Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-04 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdf City 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 National Volunteer Week • Heather Treleaven, Coordinator, Volunteer Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 2016-008-RZ, 11016, 11032 and 11038 240 Street, RS-3 to R-3 and RM-1 Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7218-2016 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) and that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7219-2016 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit future subdivision into 8 single family lots and 15 townhouses be given first reading. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA April 4, 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 April 4, 2016 Page 2 of 4 1102 2016-017-RZ, 11865 232 Street and 11839 232 Street, RS-1 to R-1 Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7225-2016 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit the subdivision into 15 single family lots 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 2016-031-RZ, 13227 236 Street, RS-2 to RM-1 Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7228-2016 to rezone from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit future construction of approximately 18 townhouse units be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, C, D, G and J of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. 1104 2016-039-RZ, 11951 240 Street, CS-1 to C-2 Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7229-2016 to rezone from CS-1 (Service Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit construction of a one storey commercial building for a Tim Hortons restaurant and drive-through be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C and D of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. 1105 2016-059-RZ, Unit 104, 11952 224 Street, Site Specific Text Amendment Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7234-2016 to allow a site specific text amendment to the C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) zone to permit a craft brewery/lounge be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1106 2016-283-RZ, 14160 256 Street, Site Specific Text Amendment Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7177-2015 to allow a site specific text amendment to permit cleaning of low hazard transformers and the storage and minor processing of hydrocarbons be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. Committee of the Whole Agenda April 4, 2016 Page 3 of 4 1107 2013-019-RZ, 22576 and 22588 Brown Avenue, First One Year Extension Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that a first one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2013-019-RZ to rezone to CD-2-13 for the construction of an 18 storey apartment building. 1108 2015-201-DP, Wildfire Development Permit, 22801 to 22829 Nelson Court (Phase 3) Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-201-DP for 25 lots of Phase 3 of the Nelson Peak development located in Silver Valley as the site is located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. 1109 Contract Award: Pavement Rehabilitation Program Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that the contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program be awarded to BA Black Top Limited and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Joint Leisure Services Agreement – Joint Field and Arena Allocation Staff report dated April 4, 2016 recommending that staff be directed to enter into discussions with the City of Pitt Meadows to establish a contractual arrangement for the City of Maple Ridge to conduct sport field and arena allocations for the City of Pitt Meadows. 5. ADMINISTRATION 1171 Committee of the Whole Agenda April 4, 2016 Page 4 of 4 6. CORRESPONDENCE 1181 7. OTHER ISSUES 1191 8. ADJOURNMENT 9. 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: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-008-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7218-2016 Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7219-2016 11016, 11032, and 11038 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the three subject properties located on 11016, 11032, and 11038 240 Street, from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to permit future subdivision into 8 single family lots and 15 townhouses. The subject properties are located within the Albion Area Plan boundary and are designated Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation designation. The applicant is requesting an Official Community Plan amendment to change the designation to Medium Density Residential, which allows the proposed RM-1 and R-3 zones. It is anticipated that the boundaries of the current Conservation designation area will also require adjustment after an environmental assessment study has been completed. The proposed OCP amendment can be supported because the properties are located on 240 Street which is considered a Major Corridor. Furthermore the proposed density is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. The applicant intends to take advantage of the Density Bonus option in the Albion Area Plan for the RM-1 zoned portion of the site, enabling the permitted floor space ratio of 0.6 to increase to 0.75 in exchange for an amenity fee. The proposed Official Community Plan amendment to enable a rezoning for eight R-3 single-family lots also triggers a Community Amenity Contribution through policy 10-7: ’Maple Ridge Council may consider Density Bonuses as part of the development review process for Albion Area Plan amendment applications seeking a land use designation change that would permit a higher density than currently permitted’ On March 14, 2016 Council approved a city-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program policy that aligns with the policies in the Albion Area Plan, but also provides a revised amenity fee structure that will apply to the subject application as follows: - $2,000 per lot or dwelling unit in addition to the original $3,100 density bonus rate; and - $5,100 per single family lot created. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7218-2016 be given first reading; and 2.That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7219-2016 be given first reading; and 1101 - 2 - 3. That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, C, D, E, F, and G of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999, along with the information required for an Intensive Residential Development Permit and Subdivision applications. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Greenwood Properties Ltd. Owners: Alan and Mary Chow Cottonwood Lane Holdings Harald Bosshart Legal Description: - Lot 5, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster Plan 17613 - South Half Lot 4, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster Plan 17613 - North Half Lot 4, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster Plan 17613 OCP: Existing: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation Proposed: Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.808 ha. in total (2 acres) Access: lane access off of 110 Ave Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: The subject properties located at 11016, 11032, and 11038 240 Street are approximately 2 acres in total. The properties are generally flat, and are currently bounded by a single family residential property to the north, east, and south, with 240 Street to the west and 110 Avenue to the south. Seigel Creek is located on the adjacent site to the east, and protection and enhancement of the environmentally sensitive areas around it are therefore required on the subject properties. (See - 3 - Appendix A) The property to the east is under application for a townhouse development. The property to the west is under application to develop into intensive residential R-3 lots. c) Project Description: The current application proposes to rezone the three subject properties from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to permit future subdivision into 8 single family lots, not less than 285.93 m2, and a 15 unit townhouse development. Access for all lots is proposed to be from a new lane created off of 110 Avenue. No driveway accesses are permitted on to 240 Street as it is an arterial road where alternative access (i.e. a new lane) is available. d) Planning Analysis Official Community Plan: The development site is located within the Albion Area Plan boundary and is currently designated Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation, allowing for One Family Urban Residential zones like RS-1, RS-1b, R-1 and the Duplex zone RT-1. For the proposed development an OCP amendment is required to re-designate the site to Medium Density Residential and Conservation to allow the proposed R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zoning. The proposed OCP amendment can be supported because the properties are located on 240 Street which is considered a Major Corridor. The area is under development with higher density proposals; properties further to the North and East are developing into RM-1, and properties to the south are developed into R-3 lots. The proposed density is therefore consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. The applicant also intends to take advantage of the Albion Area Plan Community Amenity Program, increasing the floor space ratio from 0.6 to 0.75 within the proposed RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) portion of the development. Policy 10-6 outlines the parameters for allowing an amenity contribution through a Density Bonus in the Albion Area Plan and will apply to the d ensity bonus proposed for the RM-1 zoned portion of the site. Furthermore, policy 10-7 allows for a CAC to be charged on the R-3 zoned lots due to the OCP amendment application. ’10-6 Where a Density Bonus option is utilized in a multi-family development and the base density is exceeded, an Amenity Contribution is to be applied to all the dwelling units on the site’ ’10-7 Maple Ridge Council may consider Density Bonuses as part of the development review process for Albion Area Plan amendment applications seeking a land use designation change that would permit a higher density than currently permitted’ City-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program: On March 14, 2016 Council approved the city-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program policy, which permits amenity contributions for residential development throughout most of Maple Ridge, including the Albion Area. Item 5 of the Policy establishes a revised fee structure for the Albion Area Plan Community Amenity Contribution Program, which requires that developments taking advantage of the Albion Density Bonus will have an amenity contribution rate of $2,000.00 per lot or dwelling unit in addition to the $3,100.00 density bonus rate. - 4 - This proposal will result in a total amenity contribution of: - $5,100.00 per townhouse dwelling unit, and - $5,100.00 per single family lot created The final number of lots and amenity contribution will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit future subdivision into 8 single family lots, not less than 285.93 m2, and a 15 unit townhouse development. Two separate zoning amendment bylaws are being proposed, one (number 7219- 2016) for 8 R-3 zoned lots and one (number 7218-2016) for 15 RM-1 zoned townhouses. Two separate zoning bylaws will provide greater flexibility for the applicant in moving forward with one or both of the uses of the project, together or separately. The minimum lot size for the current RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone is 0.8 ha, and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone is 213m2. The minimum lot size for the proposed RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone is 557 m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the OCP, a Multi-Family Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. Pursuant to Section 8.8 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, while protecting important qualities of the natural environment. Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the OCP, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Advisory Design Panel: A Multifamily Residential Development Permit for the (RM-1) townhomes is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to second reading. 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) Licences, Permits & Bylaws; e) Parks Department; f) School District; g) Utility companies; and h) Canada Post. - 5 - 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) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. g) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as re quired by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999 as amended: 1. An OCP Application (Schedule A); 2. A complete Rezoning Application ( Schedule C); 3. A Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D) for the RM-1 lots; 4. A Development Variance Permit (Schedule E) for the RM-1 lots; 5. A Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule F); 6. A Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); 7. An Intensive Residential Development Permit Application for the R-3 lots; and 8. Two Subdivision Applications, one for the Single Family lots plus the RM-1 lot, and one for the RM-1 subdivision into 15 units. 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 seeking an amendment to the Albion Area Plan to re-designate the property to Medium Density Residential to provide for 8 Single Family R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zoned lots and 15 townhouses utilizing the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. Justification has been provided to support the OCP amendment due to the sites location on a Major Corridor and proximity to RM-1 and R-3 developments. This project intends to utilize the Density Bonus option in the Albion Area Plan which will result in an Amenity Contribution of $5,100 per Townhouse and Single Family lot created. It is, therefore, recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. - 6 - 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. 7218-2016 Appendix D – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7219-2016 Appendix E – Proposed Site Plan DATE: Jan 22, 2016 FILE: 2016-008-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11016/32/38 240 STREET 110 AVE Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of River Indefinite Creek River Centreline Lake or Reservoir River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Jan 22, 2016 FILE: 2016-008-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11016/32/38 240 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 110 AVE APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7218-2016 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. 7218-2016." 2.Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as: North Half Lot 4 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan17613 South Half Lot 4 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan17613 Lot 5 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan17613 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1660 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 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 11113 11124 11119 11120 10980 11118/54 24045 10987 2408810992 241042412511111 11126 11105 11121 11080 109792 4 0 7 8 2406911107 11112 11107 11109 11016 2401610963240842411511117 11108 11118 11125 10956 11032 10968 11106 11129 10916 10924 10940 10964 10996 11052 24026240721097110995 10984 11101 11102 11102 11089 11113 10948 2403811115 11127 11110 11116 10932 11062 240192403724067 2409811103 11117 10908 10972 10988 11038 24014240272402224055 10976239 ST.240 ST.1 0 9 A V E .241 ST.109A AVE.239A ST.47 1 11 2 13 21 BCP 46902EPP 3252048 2 4 6 2 26 25 S 150' of 1 17 P 17613 13 PARK 14 15 46 57 41 4 5 9 10 N 1/2 of 4 21PARK23 19 P 809 45 40 7 3 12 P 17613 22 PARK 22 P 54889 36 26 65 Pt. 8 60 58 4243 39 6 3 14 27 BCP 50702EPP 32519 61 47 49 3 5EPP 3252028 24 LMP 5444018 LM P 4410515 23 63 LMP 44105 1 7 S 1/2 of 4 5 29 LMP 43228 Rem 1 11 20 64 59 3 44 LMP 544408 27 P 17613 16 6 12 LMP 54440EPP 40844 EPP 32519BCP 50703 LMP 44106EPP 45971EPP 35597LMP 48333EPP 40843LMP 54441110 AVE. SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) 7218-20161660 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7219-2016 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. 7219-2016." 2.Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as: North Half Lot 4 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan17613 South Half Lot 4 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan17613 Lot 5 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan17613 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1661 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are 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 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX D 11113 11124 11119 11120 10980 11118/54 24045 10987 2408810992 241042412511111 11126 11105 11121 11080 109792 4 0 7 8 2406911107 11112 11107 11109 11016 2401610963240842411511117 11108 11118 11125 10956 11032 10968 11106 11129 10916 10924 10940 10964 10996 11052 24026240721097110995 10984 11101 11102 11102 11089 11113 10948 2403811115 11127 11110 11116 10932 11062 240192403724067 2409811103 11117 10908 10972 10988 11038 24014240272402224055 10976239 ST.240 ST.1 0 9 A V E .241 ST.109A AVE.239A ST.47 1 11 2 13 21 BCP 46902EPP 3252048 2 4 6 2 26 25 S 150' of 1 17 P 17613 13 PARK 14 15 46 57 41 4 5 9 10 N 1/2 of 4 21PARK23 19 P 809 45 40 7 3 12 P 17613 22 PARK 22 P 54889 36 26 65 Pt. 8 60 58 4243 39 6 3 14 27 BCP 50702EPP 32519 61 47 49 3 5EPP 3252028 24 LMP 5444018 LM P 4410515 23 63 LMP 44105 1 7 S 1/2 of 4 5 29 LMP 43228 Rem 1 11 20 64 59 3 44 LMP 544408 27 P 17613 16 6 12 LMP 54440EPP 40844 EPP 32519BCP 50703 LMP 44106EPP 45971EPP 35597LMP 48333EPP 40843LMP 54441110 AVE. ´ SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) 7219-20161661 APPENDIX E City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-017-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7225-2016 11865 232 Street & 11839 232 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit the subdivsion into 15 single family lots. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. Pursuant to Council resolution, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7225-2016 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: 0852845 BC LTD. Manjit Rai Owner: Li-Jen Chen, Wen-Chang Chen Legal Description: South 83 Feet Lot 1 Section 17 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 12599; Lot 1 except South 83 Feet, Section 17 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 12599 OCP: Existing: Urban Residential Proposed: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: 2 properties, urban residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential 1102 - 2 - South: Use: urban residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential East: Use: Ground oriented multi-family Zone: RM-1 Townhouse Residential Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: 4 properties, urban residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: urban residential Proposed Use of Property: urban residential Site Area: 0.8 HA (2 acres) Access: 232nd Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b)Site Characteristics: The subject properties comprise a combined 0.8 hectares (2.0 acres) in size and are located south of Dewdney Trunk Road near the intersection of 232nd Street and 118th Avenue. The properties in the immediate vicinity are typified by large RS-1 One Family Urban Residential lots with comparatively low improvement values and parcel sizes significantly greater than minimum requirements. An RM-1 Townhouse Residential development is located directly across the street. Orthophotos and BC Assessment information indicate that both properties have houses located on them. These will need to be removed as a condition of rezoning. c)Project Description: The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit future subdivision into fifteen single family residential lots not less than 371 m² (see Appendix C). Five of the lots will be accessed from 232nd Street, while the remaining parcels will be accessed from a proposed elbow shaped road extending to 232nd Street from the south edge of the subject site (See attachment D). The alignment of this proposed roadway will assist property owners to the north and south of the subject site in eventually realizing the development potential of their properties. There is no indication of watercourses or other landscape features that could impact the development potential of the subject properties. 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 property Urban Residential, and the development of these properties iis 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 - 3 - 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. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties 11865 & 11839 232nd Street from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into approximately 15 single family residential lots. The minimum lot size for the current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone is 668 m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is 371 m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Community Amenity Contribution Program: On March 14, 2016, Council endorsed the Community Amenity Contribution Program. This program is geared towards securing funding to meet community needs and objectives that would not typically be provided for by private sector interests. Certain exemptions have been established, but the program sets up contribution rates that are applied as a condition of zoning. For single family developments, the contribution rate is $5100.00 per single family lot created. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is not required for this application because it is in compliance with the OCP and is less than 25 dwelling units. 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)Licences, Permits & Bylaws; d)Fire Department; e)School District; f)Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; and g)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 and the introduction of 4 additional vehicle access points along 232nd Street (1 proposed road, 3 proposed additional dwelling units) has not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between first and second reading. It should be noted that this evaluation may require adjustments to the site plan that could impact lot yield. - 4 - 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. 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 Diana Hall” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, M.A., MCIP, RPP Planner 2 “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. 7225-2016 Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Feb 1, 2016 FILE: 2016-017-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT232 ST.118 AVE.STSTEPHENS ST.SLAGER AVE.231B ST.11903 1183923145 118 1177823062231812317711943 11777 2315411812/18 11950 11875 11795 11950 118 118 119 11810 11804 11811850 11783 11882 118 11903 11885 11792 232642308511892 11945 231962312411793 11870 118 118 11875 1186523118 11756 2327211797 11914 11835 23178118 11886 2319111836 11895 11866 11818 11865 11823 11951 2314411821 2316111902 118 11824 11929 11782 11834 11910 2317111944 11892 11804 11911 11831 11961 232801192 11787 119 11885 11819 2315511953 11785 11803 11765 11822 118 2315111775 117722316411939/202317111811 11762 23186SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,000 11839/65 232 STREET APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Feb 1, 2016 FILE: 2016-017-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT232 ST.118 AVE.STSTEPHENS ST.SLAGER AVE.231B ST.11903 118 11778 1183923145 2306211812/18 118 11950 231812317711777 118 11943 23154119 11795 118 11950 118 11875 11902 11810 11834 2326411882 11892 11804 11783 11850 11870 11903 118 118 11756 11885 2319111886 118 11822 11792 231962308511793 2312411945 11892 11797 118 1183623118 11803 11895 11875 2328011865 2315111804 11914 11835 1192 11823178231441192316411866 11939 11818 11823 11865 11951 11821 11929/202317111811 2316111824 11819 2317111782 11910 11762 11944 2318611911 11831 11961 11787 11885 1177523155 11953 11772 11785 11765 23272SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,000 11839/65 232 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7225-2016 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. 7225-2016." 2.Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: South 83 Feet Lot 1 Section 17 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 12599 Lot 1 except South 83 Feet, Section 17 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 12599 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1665 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are 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 2305311793 11875 11939 1191423144 11775 11795 231912319611953 11778 11870 11808 11832 11844 11870 11888 11918 11952 230502305811777 11911 11818 231711 1 7 9 2 2318611875 11943 11756 11812/18 11819 11837 2328011820 11948 11783 11797 11865 11895 11945 /2011810 11850 11910 11755 11885 11983 2326411825 11949 11898 11908 2330411824 11836 118922314511944 11782 11865 11903 11805 11885 11923 11851 11963 11838 11936 11803 11811 11951 2312411960 23151231711175223178 11929 11971 11804 11867 23312230562306211757 11819 11804 11866 231552316111822 11892 11950 2327211909 11953 11850 11860 11823 11835 11885 11903 11957 11785 11762 117722318123177 11821 11839 11961 11834 11895 11841 2328823296230511178723085 2311811882 11950 2315411765 2316411831 11886 11902 11857 118 AVE.232 ST.HAWTHORNE ST.STEPHENS ST.STEPHENS ST.231B ST.SLAGER AVE.HAWTHORNE ST.6 LMP 37496 164 25 28 30 14 P 70911 9 5 37 49 17 22 25 3 5 16 45 1 P 46322 1 22 31 P 349807 2 NWS 2571LMS 1445 P 2202419 23 A 4 F 4 2 23 33 18 17 15 47 P 146435 6 4 P 12599S 83' of 1 A 5 4 8 RP 15155A P 7545422P 22024P 22024 13 P 22024LMP 25202 LMS 2612 4 P 1884836 P 1464311 8 1 2 3 4 10 1P 792041 LMP 1425 AEP 10811 A P 36329 24 27 2 P 70234P 220247 4 35 21 29 12 P 14643BCP 248281 P 14098 3 8 7 9 BCP 24828LMP 17226 P 10448 1 38 1 18 21 26 1 165 166 P 2160024 32 46 P 24972 2 3 35 P 14098 6 8 4 5 7 LMP 107796 P 70234 B P 7356219 P 32010 4 P 80954LMP 26440 P 502015 P 1884826 27 13 B BCP 14068 1 20 BCP 14068P 140986 7 B LMP 13828 1 P 697992 8 6 LMP 374962 E 3 3 16 10 2 P 24454 1 20 30 15 14 9 5 3 46 EP 76698BCP 14069LMP 7254 EP 75173 RW 75681 EP 75455LMP 39207LMP 26441 RW 79205LMP 17227 SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) R-1 (Residential District) 7225-20161665 APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-031-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7228-2016 13227 236 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 13227 236 Street (see Appendix A), from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to permit future construction of approximately 18 townhouse units. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. Pursuant to Council resolution, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program. RECOMMENDATIONS: In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i.The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii.The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii.The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv.First Nations; v.School District Boards, greater boards and improvements district boards; and vi.The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies. and in that regard it is recommended that no additional consultation be required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and; That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7228-2016 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, C, D, G, and J of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Florwest Developments Owner: Dan Floritto 1103 - 2 - Legal Description: Lot: 35, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: NWP37422 OCP: Existing: Medium/High Density Residential Proposed: Medium/High Density Density Residential and Conservation Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential, under application 2016-004-RZ Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Medium/High Density Residential and Conservation Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Multi-Family Residential Site Area: 0.44 ha (1 acre) Access: 236 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: The subject property is approximately 0.44 ha (1 acre) in size with an existing single family home. The property slopes towards the south-west corner, with steep slopes in the south-west corner. Currently, trees are located along the perimeter of the site (see Appendix B). c) Project Description: The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to permit future construction of approximately 18 townhouse units (see Appendix D). The townhouses will be accessed via a private strata road, and outdoor amenity space is proposed along the southern property line. Five of the units are proposed to front along 236 Street, to create an attractive pedestrian realm oriented towards the sidewalk. All of the units are proposed to have a double car garage. 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 - 3 - 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 subject property is located in the River Village within the Silver Valley Area Plan, and is currently designated Medium/High Density Residential. For the proposed development an OCP amendment may be required to re-designate a portion of the property to Conservation due to the steep slopes in the south-west corner. The Medium/High Density Residential designation in the River Village allows both multi family and single family forms. The proposed rezoning to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) complies with the Medium/High Density Residential designation within the Silver Valley Area Plan. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 13227 236 Street from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit future construction of approximately 18 townhouse units. The minimum lot size for the current RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone is 4,000 m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone is 557 m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the OCP, a Multi-Family Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for:  All areas designated Conservation on Schedule “B” or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule “B”, or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan;  All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 %;  All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Natural Features Schedule “C” to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. Pursuant to Section 8.12 of the OCP, a Wildfire Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity identified in wildfire risk areas. The purpose of the Wildfire Development Permit is for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk for wildland fire; and where this risk may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. The subject property is located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area, identified on Map 1 in Section 8.12 of the Official Community Plan. Prior to second reading a Registered Professional Forester’s Report will be required to determine wildfire mitigation requirements. - 4 - Advisory Design Panel: A Multi-Family Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to second reading. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is not required for this application, as the OCP amendment is for a Conservation boundary adjustment and the proposed unit yield does not exceed 25. 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; and f) School District; 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. This evaluation will take place between first and second reading. f) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an OCP amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. g) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as re quired by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999 as amended: 1. An OCP Application (Schedule A); 2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C); 3. A Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D); 4. A Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); 5. A Wildfire Development Permit Application (Schedule J); The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. - 5 - 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. It is expected that once complete information is received, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7228-2016 will be amended and an OCP Amendment to adjust the Conservation boundary may be required. “Original signed by Amelia Bowden” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden 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. 7228-2016 Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan DATE: Feb 16, 20162016-031-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 13227-236 StLegend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Mar 31, 2016 2016_031_RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,500 13227 236 St Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7228-2016 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. 7228-2016." 2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 35 Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 37422 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1667 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 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 13305 2355013313 2355113305 235821328923597 13144 13160 23672236852347913317 13312 2361623687 13301 2350013309 235702 3 5 7 5 13277 236212364523627236512366923491235512354513215 13227 132452359313315 1326023605 2361323683234612347713316 234852357413283 13312 23613236292363723697 23691 13309 13318 2 3 5 8 1 2358913165 13295 2365323675234692351723513236612367713313 235572 3 5 6 3 23585LA R C H A V E .LARCH AVE. 132 AVE.236 ST.133 AVE. 9LMP 52145 PARK LMP 52145PARK P 1105 *PP159 32 7 29 1 2 21 5 13 9 PARK 4 2 33 37 LMP 50153 18 31 Rem A P 3007 33 5 3 P 1105 24 18 23 4 P 16555A 6 31 P 40978 3 RP 15218 EPP 12481P 4 76 03 EP 13725 Rem 1 7 14 7 39 25 13 17 27 21 3 8 EPP 32491 10 32 4 38 P 1105 P 40978 E P P 12 4 8 16 34 20 12 11 30 P 24142 4 PP X4138 17 P 3742235 26 22 P 2637 8 5 6 PARK 4 8 16 30 20 8 22 P 165551 P 37422LMP 52145Rem 3 1 2 *PP157 19 EPP 1248128 2114 P 4 76 03 P 2637 (EPS 2081) EPP 32491 132 AVE.236 ST.MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RM-1 (Towhouse Residential) 7228-20161667 1:2,500 Urban AreaBoundary Urban Area Boundary 55.4255.3955.3454.0155.1154.9956.1455.9755.9854.9556.1656.3256.3457.4457.3857.3457.0757.0757.0858.1758.2358.2757.3858.5558.5859.6659.6459.5658.4959.2959.2959.3059.9459.9359.2360.2660.3260.3356.36t56.89t57.2956.9456.3855.7555.4255.2255.2355.2155.1055.4056.2356.4856.5258.3858.2457.9958.1457.7357.1556.4256.2055.8455.6255.1354.6255.7756.0157.3158.0358.8259.3558.5457.4056.6555.4855.2254.6854.1753.9154.4555.2555.5956.1857.2255.7255.7455.6555.5055.3355.3255.2354.5656.3056.7857.3957.4652.5552.1051.1254.6954.4853.7953.0753.2054.2153.2152.6952.0552.3552.7053.7352.2552.3852.1151.2951.5551.2951.2651.6351.8954.5953.9648.8646.5247.4650.7555.0755.2055.3255.0556.0255.1155.1355.0855.1355.0955.0655.0654.8954.9154.9354.9455.0555.0855.0956.1055.5853.4253.2853.1052.2052.1952.5052.2251.5751.5451.2450.6048.7450.0249.3347.9247.1848.8248.5446.9146.3745.0447.0248.6745.0244.0644.5544.3143.7944.963935343338236th STREETPlan 40978Plan 40978Plan 37422Plan 3742294°24'00"89.7642°30'00"48.75394°24'00"89.9654379 m26.171.691.851.3340.9743.3241.1841.4214.2214.6336.7936.9635.44EXISTINGDWELLINGDECKSHED0.8Ø0.7Ø0.8Ø1.6Ø1.2Ø0.4Ø1.2Ø0.4Ø0.5Ø0.6Ø1.2Ø0.6Ø0.9Ø0.7Ø1.4Ø1.1Ø0.2Ø0.3Ø0.3Ø0.5Ø0.4Ø0.3ØLCditchLCditchLCditchLCditchditchLCditchLCditchLC1.4Ø culvertinv=56.151.4Ø culvertinv=55.5249.1343.5054.9659.93asphalt drivewayasphalt drivewaypoolconcrete patioconcrete patiotop of slopetop of slopeCB.C.L.S.W. PAPOVEon Plan 37422.Lot dimensions are based this 13th day of August, 2015.CERTIFIED CORRECTOffsets shown are not to be used to define property lines. This planwas prepared for a specific purpose and is for the exclusive use of our client. We assume no responsibility for the unauthorized use of this plan.Elevations are Geodetic, shown in metres, derived from Control Monument 84H0060Elevation = 14.705 metresDatum: CVD28GVRD, 2005.Elevation of Top of WallDeciduous Tree56.89tConiferous Tree57.31Spot ElevationLEGENDFAX : (604) 464-6509PAPOVETEL : (604) 464-5199PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING INC.FILE NUMBER : 6871ACOQUITLAM , B.C. , V3B 7K8 202 - 1120 WESTWOOD STREETCHARGES ON TITLEStatutory Building SchemeNATUREF65618CHARGE NO.59585859585756555556 575756565554535453535452515049484950515252515049484746454446454755sidewalksidewalksidewalkedge of asphaltedge of asphaltedge of asphaltrockhead walls56.422°44'00"48.74755.1154.9956.1455.9755.9857.0757.0757.0858.1759.3056.3855.7555.4255.4056.2358.3858.2457.9958.1457.7357.1556.4256.2055.8455.6255.1354.6255.7756.0157.3158.0358.8259.3558.5457.4056.6554.5656.7857.392°30'00"48.75336.7936.9635.441.2Ø0.4Ø1.2Ø0.4Ø0.5Ø0.6Ø1.2Ø0.6Ø0.9Ø0.7Ø1.4Ø1.1Ø0.2Ø0.3Ø54.9659.93asphalt driveway5958585556 5756sidewalksidewalkrock OPENSPACE T STREETDEDICATION 56.50 54.10 52.10 50.1012'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM5.9181.2453% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPE12'6x6'8"Garage3GARAGE37.92 sq m38.48 sq m3'0"x6'8"GarageHWTUPUPWASHROOM1.2455.9183% SLOPEAPPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-039-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7229-2016 11951 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 11951 240 Street, from CS-1 (Service Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit construction of a one storey commercial building for a Tim Hortons restaurant and drive-through. A site specific text amendment to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone will be required for the siting of the commercial building. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7229-2016 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C and D of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Lovick Scott Architects Ltd. Owner: Chun Low and Man Low Legal Description: South Half Lot “B” Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7528 OCP: Existing: Commercial Proposed: Commercial Zoning: Existing: CS-1 (Service Commercial) Proposed: C-2 (Community Commercial) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Commercial Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial) Designation: Commercial South: Use: Vacant Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial) 1104 - 2 - Designation: Commercial East: Use: Vacant Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural West: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium) Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Commercial Site Area: 0.23 ha (0.57 acres) Access: 240 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b)Site Characteristics: The subject property is 0.23 ha (0.57 acres) in size and is bound by The Outpost Liquor Store to the north, single family residential lots to the west, a vacant lot to the south and 240 Street to the east. The subject property is flat with low lying vegetation located throughout the site. The subject property is currently vacant. c)Project Description: The application proposes to rezone the subject property from CS-1 (Service Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit the construction of a Tim Hortons restaurant, including a drive- through component. The applicant will be seeking a site specific text amendment to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone to allow a sound barrier wall and landscaping features on the western property boundary, instead of siting the commercial building between it and the residential lots to the west. The subject property will be temporarily accessed from 240 Street; until such time that the property to the south develops. A future access right-of-way will then be created connecting the liquor store to the north, the subject property, and the property to the south, as well as eliminating the access to 240 Street for the subject property. The three properties combined can then access 240 Street from the southern lot at 11939 240 Street (see Appendix A). The developer is also the owner of the existing Tim Hortons at Dewdney Trunk Road and 230 Street. The construction of a Tim Hortons at the proposed location should relieve pressure at the 230 Street location and thus improve waiting times and traffic circulation. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to second reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. d)Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is designated Commercial in the OCP and is located just south of the intersection at 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. This intersection, and the adjacent commercially designated properties, is classified as a Commercial Community Node, and as stated in the OCP “Community Commercial Nodes are comprised of commercial or mixed use developments and typically serve several neighbourhoods; provide a wider range of services; and also serve as a - 3 - focus for the community”. Typically, Community Commercial Nodes are less than 7,000 m² (75,350 ft²) in area, but may increase to 9,290 m² (100,000 ft²) over the long-term. The C-2 (Community Commercial) zone aligns with the Commercial designation and the Community Commercial Node. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property, located at 11951 240 Street, from CS-1 (Service Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit the construction of a commercial building. The placement of the restaurant building has been challenging on this site. Access to the site is limited to 240 Street which is an arterial road. Left turns from the site heading north will be problematic, and not permitted as traffic builds in the general area. To help off-set this issue, the driveway access must be located as far south as possible and a future access right-of-way is required to coordinate access and traffic flows between neighbouring commercial lands. The applicant’s business also has delivery and drive-through demands to operate efficiently. After several site plan revisions, it was determined that the best location for the new building is along the north property line (see Appendix D). This location, however, does conflict with Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 provision 702, (8), (e) (i) “Where a drive-through in the Community Commercial C-2 zone adjoins a lot or parcel designated residential in the District of Maple Ridge Official Community Plan, a building is to be located between it and the adjoining residential lot or parcel”. This Bylaw regulation was created to address neighbour concerns and complaints regarding noise from order boxes and lighting impacts. There are currently two existing residential lots to the west of the proposed drive-through. To conform to this provision would result in the drive-through traffic line being too short and likely result in traffic backing up into 240 Street. This design permits the maximum amount of car stacking (16) within the site. However, it does not conform to siting provision 702, (8), (e) (i) of the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone; therefore, a site specific text amendment must be made to relax this provision. The applicant intends to buffer the rear yards of the neighbouring lots by placing the order boxes facing away from the residential lots and by adding both landscaping features and an acoustica l fence between the lots. It can be expected that this element of the project will be a topic of discussion at the Public Hearing. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.5 of the OCP, a Commercial Development Permit application is required to address the current proposal’s compatibility with adjacent development, and to enhance the unique character of the community. Advisory Design Panel: A Commercial Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to second reading. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to second reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. - 4 - 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)Ministry of Environment; 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. e)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 C); and 2.A Development Permit Application (Schedule D). 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. “Original signed by Adam Rieu”_____________________ Prepared by: Adam Rieu Planning Technician “Original signed by Christine Carter”____________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn”______________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by 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. 7229-2016 Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Mar 22, 2016 FILE: 2016-039-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT9 ST.119 AVE.240 ST.LANEAAVE. 119B AVE.239 ST.DEW 11966 11948 2393811875 23 9 9 4239 9211939 11968 2398223881238802389211951 2386011942 24022239811196023925 238952394311918 24054239832389811930 23996 11924 118932399723932239572389423942239202396211972 12040 11922/54 11861 23998 11913 240722386723952239722399523880118772387911954 11907 239712390823891239701193623899 23988118881186911857 11901 11903 2395623922239252400924036SUBJECT PROPERTY DEWDNEY TRUNK RD ´ Scale: 1:2,000 11951 240 STREET APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Mar 22, 2016 FILE: 2016-039-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT9 ST.119 AVE.240 ST.LANEAAVE. 119B AVE.239 ST.DEW 11966 11948 2393811875 23 9 9 4239 9211939 11968 2398223881238802389211951 2386011942 24022239811196023925 238952394311918 24054239832389811930 23996 11924 118932399723932239572389423942239202396211972 12040 11922/54 11861 23998 11913 240722386723952239722399523880118772387911954 11907 239712390823891239701193623899 23988118881186911857 11901 11903 2395623922239252400924036SUBJECT PROPERTY DEWDNEY TRUNK RD ´ Scale: 1:2,000 11951 240 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015 APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7229-2016 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. 7229-2016." 2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: South Half Lot “B” Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7528 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1668 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to C-2 (Community Commercial). 3.That PART 7 COMMERCIAL ZONES, SECTION 702, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL: C-2 8 (e) OTHER REGULATIONS is amended by the addition of the following in correct numerical order: iii) the stipulations for item i) above are hereby waived for property located at South Half Lot “B” Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7528 4. 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 238132388911875 2393211930 1193623925 23927239552395723996 2396923988238402386723880239202 3 9 9 2 239562398311913 11968 240222403624009241142386023880238792389511948 23998 2398211951 12040 24054239432399711852 24079/2408523831238432385511942 11960 11966 11918 11861 11869 11922/5423830 238852390811849 1190323899 1197223942 2392223925239622397223995239812398111853 11877 11888 240722386423894238922389123898239392393823994 11893 119072388223881 11857 1195423952 11924 239702397111901 11939 240 ST.239 ST.LANEDEWDNEY TRUNK RD. 119A AVE. 119 AVE. 119B AVE.239 ST.LMP 1144 P 1676 2 LMS23153 7 22 LMP 1805138 35 Rem 21 LMP 33117LMP 7 2 LMP 18051 Rem 5 15 23 LMP 1805128 10 11 27 32 14 39 of B 43 LMP 14766P 7893 P 20898LMP 30402 LMP 806 W 1/2 3 6 5 P 1676of 1 40 37 of B P 88032 Pcl P 7893 6 P 765365 3 2 4 13 LMP 18051 29 1 5 4 34 P 75286 P 7893 20 11 2 10 1144 4 1 3 A 30 9 26 3 36 P 67082 N1/2 Rem 2 P 259681 8 6 2 Rem 14 24 8 LMP 18051 21 S 1/2P 83677Rem N 1/2 42 37 P 7893 EP 12537P 1973 5 3 4 4 Rem A LMP 1641 1 LMP 180517 7 RP 1388131 6 20 4 S 1/2 P 86310 4 A A 1 LMP 1641 6 2 BCP 4564212 1 2 25 33 P 57747 41 Rem 3 Rem N 1/2 1 3 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: CS-1 (Service Commercial) C-2 (Community Commercial) 7229-20161668 1:2,500 Urban AreaBoundary Urban Area Boundary APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-059-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7234-2016 Unit 104, 11952 – 224 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been submitted for a site specific text amendment to the C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Zone for manufacturing in order to allow a craft brewery / lounge at 11952 – 224 Street, Unit 104. A few of these facilities have opened up within the Community. Generally, these have been located in the CS-1 Highway Commercial Zone, as the zone allows both light industrial uses as well as Liquor Primary Commercial. The C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Zone does not allow manufacturing as a principal use, and therefore, this text amendment is required for this business to be located at this location. A similar proposal from the Ridge Brewing Company was reviewed by Council on November 24, 2015. However the site was east of the Central Business District. In their review, Council’s comments were generally favorable about the general concept of a brewery lounge. However, the Town Centre was noted as a preferred location, and a smaller scale operation with fewer patron seats was felt to be more supportable. This text amendment is to support a small scale establishment in the Central Business District of the Town Centre with an estimated seating capacity of 25 patrons. A review of this proposal indicates that this use is consistent with the desired direction of commercial uses in the Town Centre and for this reason, this application is supportable. This application is for a site specific text amendment, and therefore this manufacturing use would only be permitted on this single property. However, Council may wish to direct a general amendment to the C-3 Town Centre Zone to allow this use as a right of zoning. Council’s approval of this text amendment would enable the premises to be used for a micro -brewery under the Zoning Bylaw. A further step in this process will be an application and receipt of an application through the Provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Branch. This provincial licencing process will require additional opportunities for public input and for Council endorsement prior to issuance of a licence. For this reason, Council will be able to direct this land use, and prevent the issuance of this Provincial Licence, even if the site is zoned to allow this use. Pursuant to Council Policy, due to this location in the Town Centre, this application is exempt from the Community Amenity Contribution Program. 1105 - 2 - RECOMMENDATION: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7234-2016 be given first and second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Silver Valley Brewing Co. Brandi Fulton Owner: D B Prakash Properties Limited Legal Description: Lot 1, DL 398, Plan BCP35451 OCP: Existing: TCCOMM (Town Centre Commercial) Proposed: Town Centre Commercial Zoning: Existing: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Proposed: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) site specific text amendment Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Commercial Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Designation: Town Centre Commercial South: Use: Memorial Peace Park Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Designation: Town Centre Commercial East: Use: Commercial Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Designation: Town Centre Commercial West: Use: Commercial Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Designation: Town Centre Commercial Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Craft Brewery / Lounge Site Area: 0.104 HA. (0.25 acres) Access: 224th Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b)Site Characteristics: The location of this proposed use is along 224th Street, just south of Dewdney Trunk Road. The site is within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area Plan. The subject property includes 3 buildings; however, this use is proposed in the former Just Ducky building on the property. The existing building where this use is proposed is typified by smaller commercial units, independent businesses, and a pedestrian orientation. These assets contribute to the unique character of the Town Center. These existing structures are typically legally non-conforming with respect to parking requirements. - 3 - c)Project Description: This site specific text amendment is in support of a brewery lounge in the C-3 Town Centre Commercial Zone. Considered a liquor primary use, food purchases are not required, but the applicant intends to provide packaged snacks. Generally, this brewery will manufacture beer for on- site consumption, although some off-sale retail is proposed with refillable growlers. The maximum number of seats proposed is 25. The overall size of this proposed facility is roughly 150 square metres. Aspects of the proposed use, including a liquor primary establishment are currently permitted in the C-3 Town Centre Commercial Zone. This site specific text amendment will introduce a manufacturing or light industrial use to enable the brewery. This use is to be located within an existing structure, on a site that is currently zoned C-3 Town Center Commercial. For this reason, there is no need to set conditions to the approval of this Zoning Bylaw amendment. d)Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is located within the Town Centre Area Plan and is currently designated Town Centre Commercial. This proposed use meets goals and objectives of the Town Centre Area Plan under Principle 6: Jobs are close to home. These are described as follows: Goal: Encourage all types of jobs, including new and non-traditional businesses and workplaces Pertinent Objectives: Welcome unique industries / business opportunities. The proposed use will be a small independent business. The applicants are from Maple Ridge. Make zoning and bylaws less restrictive for location and form of business premises, while retaining a positive sense of community. The proposed text amendment will enable this unique business while remaining consistent with the overall intent of the Town Centre to remain a neighbourhood of unique character and opportunity. Promote the tourism industry. The proposed use will complement other uses in the Town Centre such as the Haney Farmers Market that draw people into the Central Business District on weekends. Goal: Establish the Centre as a hub of activity Pertinent Objectives: Encourage evening activities that cater to a broad demographic while benefitting the community. Community benefits include fostering additional vibrancy in the Town Centre during the evening and on weekends. Support and encourage the vitality of small business. The proposed use will contribute to an emerging artisanal culture within the community that exists in local restaurants, small scale farming, and value added products. - 4 - Commercial and Industrial Strategy The Maple Ridge Commercial and Industrial Strategy, endorsed by Council in 2014, provides guidance for Maple Ridge in planning for commercial and industrial growth. The Strategy recognized the Town Centre for its role as the community’s primary destination for commercial spending. A pertinent Strategy recommendation is as follows: Focus on differentiating the Town Centre, making it the District’s centre for specialty retail, entertainment/culture, civic uses, and destination restaurants. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes a site specific text amendment to the existing C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) zone for the property located at 104 - 11952 224 Street. The proposed use is for a brewery / lounge. The existing property and building complies with minimum lot size in the C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Zone. There are similar brewery establishments within the community, and these are generally located within the CS-1 Highway Commercial Zone, which allows light industrial uses, a liquor primary establishment, and a licensee retail store. A brewery / pub with product offsales would therefore be considered a combination of these 3 uses. For this reason, the Zoning Bylaw does not define brewery establishments. For consistency with these existing uses, the proposed amendment is to allow a limited area of the subject property for light industrial uses. The C-3 Town Centre Commercial Zone allows a liquor primary and a licensee retail use. The only missing component is the manufacturing portion, which will be enabled with this text amendment. If Council wishes to permit this use further in the Town Centre, a recommended approach would be to amend the Zoning Bylaw with a definition of brewery / liquor primary establishment, and permit this newly defined use in the C-3 Town Centre Commercial Zone. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.4 of the Official Community Plan, the proposed use will likely be exempt from the requirement for a development permit for form and character in the Town Centre. The use will be locating within an existing structure and therefore tenant improvements and applicable permits will be required in support of the use. However, internal renovations are exempt from requiring a development permit. External renovations that are consistent with existing development, and minimal in scale and cost are generally exempt from this requirement as well. e)Interdepartmental Implications: The proposed use will take place in an existing structure, and therefore there may be required servicing and structural upgrades in support of this change of use. These upgrades will need to be addressed as a condition of the building permit required for tenant improvements. - 5 - This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not yet been undertaken. The Engineering Department has however provided initial comments suggesting that this proposed use may place an unanticipated burden on existing infrastructure and therefore upgrades to accommodate this increased demand may be required. The Building Department will be responsible for administering the permits required for tenant improvements associated with this use. This department also administers the Parking Bylaw. The existing structure is legally non-conforming with respect to parking requirements. However, as this proposal represents a change of use, additional parking requirements could be triggered. These requirements may be met with cash in lieu options that are currently in place. The Applicant will require a ‘Manufacturers Licence’ under the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulations. They intend on applying for a ‘Lounge’ endorsement attached to their Brewery Manufacturing Licence. The application for the lounge endorsement will require the Liquor Control Branch to make a referral to the Municipality for their support of the application. This process will be administered by the Licences, Permits & Bylaws Department and will follow the prescribed protocol for public notification. The Economic Development Department supports this proposal, as it will increase the vibrancy of the Central Business District, particularly during evening hours. f)Development Applications: No additional development applications will be required in support of this text amendment to the Zoning Bylaw. g)Alternatives This application is in support of a brewery lounge on an individual property in the Central Business District. As noted earlier in this report, Council has previously supported the concept of this use in the Town Centre. As this proposal is for a site specific text amendment, Council’s approval will not enable this use to be located within the Town Centre generally. For this reason, Council could direct that this use be extended to the C-3 Town Centre Commercial Zone as an outright permitted use. - 6 - 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. “Original signed by Diana Hall” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall M.A, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 “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. 