12105 12145 2295412094 12163 12041 12022 12170 2300712157 12145 12144 2307112085 1207422976 23011 23013 12161 12169 12164 23060121382311812124 12064 12106 12130 12140 12163 1214112137121362294012135 12175 12053 12173 12048 12152 12166 12149 12151 12159 12146 12168 23119 12084 12104 12114 12067 12141 12036 12056 12147 230052311523068 12134GEE ST.AVE.121A GROVECHERRYWOOD DRIVEAPPLE230 ST.230 ST.BCP 22903 269 310 283 38 1 11 15 P 20969P 24720377 378 371 444 417 4 284 279 P 2096913 (BCP 8273) 30 23 370 P 49271 442 419 271 266 282 21 457 374 372 381 383 385 451 439 416 449 437 267 270 280 P 4429216 2 10 25 24 P 2096922 380 375P 75587368 366 P 66938 P 75587 438 446 272 5 234 BCP 37415 P 45071 275 BCP 9320P871138 3 BCP 827326 P 75587382 329 384 441 440 P 75587 Rem 418 447 448273 281 278 276 P 32509 P 15849 A P 66938379 445 386 453 268 LOT A 309 12 14 1 31 32 369 367 317 443 4 277 9 2 373 Rem. 450 P 669 3 8 387RP 87822EP 66939BCP 9319LMP 41200 EP 44294 EP 68452BCP 38398 EP 35748 BCP 9321 BCP 5567 BCP 5568 ´ SCALE 1:1,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) RS-3 (One Family Rural Resdiential)R-1 (Residential District) 7205-20161656 APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-396-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 12158 252 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application 2015-396-DVP has been received in conjunction with a building permit application to build a new house on the property located at 12158 252 Street (See Appendix A and B). The requested variance is to reduce the level of servicing as stated in the Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993 to a rural standard. The variance is supportable given the properties inclusion in the ALR and location in the Rural area. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2015-396-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-396-DVP respecting property located at 12158 252 Street. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Slawomir S Jestal Owner: Slawomir S Jestal Legal Description: Lot 10, Section 23, Township 12, Plan NWP11339 OCP : Existing: Agricultural Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation Agricultural South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Agricultural East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Agricultural West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Agricultural 1103 - 2 - Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.101 ha (0.25 acre) Access: 252 Street Servicing: Rural Standard b)Project Description: The subject property is located at 12158 252 Street, which is approx. 0.101 ha (0.25 acres) in size, in a rural area. The subject property is generally flat and is bound by single family residential lots with an agricultural designation. The property is located within the ALR, however, has a historic RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zoning which aligns with urban servicing standards An application has been received to build a new home on the subject property. Given that the property is zoned RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), the Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw requires upgrades to Urban standards. However, the property is in a rural area. The current application is to vary the servicing standards for the current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone, in order to reduce the services to a Rural Standard. c)Variance Analysis: A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process of developments. The requested variances and rationale for support are described below: 1.Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule A – Services and Utilities: To reduce the standard for RS-1 (One Family Residential) zone, to a Rural Standard, and thereby waive the requirement to construct Street Tree Planting, Sanitary Sewer, Asphalt, Curbs and Gutter, Underground Wiring, Sidewalks, and Street Lighting. The Engineering Department is in support of this variance application. The current servicing standard on this portion of 252 Street is rural, and given its agricultural designation, there are no significant redevelopment opportunities on this street that would result in contiguous urban standards along 252 Street. Boulevard treatment as a frontage upgrade will however be required. In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. CONCLUSION: The proposed variance to reduce the services standard for the property located at 12158 252 Street, within the RS-1 (One Family Residential) zone, to a Rural Standard, and thereby waive the requirement to construct Street Tree Planting, Sanitary Sewer, Asphalt, Curbs and Gutter, Underground Wiring, Sidewalks, and Street Lighting is supported because there is little likelihood that this rural area within the ALR is to develop to a full Urban Standard. - 3 - It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2015-396-DVP. “Original signed by Therese Melser” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Therese Melser 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map DATE: Dec 18, 20152015-396-VP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,500 12158 252 St2011 Image Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Dec 18, 2015 2015-396-VP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,500 12158 252 St 2011 Image Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-114-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 22810 113 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application 2011-114-DVP has been received in conjunction with a rezoning and development permit application to permit a 43 unit townhouse development. The requested variances are to: 1.Reduce the required minimum front setback for Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4; 2.Reduce the required minimum interior side setback for Blocks 4, 5 and 6; 3.Increase the maximum building height from 10.5m (34.4 ft.) to 11.5m (37.7 ft.) on Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4; and 4.Reduce the minimum requirement of 15.0m (49.2 ft.) horizontal unencumbered radius to living space for Units 8B, 9B, 19B, 20B, 24C, 26C, and 28C. Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2011-114-RZ on February 9, 2016. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2011-114-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2011-114-DVP respecting property located at 22810 113 Avenue. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Atelier Pacific Architecture Inc. - Brian Shigetomi Owner: NAG Construction Co. Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 2, District Lot 402, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LMP39949 OCP: Existing: Low-Rise Apartment Proposed: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Park Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Park 1104 - 2 - 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: 0.93 ha. (2.3 acres) Access: Newly constructed extension of 113 Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2011-114-RZ/DP b)Project Description: The subject property, located at 22810 113 Avenue (see Appendices A and B), 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 the park to the south. Currently, the site is vacant and cleared of all natural vegetation. The applicant is proposing 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. c)Variance Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for multi-family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variances and rationale for support are described below (see Appendix C): 1.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 602 6. a): to reduce the required minimum front setback from 7.5m (24.6 ft.) to 6.0m (19.7 ft.) to the principal building face for Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4; and to 4.5m (14.8 ft.) to the roof overhang for Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. No further siting exceptions will be permitted. These variances can be supported as they will provide a stronger street presence for the units facing 113 Avenue. 2.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 602 6. b): to reduce the required minimum interior side setback from 6.0m (19.7 ft.) to 4.0m (13.1 ft.) to the electrical closet wall for Block 4 and to the second-level deck for Blocks 5 and 6. No further siting exceptions will be permitted. These variances can be supported as they allow an increase in depth of the entry porches and balconies, and they will have little impact on the neighbours, as they back onto the rear yards of the adjacent properties to the east. - 3 - 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 602 7. a): to increase the maximum building height from 10.5m (34.4 ft.) to 11.5m (37.7 ft.) for Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. These variances can be supported as they allow the buildings to incorporate architectural dormers on the downhill sloping buildings and allow for better use of the rear yard space. 4.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 602 8. c) (i): to reduce the minimum requirement of 15.0m (49.2 ft.) horizontal unencumbered radius to living space to: 12.0m (39.4 ft.) for units 8B, 9B, 19B, 20B, 24C, and 28C; and 8.0m (26.2 ft.) for unit 26C. These variances can be supported as they are requested due to the triangular shape of the property. d)Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. CONCLUSION: The proposed variances are supported are they allow for a better street presence, allow better use of the rear yards with improved architectural features and help to improve the development on this triangular-shaped property. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2011-114-DVP. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Details of Proposed Variances City of PittMeadows District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Jan 15, 2013 2011-114-RZ BY: JV 22810-113 Ave CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE P L A N NIN G D E P A RT M E N T 11 4 7 5 11 4 8 3 11 313 11 327 11 2 8 3 11 2 5 6 11 2 6 22281 0 11 4 7 9 11 4 8 8 11 372 2281 22282 0 11 2 6 5 11 2 7 1 11 4 4 5 11 4 8 0 11 4 8 4 11 375 11 332 2283 6 11 2 9 5 1 1 4 5 9 11 4 6 3 11 4 9 4 11 2 7 8 2285 3 11 2 5 5 2283 02284 2 11 2 6 6 11 4 9 5 11 4 9 2 11 2 6 2 11 318 11 4 2 2 11 2 8 72275 1 11 4 5 5 1 1 4 6 7 1 1 4 7 1 11 285 11 299 11 2 9 1 11 4 9 1 11 2 9 4 11 298 11 352 11 2 7 5 11 2 7 0 11 4 8 7 11 4 9 0 11 2 8 2 / 8 4 11 384 11 2 7 9228 S T. 11 3 A V E .HA R RIS O N S T. HA N E Y B Y P A S S RO A D TE L O S K Y A V E .B UR NE T T S T. 4 RP 3736 LMP 39949 LMP 39046 LMP 39046P 9688P 71276 A 13 14 P 14624 BCP 33406 1 303144 43 Rem 14 54 129 2420Park 1 6 LMS 1596 LMS 1258 B 45 LMP 10788 24 Pcl. A 7 7 BCP 34230PARK 2 1510 222 5 12 42 20 Rem. LMS 1 2 1 8 P 14624 32711cP 14624 32172 4 4 9 23 P 9688P 23261B 10 B P 72332P 19750 P 710410 8 LMP 25825 BCP 32785 2 2518P 71904A 13 BCP 34229 LMP 9560 LMS 3737 P 90 8 5 1 4 7 LOT 2 LOT S 13 11 12 P 19 7 5 0 NWS 2 6 1 7 269 16(EPS 641)213 40 39 PARK LMP 13592 52 CP 5 0 46 25 LMS 3737 A 2823198 11 "A" 4 8 22 21 NWS 2885 6 8 9 Rem AEP 14217 12 P 14624 7 7 Subject Property ´ Scale: 1:2,500 APPENDIX A City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Feb 24, 2014 FILE: 2011-114-RZ BY: PC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY District of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,500 22810 113 AVENUE SKRWRLPDJH APPENDIX B APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-114-DP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Development Permit 22810 113 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Town Centre Development Permit application has been received for the subject property, located at 22810 113 Avenue, for a 43 unit townhouse development consisting of eight buildings, under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. This application is subject to the South View Precinct Town Centre Development Permit Area Guidelines, which guide the form and character of commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential development. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2011-114-DP respecting property located at 22810 113 Avenue. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Atelier Pacific Architecture Inc. - Brian Shigetomi Owner: NAG Construction Co. Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 2, District Lot 402, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LMP39949 OCP: Existing: Low-Rise Apartment Proposed: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) 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 1105 - 2 - East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low-Rise Apartment West: Use: Townhomes Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Townhomes Site Area: 0.93 ha (2.3 acres) Access: Newly constructed extension of 113 Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2011-114-RZ/DVP b)Project Description: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property, located at 22810 113 Avenue (see Appendices A and B), 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 slopes 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. Currently, the site is vacant and cleared of all natural vegetation. Approximately one third of the units have double-wide garages, while the remaining units have 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 existing 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 (see Appendix C). 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 228 Street to Burnett Street. Slope stabilization work on the City park property opposite the development, on the north side of 113 Avenue, is required and will be a condition of the Rezoning Servicing Agreement. c)Planning Analysis Official Community Plan Town Centre Development Permit – South View Precinct Pursuant to Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan (OCP), a Town Centre Development Permit is required for this multi-family development. This development is located within the South View Precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan. The North View and South View Precincts are significant multi-family residential neighbourhoods north and south of the Town Core. These neighbourhoods offer a mix of housing types at various densities to provide housing choices for people of varying ages, family sizes, and income levels. The proposed development provides this variety in housing type as it offers both double wide and tandem width units, making a range of housing available to the area. - 3 - The key guideline concepts of the South View Precinct state that the development should incorporate the following principles into the development. The project architect’s rationale is also detailed below. 1. Promote North and South View as distinctive, highly livable multi-family neighbourhoods. “Multi-family residential townhomes add to the area of single-family and multi-family housing. Three different sizes of units are being provided.” 2. Create pedestrian friendly, ground-oriented, multi-family communities. “All entrances to units are either off municipal sidewalks or the internal strata road.” 3. Maintain cohesive building styles. “The development is a hybrid of contemporary and traditional aesthetic. The three storey massing is compatible with the proposed and existing buildings in the area.” 4. Capitalize on important views. “Units towards the north of the site are at a higher elevation, thereby maximizing views towards the Fraser River. The site drops in elevation towards the east, therefore the proposed development will not obstruct the views of existing buildings towards the west. Currently the lands to the east of the site are largely undeveloped.” 5. Provide private and semi-private green space. “All units have private yards and access to a centralized common amenity area/green space in a secured location with overlook for supervision.” 6. Provide climate appropriate landscaping and green features. “Appropriate landscaping is provided, refer to landscaping plans.” 7. Maintain street interconnectivity. “Access from municipal street/sidewalks occurs at street fronting units. Garage parking is provided in the basement level of the units.” 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 (see Appendix D). - 4 - Zoning Bylaw The subject property is proposed to be rezoned from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit the development of 43 townhouse units. The maximum allowable density of the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) is a floor space ratio of 0.6 times the net lot area, excluding a maximum of 50 m² of habitable basement area per unit. This development has a floor space ratio of 0.592, so it is within the allowable maximum density. A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves the following variances: 1.Reduce the required minimum front setback for Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4; 2.Reduce the required minimum interior side setback for Blocks 4, 5 and 6; 3.Increase the maximum building height from 10.5m (34.4 ft.) to 11.5m (37.7 ft.) on Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4; and 4.Reduce the minimum requirement of 15.0m (49.2 ft.) horizontal unencumbered radius to living space for Units 8B, 9B, 19B, 20B, 24C, 26C, and 28C. The requested variances to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone are the subject of a concurrent Council report under application 2011-114-VP. d)Advisory Design Panel: The plans were reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) at the September 11, 2012 meeting. The ADP provided the following resolutions, which have since been resolved, as outlined below by the project architect: Consider increasing the use of dark siding. “The use of dark siding has been increased within the various unit blocks and also at the main levels of all Type A units which help to visually anchor the end units within the blocks.” Look at the design of the end entry gables. “End entry gables have been increased in depth from 6” to 1’ and their corresponding overhangs have been increased from 1’6” to 2’ to provide more articulation and accentuate shadow lines to the end unit blocks. Shingle siding application has been brought into the gabled entry spaces to create a greater visual emphasis to these areas.” Look at the relationship between the entry feature column and the kitchen window. “In analyzing the relationship between the entry feature column and the kitchen window, the relocation of the columns would not be feasible as the columns were designed to align with/support the bay windows above and moving the columns would lend an unbalanced appearance to the units. In order to minimize the effect of the column in front of the kitchen window, the kitchen windows have been shifted relative to the entry feature column in order to align the central mullion of the window with the column thereby providing two clear panels of glazing from within the kitchen.” - 5 - Look at the use of shingle sidings at the base of the building. “The use of shingle siding at the base of the building is consistent with the design intent to achieve an outdoor Marina aesthetic. To further strengthen the effect of this application to the base of the building, the shingle siding has been carried up into the gabled entryways of the units. The shingle adds emphasis to the base of the building and aids in visually grounding the building as well as introducing a fresh, new approach in lieu of the typical brick or cultured stone to the concept of the townhouse aesthetic.” Provide larger window in bedroom #3 in Unit A. “Single glazed patio door has been revised to two glazed panels in the form of a patio slider to provide more light/glazing for bedroom #3 in Unit A.” For the buildings with more than 4 units, provide more architectural articulation. “In order to achieve greater architectural articulation between units, a study of the placement of the rich palette of colours was analyzed relative to the individual units as well as how the units relate to one another. A general repetitive pattern of light blue and dark blue units within each block has been created initially to define the units relative to one another on a general level, and then the interplay of the colour within each unit was finessed to create a more individualistic appeal. An