7234-2016 City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Mar 23, 2016 FILE: 2016-059-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT224 ST.McINTOSH 224 ST.LANEFRASER ST.AVE.McINTOSH AVE 119 AVE./88223662237012026 11939 11969 2236122356224102240922371/772241022367/8111909 11982/86 22353/5511955 12021 /51 11965/67 2236322345/47/7011979/9722366Leisure Complex 11955 11893/952237811915/1922364 /8611968/70 22470/90/9411990/92/94 1192522420/4022356/622244122363/671199822337 22416223622235011952/54/5822342/4822351223742238411912/7822355/70/8222359SUBJECT PROPERTY DEWDNEY TRUNK RD ´ Scale: 1:1,500 11952 224 STREET APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Mar 23, 2016 FILE: 2016-059-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT224 ST.McINTOSH 224 ST.LANEFRASER ST.AVE.McINTOSH AVE 119 AVE./88223662237012026 11939 11969 2236122356224102240922371/772241022367/8111909 11982/86 22353/5511955 12021 /51 11965/67 2236322345/47/7011979/9722366Leisure Complex 11955 11893/952237811915/1922364 /8611968/70 22470/90/9411990/92/94 1192522420/4022356/622244122363/671199822337 22416223622235011952/54/5822342/4822351223742238411912/7822355/70/8222359SUBJECT PROPERTY DEWDNEY TRUNK RD ´ Scale: 1:1,500 11952 224 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7234 -2016 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the 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. 7234-2016”. 2.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 is hereby amended as follows: 3.That PART 7 COMMERCIAL ZONES, 703 TOWN CENTRE COMMERCIAL: C-3, 1. PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES is amended by: i.Adding item s) light industrial use, not to exceed 150 m² at: 104 11952 224th Street Lot 1, District Lot 398, Plan BCP35451 4.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 2016. READ a second time the day of , 2016. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 2016. READ a third time the day of , 2016. ADOPTED the day of , 2016. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX C - 1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-283-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7177-2015 14160 256 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received for a site specific text amendment for the subject properties, located at 14160 256 Street, to permit the cleaning of low hazard transformers and the storage and minor processing of hydrocarbons. This use is regulated under the provincial Hazardous Waste Regulation (HWR) under the Environmental Management Act. Approval from the Ministry of Environment is required to operate, which involves a separate licensing and regulatory process. The proposed industrial business also involves disassembly of electrical transformers and high voltage equipment; and the transfer and temporary storage of drummed material wastes, which are currently permitted in the M-2 (General Industrial) zone. Pursuant with Council direction, this application is exempt from the Community Amenity Contribution program because it is an industrial project. This application received first reading on January 26, 2016 with the following Council motion: 1)That Bylaw No. 7177-2015 be given first reading and that a Risk Assessment Report in accordance with MIACC Risk Based Land Use Planning Guidelines be provided prior to second reading and forwarding to Public Hearing, and 2)That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i) Stormwater Management Plan; and ii) Letter of Compliance, or other instrument, from the Ministry of Environment under the Environmental Management Act regarding site contamination. The applicant has submitted a Risk Assessment Report in accordance with MIACC Risk Based Land Use Planning Guidelines, which concludes that Aevitas has a design standard for the facility that meets or exceeds applicable regulatory requirements. The report is prepared by Golder Associates and dated March 1, 2016. Appendix D includes the report in its entirety. As the applicant has provided the report requested in the January 26, 2016 Council resolution, this report recommends that second reading be granted and that the application be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1106 - 2 - RECOMMENDATIONS: 1)That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7177-2015 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and, 2)That the terms and conditions outlined in the January 18, 2016 staff report be met prior to final reading. DISCUSSION: 1)Background Context: Applicant: Redco Investments Corporation Owner: Craven Huston Powers Architects Legal Descriptions: Lot 2, District Lot 5326, Plan LMP41830 OCP: Existing: Industrial Zoning: Existing: M-2 (General Industrial) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Storage and Warehousing Zone: M-2 (General Industrial) Designation: Industrial South: Use: Storage and Warehousing Zone: M-2 (General Industrial) Designation: Industrial East: Use: Vacant Zone: A-2 (Upland Agricultural) Designation: Rural Resource West: Use: Wood Processing Zone: M-2 (General Industrial) Designation: Industrial Existing Use of Property: Industrial Proposed Use of Property: Industrial Site Area: 1.62 hectares (4 acres) Access: 256 Street Servicing requirement: Rural Standard 2)Project Description: This application is for a site specific text amendment for the subject properties, to permit the cleaning of low hazard transformers and the storage and minor processing of hydrocarbons. This use is regulated under the provincial Hazardous Waste Regulation (HWR) under the Environmental Management Act. Approval from the Ministry of Environment is required to operate, which involves a separate licensing and regulatory process. The proposed industrial business also involves disassembly of electrical transformers and high voltage equipment; and the transfer and temporary - 3 - storage of drummed material wastes, which are currently permitted in the M-2 (General Industrial) zone. 3)Planning Analysis: The subject property is zoned M-2 (General Industrial) and is designated Industrial in the OCP. While some of the proposed uses, such as electrical equipment and transformer disassembly; and waste transfer, are permitted uses in the existing zone, a site specific text amendment is required to permit the cleaning of low hazard transformers and the storage and minor processing of hydrocarbons. Text Amendment Rationale: The M-2 (General Industrial) zone (which is not recommended) allows for industrial uses, but specifically prohibits hydrocarbon refining and bulk storage. The business of breaking down electrical equipment into components for resale is a relatively new use that is not specifically described in the Zoning Bylaw. The electrical equipment and transformer disassembly and waste transfer are currently permitted in the M-2 (General Industrial) zone and are not the subject of the text amendment. The M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zone specifically allows for hydrocarbon refining and bulk storage; however, this reference is intended for large scale crude oil refineries, which is considered a heavy industrial use. The processing of the hydrocarbons for the proposed business is not a refinery and only involves a cleaning process of previously refined oil. Therefore, based on the above, the proposed use is not considered a heavy industrial use. As the uses will all take place within a building, the visual, olfactory and auricular impacts to the surrounding area are anticipated to be low. The addition of a site specific amendment for the cleaning of low hazard (under 50 ppm of PCB) transformers as well as the storage of hydrocarbons to the M-2 (General Industrial) zone is preferable to rezoning to the M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zone for a number of reasons. Namely, the uses will continue to be limited to general industrial uses; and a rezoning to M-5 (High Impact Industrial) would permit a range of uses including gravel extraction, cement plants, tar production, saw mills, and chemical plants. Second Reading Conditions: At the January 26, 2016 Council meeting, first reading was granted to the application with the following Council motion: 1)That Bylaw No. 7177-2015 be given first reading and that a Risk Assessment Report in accordance with MIACC Risk Based Land Use Planning Guidelines be provided prior to second reading and forwarding to Public Hearing, and 2)That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: iii) Stormwater Management Plan; and iv) Letter of Compliance, or other instrument, from the Ministry of Environment under the Environmental Management Act regarding site contamination. The applicant has submitted a Risk Assessment Report in accordance with MIACC Risk Based Land Use Planning Guidelines. The report is prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. and dated March 1, 2016 (see Appendix D). Golder Associates Ltd. concludes that: - 4 - “The results of this screening risk assessment of the facility, based on the information provided by Aevitas, suggest that exclusion and unrestricted land use zones around the risk source (i.e, the storage and handling of flammable liquids) would be on the order of 9 metres and 16 metres respectively. These zones could be accommodated within the current property footprint. In addition, Aevitas could pursue a site-specific risk assessment that may return lower risk estimations, and allow for smaller exclusion and unrestricted land use zones (p.79).” It is noted that processing oil-filled obsolete electrical equipment and transfer of paint, solvents and other waste materials is regulated by the provincial Hazardous Waste Regulation (HWR) under the Environmental Management Act. Approval from the Ministry of Environment is required to operate, which involves a separate licensing and regulatory process. The Aevitas business plan for this site would therefore trigger Ministry of Environment approval. As included in the January 18, 2016 staff report, Aevitas has outlined briefly how they will be complying with the relevant sections of the HWR, and much more detailed information will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment at the building permit stage. Table 1: Ministry of Environment Approval Process MoE Requirement MR Aevitas Proposal Information Provided by Aevitas Siting Requirements (Section 2) Meets siting requirements, which includes appropriate distances away from a holocene fault line, land subject to slope failure, tsunami and floodplain. Operational Plan (Section 4) 4 main holding tanks at approx. 100,000 L capacity each: 2 for new oil and 2 for used insulating oil. A small tank at approximately 30,000 L will be installed to hold used motor oil, hydraulic oil and industrial lubricants as part of BCUOMA program. Contingency Plan (Section 11) Materials will be re-routed to other facilities. Detailed plan outlining communication, notification and evacuation plans and when required. Retain Emergency Response Service Responder providing 24/7 service. Closure Plan (Section 14) Document the requirements to undertake the closure and rehabilitation of the site and ensure adequate resources are allocated. Financial assurance provided by line of credit to MOE. Once closure is complete certification that final closure was performed will developed by company Directors and professional engineer and provided to MOE. Monitoring and Reporting (Section 17) Perimeter of property monitored with piezometer wells. Pre- operational testing performed to determine baseline. Daily record of waste materials received and shipped. Annual review of operation by independent third party consultant. Tank thickness testing and other regular quality inspections. Regular inspection and maintenance for tanks, valves, hoses, containment areas. - 5 - i)Development Information Meeting: The applicant was required to host a Development Information Meeting prior to first reading consideration at Committee of the Whole. The applicant hosted the information meeting on Thursday, November 5, 2015 at the Justice Institute close to the subject property. Approximately 35 people attended. A summary of the comments and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant and include the following: Concerns about the amount of traffic that will result on 256 Street; Concerns about safety, hazard mitigation, and pollution from the proposed use; and Concerns about environmental protection. 4)Interdepartmental Implications: The application was reviewed by the Engineering and License, Permits and Bylaws Departments and their comments were included in the previous staff report dated January 18, 2016. 5)Intergovernmental Issues: i)Ministry of Environment: The proposed text amendment use requires approval from the Ministry of Environment prior to the commencement of this use on the subject property. The Ministry of Environment approval process was outlined in the staff report dated January 18, 2016. 6)Citizen Implications: Staff received a submission from an area resident containing background information on PCBs, concerns about the operation of the business, and newspaper clippings from Aevitas’ Chilliwack facility planning process. A formal response to this submission from Byron Day, President of Aevitas, was also submitted to staff. 7)Alternatives: If Council is not in agreement with the conclusions of the Golder Associates Ltd. Risk Assessment Report, two alternatives are available: 1.Defer the application and require the applicant to obtain an independent third party peer review of the Golder Risk Assessment Report findings and conclusions; or 2.Deny the application to avoid further expense to the applicant. - 6 - CONCLUSION: As the applicant has submitted the Risk Assessment Report as requested in a January 26, 2016 Council resolution, it is recommended that second reading be granted and that application 2015- 283-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. “Original signed by Amelia Bowden’ _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden 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. 7177-2015 Appendix D – Risk Assessment Report Appendix E – Addendum Report (no attachments) DATE: Jan 12, 20162015-283-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 14160 256 St2011 ImageLegend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Jan 12, 2016 2015-283-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 14160 256 St 2011 Image Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7177-2015 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge 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. 7177-2015." 2.PART 8, INDUSTRIAL ZONES, SECTION 802, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL: M-2 is amended as follows: i.SECTION 1, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, is amended by the addition of the following: h) Notwithstanding clause 1) a) ii), Cleaning of low hazard (under 50 parts per million of PCB) electrical equipment; storage and minor processing of hydrocarbons is permitted at: 14160 256 Street Lot 2 District Lot 5326 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 41830 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 26th day of January, 2016. 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 APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 18, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-283-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading – Addendum Report Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7177-2015 14160 256 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This site specific text amendment application for the subject property, located at 14160 256 Street, is to permit the cleaning of low hazard transformers and the storage and minor processing of hydrocarbons. Council deferred the application at the November 16, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting with the following recommendation: That the staff report be deferred to an appropriate meeting to receive information on the ownership of the business, potential risk to the community, transferability of the business license and the definition of M5 zoning. Since deferral of the project, the applicant has revised their application by removing one of the properties from the application. The site specific text amendment is for 14160 256 Street only, which currently has an industrial building located on the property. The applicant has also provided additional information requested by Council, outlined in this staff report and attached as Appendices E, F, and G. The applicant has also confirmed that the business operator is Aevitas. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1)That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7177-2015 be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and 2)That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i.Stormwater Management Plan; and ii.Letter of Compliance, or other instrument, from the Ministry of Environment under the Environmental Management Act regarding site contamination. DISCUSSION: a)Revised Information: At the November 16, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, a number of concerns were raised by Council. Each of the concerns identified in Council’s deferral resolution are outlined below with a response from the applicant. APPENDIX E - 2 - 1. Information on the Business Ownership The business seeking to locate on the subject properties is Aevitas. Aevitas is an Ontario based specialized waste business that has been in operation for over 20 years. Aevitas currently has nine locations, five of which are located in Ontario, with the remainder in Alberta, Quebec, Michigan and one facility in Delta, BC. Across their nine facilities, waste recycling includes mercury, batteries, light bulbs and lamps, electrical equipment and transformers. Their facilities include a waste water treatment plant, a PCB dechlorination treatment facility, and a PCB incinerator, which are all located in the company’s Ontario facilities. Aevitas clients include electrical utilities, primary industries, government, as well as commercial and institutional facilities. Client letters of support are attached as Appendix G. While Aevitas provides a range of industrial waste recycling across Canada and the US, the uses for the proposed Maple Ridge facility are guided by industry demand, infrastructure, and the company’s Canada-wide business operation. The company’s existing BC facility in Delta is no longer capable of solely maintaining Aevitas’ growing demand. The specific business operations for the proposed Maple Ridge site compared with Aevitas’ operations at their other locations have been provided by the company in Table 1 below. This table includes a comparison of uses for the proposed Chilliwack facility that was withdrawn earlier this year. Table 1: Material Processing By Facility Similar Materials and Processes (List) Maple Ridge Delta Chilliwack (withdrawn proposal) Ayr, Ontario Cornwall, Ontario Kirkland Lake, Ontario Brantford, Ontario Processing drained, obsolete electrical equipment with less than 3% residual oil (non-hazardous in BC) yes yes yes yes yes yes no Processing oil-filled obsolete electrical equipment (BC hazardous)* yes no yes yes yes yes no Transfer waste oils, paints, spent aerosols, batteries, oil soaked absorbents/rags, cleaning solutions, spent lamps, fire extinguishers, etc.* yes no yes yes no no no Degasify and filter new and used transformer oil** yes no yes no no no yes Retort mercury from lamps and devices no no yes yes no no no Receive PCB waste (defined as greater than 50 ppm) no no yes yes yes yes no Dechlorinate and refine used transformer oil no no yes no no no yes Incinerator no no no no yes no no Vapour Degreasing no no no no no yes no * requires MoE approval **requires MoE approval for used oil only - 3 - 2. Risk Mitigation In addition to information about the business operator, the Council resolution also requested additional information about potential risks to the community. Three main risks have been identified by the applicant. The Hazardous Waste Regulation Act requires the safe operation of waste recycling facilities, and Aevitas has outlined how each risk will be mitigated in Table 2 below. Table 2: Risk Management Potential Risk MoE Regulation MR Aevitas Mitigation Strategy Fire (Section 9)  24 hour monitored fire alarm system.  Fire suppressions system.  Posted signage and spark grounding.  Flammable room for ignitable waste storage as approved by Maple Ridge Fire Department.  Foam Fire Suppressant System in flammable area as approved by Maple Ridge Fire Department.  Ongoing personnel training and inspections Spills/ Contamination (Section 10)  Self reporting.  Containment standards: 110% containment capacity for liquids in bulk.  Regular inspections  Perimeter of property monitored with piezometer wells.  Pre-operational testing to determine baseline.  Catch basins fitted with turn down collection capability.  Stormwater control system with 3 stage separator and shut-off valves.  Liquids loaded/unloaded inside building within engineered perimeter containment.  Working area floor surfaces will be epoxy coated to prevent penetration into concrete.  Quantity of spill response supplies for internal and external third party use.  Ongoing training and retention of third party emergency responder. Transport Accident  Transportation of Dangerous Goods approved containers  Trucks fitted with secondary containment, spill kits and trained personnel.  Third party emergency services responder retained and available to respond 24/7. 3. Transferability of the Business License Staff have obtained a legal opinion from the city solicitor, regarding Council’s ability to tie the site specific text amendment to the operator. The city solicitor has advised that zoning is tied to the land, and therefore the proposed text amendment could not be rescinded in the event that the business operator changed in the future. The City would have the authority to change the zoning, but the business could continue to operate as a non-conforming use. 4. Definition of M-5 (High Impact Industrial) Zoning The M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zone, in its entirety, is included in Appendix H. The M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zone is for heavy industrial uses that are not permitted in the M -2 (General Industrial) zone. Currently, there are no properties zoned M-5 (High Impact Industrial) in Maple Ridge. - 4 - The difference between rezoning the subject property to M-5 (High Impact Industrial) and a site specific text amendment in the M-2 (General Industrial) zone is that the full range of heavy industrial uses would be permitted on the property under the M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zone; whereas a much more limited range of uses would be permitted with an M-2 (General Industrial) text amendment. The M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zone allows the following uses that are not in the M-2 (General Industrial) zone:  Extraction industrial  Industrial uses limited to: o Concrete and cement plants and product manufacturing; o Asphalt, rubber, and tar production and products manufacturing; o Sawmills, shakemills and pulp mills; o Hydrocarbon refining and storage; o Chemical plants; o Stockyards and abattoirs; o Septic tank services; o Waste reduction plants; and o Accessory primary processing. As all uses will take place in a building under controlled conditions, the proposed hydro-carbon refining and bulk storage is considered to have less impact on surrounding properties than a crude oil refinery, which is characterised by outdoor infrastructure such as piping and large tanks. Some of the proposed business uses are classified as industrial or waste transfer station uses, which are currently permitted in the existing M-2 (General Industrial) zone. Specifically, these uses included the disassembly of electrical transformers and high voltage equipment; and the transferring and bulking of drummed material wastes. These uses could occur without the requested site specific text amendment. Table 3: Summary of Proposed Maple Ridge Uses Aevitas Use Zoning Use Permitted in M-2 Ministry Approval Required Processing drained, obsolete electrical equipment with less than 3% residual oil (non- hazardous in BC) Wrecking and salvaging Yes No Processing oil-filled obsolete electrical equipment (BC hazardous) Hydro-carbon processing No Yes Degasify and filter new and used transformer oil Hydro-carbon bulk storage No Yes (for used oil only) Transfer waste oils, paints, spent aerosols, batteries, oil soaked absorbents/rags, cleaning solutions, spent lamps, fire extinguishers, etc. Waste transfer station Yes Yes 5. Ministry of Environment Approval Process Processing oil-filled obsolete electrical equipment and transfer of paint, solvents and other waste materials is regulated by the provincial Hazardous Waste Regulation (HWR) under the Environmental Management Act. Approval from the Ministry of Environment is required to operate, which involves a - 5 - separate licensing and regulatory process. As identified in the original staff report, Ministry of Environment approval is required for businesses that are handling hazardous waste, which includes solvents, paint, transformer oil with more than 50 ppm of PCBs, or more than 5,000 litres p er month of transformer oil with less than 50 ppm of PBCs. The Aevitas business plan for this site would therefore trigger Ministry of Environment approval. Prior to applying for Ministry of Environment approval or receiving approval from the Ministry of Environment, Aevitas must first secure an appropriately zoned property. Specific siting guidelines are provided in the Hazardous Waste Regulation that guide business location. The Ministry of Environment application process is approximately a year long process. The application covers the review of documents and plans that outline how the business will be conducted in a safe manner and includes a process for closure. Aevitas has outlined briefly how they will be complying with the relevant sections of the HWR, and much more detailed information will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment at the building permit stage. Table 4: Ministry of Environment Approval Process MoE Requirement MR Aevitas Proposal Information Provided by Aevitas Siting Requirements (Section 2)  Meets siting requirements, which includes appropriate distances away from a holocene fault line, land subject to slope failure, tsunami and floodplain. Operational Plan (Section 4)  4 main holding tanks at approx. 100,000 L capacity each: 2 for new oil and 2 for used insulating oil.  A small tank at approximately 30,000 L will be installed to hold used motor oil, hydraulic oil and industrial lubricants as part of BCUOMA program. Contingency Plan (Section 11)  Materials will be re-routed to other facilities.  Detailed plan outlining communication, notification and evacuation plans and when required.  Retain Emergency Response Service Responder providing 24/7 service. Closure Plan (Section 14)  Document the requirements to undertake the closure and rehabilitation of the site and ensure adequate resources are allocated.  Financial assurance provided by line of credit to MOE.  Once closure is complete certification that final closure was performed will developed by company Directors and professional engineer and provided to MOE. Monitoring and Reporting (Section 17)  Perimeter of property monitored with piezometer wells. Pre- operational testing performed to determine baseline.  Daily record of waste materials received and shipped.  Annual review of operation by independent third party consultant.  Tank thickness testing and other regular quality inspections.  Regular inspection and maintenance for tanks, valves, hoses, containment areas. - 6 - 6. Concerns Raised from Resident Staff received a submission from an area resident containing background information on PCBs, concerns about the operation of the business, and newspaper clippings from Aevitas’ Chilliwack facility planning process. A formal response to this submission from Byron Day, President of Aevitas, is attached as Appendix F. b) Interdepartmental Implications: Building Department The Chief Building Official has advised that the existing building located on the subject property will need to be fully upgraded to F1 – High Hazard Industrial Occupancy Classification of the current BC Building Code. This would include plans to be prepared by an architect and all other required registered professionals potentially: electrical engineer, structural engineer, plumbing engineer, fire suppressant engineer, and mechanical engineer. High Hazard Industrial means that there is a high quantity of highly flammable, combustible or explosive materials that require specific building considerations. These upgrades may include and are not limited to a fire suppression system complying with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards with adequate water supply and possible upgrade to exposing building face to meet the construction requirements and allowable unprotected openings. Fire Department The Fire Department has been in discussion with Aevitas regarding the operation and safety considerations for the proposed Maple Ridge facility, and a site visit to the company’s Delta facility was conducted in November 2015. Ongoing assessment, communication and review will take place during the building permit stage. No approvals or formal review have taken place at this time. CONCLUSION: The subject application was deferred at the November 16, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting with a Council resolution requesting additional information on the proposed use and company that will operate on the subject property. Since the item was deferred, the applicant has provided the requested information, and has modified the application to remove the second property from the text amendment. This application is now limited to the property located at 14160 256 Street. - 7 - As the application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan, and additional regulation and approval is required from the Ministry of Environment, it is recommended that first and second reading be granted and that application 2015-283-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. “Original signed by Amelia Bowden” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden 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. 7177-2015 Appendix D – Staff report dated November 16, 2015 (no attachments) Appendix E – Aevitas Primer – Maple Ridge Proposed for New Facility Appendix F – Aevitas Response to Resident Concerns Appendix G – Aevitas’ Client Support Letters Appendix H – M-5 (High Impact Industrial) Zoning Regulation - 1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-019-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Rezoning – First Extension Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6991-2013 22576 and 22588 Brown Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant for the above noted file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to rezone the site to CD-2-13 for the construction of an 18 storey apartment building with 120 apartment units and 6 townhouse units for a total of 126 dwelling units and parking that is partially underground and partially in the a structure forming part of the building’s podium (Appendix C). The applicant is requesting that this application be extended due to the proponent’s periodic absence from the country; however, progress is being made on details of this project. If Council approves an extension, it will be retroactively dated to December 9, 2015, 12 months after the date of third reading. Under the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program, Town Centre Area applications are exempted; however, Council may choose to apply the CAC program requirements when considering extension applications. RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, a one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2013-019-RZ and that the following conditions be addressed prior to consideration of Final Reading: i.Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii.Registration of a Master Development Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office for the proposed bonus elements and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; iii.Entering into a Housing Agreement for the rental and adaptive housing and its registration as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office; iv.Receipt of voluntary contribution of $50,000 for public art; 1107 - 2 - v.Road dedication as required; vi.Submission of an updated traffic study; vii.Purchase of the City property located at 22576 Brown Avenue; viii.Consolidation of the development site; ix.Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; x.Registration of a Reciprocal Access Agreement at the Land Title Office for vehicle and pedestrian passage to and from the parking structure, between levels of the parking building and to the lane driveway with the development to the west (2012-115-RZ) for the parking on the subject site; xi.Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office to restrict the construction of this project after or at the same time as the construction of Building 1 (2012-115-RZ) to insure vehicular access to required parking is coordinated; xii.Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office protecting the Visitor Parking spaces; xiii.Registration of a Statutory Right-of-Way at the Land Title Office for the relocated water and sewer mains and utility company services; xiv.Submission of an urban realm plan to assess proposed open spaces interconnections; xv.Provide a Stormwater Management Plan that meets applicable City bylaws and standards (e.g. the Watercourse Protection Bylaw, Metro Vancouver three tier design standards, Engineering Department standards for detention, etc.), Town Centre Area Plan objectives and policies, Town Centre Area Development Permit Guidelines and related best practices, and registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office providing “How To” guidelines for operation and maintenance; xvi.Removal of the existing buildings; and xvii.A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance with the regulations. - 3 - DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc. (Wayne Bissky) Owner: Rena Canada Properties Ltd. and 0910609 B.C. Ltd., Inc.No. BC0910609 Legal Description: Lot A, Section 20, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 9687 Lot 5, Section 20, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 9687 OCP: Existing: Medium and High-Rise Apartment Proposed: Medium and High-Rise Apartment Zoning: Existing: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) & RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: CD-2-13 (Comprehensive Development) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: (RS-1) One Family Urban Residential Designation: Medium and High Density Apartment South: Use: Commercial Zone: (CS-1) Service Commercial Designation: Town Centre Commercial East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: (RS-1) One Family Urban Residential Designation: Medium and High Density Apartment West: Use: Single Family Residential proposed for a Mixed-use development of 240 dwelling units in 3-towers and 4,380m2 of commercial space (2012-115-RZ). Zone: (RS-1) One Family Urban Residential proposed Comprehensive Development Zone (CD-1-13) Designation: Town Centre Commercial and Low-Rise Apartment proposed Town Centre Commercial Existing Use of Properties: Vacant Single Family Residential, Utility Easement, and Municipal Parking Lot Proposed Use of Properties: Multiple Residential and Utility Easement Site Area: 0.18 hectares (0.44 acres) Access: Lane between Brown Avenue and Dewdney Trunk Road and by way of registered easement through the parking structure to the west (2012-115-RZ) Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2013-019-DP Neighbouring Application: 2012-115-RZ and DP (to the west) - 4 - b)Project Dates Outline The following dates outline Council’s consideration of the application and zone amending Bylaw 6991-2013: The First Reading Report (Appendix D) was considered by the Council of the Whole meeting on July 09, 2013; First Reading was granted July 09, 2013; The Second Reading Report (Appendix E) was considered by the Council of the Whole meeting on November 17, 2014; Second Reading was granted November 25, 2014; Public Hearing was held December 09, 2014; and Third reading was granted on December 09, 2014. Application Progress: Timing of this application is affected by the proponent’s frequent absence from Canada in dealing with the off-shore interest associated with this project. The applicant has made steady progress over the past year on various aspects of the terms and conditions for final zoning approval, including: Finalizing the various required consultant reports; Drafting the Master Development Agreement; Coordinating this project with the three-tower proposal to the west (2012-115-RZ) for such matters as: excavation and shoring; lane operation during construction; interconnections for the parking structures; joint access and coordination of public art and amenities in the design of both projects; and Purchasing the City property at 22576 Brown Avenue for inclusion into the project. The City is awaiting submission of further revised plans and legal documents from the applicant addressing comments from by Planning and Engineering Departments. The applicant has indicated that the terms and conditions will be completed by the end of 2016. Alternatives: Council may choose one of the following alternatives: 1.Grant the request for extension; 2.Deny the request for extension; or 3.Repeal Third Reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing. In considering these alternatives, under the CAC Program, although new applications in Town Centre Area location are currently exempt, Council may choose to apply the CAC Program when considering extension applications. Please note that this development does include a number of significant amenities. If the CAC is applied based on the current draft Council Policy and the number of units proposed, the required contribution would be: $3,100 x 120 apartments = $372,000 $4,100 x 6 townhouses = $ 24,600 TOTAL: $396,600 - 5 - CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this significant Town Centre rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension, retroactive to December 9, 2015. It is therefore recommended that the extension request be granted. “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 – Site Plan Appendix D –Second Reading Report City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Sep 15, 2014 FILE: 2013-019-RZ BY: PC CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:1,500 22576/88 BROWN AVENUE APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Sep 15, 2014 FILE: 2013-019-RZ BY: PC CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES District of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:1,500 22576/88 BROWN AVENUE APPENDIX B APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: November 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-019-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6991-2013 22576 and 22588 Brown Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from C-3 (Town Centre Commercial), and RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to CD-2-13 (Comprehensive Development), to permit a future development with a total of 132 dwelling units, consisting of 126 apartment units in an 18 storey high rise structure, with six (6) townhouse units in 3-storey structures along Brown Avenue and 146 parking spaces in a underground and podium structure. Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6991-2013 both created the CD-2-13 (Comprehensive Development) and rezones the subject site to this new zone. The proposed CD-2-13 (Comprehensive Development) zoning complies with the Official Community Plan. This application received first reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6991-2013 on July 9, 2013. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6991-2013 be amended, as identified in the staff report dated November 17, 2014, be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and 2.That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading: i.Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii.Registration of a Master Development Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office for the proposed bonus elements and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement ; iii.Entering into a Housing Agreement for the rental and adaptive housing and its registration as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office ; iv.Receipt of voluntary contribution of $50,000 for public art; APPENDIX D - 2 - v.Road dedication as required; vi.Submission of a n updated traffic study; vii.Purchase of the City property located at 22576 Brown Avenue; viii.Consolidation of the development site; ix.Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; x.Registration of a Reciprocal Access Agreement at the Land Title Office for vehicle and pedestrian passage to and from the parking structure , between levels of the parking building and to the lane driveway with the development to the west (2012-115-RZ) for the parking on the subject site ; xi.Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office to restrict the construction of this project after or at the same time as the construction of Building 1 (2012-115-RZ) to insure vehicular access to required parking is coordinated ; xii.Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office protecting the Visitor Parking spaces; xiii.Registration of a Statutory Right -of-Way at the Land Title Office for the relocated water and sewer mains and utility company services ; xiv.Submission of an urban realm plan to assess proposed open spaces interconnections; xv.Provide a Stormwater Management Plan that meets applicable City bylaws and standards (e.g. the Watercourse Protection Bylaw, Metro Vancouver three tier design standards, Engineering Department standards for detention, etc.), Town Centre Area Plan objectives and policies, Town Centre Area Development Permit Guidelines and related best practices, and registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office providing “How To” guidelines for operation and maintenance ; xvi.Removal of the existing building s; and xvii.A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance with the regulations. - 3 - DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc. (Wayne Bissky) Owner: City of Maple Ridge and 0910609 BC Ltd. Legal Description: Lot A, Section 20, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 9687 Lot 5, Section 20, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 9687 OCP: Existing: Medium and High-Rise Apartment Proposed: Medium and High-Rise Apartment Zoning: Existing: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) & RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: CD-2-13 (Comprehensive Development) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: One Family Urban Residential (RS-1) Designation: Medium and High Density Apartment South: Use: Commercial Zone: Service Commercial (CS-1) Designation: Town Centre Commercial East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: One Family Urban Residential (RS-1) Designation: Medium and High Density Apartment West: Use: Single Family Residential proposed for a Mixed-use development of 240 dwelling units in 3-towers and 4,380m2 of commercial space (2012-115-RZ). Zone: One Family Urban Residential (RS-1) proposed Comprehensive Development Zone (CD-1-13) Designation: Town Centre Commercial and Low-Rise Apartment proposed Town Centre Commercial Existing Use of Properties: Vacant Single Family Residential, Utility Easement, and Municipal Parking Lot Proposed Use of Properties: Multiple Residential and Utility Easement Site Area: 0.18 hectares (0.44 acres) Access: Lane between Brown Avenue and Dewdney Trunk Road and by way of registered easement through the parking structure to the west (2012-115-RZ) Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2013-019-DP - 4 - b)Site Characteristics: The site consists of two lots fronting on Brown Avenue and having access to a lane that is parallel to Brown Avenue (Appendix A). The site is flat and has a total area of 0.18 hectares (0.44 acres). The eastern lot (22588 Brown Avenue) is vacant and owned by the developer (0910609 BC Ltd.). The western lot (22576 Brown Avenue) is owned by the City and currently used as a downtown parking lot. c)Project Description: This proposal is for an 18 storey multiple residential development with 126 apartment units and 6 three-storey street-facing townhouse units; in total 132 dwelling units. The total gross floor area is proposed to be about 9,680 sq. m. (104,197 sq. ft.). There will be 146 parking spaces provided within a 2 storey underground and 3 storey above ground podium parking structure. This podium will be shared with the proposed six townhouse units (Appendix C & D). Zoning Bylaw: Background: This site is proposed to be rezoned to the CD-2-13 Zone, a new Comprehensive Development Zone based on the RM-6 Regional Town Centre High Density Apartment Residential Zone and tailored for this project. Bylaw No. 6991-2013 (Appendix B) granted first reading on July 9, 2013, is to create this new zone and to rezone the subject property from C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) and RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to CD-2-13 (Comprehensive Development). Changes to Zone Regulations: Since first reading was granted, more information, detailed design plans and further discussions have taken place about the density and amenities the applicant intends to provide. In addition, the project will no longer accommodate the 40 public parking spaces currently located on the City owned property within the design of the future parking structure associated with this project. However, off street parking will remain as a permitted use in the CD-2-13 Zone, thus permitting the existing City parking to remain until building construction commences. Therefore, Bylaw No. 6991-2013 needs to be amended before being granted second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. The main change to the text of CD-2-13 Zone regulations includes the following: To encompass the agreed to amenities, a provision for having a Master Development Agreement is included. This separate document will be registered as a Restrictive Covenant on tile and will describe the amenities and voluntary contributions necessary for the amount of floor area to be constructed and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to be achieved on the subject property; To reflect the consolidated site area after road dedication, the minimum site area originally quoted needs to be reduced from 2,000 sq. m. to 1,750 sq. m.; Given most of the open space is being located on top of the parking podium covering nearly the entire site, the portion of required open space on roof tops is to be increased from 15% to 70%; - 5 - A cross reference is added to clarify that the parking requirement for the RM-6 Regional Town Centre High Density Apartment Residential Zone applies to the calculation of parking and bicycle storage; and Incidental housekeeping changes and correcting some typographical errors. Changes to Density Regulation: There are changes necessary to the Density and the Floor Space Ratio Section in the original Bylaw No. 6991-2013 granted first reading. The developer is seeking a floor space of about 9,680 sq. m. (104,197 sq. ft.) or a FSR of 5.5. This is more than can be obtained under the RM-6 Regional Town Centre High Density Apartment Residential Zone density provision. Two changes to the wording of the density provisions in the bylaw given first reading are proposed: The parking bonus language, currently stating the bonus is for only underground parking, will include structured parking within the podium portion of the parking structure, since in either case the parking would be enclosed. The RM-6 Regional Town Centre High Density Apartment Residential Zone bonus provision for non-market housing is being moved into the Master Development Agreement bonus provision, to include both affordable rental housing (minimum 15 units) and housing designed to allow aging in place (minimum 15 units). The developer will receive a larger bonus for the provision of these units then under the usual RM-6 regulation. Therefore, to achieve the desired density of FSR 5.5, the RM-6 Regional Town Centre High Density Apartment Residential Zone base (outright) density and Bonus FSR has to be increased though additional FSR. This additional FSR consists of Town Centre-types of amenities and voluntary contributions, to be stipulated in a Master Development Agreement between the City and the applicant. The Base, RM-6 Bonus plus Agreement Bonus Elements (described individually in more detail in the next section) would achieve the desired 5.5 FSR as calculated below: Base (or outright) density for RM-6 1.6 Bonus density for RM-6 1.4 (non-market housing provision deleted) Bonus density through Master Development Agreement 2.5 MAXIMUM TOTAL FSR 5.5 Bonus Elements: The developer has agreed to enter a Master Development Agreement and to provide bonus elements to gain the 2.5 FSR to bridge the difference between the RM-6 maximum density and the higher density being requested for the project by the applicant. These bonus elements are as follows: Public Art & Contribution: Incorporating public art features into the development project (Appendix F) and a voluntary contribution of $50,000 to public art in the Town Centre; - 6 - Built Amenities & Features: Incorporating a number of pedestrian amenities and design elements along Brown Avenue, within the right-of-way to the east of the subject site, the rear lane and on the roof tops (Appendix E), including: a.Special pedestrian surface treatment to highlight the pedestrian zone and make accessibility easier; b.Street furniture and planting; c.Green screen wall; d.Roof-top amenity area; and e.To provide a significant roof-top visual and lighting landmark, such as a marquee roof element, to be a prominent Town Centre skyline feature; Rental Housing: Not less than 15 units to be designed for affordable rental and subject to a Housing Agreement. The manner of their administration will be contained in the Agreement; Adaptive Housing: Not less than 15 units to be designed for aging in place under the Building Code and (SAFER Housing Standards) and subject to a Housing Agreement; Car Charging Station(s ): At least one Electric Vehicle Charging Station being provided within the underground parking structure or at grade; Storm Water Management: A bio swale is being provided adjacent to the lane and to the east of the building in the right-of-way and a feature to be determined on the podium roof top will be part of the rain water management system (shown on Landscaping Plans Appendix E). This is to exceed the City’s 3-Tier approach by implementing site source controls with the coordination and assistance from the landscape and mechanical consultant. To assist future residents and strata councils to understand how this works and the ongoing and long term maintenance requirements, “How To” guidelines will be developed; and Performance Securities: Will be stipulated and collected as necessary. A separate report will be sent to Council outlining the final terms and to obtain readings for authorization bylaw necessary for the housing agreement. The authorization bylaw would be considered for final reading together with the final adoption of the zone amending bylaw for the proposed CD Zone to govern this development proposal. The Master Development Agreement will also include the following supporting information: Pedestrian Context: An “Urban Realm Plan” (Appendix G) to provide better context for streetscape elements for the fronting streets, lane and right of way along the east side; Design Coordination: The 3-Tower development to the west (2012-115-RZ) is subject to a set of Supplementary Development Permit Area Guidelines contained in the Master Development Agreement associated with that project. There will be reference to those Guidelines the to insure the form and character of the subject development will be complementary and coordinated designs associated with the 3-Tower project; Aging in Place Design Guidelines: Appending the SAFER Housing Standards (Appendix H); and Storm Water Management “How To” Guide: A guide for future strata councils indicating proper maintenance requirements for the bio swales and other rain / storm water management components. - 7 - Proposed Variances: There are no variance being requested by the applicant, given the proposed comprehensive development has been customized for this project. However, if variances are necessary, they will be identified and forwarded to Council in a separate future report. Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: Parking for this project will be located on five levels. Two levels will be entirely underground and three levels with be in a podium structure. There will be three level townhouses and an entrance lobby to the apartment tower sharing the northern portion of the podium and facing Brown Street. This will conceal the appearance of parked cars in the above ground portion of the building from the street. A total of 146 parking spaces will be provided. This will be 11 more spaces than required by the Off- Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. The parking requirement is 137 parking spaces calculated as follows: 122 parking spaces for the apartments and townhouses, plus 13 visitor spaces and 2 spaces for the disabled. The visitor and disabled parking are located on the main parking level with vehicle access directly to the lane. For the remaining levels, vehicle access is through the neighboring parking structure to the west (Building 1 of 2012-115-RZ) and a joint driveway to the lane, secured by way of access easement. There will be an internal ramp for vehicle access between parking levels four and five. Given vehicle access is contingent on Building 1 (2012-115-RZ) being fully constructed, a Restrictive Covenant (and a term in the Master Development Agreement) will be registered on title restricting construction of this project to be either concurrent with or after Building 1 is constructed. The parking count by level is as follows: Underground (2 levels)88 spaces Podium Main level 24 spaces 146 spaces Podium 2 upper levels 34 spaces A loading space will be incorporated into the landscaped area and pedestrian corridor on the east side of the building. This area also serves which also serves as a right-of-way for services. A total of 73 bicycle parking spaces are required. A portion will be accommodated in a storage room on the main parking level and another portion will be at grade as shown in the landscaping plan. Development Permits: A Town Centre Development Permit is required for all new developments on lands designated properties within the Town Centre as identified on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan. Based on the information submitted by the Architect, the following Key Guideline Concepts for the Civic Core Area of the Town Centre Development Permit Area apply: - 8 - 1.Promote the Civic Core as the “heart” of the Town Centre. Staff Comment: This is a major development in terms of its scope, scale and density. It will, with its neighbor to the west, set the tone and standard for future developments respecting high quality tower projects in the Town Centre. It will feed into the already established Civic Core, City Hall and the adjacent public plaza. The subject site is within convenient walking distance to these main draws in the Town Centre. Residents of the tower will have access to businesses within walking distance, including about 4,350 sq. m. (47,000 sq. ft.) of commercial floor space being proposed in the three tower site to the west. In terms of materials, this development will be consistent with using the same high quality materials as the project to the west, and thus continues with that project’s precedent of exceeding the types of materials currently in use in the Town Centre. A rich, high quality exterior metal cladding system is proposed. The colours, in particular at the lower pedestrian level, have been selected to respect the soft tans, metal and rust-red colours prevalent in the Civic Core (See Appendix D). 2.Create a pedestrian-oriented, boutique-style shopping district Staff Comment: A strong pedestrian experience is anticipated, with ground oriented townhouses along Brown Avenue, introduction of a pedestrian corridor at the east side of the building and a lane with some friendly pedestrian characteristics. The buildings climb vertically from the street not only in response to the site constraints, but also to capture panoramic views and reinforcing the identity of the downtown. 3.Reference traditional architectural styles. Staff Comment: The proposal does not necessarily draw or take clues from the existing architectural styles, and is intentionally different from predominantly low scale existing buildings in the Town Centre. The project draws more on contemporary and international styles using steel, concrete and glass to make its architectural statement. This is a departure from the small scale, less durable wood frame buildings typically seen in the Town Centre. This will create a strong urban and downtown environment in the northeast quadrant of the Town Centre and to serve as a model for other locations. As with the project to the west (2012-115-RZ), this project will reflect new developments of similar use and scale in larger cities and established or emerging downtowns in the region like Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond and Surrey City Centre. The emphasis here is on the pedestrian and not the car. The building is placed close to the street to create a street edge and to allow users to interact with the street life. 4.Capitalize on important views. Staff Comment: From the 4th floor and above, there will be views of the Golden Ears to the north, Mount Baker and the Coastal Mountain range to the east, the Fraser River to the south and west towards Vancouver with the ocean As well, the site is situated to allow an appreciation of important views within the Town Centre towards the Civic Centre as well as significant buildings, architectural features and civic facilities to be built in the future. Once built, this development will add to the developing downtown skyline, and will have a roof top - 9 - feature that will be an identifiable landmark for those coming into the Town Centre. It demarks the location of the Town Centre. Views from lower levels will be of a vibrant street life. 5.Enhance existing cultural activities and public open space. Staff Comment: This development will encourage social interaction. All amenity spaces will be universally accessible. The pedestrian spaces will be part of an interconnecting network of sidewalks and pedestrian corridors. The site will be well lit and the residential floors above will assure eyes on the street to discourage vandalism and to increase safety. 