alternating application of shingle siding and vertical board and batten has been applied to the gables to create more variation between the units as well as establishing a textural difference between the gables. The white casings and trims aid in segregating the units visually and the entry ways to each of the units was given a warmer appeal by adhering to more natural tones such as wood posts and stairs.” Consider additional hedge and tree planting throughout, in particular the hedge screen along the south and east property lines. “The landscape drawings have been revised in multiple areas by the addition of landscaping with a focus on the public spaces, such as the areas facing Haney Bypass, 113 Avenue and the central amenity space and children’s play area. Small native trees were added along the south property line and hedges are added to all planting areas facing internal driveways. Additional fencing was also added to units 43A, 21A, and 36A to enclose the backyards.” Consider alignment of pedestrian connection form 113 Avenue to Haney Bypass. “Walkway has been relocated between Unit 10B and Unit 11B to create a better alignment of the pedestrian connection from 113 Avenue to Haney Bypass.” Consider relocating the pathway away from Unit 37A. “Pathway has been shifted east from Unit 37A and no longer abuts the building face. The distance between the pathway and the building face is 10’5”.” Consider adding traffic calming measures. “We have included a painted pedestrian crossing as well as 6 speed bumps within the internal road.” - 6 -  Consider increased architectural features on the end of the exposed building blocks/end units. “To increase the architectural features on the end of the exposed building blocks, entrance gables have been increased in depth to provide more visual contrast and shingle siding has been brought up into the gable space.” e) Environmental Implications: The development site was previously used as a fill site. The site has been re-graded and structural fill has been brought onto the site in accordance with the geotechnical report provided by Levelton Consultants Ltd., dated October 2, 2015. A restrictive covenant for the geotechnical restrictions is a condition of final reading. To meet the Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 6410-2006, 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. The development has incorporated several green building techniques, such as: using large windows when there are porches or balconies to capitalize on solar opportunities; spacing apart the buildings to ensure sunlight access and avoid shadowing; using roof and gable porch overhangs to block summer sun; specifying environmentally-friendly, sustainable materials, recycled materials, materials with long life cycles, and materials from renewable sources; and using permeable pavers at exterior parking spaces. f) Citizen/Customer Implications: A Development Information Meeting was held by the developer on July 31, 2012, at the Maple Ridge Public Library. 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 alr eady 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 City park property. g) Financial Implications: In accordance with Council’s Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated landscape cost of $125,828.20, the security will be $125,828.20. - 7 - CONCLUSION: As the development proposal complies with the Town Centre Development Permit Area Guidelines for the South View Precinct for form and character, it is recommended that 2011-114-DP be given favourable consideration. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Architectural Plans Appendix D – Landscape Plans City of PittMeadows District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Jan 15, 2013 2011-114-RZ BY: JV 22810-113 Ave CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE P L A N NIN G D E P A RT M E N T 11 4 7 5 11 4 8 3 11 313 11 327 11 2 8 3 11 2 5 6 11 2 6 22281 0 11 4 7 9 11 4 8 8 11 372 2281 22282 0 11 2 6 5 11 2 7 1 11 4 4 5 11 4 8 0 11 4 8 4 11 375 11 332 2283 6 11 2 9 5 1 1 4 5 9 11 4 6 3 11 4 9 4 11 2 7 8 2285 3 11 2 5 5 2283 02284 2 11 2 6 6 11 4 9 5 11 4 9 2 11 2 6 2 11 318 11 4 2 2 11 2 8 72275 1 11 4 5 5 1 1 4 6 7 1 1 4 7 1 11 285 11 299 11 2 9 1 11 4 9 1 11 2 9 4 11 298 11 352 11 2 7 5 11 2 7 0 11 4 8 7 11 4 9 0 11 2 8 2 / 8 4 11 384 11 2 7 9228 S T. 11 3 A V E .HA R RIS O N S T. HA N E Y B Y P A S S RO A D TE L O S K Y A V E .B UR NE T T S T. 4 RP 3736 LMP 39949 LMP 39046 LMP 39046P 9688P 71276 A 13 14 P 14624 BCP 33406 1 303144 43 Rem 14 54 129 2420Park 1 6 LMS 1596 LMS 1258 B 45 LMP 10788 24 Pcl. A 7 7 BCP 34230PARK 2 1510 222 5 12 42 20 Rem. LMS 1 2 1 8 P 14624 32711cP 14624 32172 4 4 9 23 P 9688P 23261B 10 B P 72332P 19750 P 710410 8 LMP 25825 BCP 32785 2 2518P 71904A 13 BCP 34229 LMP 9560 LMS 3737 P 90 8 5 1 4 7 LOT 2 LOT S 13 11 12 P 19 7 5 0 NWS 2 6 1 7 269 16(EPS 641)213 40 39 PARK LMP 13592 52 CP 5 0 46 25 LMS 3737 A 2823198 11 "A" 4 8 22 21 NWS 2885 6 8 9 Rem AEP 14217 12 P 14624 7 7 Subject Property ´ Scale: 1:2,500 APPENDIX A City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Feb 24, 2014 FILE: 2011-114-RZ BY: PC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY District of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,500 22810 113 AVENUE SKRWRLPDJH APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D CityCityCityCity of Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridge TO:TO:TO:TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO: OPS1601 FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: ATTN: ATTN: ATTN: Committee Committee Committee Committee of the Wholeof the Wholeof the Wholeof the Whole SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Contract Contract Contract Contract Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal Award: Electrical Contractor ServicesAward: Electrical Contractor ServicesAward: Electrical Contractor ServicesAward: Electrical Contractor Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Following a public Request for Proposals the current ‘Electrical Contractor Services’ Contract was awarded to Boileau Electric and Pole Line Limited. The Contract allows for a renewable two year option. After review of the previous three years performance and the Contractor’s proposed rate structure, this report recommends that the option be exercised and that the Contract be renewed for a two year period. RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION: That the ‘Electrical Contractor Services’ Contract be That the ‘Electrical Contractor Services’ Contract be That the ‘Electrical Contractor Services’ Contract be That the ‘Electrical Contractor Services’ Contract be renewed renewed renewed renewed with with with with BoileauBoileauBoileauBoileau Electric and Pole LineElectric and Pole LineElectric and Pole LineElectric and Pole Line LimitedLimitedLimitedLimited for two additional yearsfor two additional yearsfor two additional yearsfor two additional years aaaand furthernd furthernd furthernd further that the Corporate Officer be athat the Corporate Officer be athat the Corporate Officer be athat the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the uthorized to sign the uthorized to sign the uthorized to sign the contract.contract.contract.contract. DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: a)a)a)a) Background Context:Background Context:Background Context:Background Context: A Request for Proposal (RFP-OP12-50) for the Provision of Electrical Contractor Services was publicly advertised. Following the public process, Council awarded the Contract to Boileau Electric and Pole Line Limited. The Contract was for a three year period with the option to renew for two additional - two year periods. The electrical services requirements primarily consist of on-call services to support existing city infrastructure, systems and facilities, such as sewage, storm, and water pump stations, reservoirs, traffic lights, street lights, and illuminated pedestrian crossing signs. Boileau Electric and Pole Line Limited have performed the work in a responsive, cost effective and professional manner. 1106 b)b)b)b) Financial Implications:Financial Implications:Financial Implications:Financial Implications: Funding for the work is included in the 2016 Operating and Capital Budgets. All work would be completed on a time and material basis with estimates provided as required. The approval annual budget amount is $300,000.00, based on average (plus contingency) of previous years. The projected cost is within the budgeted amount. CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: Extension of the ‘Electrical Contractor Services’ Contract for two additional years meets the terms of the Contract. Boileau Electrical and Pole Line Limited have performed the work over the past three (3) years in a responsive, professional and cost effective manner. This report recommends an extension of the Contract for the two optional years provided for within the terms of the Contract. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Russ CarmichaelRuss CarmichaelRuss CarmichaelRuss Carmichael Director of Engineering OperationsDirector of Engineering OperationsDirector of Engineering OperationsDirector of Engineering Operations _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank QuinnFrank QuinnFrank QuinnFrank Quinn General Manager, Public Works and Development ServicesGeneral Manager, Public Works and Development ServicesGeneral Manager, Public Works and Development ServicesGeneral Manager, Public Works and Development Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. Swabey Chief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative Officer "Original signed by Russ Carmichael" "Original signed by Frank Quinn" "Original signed by E.C. Swabey" CityCityCityCity of Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridge TO:TO:TO:TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO: OPS1602 FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: ATTN: ATTN: ATTN: Committee of Committee of Committee of Committee of the Wholethe Wholethe Wholethe Whole SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Contract Contract Contract Contract Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal Award: Award: Award: Award: Traffic Flagging ServicesTraffic Flagging ServicesTraffic Flagging ServicesTraffic Flagging Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On October 15, 2014, the City issued a Request for Proposals to establish a select list of qualified flagging companies to provide the City with traffic control services on an as and when required basis. Following an extensive detailed review of the proposals, three companies were selected. The Contract with each of the companies is five years with the option to review annually. After review of the previous one year performance, staff recommend renewing the contracts of the three Contractors for an additional one year period. RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION: That the ‘That the ‘That the ‘That the ‘Traffic FlagTraffic FlagTraffic FlagTraffic Flaggingginggingging Services’ Contract be Services’ Contract be Services’ Contract be Services’ Contract be renewed renewed renewed renewed with with with with Ansan Industries Ltd., Go Traffic Ansan Industries Ltd., Go Traffic Ansan Industries Ltd., Go Traffic Ansan Industries Ltd., Go Traffic Management Inc., and BCRS Road Safe Inc.,Management Inc., and BCRS Road Safe Inc.,Management Inc., and BCRS Road Safe Inc.,Management Inc., and BCRS Road Safe Inc., for for for for anananan additional additional additional additional one year period one year period one year period one year period aaaand further that the nd further that the nd further that the nd further that the Corporate Officer be aCorporate Officer be aCorporate Officer be aCorporate Officer be authorized to sign the uthorized to sign the uthorized to sign the uthorized to sign the CCCContractontractontractontractssss.... DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: a)a)a)a) Background Background Background Background Context:Context:Context:Context: Traffic flagging services provide support to various departments in construction and emergent sites by providing traffic control plans, traffic control supervision, traffic control equipment and traffic control personnel. Safety of crews and the public is of the utmost importance and the commitment for professional and Worksafe compliant work sites is imperative. Following the issuance of a Request for Proposals, 10 submissions were received. Following an extensive detailed review of the proposals, three companies were selected as best qualified to do the work. Contracts were awarded to Ansan Industries Ltd., Go Traffic Management Inc., and BCRS Road Safe Inc., for the provision of flagging services on and as and when required basis. The Companies have performed in a professional, responsive and cost effective manner to date. 1107 After review of the previous one year performance of the three Contractor’s, this report recommends renewing the Contracts with the three Contractor’s for an additional one year period. b)b)b)b) Financial Implications:Financial Implications:Financial Implications:Financial Implications: Annual traffic control flagging costs vary depending on planned and unplanned work load. In 2015 the City expended approximately $320,000 total for these three Companies, which is within the approved 2016 budget amounts. CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: The City of Maple Ridge currently has contracts with three Companies. Those Contracts allow for an annual extension. Based on the first year performance of the Companies, this report recommends extending their Contracts for one year. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Russ CarmichaelRuss CarmichaelRuss CarmichaelRuss Carmichael Director of Engineering OperationsDirector of Engineering OperationsDirector of Engineering OperationsDirector of Engineering Operations _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank QuinnFrank QuinnFrank QuinnFrank Quinn General Manager, Public Works and Development ServicesGeneral Manager, Public Works and Development ServicesGeneral Manager, Public Works and Development ServicesGeneral Manager, Public Works and Development Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. Swabey Chief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative Officer "Original signed by Russ Carmichael" "Original signed by Frank Quinn" "Original signed by E.C. Swabey" City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5255-70-095 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Award of Contract ITT-EN15-75: Rock Ridge Reservoir - Tank 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City’s 2011 Water Master Plan identified that system upgrades and increased storage capacity would be required in the Silver Valley area to meet increased water demands due to population growth. In 2013, the City retained Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) to complete a detailed study of the Silver Valley area to determine the amount water reservoir storage capacity needed with the associated population growth. After considering the different site options it was concluded that building a second reservoir at the same location as the existing Rock Ridge Reservoir was optimal. The construction of the Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2 will provide the fire, emergency and pump balancing water storage volumes required to serve and meet the demands of the ultimate build-out population of Silver Valley as projected in the City’s Official Community Plan. The second reservoir will ensure adequate pressure to the service area and act as a redundant supply to compliment and back up the existing reservoir in an emergency or to allow for maintenance. An Invitation to Tender was issued on December 21, 2015, and closed on January 22, 2016. The lowest compliant tender price was submitted by Timbro Contracting (A Partnership) in the amount of $1,782,415.22 excluding taxes. The costs are within the approved budget and largely funded through Development Cost Charges. The Rock Ridge Reservoir Project is in the City’s approved Financial Plan and construction is anticipated to commence in February 2016, with completion in June 2016. Council approval to award the contract is required for the work to proceed. Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. is the professional engineering design consultant for the project. In awarding the construction contract, additional services are required of Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd., including construction review, environmental and geotechnical monitoring. This report recommends extending their contract by $85,000. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Contract ITT-EN15-75, Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2, be awarded to Timbro Contracting (A Partnership) in the amount of $1,782,415.22 excluding taxes; and THAT a project contingency of 15% or $267,362.83 be approved to address potential variations in field conditions; and THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract; and further THAT the existing Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. contract for Engineering Services for Silver Valley Water Reservoir, be extended by $85,000.00 for geotechnical and environmental monitoring as well as construction reviews and services. 1108 DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The Silver Valley area of the City was identified as a development area in the 2006 Official Community Plan (OCP). The City’s 2011 Water Master Plan identified that system upgrades and increased storage capacity would be required in the Silver Valley area to meet increased water demands due to population growth. In 2013, the City retained Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) to complete a detailed study of the Silver Valley area to determine the amount water reservoir storage capacity needed with the associated population growth. After considering the different site options it was concluded that building a second reservoir at the same location as the existing Rock Ridge Reservoir was optimal. The installation of the 2,600m3 Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2 includes site clearing and rock removal by blasting and rock hammering, installation of a new separate 300mm supply main from 240 Street to the new reservoir; base preparation and foundation placement; a new electrical building to house all required electrical equipment and instrumentations to operate both the new and existing reservoir; a new valve chamber for the new reservoir to control flows in and out of the reservoir, upgrades to the existing reservoir’s valve chamber; site security upgrades including additional cameras and motion sensors and additional chain link fencing; site drainage and a new electrical kiosk with an upgraded power source installed by a third party utility company (BC Hydro). Tender Evaluation An Invitation to Tender was issued on December 21, 2015 for the Rock Ridge Reservoir - Tank 2 and closed on January 22, 2016. Eleven compliant tenders were as noted below: A detailed review of the tenders was completed and the lowest compliant bid is $1,782,415.22 from Timbro Contracting (A Partnership) (Timbro). Timbro has completed a number of projects with a similar scope as the Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2 and is suitably qualified for the works. Reference checks with other municipalities confirmed that Timbro is capable of completing the project successfully. Consultant Construction Services City staff will be providing a full-time site representative responsible for the day-to-day quality assurance of the contractor’s work and coordination of all site issues. However, given the complex nature of the project the expertise of the design consultant is needed to support City staff with on-site field reviews and monitoring as well as to satisfy Engineer of Record requirements. This includes geotechnical support during blasting and rock removal, review of the blasting plan and monitoring of existing structures during blasting as well as sign-offs and reviews of the structural, mechanical, electrical and environmental elements of the project. Tender Price (excluding taxes) Timbro