6.Provide climate appropriate landscaping and green features. Staff Comment: The landscaping is designed to reflect the urban setting and character of the development. It can generally be described as clean, geometric and ordered with a slight Asian design to reflect the owner’s heritage. It will not only provide ease of movement, but also incorporates places to socialize indoors and outdoors, including a roof top space, as well spaces for quiet reflection. A bio-swale is designed along the lane at grade. Low flow toilets and other green technology may be used and other feasible green technology explored. 7.Maintain street interconnectivity Staff Comment: The urban townhouses fronting Brown Avenue connect the interior spaces on grade to the sidewalk and street. The lane will act as a service street with parking access and loading, refuse and recycling areas located here. The area to the east of the building within a statutory right-of-way for services will double as a north-south pedestrian corridor in conjunction with an urban realm plan to be undertaken by the applicant as suggested by the Advisory Design Panel. Advisory Design Panel : This project was forwarded to the Advisory Design Panel on October 14, 2014. This meeting did not have a quorum; however the absent members did provided comments in writing. Rather than delaying the application for another month, the meeting proceeded with the architect making a presentation and the members present provided their comments. The other members concurred with the comments when circulated the following day by email. They will be formally considered as a motion at the next ADP meeting. This flexibility fulfilled the Council requirement of having a full ADP review. These are the comments regarding this application: It was decided that the following concerns be addressed and digital versions of revised drawings and memo be submitted to Planning staff; and further that Planning staff forward this on to the Advisory Design Panel for information. Prepare an urban realm plan to provide better context for street scape elements for the fronting streets, lane and right of way along the east side. Architect’s Response: A sheet was added to the plan package showing the urban realm plan (Appendix G), - 10 - Consider incorporating additional façade treatment to the wall facing the lane as an interim design measure before the vegetation matures. Architect’s Response: A decorative draping "fishnet" on the exterior walls was provided. Consider incorporating a stronger pedestrian element along the lane connecting westward to the “port cochere” leading to Edge Street and eastward to the right of way at the east of the building. Architect’s Response: The pedestrian experience has been enhanced. Consider the treatment of the exterior wall facing the right of way to the east of the building (such as recessing the exit door, adding windows, etc.) and strengthening this space as a pedestrian walkway. Architect’s Response: Additional exterior treatment similar to that being done for the west elevation of building 1 on application 2012-115-RZ. Consider emphasizing the roof treatment on this building to be a significant visual landmark, such as a marquee roof element, lighting and /or program element such as amenity space. Architect’s Response: A vertical transparent lighted roof element which stylistically represents the developers company "Ascent 1” that will be seen from a great distance. Consider providing weather protection from both rain and wind for the open roof top amenity areas. Architect’s Response: Protection has been provided around the core. Consideration be given to have a better treatment of the entrance area. Architect’s Response: A transparent triangular entry canopy extending north to offer pedestrians protection has been provided. It will be lit at night for added emphasis and drama and mirrors the new rooftop element noted above. The glass will be blue-green colour with a very subtle pattern "underwater" effect. Then, inside this canopy, will be public art with LED lights representing the lifespan of salmon and continuing the theme, albeit in a different fashion, as that proposed for the project (2012-115-RZ) to the west. Consider reducing the appearance of repetition in the tower by incorporating the varied elevation elements (double storey windows, etc.). Architect’s Response: Window heights have been varied on the penthouse floor. Modify the balcony for the units at the south east corner of the building. Architect’s Response: Done. Provide better detail such as a cross section with respect to the rain water swales. Architect’s Response: Provided on landscaping plan. Development Information Meeting : The applicant held a Development Information Meeting for this development project on Thursday, October 16, 2014, between the hours of 7:00pm and 9:00pm. A total of 8 (eight) people attended, with 6 (six) signing in. The applicant reported that no negative comments were heard related to the design of the proposed development, while some positive remarks were offered. The only dissenting concerns were related to the loss of the City parking lot and the development's potential negative impact on Brown Avenue parking. - 11 - Staff Comment: There will still be other City parking available, including on street parking. The Engineering Department is requiring that the currently submitted Traffic Study be updated to consider circulation and parking for the 3-Tower (2012-115-RZ) and 1-Tower sites together. d)Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has prepared comments indicating a Rezoning Servicing Agreement is required to overcome a number of servicing deficiencies. These deficiencies include: road, sidewalk and lane upgrades to meet City standards; Street lighting consistent with the standards for the Town Centre, planting of street trees and the undergrounding of wiring; Upgrading of the storm sewer and water mains; and road dedication for the widening of Brown Avenue. The traffic study prepared for the adjacent three tower application (2012-115-RZ) needs to be updated to include the additional traffic generated on this project. Building Department : The Building Department provided some preliminary BC Building Code-related comments to the applicant to be addressed as part of the Building Permit application process. Fire Department: The Fire Department provided comments about site requirements and infrastructure be incorporated into the construction of the building as required by the Fire Code. The majority of these are reviewed as part of the Building Permit application process. CONCLUSION: This tower forms part of a comprehensively planned project in the heart of the Town Centre. It has been carefully coordinated with and compliments the development of 3 tower project to the west (2012-115-RZ) in design and function. It will extend the friendly pedestrian streetscape, have a contemporary and international style and contribute to an emerging skyline (Appendix I). Amenity features being provided boost the density to an FSR of 5.5. - 12 - Therefore, it is recommended that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6991-2013 be amended as identified in the staff report dated November 17, 2014, be given second reading and that the application for a 132 unit 18 storey tower project be forwarded to Public Hearing. "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 J.L. (Jim) Rule" _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6991-2013 Appendix C – Site Plan, Floor plates and Roof plans Appendix D – Building Elevation Plans Appendix E – Landscaping Plans and pedestrian amenities Appendix F – Public Art Appendix G – Urban Realm Plan Appendix H – SAFERhousing Guidelines Appendix I – Renderings **Attachments available to view in Planning Dept. ** City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-201-DP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Wildfire Development Permit 22801 to 22829 Nelson Court (Phase 3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Wildfire Development Permit application 2015-201-DP has been received for the 25 lots of Phase 3 of the Nelson Peak development located in Silver Valley. This is the third and final phase of the Nelson Peak subdivision. A Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) is required because the site is located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. Since the adoption of the Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) Guidelines in October 2014, the Planning Department, Licencing, Permits and Bylaws Department, and Fire Department have been monitoring the implementation of the WFDP. There have been challenges in the application of the American National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1144 (Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire) and NFPA 1141 (Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Wildland, Rural and Suburban Areas) in view of proposed new development applications. The Home Owners FireSmart Manual (B.C. Forest Service Protection Program) would provide a greater degree of flexibility while maintaining the intent of the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines. A report will be brought forward for Council’s consideration, at a future Council Meeting, outlining amendments to use the requirements of the Home Owners FireSmart Manual to assess fire hazard and guide recommendations instead of the NFPA standards. In the meantime, in order to allow developers to continue construction, in-stream WFDP applications are being reviewed in relation to the FireSmart Manual Guidelines. This application has been reviewed against the FireSmart Manual requirements. In addition, this application is unusual in that it is the third and last phase of a development, all of which is constructed and landscaped by the developer, Portrait Homes. Portrait Homes wishes to maintain a consistent exterior building finish, as in the earlier two phases which were not subject to a WFDP. The solution is to permit the use of alternative products that will allow the developer to construct buildings that are consistent in exterior appearance to their first and second phases while providing a greater measure of wildfire protection than what was utilized in those earlier phases. The Nelson Peak development received Final Approval for the Rezoning application (RZ/013/10) for the entire site on April 8, 2014. The Phase 1 subdivision (2013-116-SD) was approved on June 11, 2014 and construction is nearly complete. The Phase 2 subdivision (2014-097-SD) was approved on July 27, 2015 and is currently under construction. Subsequently, the developer submitted another Rezoning application (2015-201-RZ) to rezone a portion of Phase 3 from R-1 (Residential District) to R-2 (Urban Residential District). Council granted First Reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7163-2015 on September 29, 2015 and Second 1108 - 2 - Reading on October 27, 2015. This application was presented at Public Hearing on November 17, 2015. Council granted Third Reading on November 24, 2015 and Final Approval on December 8, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-201-DP respecting property located at 22801 to 22829 Nelson Court. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Damax Consultants Ltd. Owner: Insignia Homes Silvervalley 2 Ltd. Legal Description: Lots 59 – 68 and 75 - 78, Section 29, Township 12, NWD Plan EPP56702; and Lots 54 - 58 and 69 - 74, Section 29, Township 12, NWD Plan EPP56702 OCP: Existing: Eco Clusters Zoning: Existing: R-1 (Residential District) Proposed: R-2 (Urban Residential District), R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Neighbourhood Park (Nelson) and Park (conservation) Zone: P-1 (Park and School), RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Neighbourhood Park, Conservation South: Use: Park Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Conservation East: Use: Park, Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Conservation, Eco-Clusters West: Use: Park, Vacant Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Conservation Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 1.4 hectares (3.46 acres) Access: Nelson Court Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Previous Applications: RZ/013/10, 2013-116-SD (Phase 1), 2014-097-SD (Phase 2), 2012-089-DP, VP/013/10 Companion Applications: 2015-201-RZ, 2015-201-SD (Phase 3A), 2015-305-SD (Phase 3B), - 3 - b) Background: The Nelson Peak site is designated Eco-Clusters within the Silver Valley Area Plan. The development received Final Approval for the Rezoning and Official Community Plan (OCP) amending application (RZ/013/10) for the entire site on April 8, 2014. The Phase 1 subdivision (2013-116-SD) was approved on June 11, 2014 and construction is nearly complete. The Phase 2 subdivision (2014- 097-SD) was approved on July 27, 2015 and is currently under construction. When the original Zoning and OCP amendments (RZ/013/10) were approved for this site, all areas required for the protection of watercourses and steep slopes were designated as Conservation and were dedicated to the City as Park. In addition, an area at the top of Nelson Court was designated as Neighbourhood Park and dedicated to the City as a Neighbourhood Park. A total of 5.4 hectares of dedicated park surrounds the Nelson Peak development. As an Eco-Clusters development, each lot has green space on the front and back, and in between small clusters of lots. Subsequently, the developer submitted another Rezoning application (2015-201-RZ) to rezone a portion of Phase 3 from R-1 (Residential District) to R-2 (Urban Residential District). Council granted First Reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7163-2015 on September 29, 2015 and Second Reading on October 27, 2015. This application was presented at Public Hearing on November 17, 2015. Council granted Third Reading on November 24, 2015 and Final Approval on December 8, 2015. Rezoning application 2015-201-RZ was received after approval of the Wildfire Development Permit Bylaw 7101 - 2014 was adopted by Council on October 28, 2014, therefore the requirements of the WFDP apply to Phase 3, but not to the earlier two phases. c) Project Description: The subject properties at 22801 to 22829 Nelson Court (Appendices A and B) are the third phase of the Nelson Peak development. The 25 properties are located on the Nelson Court cul-de-sac to the west of Nelson Peak Drive and south of 136 Avenue. (Appendix C) The development is completely surrounded by Park, with the exception of Lots 63 – 68. The land to the rear (west) of Lots 63 – 68 is identified for future park dedication with the approval of 2015-207-SD on 22650 136 Avenue. Since the adoption of the Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) Guidelines in October 2014, the Planning Department, Licencing, Permits and Bylaws Department, and Fire Department have been monitoring the implementation of the WFDP. One difficulty that has arisen are challenges in the application of the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1144 (Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire) and NFPA 1141 (Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Wildland, Rural and Suburban Areas) in view of proposed new development applications. The standards have been found to be quite stringent and there is a recognition that the use of the Home Owners FireSmart Manual (B.C. Forest Service Protection Program) would provide a greater degree of flexibility while maintaining the intent of the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines. A report will be brought forward for Council’s consideration, at a future Council Meeting, outlining amendments to use the requirements of the Home Owners FireSmart Manual to assess fire hazard and guide recommendations instead of the NFPA standards. In the meantime, in order to allow developers to continue construction, in-stream WFDP applications are being reviewed in relation to the FireSmart Manual Guidelines. This application has been reviewed against the FireSmart Manual requirements. In addition, this application is unusual in that it is the third and last phase of a development, all of which is - 4 - constructed and landscaped by the developer, Portrait Homes. Portrait Homes wishes to maintain a consistent exterior building finish, as in the earlier two phases which were not subject to a WFDP. The solution is to permit the use of alternative products that will allow the developer to construct buildings that are consistent in exterior appearance to their first and second phases while providing a greater measure of wildfire protection than what was utilized in those earlier phases. The Consultant stated in their report that: Meeting the requirements of the consultant’s report will ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the applicable Development Permit Guidelines, as provided by the City. Maintaining the property in the described manner will reduce the overall fire hazard risk for Phase 3 of Nelson Peaks. d) Planning Analysis: The Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines are intended for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk for wildland fire and where this risk, in some cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. A Development Permit is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for areas identified as wildfire risk areas identified in attached Map 1: Wildfire Development Permit Area. (Appendix E) A Development Permit may not be required under certain circumstances indicated in the Development Permit Exemptions, Section 8.4, Item 4. These Development Permit Guidelines are to work in concert with all other regulations, guidelines and bylaws in effect. This development respects the key guideline concepts as outlined in this section: 1. Locate development on individual sites so that when integrated with the use of mitigating construction techniques the risk of wildfire impacts is reduced; The structures in Phase 3 are surrounded to the north and east by Phase 1 and 2 of the Nelson Peak development and park; to the west by a large, forested, private parcel of land; directly to the south by park and riparian area; and further south by private agricultural land. All lots in Phase 3 are on the upper slope and directly exposed to a forest edge. FireSmart recommends that buildings are setback from the forested edge by 10m (32ft.). All lots in Phase 3 are directly adjacent to a forested edge on one or two sides. Setbacks from the top of slope and forested edge are between 6m and 8m. To mitigate the fire hazard posed by the proximity of structures to a forested slope, structures and lots must follow the recommendations set out in the following sections of the Nelson Peak Subdivision Fire Hazard Assessment Report prepared by B.A. Blackwell & Associates, updated February 24, 2016:  Section 8.0 Construction Design and Materials;  Section 9.11 Landscaping;  Section 11.0 Fuels Management / Modifications;  Section 12.2 Maintenance of Property. Detached secondary structures/accessory buildings must meet the same building standards as principle buildings. Placement of combustible materials such as firewood or wooden structures must be a minimum of 5m from principle buildings. Parking vehicles should not be allowed on any combustible surface, such as cured grass or other dry fuels that are easily ignitable. - 5 - 2. Mitigate wildfire impacts while respecting environmental conservation objectives and other hazards in the area; Landscaping within 10m of structures must be limited to plant species with low flammability and the following attributes:  Foliage with high moisture content;  Drought tolerant;  Open or loose branching habits;  Little dead wood and don’t tend to accumulate dry and dead foliage or wood materials;  Sap that is water-like and without a strong odor. Coniferous vegetation such as juniper, cypress, yew, pine or cedar hedging or shrubs must not be planted within this area as they are considered highly flammable under extreme fire hazard conditions. The landscaping requirements for replanting works within the park lands, as per the approved Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit (2012-089-DP), must be coordinated with the landscaping requirements of this Wildfire Development Permit. 3. Ensure identified wildfire interface risks are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; and Fuel Management strategies are described in Section 11.0 of the B.A. Blackwell & Associates report for the park areas around the lots in Phase 3. The strategies are intended to:  Reduce the ladder fuels in strategic areas;  Reduce understorey conifers which act as ladder fuels;  Raise the crown base height of retained trees;  Maximize retention of live, healthy deciduous and conifer trees to maintain a cool, dark, and moist understorey microclimate; and  Reduce surface fuel loading to reduce the risk of and behavior of surface fire. 4. Proactively manage potential fire behavior, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression and containment and minimizing adverse impacts. Section 12.0 of the B.A. Blackwell & Associates report provides recommendations for fuel management within the natural park areas; and recommendations for individual homeowner to maintain their property and ensure a low fire hazard rating. A Restrictive Covenant will be registered on each property in Phase 3 that specifies the construction design and materials, landscaping and ongoing maintenance requirements for property owners, as identified in the B.A. Blackwell & Associates report. CONCLUSION: As discussed in this report, this application has been considered against the requirements of the Home Owners FireSmart Manual (B.C. Forest Service Protection Program) to assess fire hazard and guide recommendations instead of the NFPA standards. In addition, this application is unusual in that it is the third and last phase of a development, all of which is constructed and landscaped by the developer, Portrait Homes, who wishes to maintain a consistent exterior building finish, as in the - 6 - earlier two phases which were not subject to a WFDP. The City p rovided detailed guidance regarding minimum building construction requirements to the developer and the Wildfire Consultant (B.A.Blackwell & Associates). The developer then proposed building construction materials. Some of the building materials proposed by the developer and identified as acceptable to the Wildfire Consultant are outside the original guidelines provided by the City but have been accepted as appropriate alternative products and applications for this development. The use of the alternative products will allow the developer to construct buildings that are consistent in exterior appearance to their first and second phases while providing a greater measure of wildfire protection than what was utilized in those earlier phases. Therefore, it is recommended that 2015-201-DP be approved. “Original signed by Ann Edwards” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT Senior Planning Technician “Original signed by Michael Van Dop” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Michael Van Dop Assistant Chief Planning and Prevention “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 – Subdivision Plan Appendix D – Nelson Peak Subdivision Fire Hazard Assessment Report prepared by B.A. Blackwell & Associates, updated February 24, 2016 Appendix E – Map 1: Wildfire Development Permit Area DATE: Mar 7, 2016 FILE: 2015-201-DP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT´ Scale: 1:2,000 LOTS 59 - 68 & 75 - 78, EPP56702 LOTS 54 - 58 & 69 - 74, EPP56703 Legend Stream Canal Edge Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek River Centreline Canal Lake or Reservoir APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Mar 7, 2016 FILE: 2015-201-DP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT´ Scale: 1:2,000 LOTS 59 - 68 & 75 - 78, EPP56702 LOTS 54 - 58 & 69 - 74, EPP56703 Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Nelson Peak Subdivision Fire Hazard Assessment Amended Maple Ridge, BC February 15th, 2016 Last updated: February 24th, 2016 Submitted By: Tove Pashkowski, RPF and Bruce Blackwell, RPF, RP Bio B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. 270 – 18 Gostick Place North Vancouver, BC V7M 3G3 Ph: 604-986-8346 ext. 201 Email: bablackwell@ bablackwell.com Submitted To: Robert Grimm Principal Portrait Homes #1100 – 21320 Westminster Hwy Richmond, BC V6V 2X5 Ph: 604-270-1889 Email: robertg@portraithomes.ca B.A. BLACKWELL & ASSOCIATES LTD. APPENDIX D Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Qualifications ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Document Review ............................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Field Review .................................................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Office Review ................................................................................................................................................ 3 4.0 Criteria and Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 FireSmart....................................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1.1 FireSmart Zones .................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 BEC Zones ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Weather data ................................................................................................................................................ 5 5.0 Fire Hazard Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Site Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 5 5.1.1 Topographical Features ........................................................................................................................ 5 5.1.2 Fire Weather ......................................................................................................................................... 7 5.1.3 Nearby Structures ................................................................................................................................. 7 5.1.4 Hazards on Adjacent areas and Properties ........................................................................................... 8 5.1.5 Fire Smart Structure and Hazard Assessment .................................................................................... 14 5.1.6 Heat and Flame Sources ..................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.7 Access/ Egress ..................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.8 Water Availability And Suppression Distance ..................................................................................... 16 6.0 Identification of Hazardous Fuels .................................................................................................................. 16 6.1 Spotting Risks .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge ii 7.0 Setbacks ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 8.0 Building Construction..................................................................................................................................... 18 9.0 Landscaping ................................................................................................................................................... 21 9.1.1 Landscaping/ Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 21 10.0 Additional considerations .............................................................................................................................. 23 10.1.1 Heat and Flame Sources ..................................................................................................................... 23 10.1.2 Detached Secondary Structures ......................................................................................................... 23 10.1.3 Vehiclular Parking ............................................................................................................................... 24 11.0 Fuels management ........................................................................................................................................ 24 11.1 Green spaces to be handed over to the City .............................................................................................. 28 11.2 Woody material disposal requirements ..................................................................................................... 28 12.0 Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 29 12.1 Park Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................... 29 12.2 Individual Homeowner Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 29 13.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 29 14.0 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 Sign-Off ...................................................................................................................................................................... 31 15.0 Appendix A – Fuel Types ................................................................................................................................ 32 16.0 Appendix B – Construction Material Guidance from the City ....................................................................... 39 17.0 Appendix C – HomeGuard Data Sheet ........................................................................................................... 41 18.0 Appendix D – Deksmart Fire Rating Test Report ........................................................................................... 42 19.0 Appendix E – D-Blaze technical Specifications .............................................................................................. 45 List of Figures Figure 1. FireSmart Priority Zones. ............................................................................................................................... 4 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge iii Figure 2. Phase 3 Lots (outlined in red) of the Nelson Peaks subdivision by Portrait Homes (Lots 54 – 78). .............. 6 Figure 3. Park adjacent to the north of Phase 3, Nelson Peaks. Photographs taken looking north (left) and south (right). Park is in the foreground of right photo. ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4. Woody fuel accumulation on the sloped park between Phase 2 and Phase 3 (left). Overview of the same stand (right). ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5. Forested south park slope (south of lots 54 – 58) and the horsetrail (L). Riparian and agricultural area south of the horsetrail (R). .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Typical decking planned for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Nelson Peaks. Phase 3 decking should be sheathed-in to reduce locations where embers can collect. Perforated aluminum is an acceptable sheathing material. ........... 21 List of Maps Map 1. Nelson Peaks development land use and surrounding parcels. Note: orthophotograph is not recent; current land-use around development is labeled in yellow. ........................................................................................ 9 Map 2. Fire mitigation (treatment) areas (green striped) for Nelson Peaks development. ....................................... 25 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd was retained by Robert Grimm of Portrait Homes (the Client) to re-assess and amend a previously completed fire hazard assessment for Phase 3 (lots 54 - 78) of the Nelson Peaks subdivision in the City of Maple Ridge (the City). Nelson Peaks is a subdivision, owned and developed by Portrait Homes. The 25 lots in Phase 3 are within the City’s newly established Wildfire Development Permit Area (DPA). In September of 2015, B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd (Blackwell) was retained by David Laird, of Aplin Martin Consultants, to complete a fire hazard assessment for Phase 3 of the Nelson Peaks subdivision in the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge or the City). A fire hazard assessment was completed according to the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw. No. 7101-2014 and National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) standards (1141 and 1144) and submitted to the City. Since the submission of the wildfire hazard assessment report to the City, the City has opted to switch emphasis from the NFPA standards to instead focus on the use of the FireSmart standards to assess hazard and guide recommendations. Furthermore, the City has since provided additional, detailed guidance regarding expectations of building materials and siting for new development within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. In light of this, Blackwell has re-assessed Phase 3 of the Nelson Peaks subdivision. The objective of this report is to provide a written synopsis of the wildfire hazard of Phase 3 of the Nelson Peaks subdivision and to provide recommendations on building, siting, landscaping, and fuel management which will help to mitigate this hazard such that the subdivision is at an acceptable level of risk for its intended use as a residential area. This assessment is an amendment of the previous assessment due to changes in assessment methods and guidelines; there were no additional field visits or data collection for the purposes of this amendment. This assessment is based, in part, on information provided by third parties. 1.1 QUALIFICATIONS Bruce Blackwell, MSc, RPF (#2073) has over 28 years’ experience in fire and forest ecology, and fire and fuels management. Tove Pashkowski, RPF (#4740) has over six years’ experience in fire and fuels management and has developed numerous fuel management prescriptions and Community Wildfire Protection Plans, wildfire hazard assessments for DPAs in other jurisdictions, as well as served as a wildland firefighter involved in suppression of interface and wildland fires. Both project foresters have completed fire-related projects in the Lower Mainland and across British Columbia. Tove Pashkowski, RPF and Bruce Blackwell, RPF both meet the requirements of a Qualified Professional (QP).1 2.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW The following documents were provided by the Client and reviewed for the purpose of this assessment: 1 Corporation of the City of Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 5879 – 1999, Schedule J, Section B, Number 1. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 2 1. Comprehensive Site Plan: “Nelson Peaks” Proposed 75 Lot Subdivision 136 Avenue/ 228 Street, City of Maple Ridge. Project E08-015-1057. Damax Consultants Ltd. Dated August 2012. 29 pages. The following documents were provided by the City of Maple Ridge and were used to develop the recommendations in this report: 2. Buildings constructed within the Wildfire Area, elevation facing the forested edge, must comply with this Section. Scanned draft document. City of Maple Ridge. (section 16.0 Appendix B) 3.0 METHODOLOGY This report is an amendment of a previous wildfire hazard assessment. The amendment was initiated due to changes in the guidance provided by the City and not to any changes to lots, zoning, siting, or other changes to development planning or site conditions. No additional field reviews were completed for the completion of this report. 3.1 FIELD REVIEW A field review was conducted on July 21, 2015 by Tove Pashkowski, RPF. The field review included qualitative and quantitative notes regarding the state of the development and the surrounding fuels. Notes included forest stand and site data including, but not limited to: overstorey species composition, stand structure, understorey species, percent brush cover, percent crown closure, woody fuels, crown base height, aspect, slope grade, observed wildlife use/ activity. Photographs were taken as documentation. Fuel types were based upon the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS), and more specifically one of its two sub-systems, the Canadian Forest Fire Behaviour Prediction (FBP) System 2. Typically, the CFFDRS fuel types do not adequately describe the variation in fuels present on the south coast. For each fuel type identified in the report, we have attempted a best approximation of the CFFDRS classification, based on the manner in which the fuel type would burn. We have supported this classification with a summary of detailed attributes (15.0 Appendix A). The 2007 City of Maple Ridge Community Wildfire Protection Plan was used as a coarse level determinant of fuel types. These fuel types were then ground-truthed to confirm and to classify fuel types at a finer level of detail around the Nelson Peaks subdivision. 2 Natural Resources Canada. http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/background/summary/fbp Accessed 21 August 2015. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 3 3.2 OFFICE REVIEW The office component of the assessment included review of: client-provided documents (Section 2.0), 2011 ortho- photography and data from the City of Maple Ridge online mapping program 3, and relevant City of Maple Ridge bylaws, guidance documents, and checklists. Additional guidance regarding acceptable building materials within the wildfire development permit (WFDP) area was provided by the City and is included in 16.0 Appendix B. Written approvals by the City of the specific building materials outlined in Section 8.0 was received. 4.0 CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS For this wildfire hazard assessment, the following reference documents were utilized: x Partners in Protection. 2003. FireSmart: Protecting Your Community from Wildfire. x Partners in Protection. The Home Owners’ FireSmart Manual, B.C. Edition. x National Fire Protection Association. 2012. NFPA 1144 Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire 2013 Edition. x National Fire Protection Association. FireWise. 2011. http://learningcenter.firewise.org/Firefighter- Safety/1-11.php. x National Fire Protection Association. 2012. Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Developments. 4.1 FIRESMART To evaluate fire hazards, the FireSmart approach and the concept of FireSmart Priority Zones was used. These can be found on the FireSmart Canada website at https://www.firesmartcanada.ca/resources-library/protecting-your- community-from-wildfire (Partners in Protection 2003) and are helpful tools for assisting in assessing risk and recommending mitigation options. 4.1.1 FIRESMART ZONES FireSmart uses the concept of priority zones (PZ), or FireSmart zones, to determine where and how hazard assessment should be conducted and to determine appropriate mitigation measures. Priority Zones are defined by FireSmart as follows: Priority Zone 1 (PZ 1) is a 10 m fuel free zone around structures (Figure 1) which ensures that direct flame contact with the building cannot occur and reduces the potential for radiative heat to ignite the building. Combustible materials such as firewood should not be stored in this zone. While creating this zone is not always possible, 3 http://gis.mapleridge.ca/ridgeview/ Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 4 landscaping choices (including tree retention and replacement) should reflect the use of less flammable vegetation such as deciduous trees and shrubs, herbs and other species with low flammability. Coniferous vegetation, such as juniper or cedar hedges, is restricted in this 10 m zone, as these are highly flammable. Any vegetation in this zone should be widely spaced and well setback from the house. Priority Zone 2 (PZ 2) extends from 10 m to 30 m from the structure. On sloping terrain, the width of PZ 2 should be extended. Additionally, in situations with structures adjacent to slopes and with inadequate setbacks, fuel treatment distances should be extended and/or or fuel breaks provided. In this zone, trees should be widely spaced (5 to 10 m apart), depending on size and species. Tree crowns should not touch or overlap. Deciduous trees have much lower volatility than coniferous trees, so where possible, deciduous trees should be preferred for retention or planting. Trees in this area should be pruned as highly as possible (without compromising tree health), especially where long limbs extend toward buildings. This helps to prevent a fire on the ground from moving up into the crown of the tree or spreading to a structure. Any downed wood or other flammable material should also be cleaned up in this zone to reduce fire moving along the ground. Priority Zone 3 (PZ 3) extends from 30 m to 100 m or further from structures. Strategies and standards for vegetation management within PZ 3 are very similar to those applied in PZ 2. Fuel management should aim to create an environment that will not support a high-intensity crown fire and where wildfire that does occur is low intensity and more readily extinguishable. The main fuel management principles are fuel reduction and vegetation conversion (i.e. conifer to deciduous dominated overstory). Fuel management in this area is required in circumstances where wildfire hazard is high due to heavy fuel loading, steep slopes and/or when hazard levels are not able to be reduced to an acceptable level from fuel management activities in PZ 2. Figure 1. FireSmart Priority Zones. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 5 4.2 BEC ZONES The City of Maple Ridge, and more specifically the Silver Valley neighbourhood, is defined by the regional climate of the Coastal Western Hemlock moist dry maritime (CWHdm) biogeoclimatic units. Biogeoclimatic zones are the basic units of ecosystem classification used as a standard across British Columbia. 4.3 WEATHER DATA Daily fire weather data were collected at UBC’s Malcolm Knapp Research Forest weather station, approximately 2 miles from the Nelson Peaks subdivision and within the same Biogeoclimatic subzone (CWHdm). It is assumed that the daily fire weather from this station accurately represents the fire weather experienced in the Silver Valley neighbourhood, and more specifically, the Nelson Peaks development area. 5.0 FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT The fire hazard assessment included one site visit on July 21, 2015 by Tove Pashkowski, RPF. The purpose of the assessment is to identify wildfire hazards and the associated level of risk to the property and neighbourhood of a wildfire, and to recommend mitigation measures required to reduce the hazards and risk. 5.1 SITE OVERVIEW The area of interest is 25 lots (Phase 3) within the Nelson Peaks development in the Silver Valley neighbourhood of Maple Ridge (Figure 2). The entirety of Nelson Peaks subdivision has been cleared in preparation for building. Building has begun for those homes in Phase 1 and Phase 2. 5.1.1 TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES Nelson Peaks subdivision is in the Fraser River Valley, on the lower slopes of the foothills of the Coast Mountains. The topography surrounding the parcels of interest is gently to moderately sloping upwards towards the north and northeast to the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. On a meso-topographic scale, the Nelson Peaks subdivision is set on a knoll surrounded by flatter and gently rolling agricultural and developed areas. Phase 3, specifically, sits on the south aspect of this knoll, with the upper lots (Lots 68 and 69) nearly at the crest of the knoll; Phase 3 would be considered mid and upper slope at this scale. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 6 Figure 2. Phase 3 Lots (outlined in red) of the Nelson Peaks subdivision by Portrait Homes (Lots 54 – 78). Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 7 5.1.2 FIRE WEATHER Analysis of daily fire weather data from 1981 to 2010, during the months of May to September reveal the following weather trends in the Silver Valley neighbourhood: x Average temperature of 18.7ම C (Maximum of 37.4ම C in 2007 and minimum of 4.5ම C recorded in 1988) x Average relative humidity of 70% (minimum of 9%) x An average of 3 days per year of cross-over conditions (years 2006 – 2010), where temperature exceeded relative humidity; a fire burning in cross-over conditions will exhibit extreme behaviour x Average fine fuel moisture content (FFMC) of 62.3, which is a low hazard rating. FFMC is a numerical rating that represents the moisture content of fine fuels (litter, grasses, leaves, needles, small twigs, and other cured fine fuels). The FFMC is an indicator of the relative ease of ignition and flammability of the fine fuels.4 x Average windspeed of 3 km/ hr, though it is not uncommon to have gusts to 15 km/ hr x Prevailing wind direction is from the south (>30% of the time in the fire season) It can be considered that general fire weather for the Maple Ridge area represents a low to moderate hazard, though it is clear that outlier fire seasons, such as 2015, can occur and represent a much higher fire hazard than the average. Climate change is a factor which may impact future fire weather and fire season length on the south coast and elsewhere in BC. On the south coast of BC, increased length in fire season is expected to be the largest contributing factor to increases in area burned over the next 80 years.5 5.1.3 NEARBY STRUCTURES Phase 1 and Phase 2 homes of Nelson Peaks, as well as all near-by developments, were developed prior to the development of the City’s Wildfire Development Permit Bylaw. Therefore, these structures should not be considered to be built with wildfire hazards in mind. Setbacks from slope and forested vegetation are likely based upon then-existing municipal bylaws. Exterior building materials are mostly combustible (vinyl siding, cedar cladding, wood and stone trim). Exterior sprinklers were not observed on any homes during the site visit; it can be safely assumed that there are no nearby structures or developments with exterior sprinklers installed. It was noted that the majority of the roofing of nearby developments is asphalt shingles. 4 BC Wildfire Service, Fire Weather Index System. http://bcwildfire.ca/weather/indices.htm 5 Haughian, S.R., P.J. Burton, S.W. Taylor, & CL. Curry. 2012. Expected effects of climate change on forest disturbance regimes in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13(1):1-24. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 8 5.1.4 HAZARDS ON ADJACENT AREAS AND PROPERTIES Phase 3 is surrounded to the north and east by Phase 1 and 2 of the Nelson Peaks development (including both forested and non-forested land), to the west by a large, forested, private parcel of land, hereinafter referred to as “Future Wong Subdivision”, and directly to the south by Nelson Peaks park and riparian area and further south by private agricultural land (Map 1 and Figure 5). Phase 1 and 2 of the Nelson Peaks subdivision are both within the newly established wildfire DPA area, but to which the DPA requirements do not apply. It is understood that these developments are further along in the development process and therefore are exempted from the DP process. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 9 Map 1. Nelson Peaks development land use and surrounding parcels. Note: orthophotograph is not recent; current land-use around development is labeled in yellow. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 10 NORTH Directly adjacent to Phase 3 is a park (north park) (Figure 3 and Map 1). This park is considered lands to be handed over to the City from the developer. Plans for the park, and associated recommendations, will be assessed in Section 11.1. The park is largely a rocky knoll, sloping down in all directions at 35 – 55%. In its current state, vegetation on the knoll and where the soil has been disturbed consists of tall grasses, scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), both of which are considered invasive plants. At the date of site inspection, the grasses and scotch broom were cured and represent highly flammable and flashy fuels which significantly influence the fire hazard of the site. The vegetation on the slopes surrounding the rocky knoll is characterized as an O1b and M2 fuel types. The M2 fuel type is approximately 20% flammable coniferous overstorey (largely western redcedars, Thuja plicata). The remaining 80% of the overstorey is native, immature, deciduous tree species, such as big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and to a lesser extent, red alder (Alnus rubra). The understorey is sparse, consisting mostly of sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and vine maple (Acer circinatum). This particular M2 fuel type represents a low fire hazard; the high component of deciduous trees in the overstorey provide a high moisture content fuel break between the small, isolated groupings of flammable coniferous overstorey trees. The understorey is sparse with few ladder fuels and discontinuous fuels. The O1b fuel type is a deciduous stand in the stand initiation phase. The trees species present include big-leaf maple, black cottonwood and red alder. Deciduous shrubs and trees are colonizing the area at 100% ground cover. O1b fuel type represents a moderate fire hazard. The area is characterized by a Coastal Western Hemlock dry maritime subzone (CWHdm), site series 03 (top of knoll) and 01/05 site series on the surrounding slopes. The top of the knoll is a drier, water shedding site, which will require careful plant and landscaping selections that are site (moisture) appropriate. This is to ensure that selected plants are well adapted to the site and can, with very little maintenance, maintain good health and high moisture content. There are two trails and one service vehicle access road planned from the park to 136th Avenue, to Phase 1 (Entrance Loop), and to the northwest quadrant of the park, respectively. These trails are planned to be 1.5 m wide, gravel topped path, which can be used as foot access and as fire breaks. On the other hand, increased public access can lead to higher probability of human-caused ignitions. Overall, the park represents a low to moderate fire hazard, though future landscaping choices and maintenance will be important to maintain the park in a low hazard state. To the north of the Nelson Peaks development will be 136th Avenue, with single family residences part of a different development on the north side of the road. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 11 Figure 3. Park adjacent to the north of Phase 3, Nelson Peaks. Photographs taken looking north (left) and south (right). Park is in the foreground of right photo. EAST To the east of Phase 3 is ‘east park’ (Map 1). East park separates Phase 3 lots from Phase 2 lots (Map 1 and Figure 4). The park is sloped and forested, with an eastern aspect and a slope of approximately 55%. The vegetation on the slope is a continuation of the M2 fuel type described in 15.0 Appendix A. Fuel loading accumulations of fine and medium woody debris are moderate (Figure 4). It was unclear at the time of the site inspection whether these fuel accumulations were a result of hazard tree removal executed as part of the development. This is the primary fuel source of concern on this area, which, in its current state, represents a moderate fire hazard. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 12 Figure 4. Woody fuel accumulation on the sloped park between Phase 2 and Phase 3 (left). Overview of the same stand (right). SOUTH Directly adjacent to the south of Phase 3, lots 54 – 58, is a moderate to steep forested slope with a south aspect (south park) (Figure 5 and Map 1). The plan is to retain the slope as a park in its current state of vegetation. At the toe of the slope lies an emergency access road/horse trail, approximately 4 m wide, which runs along a riparian area (pond and drainage) and also acts as access for the sanitary sewer line. The trail currently ends at the west property line and boundary with the Future Wong Subdivision, though future plans to continue the trail appear to be in place. The park on the slope is a mixture of M2 fuel type (coniferous overstorey ranging from 20% - 60%) and C3 fuel type. This slope represents a moderate fire hazard to the subdivision. The trail at the toe of the slope increases the probability of human-caused ignition. Grasses on the side of the trail, when cured, can be very easily ignited with carelessness (cigarette disposal, for example) or malicious intent. Further to the south (south of the Nelson Peaks subdivision property line) are parcels in generally low fire hazard state (agricultural, riparian, and deciduous) on large parcels and would be characterized as D1 fuel type (15.0 Appendix A). Those parcels to the south on 132nd Avenue are within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 13 horse trail, the riparian, and agricultural areas, represent a very low fire hazard to the south of the Nelson Peaks property and should be considered a fire break. Figure 5. Forested south park slope (south of lots 54 – 58) and the horsetrail (L). Riparian and agricultural area south of the horsetrail (R). WEST To the west of Phase 3 and the Nelson Peaks property line (directly behind lots 63 – 68) is the Future Wong Subdivision (Map 1). This parcel is on sloping terrain with a short, immature brush and deciduous vegetation complex, best defined as an O1b fuel type. The slope is a mixture of vine maple, bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), red alder, oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Himalayan blackberry, big leaf maple, and grasses. The portion of this parcel directly adjacent to the Nelson Peaks subdivision would be considered a moderate fire hazard. It is our understanding that ultimately, this parcel will be developed, though timing and details are not available at the date of the report. It is assumed that any development on this parcel would also have to meet wildfire DPA compliance due to its proximity to forested land, though for the purpose of this assessment, the fire hazard represented by the current state of the parcel must be used. It is recognized that this is a private parcel outside the control of the developer; therefore setbacks, home construction and design, and landscaping become the only available controls of fire hazard mitigation in this area for the Phase 3 lots directly affected (Lots 63 – 67). Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 14 5.1.5 FIRE SMART STRUCTURE AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT To evaluate fire hazards, the FireSmart approach which employs the FireSmart Structure and Hazard Assessment Form and the concept of FireSmart Priority Zones was used. These can be found on the FireSmart Canada website at https://www.firesmartcanada.ca/resources-library/protecting-your-community-from-wildfire (Partners in Protection 2003) and are helpful tools for assisting in assessing risk and recommending mitigation options. The FireSmart Structure and Hazard Assessment Form considers both building construction and vegetation related hazards. The overall rating for Phase 3 of Nelson Peaks is 56, which falls into the Extreme (>35) category (Table 1). The extreme rating is attributable to the minimal setbacks from top of slope, moderate accumulations of woody debris within 30 m of structure sites in places, scattered ladder fuels in PZ 2, and direct exposure to forested overstory. This assessment is based upon an average site condition on the day of the field assessment and assumes building construction that meets the wildfire DP requirements, as outlined in this report and in the WFDP Guidelines from the City. Construction related hazards are discussed in detail in section 8.0 Building Construction. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 15 Table 1. Fire Smart Structure and Hazard Assessment form for the planned development of Phase 3 of the Nelson Peaks subdivision. Factor Score Metal, tile, asphalt, ULC-rated shakes or non-combustible material 0 No combustible material 0 Non-combustible material, stucco or timber 0 Closed Eaves, vents screened with 3 mm mesh, and accessible 0 None, or fire-resistant material sheathed in 0 Small/Medium Large Large 012 4 None or > 10 metres from structure 0 Adequate 0 Separated < 10 metres 0 30 30 10-30 metres 0 10 10 Separated < 10 metres 0 30 10-30 metres 0 5 5 Ladder Fuels Absent 10-30 metres 0 56 Hazard Level Structure and Site Hazard Assessment Form Total Score Structure and Site Hazard Level Continuous 30 30 Abundant 10 6 Single Pane < 10 metres from structure 6 Inadequate 6 Characteristics and Point Rating Unrated Wood Shakes 30 Clogged gutter, combustible material > 1 cm in depth Combustible material, sheathed in 1 Closed eaves, vents not screened with 3 mm mesh 1 Log, heavy timbers 2 Scattered combustible material, < 1 cm depth 3 Wood or vinyl siding or wood shake 6 Open eaves, vents not screened, debris accumulation 6 Low < 21 Moderate 21-29 High 30-35 Extreme > 35 0 0 6 5 Coniferous Mixed wood 30 10 Wild Grass or shrubs 30 5 Scattered 5 Surface Vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lawn or non-combustible material Continuous 30 30 Dead and down woody material Deciduous Location of nearby combustibles Combustible material, not sheathed in Forested Vegetation (overstory) Roofing Material Roof cleanliness Building exterior Eave, vents and openings Balcony, deck, or porch Double Pane Small/ Medium 2 2 Setback from edge of slope TemperedWindow and door glazing Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 16 5.1.6 HEAT AND FLAME SOURCES The most likely source of fires in this area comes from human ignition. Probability of ignition is greatest where human use and activity is highest and there are ignitable fuels. In this case, the trails (horse, walking, access roads) and the homes (BBQ or structure fire spreading into the nearby forested area) pose the greatest threat of ignition. Naturally sparked wildfires (lightning) account for only 10 – 15% of the wildfires in the Maple Ridge area (years 1950 – 1999).6 5.1.7 ACCESS/ EGRESS Roads (access and egress) for Nelson Peaks have been engineered; access to and from the Nelson Peaks development (including Phase 3) will be via Nelson Peak Road from 136th Avenue. Nelson Peaks Road will split into three separate loops (Entrance Loop, Lower West Loop, Nelson Court, and Upper East Loop). Ultimately, access and egress will be limited to the Nelson Peak Road to the north. The loops are sufficiently engineered for fire truck access. Additional emergency access, designed to accommodate City fire trucks, is available. Emergency access running between Lots 48 – 49 connects Nelson Peaks to neighbouring development Hampstead at Silver Ridge. A second emergency access off Nelson Court is planned to connect to 136 th Avenue, although this connection will not be completed until such time that the Future Wong Subdivision is developed. Access, as planned, meets the guidance provided by the NFPA.7 5.1.8 WATER AVAILABILITY AND SUPPRESSION DISTANCE There are two fire hydrants planned for Phase 3; Nelson Peaks subdivision has five hydrants in total planned. One hydrant is strategically located at the top of Phase 3, Nelson Court and Upper East Loop. Additional water is available on the property in the southeast corner, in the form of surface water (ponds). The ponds have easy road access. The Nelson Peaks subdivision is 5 km from the closest Maple Ridge Fire Department Hall (Fire Hall #1). Silver Valley is experiencing extensive new development; an interface fire in the area may threaten hundreds of homes and overwhelm Maple Ridge Fire resources. Fire hydrants must be fully functional prior to construction above the foundation level. 