Contracting (A Partnership) $1,782,415.22 JS Ferguson Construction Inc. $1,824,781.00 Giffels Westpro Cosntructors Inc. $1,933,014.14 Jakes Construction Ltd. $1,956,330.00 Belpacific Excavating and Shoring Ltd. $1,961,037.75 NAC Constructors Ltd. $2,042,000.00 Arsalan Construction Ltd. $2,046,720.00 Maple Reinders Ltd $2,217,715.13 Strohmaier's Excavating Ltd. $2,234,621.05 Industra Construction Corp $2,248,036.40 Tybo Contracting Ltd. $2,675,080.00 The increase in contract value is $85,000.00 for the necessary geotechnical, structural, mechanical, electrical and environmental services during construction. b)Desired Outcome: The construction of the Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2 will provide the fire, emergency and pump balancing water storage volumes required to serve and meet the demands of the ultimate build-out population of Silver Valley as projected in the City’s Official Community Plan. The second reservoir will ensure sufficient pressure to the service area and act as a redundant supply to compliment and back up the existing reservoir in an emergency or to allow for maintenance. c)Strategic Alignment: The Corporate Strategic Plan provides direction to manage municipal infrastructure under various initiatives such the Master Water Plan Update, the DCC Bylaw and Smart Managed Growth. The need for the Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2 project was originally identified in the 2011 Water Master Plan. The new tank needs to be operational by June 2016 to meet ultimate water demands in the Silver Valley area and before the peak summer water usage begins. d)Citizen/Customer Implications: The estimated construction duration is approximately five months with construction commencing promptly after the project is awarded and is expected to be complete by June 2016. The impact to everyday traffic and residents in the neighbourhood will be minimal as the reservoir is located in a secluded area and accessed by a gated gravel maintenance road. The access to the gravel road is located at the northern-most extent of 240 Street which is a dead end with very low traffic volumes. Construction traffic will need to use 240 Street for access to the site but no road closures are expected. Water service to the area will not be impacted as the existing Rock Ridge Reservoir will remain in service during construction of the new tank. There are identified horse trails in the immediate area of construction including parts of the gravel access road. The Haney Horsemen group has already been notified of the pending construction project and expected closures to the trail network around the construction area. Additional updates will be provided once the contractor has been awarded the project and a construction schedule is submitted. The Haney Horsemen will be notified individually for trail closure updates and the general public will be informed of the construction progress through the City’s website and social media sources. Additionally, notifications will go out to surrounding residents informing of the project as well as identifying an information session to be hosted by the City, specifically about the blasting operations. This will give the residents potentially affected by the project a forum to have their questions answered. The Haney Horsemen Association will also be made aware of this information session. e)Interdepartmental Implications: The Engineering, Operations, Parks and Planning Departments have provided input during the design stage and the project makes use of City resources where possible in the interests of cost effectiveness and efficiencies. f)Business Plan/Financial Implications: The estimated project construction cost is $2,317,685.05 including all third party utility relocates, field reviews and monitoring by professional consultants, construction costs and contingencies. The projected costs and funding breakdown is as follows: Project Costs Expenditures to Date $ 137,907.00 Construction $ 1,782,415.22 Additional Consultant Services $ 85,000.00 Third Party Utility Costs $ 10,000 .00 Operations Department - Water relocations $ 35,000.00 Project Contingency $ 267,362.83 Grand Total $ 2,317,685.05 Existing Funding 2014 Development Cost Charges $ 141,146.00 2014 Water Capital Fund $ 8,855.00 2015 Development Cost Charges $ 3,105,206.00 2015 Water Capital Fund $ 194,794.00 Total Funding $ 3,450.001.00 This project is largely funded by Development Cost Charges (approx. 95%) with the balance funded through the Water Capital Fund. The project expenditures include a 15% contingency that will only be utilized if required to address unforeseen issues throughout construction. CONCLUSIONS: The tender price of $1,782,415.22 excluding taxes by Timbro Contracting (A Partnership) for the Rock Ridge Reservoir – Tank 2 project is the lowest compliant tendered price. It is recommended that Council approve the award of the contract to Timbro Contracting (A Partnership). It is further recommended that Council approve an increase to the existing Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. contract for Engineering Services for Silver Valley Water Reservoir in the amount of $85,000.00 for geotechnical and environmental monitoring and construction reviews and services. “Original signed by Jeff Boehmer” “Original signed by Trevor Thompson” Submitted by: Jeff Boehmer, PEng. Financial Trevor Thompson, BBA, CPA, CGA Manager of Design & 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 E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer City of PittMeadows District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R. Reservoir Site The City of Maple Ridge makes no guaranteeregarding the accuracy or present status ofthe information shown on this map.´ Scale: 1:5,000 Date: Jan 27, 2016Department: Engineering Rock Ridge Reservoir - Tank 2 0 50 100 150 200 m 0 180 360 540 720 ft City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Sale of City Property at 20309 Chigwell Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 20309 Chigwell Street contains two separately titled land parcels – one owned by the City of Maple Ridge and one owned by Mr. Earl Hansen. In early 2015, Mr. Hansen inquired as to the City’s interest in selling him the City’s parcel such that he could consolidate the two parcels under one title. At a July 2015 Council meeting, staff were authorized to enter into negotiations to sell the City owned parcel for no less than its assessed (2015) value of $15,931.00. Lawyers representing Mr. Hansen contacted the City in November 2015 and advised that Mr. Hansen was willing to purchase the City’s parcel at this price. Having completed the notification process as required under the Community Charter, the City is prepared to dispose of the property. RECOMMENDATION(S): That this resolution be considered at a closed meeting pursuant to Sections 90 (1) (e) of the Community Charter; and further: That staff be authorized to complete the sale of the City-owned parcel of 20309 Chigwell Street, Maple Ridge and legally described as: ‘That Portion of Lot 215 Lying within The Boundaries of District Lot 281, Group 1 NWDP 114 (PID #001-758-977), to Mr. Earl Hansen of 20309 Chigwell Street for $15,931.00. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Following a July, 2015 Council Meeting, staff advised lawyers for Mr. Earl Hansen that the City would be willing to sell its parcel for no less than its assessed value of $15,931.00. In addition, if the sale were to proceed, Mr. Hansen would be required to secure the necessary approvals to consolidate the parcels though the city’s Planning Department and register same through the Land Titles Office and absorb all the related legal and conveyancing costs. Lastly, if the sale were to proceed, the City would be required to follow the public notice process as outlined in the Community Charter as related to Sale of Municipal Property. The Community Charter notice process completed on January 20, 2016. 1131 CONCLUSION: The sale of the City-owned parcel of land located at 20309 Chigwell for its assessed value of $15,931.00 respects the City’s policies and procedures and reflects the best interests of its taxpayers. “Original signed by Darrell Denton”_________________ Prepared by: Darrell Denton Property & Risk Manager “Original signed by Trevor Thompson”_______________ Approved by: Trevor Thompson Manager of Financial Planning “Original signed by Paul Gill”_______________________ Approved by: Paul Gill General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by Ted Swabey”____________________ Concurrence: Ted Swabey Chief Administrative Officer Appendixes: A: Map of Subject Property – 20309 Chigwell Street Appendix A: Map of Subject Property – 20309 Chigwell Map 1: City-owned parcel of approximately 500 square meters Map 2: Historical Port Hammond Map – the vertical line indicates the original property line between District Lots 281 (Left) and 279 (Right). 20309 Chigwell is lot 215. City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Vacant/Abandoned Building Amending Bylaw 7186-2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Maple Ridge adopted the Vacant/Abandoned Building Bylaw No. 6958-2012 in December of 2012 in response to the risk posed by derelict structures to the citizens of Maple Ridge. These structures pose a threat to the community in several forms including, but not limited to, fire, vandalism, theft, and illegal activity. History has proven that these structures, when left unmanaged, decay at an elevated rate, and attract an unwanted element resulting in a negative effect on the form and function of the community. The bylaw as written has proven to be of significant value for the Fire and Bylaw Departments in the managing of properties where an owner of property is unwilling, or unable to, manage a property themselves. The bylaw enables City staff to take action on behalf of property owners should they not respond in a timely manner, thereby reducing and managing the risk on behalf of citizens. With the benefit of having worked with the bylaw for three years since its adoption, it has become evident that minor amendments to the bylaw would be beneficial for both property owners and city staff who administer the bylaw. A copy of our original Bylaw 6958-2012 is attached with notations, for ease of reference. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Vacant/Abandoned Building Amending Bylaw No. 7186-2015 be given first, second and third readings. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: In the three years since the adoption of Bylaw 6958-2012, the issue of vacant/ abandoned buildings within the community has become better managed, particularly in the downtown core. Our experience has identified text amendments to further improve the bylaw’s effectiveness. In particular, the existing Schedule A specifies the requirements as to how an owner is to secure the building once identified as insecure. The schedule was originally based on a standard issued by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Although the standard is extremely thorough, it does add significant financial expense and complexity in the securing of a structure. Experience over the past several years has identified that this additional expense and 1 1132 complexity is not necessary to achieve the intent of the bylaw. The schedule as written remains an excellent recommendation; however it would be beneficial to remove it as a requirement. Rather than have a prescribed schedule within the bylaw, staff recommend that the bylaw be altered to specify an objectives based requirement and this is now reflected in Part 4 of the new bylaw. This will provide moderate flexibility to property owners in how they manage to preclude unauthorized entry. This would also allow for flexibility in how city contractors secure buildings where homeowners are either unwilling or unable to manage the properties themselves. A change is also proposed for the time a home owner has to respond and secure a building, once identified and this change is reflected in Part 5. Originally the requirement was for response within 24 hours and it is recommended that this be changed to 48 hours. This is an acknowledgement that it may take some time to locate and notify an owner, and further allows reasonable time for them to make arrangements to respond. It should be noted that the ability for city staff to secure a property immediately without notification is maintained within the bylaw when public safety is of paramount concern. b) Desired Outcome(s): Simplifying the requirements for boarding will enable property owners to keep secure their vacant/abandoned buildings in a manner that is effective while maintaining control of expenses. As long as an owner maintains their vacant/abandoned building inaccessible to unauthorized entry, the intent of the bylaw is maintained. c) Strategic Alignment (as appropriate): Effective management of vacant/abandoned buildings assists with maintaining a high level of public safety, improving the citizen experience within the community. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The proposed changes will provide some flexibility to property owners who are required to secure buildings. City contractors who are asked to secure buildings, where homeowners are either unwilling or unable to manage the properties themselves, will have also have the same flexibility. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Fire Department staff members primarily manage and enforce the Bylaw with the assistance of Bylaw Enforcement Officers. All orders under the bylaw, in addition to the assignment of administrative fees and boarding expenses, are administered by clerical staff in the Fire Department. No direct interdepartmental implications are anticipated. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: All financial expenses that are incurred as a result of administering the bylaw are recovered from the property owner by way of invoicing. Unpaid invoices are transferred to taxes as arears as necessary. g) Policy Implications: No policy implications are anticipated as a result of this amending Bylaw. 2 h)Alternatives: 1.Make no changes. This option would leave the majority of properties in technical contravention of the bylaw, even when the building is secured in a reasonable manner. 2.Demand that property owners and City contractors who work to secure buildings under this bylaw do so as per the existing schedule. This would increase expense while marginally improving the security of the building. Achieving compliance would not be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: The Vacant/Abandoned Building Bylaw gives staff a useful tool to better manage derelict buildings within the City. Having utilized the bylaw successfully for the past three years, lessons have been learned which would make the bylaw more effective. The changes outlined herein maintain the intent of the bylaw while providing reasonable flexibility. “Original signed by Michael Van Dop” Prepared by: Michael Van Dop Assistant Chief Prevention & Planning “Original signed by Dane Spence” Approved by: Dane Spence Fire Chief “Original signed by Paul Gill”____________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill GM: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. (Ted) Swabey Chief Administrative Officer mvd: 3 EXISTING BYLAW WITH PROPOSED REVISIONS CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6958–2012 A Bylaw to control the condition of vacant / abandoned buildings so as to reduce the risk these buildings pose WHEREAS, the Community Charter, provides that Council may by bylaw impose requirements in relation to buildings and other structures; AND WHEREAS, vacant/abandoned buildings pose a physical risk to citizens and emergency responders of the DistrictCity as vacant buildings are often in such a state of disrepair that a fire starting in them is likely to spread rapidly endangering life and property; AND WHEREAS, vacant buildings are frequently found to contain hazardous materials including but not limited to asbestos; AND WHEREAS, vacant/abandoned buildings negatively affect the form and character of the DistrictCity; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the DistrictCity of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge Vacant / Abandoned Building Bylaw No. 6958-2012” DEFINITIONS: 2.In this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires: “Building” means a structure whether temporary or permanent, used or built for shelter, accommodation, or enclosure of persons, animals, materials or equipment; “Bylaw Officer” means any person appointed by the Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws, or their designate, to exercise the powers under this Bylaw; "Building Official" means the Chief Building Official for the DistrictCity, and every Building Official appointed by the DistrictCity to inspect Buildings or Structures in respect of building, plumbing, gas or electrical safety standards; “Council” means the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the DistrictCity of Maple Ridge; "DistrictCity" means the Corporation of the DistrictCity of Maple Ridge; "Director" means the Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws of the DistrictCity; Comment [MVD1]: Administrative change. All references of ‘District’ changed to ‘City’ Comment [MVD2]: Administrative clarification in definition "Fire Chief" means the person who is head of the Maple Ridge Fire Department and his or her designate; "Inspector" means: (a) the Fire Chief, and applicable designate, to be an officer or employee of Maple Ridge Fire Department; (b) the Chief Building Official for the DistrictCity, and every Building Official appointed by the DistrictCity to inspect Buildings or Structures in respect of building, plumbing, gas or electrical standards; (c) a Peace Officer, including a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (d) the Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws; (e) a Bylaw Enforcement Officer; “Owner” includes the following: (a) the registered owner of the land on which the building is situated; (b) the owner of a building; (c) the person managing or receiving the rent of the land or the building, or who would receive the rent if the land and building were let, whether on the person’s own account or as agent or trustee or receiver of any other person; (d) a vendor of the building under an agreement for sale who has paid any municipal taxes thereon after the effective date of the agreement; (e) the person for the time being receiving installments of the purchase price if the building were sold under an agreement for the sale; and (f) a lessee or occupant of the property who, under the terms of a lease, is required to repair and maintain the building; “Vacant/Abandoned” means any building, unit within a building, portion of a building or structure, that is not occupied and that, by reason of its unfinished or dilapidated, or fire damaged condition, that a fire starting in the building will spread rapidly, endangering life and property and or, is open to the elements or is in a state such that there is no control over unauthorized entry to the building or structure. SECURING OF VACANT/ABANDONED BUILDINGS 3. An owner of any Vacant/Abandoned Building must ensure the premises are made and kept secure against unauthorized entry or occupation at all times. 4. Acceptable measures to maintain secure Vacant/Abandonded Buildings include on or more of the following: (a) Affix solid barriers to windows, doors, and other potential points of ingress to preclude entry. Solid barriers to be of such material and installed in such a manner that they will maintain security measures at all times and be able to withstand environmental stressors. (b) Install continuous security fencing around the perimeter of the building so as to preclude entry. Fencing to be of a minimum 1.8 meters in height and must be maintained effective at all times. (c) Post an onsite security guard and maintain patrols on a frequent basis so as to preclude entry at any and all times. 