6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS FUELS For the purpose of this report and the Maple Ridge development permit bylaw, hazardous fuels are considered to be C2, C3, and C4 fuel types within the Canadian FBP system. 6 B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. 2007. City of Maple Ridge Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 7 NFPA 1141. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 17 Currently, there are no significant-sized high hazard fuels within the PZ 1 and 2 of Phase 3. There are small pockets of C3 fuel types in the following locations, on which minor fuel management/fire mitigation actions are recommended (Map 2): x Directly behind (south of) lots 54 – 58, and x Within 10 m of the forested lower trail (along south property line). The closest significant hazardous fuel complex is C3 fuels along Foreman Drive, approximately 395 m from the closest lot in Phase 3 and 270 m from the northern edge of the Nelson Peaks development. 6.1 SPOTTING RISKS The Nelson Peaks development is within the recognized 2 km spotting distance from significant hazardous fuels; spotting is a wildfire threat to the Nelson Peaks subdivision. Spotting is the process by which embers are carried aloft by thermal air currents from a fire front which then ignite flammable material beyond the advancing fire. Embers, or fire brands, have ignited structures up to 2 km beyond the fire front, though the maximum spotting distance in any particular fire depends on a variety of factors including fire intensity (heat), wind speed, fuel type, size of ember, and speed of ember burn.8 Spotting may ignite house fires beyond the fire front or after a fire has passed. Roofing, including eaves, soffits, and associated venting, is the most vulnerable part of a structure to ignition from fire brands. There are two main ways to mitigate fire before an event: reduce vegetation and fuels surrounding structures and reduce the structure’s ignitability. Mitigation techniques, such as building materials and design, choosing FireSmart landscaping, and maintaining homes in a low hazard state, can lessen the severity of the outcome of a fire. 7.0 SETBACKS All lots in Phase 3 are on the upper slope and directly exposed to a forested edge. FireSmart recommends that buildings are setback from the forested edge by 10 m (or 32 ft). All lots in Phase 3 are directly adjacent to a forested edge on one or two sides. Setbacks from the top of slope and forested edge are between 6 – 8 m. In order to mitigate the fire hazard posed by the proximity of structures to a forested slope, structures and parcels must follow recommendations as set out in the following sections: x construction design and materials must meet recommendations (section 8.0); x landscaping (section 9.1.1); x fuels management/ modification (section 11.0); and, 8 National Fire Protection Association. FireWise. 2011. http://learningcenter.firewise.org/Firefighter-Safety/1-11.php. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 18 x maintenance of property (section 12.2). Mitigative actions, as described above, are recommended to bring the development within an acceptable range of risk. 8.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION The City has provided detailed guidance regarding minimum building construction requirements for buildings constructed within the City’s Wildfire Development Permit Area (Appendix B). In this case, it has been recognized that Phase 3 is subject to the WFDP requirements, whereas Phase 1 and Phase 2 were not, therefore consistency between phases has been a concern for the developer. To that end, the building construction recommendations in this section are based upon materials proposed by the developer. Some of the building materials outlined as acceptable in this document are outside the original guidelines provided by the City (Appendix B), but have been accepted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, The City of Maple Ridge, as alternative products and applications for this development. It is the responsibility of the developer to provide evidence and documentation of all building practices which may not be readily visible at the time of post-development inspection. Documentation may include, but not be limited to: photographic evidence of installation, technical specifications of products used to confirm fire rating, receipts of product purchase, or elevation drawings with surface area percentage calculations (for combustible trim). ROOFING Roof coverings must meet Class A or B fire resistance rating, as defined in the current BC Building Code. Examples of acceptable roof coverings include, but are not limited to: asphalt shingles, metal, slate, and clay tile. Wood shake and shingle roofs are not acceptable. EXTERIOR CLADDING AND EAVES All elevations exposed to forested edge will be of vinyl siding over HomeGuard Building Wrap. Technical specifications for HomeGuard Building Wrap are in Appendix C. Given the importance of aesthetic consistency between the Phases, this has been approved by the City and is deemed acceptable material selection for all vertical faces currently exposed to a forested/ interface edge. The elevations where this is applicable are found in Table 2, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no direct exposure to an interface/ forested edge. Decorative features, such as fascia, trim board materials and trim accents in wood are acceptable. Decorative features should not make up more than 10% of the total surface area per side. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 19 Table 2. Elevations/ sides eligible for HomeGuard Wrap under vinyl siding. Lot Number(s) Side(s) exposed to forested edge Approved exterior cladding/ building materials 54 East and south (side and rear) Vinyl over HomeGuard 55 - 57 Southwest (rear) Vinyl over HomeGuard 58 Southwest and north (side and rear) Vinyl over HomeGuard 59 Southwest and south (side and rear) Vinyl over HomeGuard 60 – 68, 77 West (rear) Vinyl over HomeGuard 69 North and east (side and rear) Vinyl over HomeGuard 70 - 74 East (rear) Vinyl over HomeGuard 75, 78 West and south (rear and side) Vinyl over HomeGuard 76 West and north (rear and side) Vinyl over HomeGuard SOFFITS Soffits must be non-combustible or made of ignition resistant materials. This requirement applies to all elevations of the home. Perforated, aluminium soffits are a City-approved material for this development.9 EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS It is recommended that exterior windows, glass doors (such as patio-sliders), windows within exterior doors and skylights must be: tempered glass, have multi-layer glazing (double or triple glazed), be of glass block, be multi- paned, or have a fire protection rating of 20 minutes. Double-glazed windows and sliding-glass doors are acceptable.10 Window screens, if provided in the build, must be non-combustible. OVERHANGING PROJECTIONS Decks shall be Deksmart 6 mm vinyl decking installed on rated plywood (D Blaze Plywood) (Technical specifications for both can be found in Appendix D and Appendix E). 9 Personal communication, Michael VanDop, Assistant Fire Chief, January 19, 2016. 10 Personal communication (email), Michael VanDop, Assistant Fire Chief, January 29, 2016. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 20 The underfloor of all exposed floors (i.e. the underside of balconies, decks, open roof, patio, crawlspaces, etc) must be enclosed or sheathed in to prevent locations where embers can accumulate in the event of a wildfire (Figure 6). Perforated aluminium is a City-approved material for this application.10 VENT AND VENT LOCATIONS Vent openings (intake or exhaust) that are attached to non-combustible ducting system may be plastic with plastic mesh and automatic backdraft dampers.11 Exceptions include furnace and gas hot water tank vents which require unrestricted air flow to function as designed and will not be screened with mesh.10 Additionally, dryer exhaust vents must be equipped with a damper; mesh is not required. Vents that open into insulated attic space are of particular concern. Any exhaust or intake vents that open into attic spaces must resist ember intrusion with non-combustible wire mesh no larger than 3 mm. Vents that are attached to combustible duct system must be non-combustible and resist ember intrusion with non-combustible wire mesh no larger than 3 mm. CHIMNEYS AND WOOD BURNING APPLIANCES Spark arrestors are required on all wood burning appliances. Spark arrestors should cover the chimney or stovepipe outlets with a non-combustible metal screen material with openings between 3/8” and ½” to prevent embers from escaping and igniting a wildfire.12 GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS AND CONNECTORS Gutters, downspouts, and connectors should be viewed as a location of potential combustible material accumulation. Homeowners should maintain their gutters in a fuel free state by removing accumulations from gutters and crevices annually (or more often, as needed) (See section 12.2). 11 Personal communication, Michael VanDop, City of Maple Ridge, 10 February, 2016. 12 http://www.readyforwildfire.org/hardening_your_home. Cal Fire. Accessed 18 Jan 2016. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 21 Figure 6. Typical decking planned for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Nelson Peaks. Phase 3 decking should be sheathed- in to reduce locations where embers can collect. Perforated aluminum is an acceptable sheathing material. 9.0 LANDSCAPING PZ 1 includes the entirety of all parcels in Phase 3 and landscaping should be completed accordingly. It is noted that lots 54 - 55 and 69 – 75 have no-build/no-disturb covenants attached which limit the development, landscaping and use of small portions towards the rear of these lots. 9.1.1 LANDSCAPING/ VEGETATION The recommendations in this section apply to landscaping within the PZ 1 (within 10 m) from the structure. Within PZ 1, landscaping choices must be limited to plant species with low flammability. Plants should be chosen that are suitable for the region (Maple Ridge is in the USDA Hardiness Zone 8b) and the location in the landscape in order to have a low maintenance, healthy landscape with high foliar moisture content. Plants with similar needs (soil nutrients and watering regime) should be planted in groupings to minimize maintenance. Exposed joists. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 22 In order to reduce maintenance and maintain a healthy, low flammability landscape, the following attributes should be considered when choosing plants: drought and pest resistance, native, non-invasive, slow-growing, wind resistance, and ability to thrive without supplemental fertilization.13 Plants that are fire resistant/have low flammability generally have the following characteristics: x Foliage with high moisture content (moist and supple), x Drought tolerant, x Open or loose branching habits, x Little dead wood and do not tend to accumulate dry and dead foliage or woody materials, and x Sap that is water-like and without a strong odour.3 There are a number of broadleaved deciduous and evergreen plants with low flammability which can be used for landscaping within FireSmart PZ 1 (within 10 m of structures). Hedge and shrub examples which thrive in Zone 8 and are low flammability include, but are not limited to: cotoneaster, mock orange, oceanspray, red flowering currant, Saskatoon berry, snowberry, salal, California lilac, glossy abelia and boxwood. Tree examples include: maples, magnolias, honey locusts, acacias, dogwoods and viburnums. High flammability plants should be avoided. Typical characteristics of high flammability plants include: volatile resins, oils, or waxes that are aromatic when crushed; narrow leaves or needles; waxy or fuzzy leaves; plants that tend to accumulate fine, twiggy, dead or dry materials on the plant or on the ground surrounding the plant; and loose, papery, or thick bark. Trees in Zone 1 should be planted such that, considering mature crown size, crown spacing of 5.5 m (18 ft) is maintained in order to reduce radiant heat below the level of where ignition of wood occurs.14 Additionally, trees should be planted a minimum of 3 m from house foundations to minimize root incursion into, and damage of, drainage systems. Coniferous vegetation such as juniper, cypress, yew, pine, or cedar hedging or shrubs must not be planted within Zone 1 (10 m zone) as these species are considered highly flammable under extreme fire hazard conditions. Other helpful links for finding fire resistant landscaping options can be found at: x http://www.wacdpmc.org/images/Fire-Resistant-Plants.pdf 15 13 NFPA 1144. 14 NFPA 1144. 15 Washington Association of Conservation Districts Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 23 x http://www.firefree.org/images/uploads/FIR_FireResPlants_07.pdf 16 x https://www.firesmartcanada.ca/resources-library/firesmart-guide-to-landscaping 17 Grass, shrubs, and herbs must be maintained in a state that reduces fire hazard by maintaining foliar moisture content. This can be accomplished by: x Choosing plant species that are well-adapted to the site (microclimate and soil conditions of the parcel); x Incorporating a landscape design where shrubs, herbs, and grasses are planted in discrete units manageable by hand watering; and/or; x Installing irrigation. It would be incorrect to completely depend on irrigation to maintain landscaped plants in a low hazard state. For example, irrigation may actually increase a parcel’s fire hazard, particularly when times of drought and watering restrictions limit their use, similar to what has occurred in the summer of 2015. Lack of irrigation in times of watering restrictions may create a landscape which is unhealthy, unsightly, as well as dead, dry, and highly flammable. This means that under droughty conditions and/or water restrictions homeowners must annually remove dead plant material (leaves, woody fuels, etc.); not allowing accumulations to build-up on site. 10.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 10.1.1 HEAT AND FLAME SOURCES Placement of combustible materials such as firewood or wooden structures (sheds, storage or other outbuildings) must be a minimum of 5 m from the primary building (including neighbouring houses). This will limit the potential for these materials to be ignited and spread fire to an adjacent building. As per Corporation of the City of Maple Ridge By-Law 5535-1997, no recreational fires are permitted within 15 m of any building or structure. Additionally, a legal adult must at all times supervise the fire with a connected water hose and shovel present until extinguished. Construction of fire pits or other outdoor burning devices fueled by materials other than propane, natural gas, or briquettes are not permitted. 10.1.2 DETACHED SECONDARY STRUCTURES Detached secondary structures/ accessory buildings must meet the same building standards as the principal residence, or in the case of small wooden or combustible sheds, must be a minimum of 5 m from the main residence and any neighbouring residences. 16 A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication: Oregon State University, Washington State University, University of Idaho. August 2006. 17 FireSmart Canada. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 24 10.1.3 VEHICLULAR PARKING Vehicle parking will be available within 30 feet of the structures in Phase 3; each lot has parking available for 4 cars. Parking surfaces will be paved or gravel (non-combustible). Parking of vehicles should not be allowed on any combustible surface, such as cured grass or other dry fuels that are easily ignitable. 11.0 FUELS MANAGEMENT The following fuels management strategies should be carried out in the locations, as displayed on Map 2. The fuel management strategies have been prescribed in order to: reduce the ladder fuels in strategic areas; reduce understorey conifers which act as ladder fuels, raise the crown base height of retained trees; maximise retention of live, healthy deciduous and conifer trees to maintain a cool, dark, and moist understorey microclimate; and reduce surface fuel loading to reduce the risk of and behaviour of surface fire. Recommended fuel management activities target PZ 1 and 2 (within 30 m from the proposed home locations). Due to minimal setbacks (6 – 8 m from forests), sloping terrain, probability of ignition, and vegetation type, fuel management is proposed in one location of PZ 3. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 25 Map 2. Fire mitigation (treatment) areas (green striped) for Nelson Peaks development. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 26 Mitigation actions (also known as fuel treatment) are detailed by numbered treatment area. Treatment area #1 actions should include: x Removal of understorey coniferous trees (western redcedars, Douglas-firs, and western hemlocks) with a diameter of less than 15 cm at breast height (1.3 m) (DBH). Stumps should be cut as low to the ground as possible (<10 cm) and at a low angle (<10 degrees). Retain stumps and rooting systems in place. x Prune retained conifer trees to a height of 2 m (measured from lowest point on branch to the ground). x Removal of all prunings, slash, foliage, and biomass created from the fuel management actions recommended above. Coarse woody debris (logs with diameter greater than 12 cm) can be retained on site, but branches must be limbed and removed, if still attached. Coarse woody debris should be bucked in minimum lengths of 3 m and should lay flat to the ground along the majority of the length. All woody debris less than 12 cm in diameter and resulting from treatment actions, as recommended above, should be removed off-site. Treatment area #1 is within 10 m of property lines and within 10 m of the forested edge north of the horse trail (Map 2). This area was identified for fuel management due to probability of ignition (adjacent to high-use area), location at toe of slope, steep sloping terrain up to proposed home locations, aspect, hazardous fuel type, and minimal setbacks. More specifically, x The homes upslope from the treatment area are top of slope of a steep, south facing slope with C3 (hazardous) fuel types intermixed with M2 fuel types. o The lot locations are top of slope; a fire starting at the bottom of the slope is most likely to travel up slope to the homes above. o South facing slopes receive more sunlight throughout the fire season and generally have drier fuels (lower moisture content) from long days of exposure to direct sunlight. o Treating the C3 fuels on the slope will allow the slope, as a whole, to consistently to pose a lower hazard to the homes above: to be an environment that would support low intensity fires with slow rates of spread. This is achieved by reducing the overall fuel load and by reducing the continuity of flammable fuels. x The majority of the C3 fuel type was in the two highest risk locations: directly adjacent to the property edge (within 6 - 8 m of proposed home locations), and directly adjacent to the multi-use trail at the bottom of the slope. o They are at higher probability of ignition; the greatest chance of ignition of the forested slope is from either a house fire (such as BBQ fire or structure fire) or human ignition along the multi-use trail (juvenile fire-setters, carelessly discarded cigarettes, fireworks, etc). Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 27 Treatment area #2 actions should include: x Removal of invasive species (scotch broom). It is recommended scotch broom be removed, with careful off-site disposal at approved green-waste or incineration facilities to ensure that cuttings do not contribute to vegetative reproduction. x Landscaping, as detailed in Section 11.1 and 9.1.1. Treatment area #2 is within 10 m of the landscaped section of north park (Map 2). Treatment area #2 was identified for fuel management due to its hazardous fuel type (scotch broom). Additionally, complete removal of scotch broom will reduce the chance of continued spread into adjacent forests. Scotch broom is highly invasive and, if left unchecked, will spread to adjacent areas and outcompete native vegetation, increasing the area of hazardous fuel and impacting forest health. Treatment area #3 actions should include: x Prune retained conifer trees to a height of 2 m (measured from lowest point on branch, usually the branch tip, to the ground); pruning must maintain a minimum of 40% of the current live crown to maintain tree health. Treatment area #3 is within 10 m of the proposed buildings on lots 76 – 78 (Map 2). Treatment area #4 actions should include: x Woody fuel accumulations should be removed. Coarse woody debris (logs with diameter greater than 12 cm) can be retained on site, but branches must be limbed and removed, if still attached. Treatment area #4 is within 10 m of the property lines, lots 69 – 78 (Map 2). Due to sloping terrain, minimal setbacks (6 – 8 m), and hazardous fuel accumulations with the potential to support higher intensity fires during times of high or extreme fire danger, it is recommended that fuel treatment extend into PZ 2. GENERAL FUEL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Trees removed from the slope should remain as stumps with rooting system remaining intact. Although transpiration associated with the tree will be lost upon removal, their rooting system will provide a degree of slope stabilization and help to reduce surface erosion in the short term, until the roots begin to decay and there is Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 28 a gradual loss of root reinforcement (Brown and Sheu 1975).18 Additionally, retaining the rooting system will reduce the amount of soil disturbance associated with removals. Work should be avoided during the breeding bird season. Breeding bird season is generally between March 31st and September 15th on the south coast of BC, but if there is bird activity detected in the tree, a biologist should be consulted prior to removal. All work activities must comply with the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) and the Migratory Birds Regulation (1994) that protects migratory birds, their eggs and nests, as well as the provincially legislated Wildlife Act. Both the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Wildlife Act apply on private land. Proper arboricultural practices must be employed and follow ANSI A300 standards (American National Standards for Pruning) to ensure damage to the trees is limited, and all tree climbing must be spurless. Pruning must retain at a minimum 40% of the current live crown. Live crown percentage refers to the amount of live crown that must be retained on the tree. Assessment of this is calculated by taking the length of the live crown (measured from the top down to where pruning has removed all branches) divided by the height of the tree. It should be noted that the amount of crown to be removed by pruning exceeds ANSI standards for some trees. This exception has been made to allow for sufficient material to be removed from the crowns to create sufficient separation between the proposed structure and the trees. It is not anticipated that this will result in tree mortality, though tree growth is anticipated to decrease for several years after pruning occurs. 11.1 GREEN SPACES TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE CITY The majority of the parks to be handed over to the City will be maintained in their existing state of native vegetation. Fuels management in small portions of these parks is recommended and discussed in detail in section 11.0. The landscaped portions of the green spaces to be handed over to the City should generally follow the same guidelines as set out in section 9.1.1. In these areas, judicious plantings of coniferous trees are acceptable. Conifer trees should be planted taking into consideration mature crown size and with spacing such that mature crowns will have a minimum separation of 2 m (~6 ft). 11.2 WOODY MATERIAL DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Combustible construction materials must not remain on site and must be hauled away for off-site disposal immediately after construction is complete. Woody biomass accumulation either from landscape maintenance, fuels management, and/or park maintenance (trees, shrubs, branches, needles, dead twigs, etc.) must also be removed on a regular basis. This material can be brought to the Maple Ridge Garbage Transfer station and will likely incur a fee 19. There is also a spring and fall 18 Brown, C.B., and Sheu, M.S. 1975. Effects of deforestation on slopes: Jour. Geotech. Eng. Div., American Society of Civil Engineering, v.101, p. 147 – 165. 19 http://rmrecycling.org/recycling-pickup/garbage-disposal-in-maple-ridge/maple-ridge-garbage-transfer-station Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 29 brush chipping program made available by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society where residents simply place branches at the roadside adjacent to property at a predetermined set-out date for the area20. 12.0 MAINTENANCE 12.1 PARK MAINTENANCE It is recognized that fuel management recommended in the natural parks area will achieve fire mitigation objectives over a period of 10 – 15 years. After this time it is expected that understorey regeneration may create ladder fuels that are likely to increase the crown fire hazard. Maintenance required at this time will likely involve understorey thinning; brushing and removal of flammable vegetation; pruning of lower branches; and surface fuel disposal. Regular monitoring of understorey regeneration (both coniferous and flammable deciduous and evergreen vegetation) leading to laddering is recommended. A walk-through by a qualified professional to assess hazards is recommended every 8 – 10 years. Maintenance of those areas planted should be regularly undertaken. Plantings should, theoretically, be such that they thrive on the site with very little maintenance. A certain amount of mortality, particularly for new plantings, is to be expected. Dead/dying and dry plants/trees should be removed and not allowed to accumulate on the site, standing or fallen. 12.2 INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE To ensure that a low fire hazard rating is maintained for Phase 3 Nelson Peaks, all landscaping must be properly maintained in low hazard conditions as described in Section 9.1.1 Landscaping/ Vegetation. This may require periodic maintenance including future limbing/ pruning of adjacent conifers. The roof and gutters should be kept clean of debris from conifers to reduce the potential for spotting to ignite these materials during a wildfire event. Conifer foliage should not be allowed to accumulate in gutters. 13.0 CONCLUSIONS Construction material guidance issued by the City was used in part to formulate the construction materials recommendations. In order to minimize the risk of ignition from spotting (fire resistant roofing, ventilation screening, limiting ventilation locations, FireSmart landscaping) are proposed. Fuel treatment within 10 m of property lines and 10 m from areas of higher human use and probability of ignition (horse trail) are to reduce fuel continuity (reduce ladder fuels), such that should an ignition occur, the fire would not be able to climb into the crown and would remain a surface fire. Meeting the recommendations in this report will ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the applicable Development Permit Guidelines, as provided by the City. Maintaining the property in the described 20 http://rmrecycling.org/community/environmental-programs/spring-fall-brush-chipping-program Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 30 manner will reduce the overall fire hazard risk for Phase 3 of Nelson Peaks. The implementation of these measures does not guarantee that the property or structures are safe from wildfire, only that the risk level of the property is within acceptable standards, and that fire hazards have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures outlineĚ͘ 14.0 LIMITATIONS This Fire Hazard Assessment is based on site observations noted on the dates specified only. The project forester has endeavored to use her skill, education and knowledge to provide accurate representation. Every effort has been made to ensure that the opinions expressed are an accurate assessment of the condition of the construction, site, and landscaping information provided by the client. It is the developer’s responsibility to maintain the development and the trees in a reasonable standard and to carry out the mitigation measures stated in this report. Adjustments, assumptions, and the conclusions drawn in this report are based on the professional experience of Tove Pashkowski, RPF, ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor and Bruce Blackwell, MSc, RPF of B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd (the ‘Consultant’). The opinions expressed below are also based on written and verbal information supplied in part by other parties. Tree treatments such as pruning, topping, protection or removal could potentially involve issues beyond the breadth of the Consultant’s services including: improperly marked private land boundaries, ownership, neighbourly disputes and other considerations. The Consultant cannot accept responsibility for any issues or events that have arisen since the date of the inspection and the date the report was written. The Consultant accepts that the report represents professional judgment and that the Consultant’s responsibilities are limited to the content of this report. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 31 SIGN-OFF Project Forester: Tove Pashkowski, RPF Feb Ϯϰ, 2016 Reviewing Forester: Bruce Blackwell, RPF Feb Ϯϰ, 2016 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 32 15.0 APPENDIX A – FUEL TYPES The fuel types considered hazardous in terms of dangerous fire behaviour and spotting (lofting burning embers) are C2, C4 and C3. Fuel type M2 can sometimes be hazardous depending on the proportion of coniferous trees in the stand, and time of year. M2, D1, C3, and O1b fuel types were identified in the structure ignition zone of Phase 3 Nelson Peaks. Fuel types are summarized below.