5.Upon initial identification or complaint that a building within the DistrictCity is Vacant/Abandoned, the Inspector, may at all reasonable hours attend the property and assess its condition. Upon confirmation of that the building(s) are found to be in contravention of this bylaw, the inspector will order the owner to secure the premise within 24 48 hours as per Section 4 (a) and/or (b) and/or (c). The inspector will attempt to contact the owner by telephone or in person and written notification will also be sent to the address registered with the city. by registered mail. 5.a. The inspector will attempt to contact the registered owner upon confirmation of the first two occurrences of the property observed found in contravention of this bylaw. Subsequent occurrences will result in the Inspector making arrangements to secure and or make the building secure as per 4(a), and/or (b), and/or (c). All costs associated with securing and or guarding the premise will be invoiced to and are the sole responsibility of the Owner. 6.Where public safety is of paramount concern and the vacant or abandoned building creates an immediate hazard, the Inspector may make arrangements to secure and or make the building secure as per Section 4(a), and/or (b), and/or (c) as soon as possible, without prior notification of the Owner. All costs associated with securing and or guarding the premise will be invoiced to and are the sole responsibility of the Owner. NON-COMPLIANCE BY OWNER 7.Should the Owner either: a.Fail to secure the building as per written order within the specified time period, or b. Prove to be unable to be contacted phone or in person, The officers may, at his/her discretion procure services to secure the premise as per Section 4(a) and/or (b) and/or (c). All costs associated with securing and or guarding the premise will be invoiced to and are the sole responsibility of the Owner. FEES FOR RE-INSPECTION OF VACANT/ABANDONDED BUILDING Comment [MVD3]: Rewrite 4 and 4(a) to be objective based rather than reference a prescriptive schedule included in the bylaw. Schedule A deleted in its entirety as a result. Comment [MVD4]: Change to 48 hours as per discussion with Bylaws. Rationale is centered around what is a reasonable amount of time required to notify an owner and expect a response. Comment [MVD5]: Removal of type of delivery. Rationale is centered on the reality that depending on the time of day/day of week the infraction is observed, some forms of delivery are better than others. This allows staff flexibility in choosing the most effective form of delivery. Formatted Comment [MVD6]: Define process as per discussion with Bylaws to include formal notification for first two occurrences. Rationale is centered around what is a reasonable amount of notification. Comment [MVD7]: Change language to allow for multiple forms of securing if required given specific situations. 8.After the vacant/abandoned building has been identified and secured as per Section 4, and upon re-inspection, the building is found to be once again insecure, the Owner shall be subject to a re-inspection fee(s) stipulated in “Schedule BA” and must be paid to the DistrictCity. 9.In addition to the re inspection fee, the Owner must abide by an order the Inspector writes to secure or re-secure the building. Failure to comply may result in action taken in accordance with Section 7. REMOVAL OF VACANT/ABANDONED BUILDINGS 10. Any building found kept in such a condition, or be situated in such a location, so as the safety of the general public is compromised or may become compromised, Council may order the building demolished, foundation removed and property graded so as to remove the hazard. 11. All costs associated with action taken under Section 10 are the sole responsibility of the Owner. APPLICATION FOR RE INSPECTION FEE REDUCTION 12. Any Owner of vacant / abandoned building(s) who has had re-inspection fees assessed against his/her property may apply in writing to the Fire Chief to have the re-inspection fees reduced by 75% provided that any one of following conditions have been met : a.The owner has applied to the DistrictCity for a building permit to restore the building to a habitable condition within 30 days of the first inspection. The building must be maintained secure, as per Section 4, at all times while the building permit is open and active. b.The owner has applied for a demolition permit from the DistrictCity within 30 days of the first inspection, and, the building has been demolished, foundation removed and property graded so as to remove the hazard, within 60 days of the first inspection. 13. Any reduction in fees owed applies only to re-inspection fees assessed and not to any costs incurred for the securing, re-securing as per Section 6 Sections 6 and 7, or demolition of the building. INVOICING 14. Where a fee is charged to the owner of property, the DistrictCity will invoice the owner of the property (and notify the owner) for the response service. Comment [MVD8]: Renamed based on proposed changes Comment [MVD9]: Administrative change to ensure all expenses incurred by staff on behalf of owner become the responsibility of the owner 15. An administration fee stipulated in “Schedule BA” will be added all of the costs associated securing, protecting and or guarding as per Section 4. 16. Any invoice issued under the Bylaw are due and payable within 30 days of issuance. 17. All invoices that remain unpaid as of December 31st in the year in which they were incurred will be added to and form part of the taxes payable on the real property to which services were provided or fees assessed as taxes in arrears. SEVERABILITY 18. If any Section, subsection or clause of this Bylaw is declared or held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that invalid portion shall be severed and the remainder of this Bylaw shall be deemed to have been enacted and adopted without the invalid and severed Section. READ a first time the 27th day of November, 2012. READ a second time the 27th day of November, 2012. READ a third time the 27th day of November, 2012. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the 11th day of December, 2012. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER Attachments: Schedule A Schedule B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6958–2012 SCHEDULE ‘A’ Details on Securing Vacant/Abandoned Buildings 1.DISCONNECT ALL UTILITIES AT THE PROPERTY LINE (a) Request Public Works crew, turn off water at the property line (b) Have the utility company disconnect electricity service at the property line (c) Have the utility company disconnect natural gas service at the property line (d) Disconnect and remove any Liquid Propane Gas and or heating oil tanks. 2.REMOVE ALL FLAMMABLES AND COMBUSTIBLES FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE BUILDING (a) Remove all upholstered furniture, combustible materials and trash from the building, including the basement and attic. (b) Remove trash and trash containers and combustible furniture from exterior stairwells, porches, fire escapes and outbuildings. (c) Remove shrubbery and vegetation adjacent to building that could support or spread a fire. 3.SECURE THE BUILDING TO PREVENT ENTRY (a) Search the entire building to ensure that it is unoccupied. Comment [MVD10]: Deleted in its entirety. (b) Openings in the basement, first floor doors and windows and any point of entry accessible from a porch, fire escape or other potential climbing point within 3m of finished grade, must be secured plywood (minimum 12 mm thick) and re-enforced with 2x4s, bolts and screws. (see Section 4) (c) Openings that are at 3m above finished grade which are not accessible from a porch, fire escape, roof, or other climbing point may be secured by the original locking feature of the window or door provided any and all glazing is intact. If the glazing is broken, missing or compromised in any way, or if the opening is without a locking device, plywood barriers must be utilized to secure the opening. Plywood barriers may be secured to window/door frame utilizing screws or lag bolts with a minimum length of 65 mm. 4.BOARDING UP DIRECTIONS (a) Cut plywood (minimum 12 mm thick) to fit over the window and door openings, flush with outside of the frame. (b) Cut the dimensional lumber (2x4) to fit the horizontal dimension of the plywood. You will need two 2x4 interior and exterior braces for each window and three interior and exterior sets for each door. (c) Pre drill 3/8th inch holes in the plywood and the braces. (d) The holes will be placed approximately 1/3 of the length of the brace from each outside edge of the door and window jamb. (e) The two window braces will be placed 1/3 of the distance from the top and the bottom of the window. (f) The three door braces will be placed; one in the center of the doorway, and one half the distance from the center to the top and to the bottom of the doorway. (g) Place the plywood over the exterior opening and secure to the frame. (h) Place the 2x4 braces over the interior and exterior of the door or window. (i) Place the larger washer over the carriage bolt and place the bolt through the holes. (j) Place washer and nut inside and tighten securely. Torque the nut so that it slightly compresses the interior 2x4. (k) After all entrances are secured, the interior worker should exit the building, using a ladder, through a window, if such exists, at least 3m above finished grade. Screw a plywood barrier over the worker's exit utilizing screws at least 65 mm in length and 300mm on center around perimeter of opening. WINDOWS DOORS CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICTCITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6958–2012 SCHEDULE "AB" SCHEDULE OF COSTS FOR RE-INSPECTION FEES A. FEE STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH RE-INSPECTION OF VACANT BUILDING(S): Should the building be found to be in non-compliance with Maple Ridge Vacant / Abandoned Building Bylaw No. 6958-2012, after initial notification of owner, the charges are as follows: Step 1 First re-inspection $150.00 Step 2 Second re-inspection $300.00 Step 3 Third re-inspection $600.00 Step 4 Fourth re-inspection $1200.00 Step 5 All subsequent re- inspections $2400.00 B. ADMINISTRATION COSTS An Administration and Overhead charge of 15% will be added to all services and costs incurred under Section 4 and subsequently invoiced to the owner. Comment [MVD11]: Renamed based on proposed changes CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7186-2015 A Bylaw to amend the Maple Ridge Vacant/Abandoned Building Bylaw No. 6958-2012 WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Vacant/Abandoned Building Bylaw No. 6958-2012; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "Maple Ridge Vacant/Abandoned Building Amending Bylaw No. 7186-2015". 2. That Maple Ridge Vacant/Abandoned Building Bylaw No. 6958-2012 be amended by replacing all references to “The District of Maple Ridge” with “The City of Maple Ridge” 3. That Maple Ridge Vacant/Abandoned Building Bylaw No. 6958-2012 be amended by:  In Part 2 – Definitions, redefining “Bylaw Officer” as: “Bylaw Officer” means any person appointed by the Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws, or their designate, to exercise the powers under this Bylaw;  Repealing Part 4 in its entirety and replacing with: 4. Acceptable measures to maintain secure Vacant/Abandoned Buildings include one or more of the following: (a) Affix solid barriers to windows, doors, and other potential points of ingress to preclude entry. Solid barriers to be of such material and installed in such a manner that they will maintain security measures at all times and be able to withstand environmental stressors. (b) Install continuous security fencing around the perimeter of the building so as to preclude entry. Fencing to be of a minimum 1.8 meters in height and must be maintained effective at all times. (c) Post an onsite security guard and maintain patrols on a frequent basis so as to preclude entry at any and all times. Repealing Part 5 in its entirety and replacing with: 5.Upon initial identification or complaint that a building within the City is Vacant/Abandoned, the Inspector, may attend the property and assess its condition. Upon confirmation that the building(s) is/are found to be in contravention of this bylaw, the inspector will order the owner to secure the premise within 48 hours as per Section 4(a) and/or (b) and/or (c). The inspector will attempt to contact the owner by telephone or in person and written notification will also be sent to the address registered with the City. (a) The inspector will attempt to contact the registered owner upon confirmation of the first two occurrences of the property observed found in contravention of this bylaw. Subsequent occurrences will result in the Inspector making arrangements to secure and or make the building secure as per Section 4(a), and/or (b), and/or (c). All costs associated with securing and or guarding the premise will be invoiced to and are the sole responsibility of the Owner. Repealing Part 6 in its entirety and replacing with: 6.Where public safety is of paramount concern and the vacant or abandoned building creates an immediate hazard, the Inspector may make arrangements to secure and or make the building secure as per Section 4(a), and/or (b), and/or (c) as soon as possible, without prior notification of the Owner. All costs associated with securing and or guarding the premise will be invoiced to and are the sole responsibility of the Owner. Repealing Part 7 in its entirety and replacing with: 7.Should the Owner either: a.Fail to secure the building as per written order within the specified time period, or b.Prove to be unable to be contacted phone or in person, The officers may, at his/her discretion procure services to secure the premise as per Section 4(a) and/or (b) and/or (c). All costs associated with securing and or guarding the premise will be invoiced to and are the sole responsibility of the Owner. In Part 8, renaming “Schedule B” to “Schedule A” Repealing Part 13 in its entirety and replacing with: 13.Any reduction in fees owed applies only to re-inspection fees assessed and not to any costs incurred for the securing, re-securing as per Sections 6 and 7, or demolition of the building. In Part 15, renaming “Schedule B” to “Schedule A” Repealing “Schedule A - Details on Securing Vacant/Abandoned Buildings” in its entirety. Renaming “Schedule B - Schedule of Costs For Re-Inspection Fees” to “Schedule A - Schedule of Costs For Re-Inspection Fees”. READ A FIRST TIME this day of , 20 . READ A SECOND TIME this day of , 20 . READ A THIRD TIME this day of , 20 . ADOPTED this day of , 20 . PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER CityCityCityCity of Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridge TO:TO:TO:TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: 1-Feb-2016 and Members of Council FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO: FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:MEETING:MEETING:MEETING: COW SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Audit & Finance Committee Terms of Reference EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Audit & Finance Committee operates under Terms of Reference adopted by Council. The attached schedule “A” reflects the Terms of Reference recommended by the current committee members. RECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATION:::: That the Audit & Finance Committee Terms of That the Audit & Finance Committee Terms of That the Audit & Finance Committee Terms of That the Audit & Finance Committee Terms of Reference attached as Schedule “A” to the staff report Reference attached as Schedule “A” to the staff report Reference attached as Schedule “A” to the staff report Reference attached as Schedule “A” to the staff report dated February 1, 2016 be approved, as recommended by the Audit & Finance Committee.dated February 1, 2016 be approved, as recommended by the Audit & Finance Committee.dated February 1, 2016 be approved, as recommended by the Audit & Finance Committee.dated February 1, 2016 be approved, as recommended by the Audit & Finance Committee. DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: At the January 11, 2016 Council Workshop the composition of the Audit & Finance Committee was changed to include all members of Council, with quorum being a majority of members. Previously the committee was comprised of the Mayor and three Councillors with quorum being two members. This change requires an amendment to the committee’s Terms of Reference. The amended Terms of Reference were endorsed by the Committee at their January 25 meeting and are attached as Schedule “A” for Council’s approval. “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 & Financial Services ”Original signed by E. C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. E.C. E.C. E.C. SwabeySwabeySwabeySwabey Chief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative Officer 1133 Schedule Schedule Schedule Schedule ““““AAAA”””” Audit and Finance CommitteeAudit and Finance CommitteeAudit and Finance CommitteeAudit and Finance Committee Terms of ReferenceTerms of ReferenceTerms of ReferenceTerms of Reference CompositionCompositionCompositionComposition •••• The Audit and Finance Committee will consist of all members of Council • Quorum for the committee will be a majority of members. • The Committee Chair will be elected by the Committee Members. • The Chief Administrative Officer, or designate, and the Chief Financial Officer will attend meetings to provide input and answer questions. AuthorityAuthorityAuthorityAuthority • The Committee has the authority to investigate any activity of the Municipality. • The Committee may retain persons having special expertise to assist it in fulfilling its responsibilities. MeetingsMeetingsMeetingsMeetings • The Committee meets at least twice per year. The meetings are scheduled to permit timely review of the annual financial statements and reports. Additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Chair of the Committee or as requested by the external auditors. • The Chair of the Committee will constitute a meeting as per the requirements of the Community Charter. • The person designated by the Committee to act as Secretary will prepare minutes for all meetings. ReportingReportingReportingReporting • Minutes of the meetings of the Committee will be signed by the Chair, submitted to Council and open for public inspection. • Supporting schedules and information reviewed by the Committee will be available for examination by any Council member. ResponsibilitiesResponsibilitiesResponsibilitiesResponsibilities • To meet with the external auditors appointed by Council and with the Finance Department Staff to satisfy itself, on behalf of the Council, that: • The Municipality has implemented appropriate systems to identify, monitor and mitigate significant business risks; • The Municipality has implemented appropriate systems of internal control to ensure compliance with legal, ethical and regulatory requirements and that these systems are operating effectively; • The Municipality has implemented appropriate systems of internal control to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures and these systems are operating effectively; • The Municipality has implemented appropriate systems of internal control over financial reporting and that these systems are operating effectively; • The Municipality’s annual financial statements are fully presented in all material respects in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the selection Audit and Finance CommitteeAudit and Finance CommitteeAudit and Finance CommitteeAudit and Finance Committee Terms of ReferenceTerms of ReferenceTerms of ReferenceTerms of Reference cont’dcont’dcont’dcont’d of accounting policies is appropriate and the annual financial statements should be approved by Council; •The information contained in the Municipality’s annual report and other disclosures is accurate, complete and fairly presents the financial position and the risks of the organization; and •The external audit function has been effectively carried out and any matter that the external auditors wish to bring to the attention of Council has been given adequate attention. •To review interim financial reports as deemed appropriate by the Chair of the Committee. •To recommend to Council the reappointment or appointment of external auditors. •To inquire into any matters referred to it by Council.