- C2 Fuel Type This fuel type structure classification was regeneration to pole sapling stands (10 – 25 years old), with more than 80% of the tree species coniferous type (Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western redcedar). These plantations can be mixed specie or single species. This fuel type has high associated fire behaviour, with moderate burn difficulty (if fire is wind driven then there is a high potential for extreme fire behaviour and active crown fire). This fuel type is characterized by continuous crown and ladder fuels and supports crown fires. Surface fuel loading and understory vegetation are low, with high crown closure (>75%). Suppression in C2 types is difficult given the high fire intensity (intensity is a measure of fire energy released). Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 33 C3 Fuel Type C3 is comprised of fully stocked, mixed species, young to mature forests (40 – 80 years) with few ladder fuels but generally high crown connectivity. The dominant species include western redcedar, western hemlock, and Douglas-fir, and tree species type is generally more than 80% coniferous. Crown closure can vary (40 – 100%), and surface fuel loading is generally low to moderate, with low to moderate understorey vegetation (depending on crown closure). This fuel type generally supports surface and crown fires, with a moderate burn difficulty; however, if fire is wind driven then there is a high potential for extreme fire behaviour and an active crown fire. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 34 C4 Fuel Type C4 is comprised of young forest (20 – 40 years) with moderate to high ladder fuels and moderate to high crown closure (40 – 80%). The dominant tree species include Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western redcedar, and tree species type is generally more than 80% coniferous. Surface fuel loading is moderate, with low to moderate understorey vegetation (depending on crown closure). These stands are generally mixed conifers, dense and almost always support surface and crown fire. Fire suppression in this fuel type can be extremely difficult. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 35 C5 Fuel Type C5 is characterized by mature (>80 years) Douglas-fir, western redcedar and western hemlock, and stands are predominantly of coniferous type (>80%). This fuel type is characterized by mature, well-spaced stands, with low to moderately dense understoreys. Tree crowns are well-separated from the ground. Crown fires are possible but are generally wind driven due the gappy nature of the canopy. Fire suppression efforts in this fuel type are heavily dependent upon topography and weather conditions. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 36 D1 Fuel Type D1 fuel types have been classified in this study as having more than 80% deciduous and the dominant tree species were red alder and bigleaf maple. The stands were pole sapling to mature (> 20 years), moderately well-stocked, with leaves, had high understorey vegetation with variable crown closure. Additionally, surface fuel loading was low to moderate and these stands generally have a high burn difficulty (difficult to burn). Fires that do occur in D1 fuel types are always low intensity surface fires. Stands with less than 10% conifer type are considered fuel breaks and do not require treatment. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 37 M2 Fuel Type M2 fuel types were typed as moderately well-stocked with mixed conifer and deciduous (no more than 80% conifer or deciduous), pole sapling to mature forest (>20 years), and with a variable understorey vegetation. Surface fuel loading is generally low to moderate with variable crown closure (40 – 100%) and a moderate burn difficulty. M2 stands under high fire danger can experience surface, torching and crowning, depending on the species composition. If deciduous composition is high, these stands can be considered fuel breaks. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 38 O1 Fuel Types O1b fuels (standing grass) are characterized by continuous, tall grasses and shrubs, and usually support rapid spreading, moderate intensity surface fire under high fire danger. Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 39 16.0 APPENDIX B – CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 40 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 41 17.0 APPENDIX C – HOMEGUARD DATA SHEET Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 42 18.0 APPENDIX D – DEKSMART FIRE RATING TEST REPORT Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 43 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 44 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 45 19.0 APPENDIX E – D-BLAZE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 46 Nelson Peak Wildfire Hazard Assessment - Amended City of Maple Ridge 47 ´AUG 12, 2014MAP 1: WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREACORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFPLANNING DEPARTMENTCity ofPitt MeadowsDistrict of MissionFraser RiverWhonnockWhonnockCrDEWDNEY TRUNK RD240 ST248 ST252 ST256 ST112 AVE104 AVE124 AVE100 AVE102 AVEGRANT AVE256 ST272 ST276 ST280 ST104 AVE108 AVE96 AVE264 ST112 AVEMCNUTT RD264 ST124 AVE128 AVE128 AVE130 AVEALOUETTE RD132 AVE136 AVE132 AVE216 STABERNETHY WAY232 STCEDAR WAYPARK LANELOUGHEED HWY216 STLakeKanakaCreekN o rt h AlouetteRiverA louetteRiver116 AVE277 STBELL AVE268 STFERGUSONAVE116 AVEMARC RD224 STLAITY ST110 AVE144 AVEAdopted Feb. 11, 2014Bylaw No. 7060-2014MAPLE RIDGEWILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREANot To ScaleAPPENDIX E City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: ITT-OP16-08 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Contract Award: Pavement Rehabilitation Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As part of Council’s commitment to infrastructure renewal and replacement, the backlog of roads requiring pavement rehabilitation continues to be addressed. The annual rehabilitation program has been well received by the public. This year’s program combines 2016 allocated funds from the approved capital and operating budgets, including TransLink funding, for a total investment of approximately $2million in road resurfacing and associated works this year. RECOMMENDATION(S): That the contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program be awarded to BA Black Top Limited, and that the City of Maple Ridge enter into a contract for Pavement Rehabilitation in the amount of $1,824,314.10 including GST and further that additional work locations may be added under extra work provisions in the contract up to 25% of the value of the Contract ($456,078.05 including GST), and further, that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: A public invitation for Prequalification was conducted in 2016. Following a detailed assessment of 6 submissions two contractors met prequalification criteria, both submitted bids on the Pavement Rehabilitation work. An evaluation was done by the City of Maple Ridge with technical assistance on prequalification criteria from Aplin and Martin Consulting Engineers. It was determined that BA Blacktop Ltd. provides best value to the City of Maple Ridge. This contract has multi year extension provisions. The tender results are as follows: BA Blacktop Ltd. = $1,737,442.09 Winvan Paving Ltd. = $ 1,980,745.77 b)Financial Implications: The funding for this work is approved within the Financial Plan and is within budget. This is a unit price contract and as such a 25% extra work provision has been added for potential additional works within the approved budget envelopes. The City’s Purchasing Policy requires that the potential to add additional works be identified to Council at the time of award. Applying these funding allocations to specific road surfacing projects will enable fifteen roads in Maple Ridge to be resurfaced this year. Additional locations are prioritized and will be added as budget allows. This is a unit price contract and as such a 25% extension provision has been added for additional works within the approved budget envelopes. 1109 Planned Locations: The following locations are anticipated in the 2016 program: 1) 224th Street - 12300 Block to Abernethy Way 2)207th Street - Dewdney Trunk Road to Lougheed Highway 3)207th Street – Lougheed Highway to Westfield Avenue 4)River Road – Carshill Street to River Bend 5)Dewdney Trunk Road – 240th Street to 248th Street 6)ewdney Trunk Road – 207th Street to 203rd Street D 7)Grant Avenue – 260th Avenue to 108th Avenue 8)Laity Street – Dewdney Trunk Road to 123rd Avenue 9)Burnett Street – 116th Avenue to Lougheed Highway 10)260th Street – Grant Avenue to 112th Avenue 11)Dewdney Trunk Road – 227th Street to 230th Street 12) 112th Avenue – 252nd Street to Palmer Rolph Street 13) 256th Street – 116th Avenue to Dewdney Trunk Road 14) 132nd Avenue and 210th Street – Neaves Road to Golden Ears Way 15) 246th Street – Dewdney Trunk Road to South END Future Works: This is a unit price contract and as such may be extended to rehabilitate additional road surfaces depending on weather, time commitment, preparation and budget. Contract provisions allow the extension of this contract for up to 5 years by mutual agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended contract award continues Council’s commitment to infrastructure renewal and replacement. Award of the contract would see the work completed through the spring and summer of 2016. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Russ Carmichael, AScT, Eng.L Director of Engineering Operations _______________________________________________ Reviewed by: Trevor Thompson Manager Financial Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng General Manager, Public Works and Development Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer "Original signed by Russ Carmichael" "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" "Original signed by Frank Quinn" "Original signed by E.C. Swabey" City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Joint Leisure Services Agreement –Joint Field and Arena Allocation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the Joint Leisure Services Transition Plan report dated January 18, 2016, staff recommended a report be brought back to Council on the implications associated with continuing joint allocation of sport fields and subsidized use of arenas. Council also directed staff to ensure the two communities work together to ensure a seamless transition for the benefit of citizens that access sport and recreation resources. RECOMMENDATION(S): That staff be directed to enter into discussions with the City of Pitt Meadows to establish a contractual arrangement for the City of Maple Ridge to conduct sport field and arena allocations for the City of Pitt Meadows. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: On October 31, 2016 the Joint Leisure Services agreement between the City of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows will conclude and following that date each community will deliver parks and recreation services separately to their citizens. In the Joint Leisure Services Transition Plan report dated January 18, 2016, staff have been tasked with the development of an efficient joint process for future arena and sports field allocation. Currently the Parks and Leisure Services Commission manage the allocation process and enter into rental agreements with community user groups and individuals for the use of recreation facilities, ice arenas, community halls and sports fields, and provide subsidized rates for local non-profit users. Under the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Agreement, allocation of sport fields and arenas is a coordinated process using facilities in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Likewise, local sport organizations that use these facilities are cross jurisdictional with membership from both communities. The current joint allocation process provides a framework to ensure local sport organizations receive fair and equitable allocation of fields, dry floor and ice surfaces in compliance with Commission and City policies. User hours are allocated based on venue availability, appropriate use and the number of members who belong to each organization. 1151 The work associated with the allocation process begins months before each individual sports season and involves many hours of staff time to allocate user hours, generate schedules, lead user group meetings and coordinate requested changes to each schedule. In 2015 staff allocated fields and arenas for over 23 user groups representing over 10,000 participants of all ages - see table #1. Table #1 – Field and Arena Users + Membership Sport Organizations Membership Ridge Meadows Minor Hockey 1035 Meadow Ridge Female Hockey 95 Hockey - Flames 22 Ridge Meadows Ringette 58 Maple Ridge Figure Skating 130 Ridge Meadows Minor Lacrosse 656 Ridge Meadows Field Lacrosse 247 Intermediate Lacrosse 75 Lacrosse - Burrard’s 25 Ridge Meadows Minor Ball Hockey 968 West Coast Soccer 3609 Albion Soccer 451 Independent Soccer 55 Meadow Ridge Football Association 340 Ridge Meadows Minor Baseball 695 Independent Baseball 52 Ridge Meadows Minor Softball 828 Golden Ears Athletic Club – Track and Field 80 Ridge Meadows Special Olympics 28 Maple Ridge Archery Club 20 Ridge Meadows Rugby 83 Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Slow Pitch 912 Ultimate Frisbee 106 Total participants 10,570 + coaches and volunteers In 2015 the joint field and facility inventory consisted of more than 37 separate City and School District sites, most with multiple venues including ice sheets, dry floors, ball diamonds and soccer fields. The total number of hours allocated at these venues is 46,940 hours; 31,592 hours (67.30%) in Maple Ridge and 15,348 hours (32.70%) in Pitt Meadows – see table #2. Table #2 – Field and Arena Users + Allocation - Maple Ridge Facilities and Fields Allocated – Maple Ridge Hours Allocated Planet Ice– 2 ice sheets + dry floor 2,330 Golden Ears Winter Club – dry floor 631 Albion Sports Complex 8,702 Hammond Stadium 2,065 Telosky/Tomas Haney 1,457 Senior Secondary Schools x 4 5,678 Elementary Schools x 13 6,718 Parks x 6 4,011 Total Hours Allocated – Maple Ridge 31,592 Percent of Total Hours Allocated 67.30% Table #2 – Field and Arena Users + Allocation - Pitt Meadows Facilities and Fields Allocated – Pitt Meadows Hours Allocated Pitt Meadows Arena – 3 Ice sheets 2,049 Pitt Meadows Athletic Park 7,336 Harris Park 2,762 Pitt Meadows Senior Secondary 2,626 Elementary Schools x 4 568 Parks x 1 7 Total Hours Allocated – Pitt Meadows 15,348 Percent of Total Hours Allocated 32.70% Currently the sport field and arena allocation process is governed by the following Commission and City policies and budgets: 1. Arena and Dry Floor Allocation - P102 (attached); This policy provides a framework for regular users to receive equitable and fair allocation of subsidized ice and dry-floor time at Planet Ice Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows Arena and the Golden Ears Winter Club while taking into consideration appropriate use, availability, the number of eligible organizations and the size of each organization. 2. Seasonal Sports Field Allocation - P105 (attached); This policy provides a framework for regular users to receive equitable and fair allocation of City of Maple Ridge, City of Pitt Meadows and S.D. No. 42 sports fields while taking into consideration appropriate use, availability, the number of eligible organizations and the size of each organization. 3. City of Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fee’s Bylaw no. 7032-2013 Schedule “A” – Arena’s and Schedule “K” Sports fields (attached); This policy regulates and sets the fees charged for the use of recreation and community facilities and sports fields. 4. City of Pitt Meadows Recreation Facility Fee’s Bylaw no. 2619 -2013 Schedule “A” – Arena’s and Schedule “K” Sports fields (attached); This policy regulates and sets the fees charged for the use of recreation and community facilities and sports fields. Recently, staff consulted with field and arena user groups who all agreed that a coordinated approach to field and area allocation involving one contact person/agency is desirable. The sport field users identified consistency of field maintenance as a concern for them and recommended staff investigate the possibility of this being a joint service in tandem with the allocation process. The recommended approach is for the City of Maple Ridge to enter into a contracted arrangement with the City of Pitt Meadows to provide joint allocation of sport fields, arena ice and arena dry floor in compliance with the previously mentioned policies. b) Desired Outcome: To provide citizens of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows a seamless and consistent sport field and arena allocation process. c) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Any agreement would need to ensure a fair contribution that recovers the full costs associated with providing this service on behalf of the City of Pitt Meadows. d) Policy Implications: As listed, P102 and P105, City of Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fee’s Bylaw no. 7032- 2013 Schedule “A” and “K” and City of Pitt Meadows Recreation Facility Fee’s Bylaw no. 2619 -2013 Schedule “A” and “K” (attached). e) Alternatives: To conclude the joint allocation of fields and facilities function in tandem with the conclusion of the Joint Leisure Services agreement on October 31, 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended approach is for the City of Maple Ridge to enter into a contracted arrangement with the City of Pitt Meadows to allocate sport fields, arena ice and arena dry floor in compliance with the previously mentioned policies, in order to provide seamless, fair and accessible access to sport associations that serve both communities Any process established will address community sport associations concerns; that each community maintain a consistent field standard. “Original signed by Danielle Pope” for Prepared by: Don Cramb, Senior Recreation Manager “Original signed by Wendy McCormick” Approved by: Wendy McCormick, Director Recreation and Community Services “Original signed by Kelly Swift” Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development, Parks & Recreation Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: Policy #102: Arena & Dry Floor Allocation Policy #105 - Facility Allocation – Regular Use Reference: Fees and Charges Policy, Schedule “A” – Arena’s and Schedule “K” Sports Fields Title: ARENA ICE & DRY FLOOR ALLOCATION P102 Supercedes: DMR 4.02 Authority: Operational Effective Date: 2013-09-12 Approval: PLS Commission Review Date: 2013-09-12 Policy Statement: Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services will allocate available ice and dry-floor time to regular users in a fair and equitable manner that considers the number of eligible organizations, the size of each organization, and the type of use. PURPOSE: To ensure that available ice and dry-floor time is allocated to Regular Users in a fair and equitable manner, the following formula will be used when establishing allocations: 1. For organizations where the majority of registrations are local residents: a. Number of registrations per organization (based on the previous year), divided by the maximum number of participants per group equals the number of groups requiring ice or floor time for an organization. E.g. 300/15 = 20 groups. b. Number of groups requiring ice or floor time multiplied by hours allowed per group, equals the number of hours that will be allocated to an organization. E.g. 20 groups x one hour per week for skill development plus 20 groups x 45 minutes per week for competition = 35 hours per week. 2. For organizations where less than the majority of registrations are local residents the above formula will be followed, using the number of local resident registrations versus the total number of registrations for that organization. 3. If the total number of hours that groups are eligible for exceeds the number of hours available to allocate, the following step will be added to the formula. The number of hours that would ideally be allocated to each organization will be divided by the total number of hours that would ideally be allocated to all eligible organizations. This will provide the percent of available hours that POLICY MANUAL each organization is eligible for. E.g. 20 hours for Group ‘A’ divided 80 hours (for all groups) = 25%. Group ‘A’ will receive 25% of the hours available to allocate. When applying these formulas, Booking Staff retain some discretion to adjust allocations to best meet the needs of all user groups. In addition: 1. Ice and floor time will be allocated to minor sport organizations for both skill development and competition purposes, but will be allocated for competition purposes only to adult groups. 2. A minimum of 20 hours per week will be retained to offer parks and recreation programs such as public skating and skate lessons. 3. If ice or floor time remains available after the above requirements are met, it will be distributed as requested to current or new organizations based on the strength of the group’s registration numbers. 4. Groups can agree to exchange time when they receive approval from booking staff, who will add it to the regular schedule. Such exchanges can only take place between groups that are eligible for this subsidized ice or floor time. Once an exchange has taken place, the original group has no authority to rescind that time. 5. Special event bookings will be considered on an historic basis. Any new requests will only be approved if time is available or if organizations release time to accommodate the event. 6. Special event time that is cancelled will revert to the regular schedule. 7. Regularly scheduled time that is cancelled will be re-allocated based on this policy. 8. Whether a group has accepted a greater or lesser percentage of less desirable non-prime time may also be considered. Groups willing to use non-prime time may be provided with a slightly larger percentage of allocations than the formula would have entitled them to and groups unable to use non prime time may be provided with a slightly lesser percentage of allocations than the formula would have entitled them to. DEFINITIONS: Regular Users: As defined in the Fees and Charges Policy. Special Event: Tournaments and competitions, but not play-offs. Special events are allowed to book ice or floor time up to two years in advance. Participants Per Group: The maximum number of participants per group and the weekly requirements for practices and competition are determined by the various organizations during discussions with Parks and Leisure Services. Group sizes will be reviewed by Booking Staff in consultation with local, regional and provincial sport associations every 3-5 years to allow for maximum use without compromising safety or quality for the participants. Hours Per Group: Groups use the ice for two purposes, for skill development and competition. The amount of time allocated for each purpose will be dependent on the amount of time that Commission has funded to purchase in that year and on the number of groups that the allocation must accommodate. For instance:  One hour per group, per week for skill development, plus  Forty-five minutes, per group, per week for competition, or  Less time in both categories if that total will exceed funding levels. Prime Time and Non Prime Time: Prime Time is 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Non prime-time is all other times. Title: FACILITY ALLOCATION – REGULAR USE Policy No. P105 Supercedes: New Authority: Operational Effective Date: 2013-04-14 Approval: PLS Commission Review Date: 2013-04-14 Policy Statement: Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services will allocate available indoor facility space to regular users in a fair and equitable manner that maximizes appropriate use, ensures a range of services and activities, and follows the Fees and Charges Policy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework to ensure fair and equitable allocation of the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows PLS facilities in a manner that maximizes the use of these facilities with a range of appropriate services and activities, while following the Fees and Charges Policy. Citizens enjoy considerable benefits from participation in activities which take place in a variety of indoor facilities. In addition, there is competing interest from community groups that would like to use these facilities for various purposes. Therefore, it is important to develop a policy that will allow for the fair allocation of facility space for regular users. Therefore, the expectation of the Allocation Policy is: 1. To provide fair distribution of facilities to groups that offer equity of access regarding financial barriers, gender, age and ethnic diversity. 2. To provide a range and balance of services and activities that enhance the program and service offerings provided by Parks and Leisure Services. 3. To maximize the appropriate use of Parks and Leisure Services facilities so that they are utilized to their fullest capacity and provide the maximum benefit to the community. 4. To ensure a reasonable financial return as determined by the Fees and Charges Policy. The following categories of use will be used to establish the order of preference for facility use: First: Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services programs, events and services Second: School District 42 activities during the school day - “per the terms of the Master Agreement between SD42 and Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services POLICY MANUAL Third: Non-profit community groups Fourth: Local, Private or Political groups Fifth: Local, Commercial groups Sixth: Non Resident groups Other factors to be considered during the allocation process: Allocation distribution will be reviewed on an annual basis and evaluated based on the allocation policy. Some consideration will be given to historical bookings as those groups have consistently provided a service to the local citizens. Level of participation will also be considered. For instance, historical bookings where participation has grown will be considered, as will instances where groups have had a booking that has not been adequately utilized. For example, participation has significantly declined or scheduled time was held but not used. Appropriate time allocation to specific age groups will be considered and an appropriate standard of facility for the type and level of activity. Allocations will be based on fulfillment of previous years’ financial obligations; utilization or previous bookings, adherence to the contract’s conditions of use, and adherence to all regulations and by- laws that govern the booking. Facility allocation tends to be more complex than that of ice or fields due to the diverse range of facilities and usage, therefore requiring a higher level of staff discretion during the allocation process. Staff has the responsibility to ensure the Allocation Policy is administered in an objective manner and ensures a balance of service. When appropriate and particularly when demand exceeds supply of available facility space and time, there will be consultation with user groups. Disputes over facility allocations will be administered first by Facility Booking Staff, then by the Area Manager and Director of Recreation. DEFINITIONS: Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services programs and events – Any registered program, drop-in session, special event and service that is offered either directly or via a contract/fee for service by Parks and Leisure Services Non Profit – Shall include any organization registered as such under the Societies Act or so designated by the Recreation Commission Local, Private or Political – Shall include any group whose activities are not open to the general public in which the majority of the membership resides in Maple Ridge and/or Pitt Meadows Local, Commercial – Shall include any commercial agency or group of agencies whose object is to gain profit for the owners in which the majority of the membership resides in Maple Ridge and/or Pitt Meadows Non Resident – Shall include any group in which the majority of the membership do not reside in or own businesses or property in Maple Ridge and/or Pitt Meadows REFERENCE: Fees and Charges Policy Recreation Facility Fee Setting Bylaw Schedule “A” – Arena’s and Schedule “K” Sports fields SCHEDULE “A” (2013) Arenas Effective January 1, 2014 (taxes not included) Youth/Senior Non-Profit Adult Non-Profit Private Commercial Non-Resident Ice Prime Time $110.34 $165.50 $275.84 $304.99 $295.04 Ice Non-Prime $82.76 $124.13 $206.88 $228.74 $221.28 Dry Floor Prime Time $48.92 $73.39 $122.31 $139.61 $131.85 SCHEDULE “K” (2013) Sports Fields Effective January 1, 2013 (taxes not included) CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C Youth/Senior Non-Profit Commercial Use $22.07 $16.44 $5.49 Fundraising $11.04 $8.22 $2.75 Special Event $5.52 $4.11 $1.37 Regular Use $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Adult Non Profit Commercial Use $22.07 $16.44 $5.49 Fundraising $22.07 $16.44 $5.49 Special Event $17.07 $11.44 $2.75 Regular Use $12.70 $6.65 $0.00 Local, Private or Political Groups Fundraising $33.11 $24.66 $8.24 Special Event $27.59 $20.55 $6.86 Regular Use $22.07 $16.44 $5.49 Local Commercial Fundraising $35.31 $26.30 $8.78 Special Event $29.79 $22.19 $7.41 Regular Use $24.28 $18.08 $6.04 Non Resident Groups Fundraising $37.52 $27.95 $9.33 Special Event $32.00 $23.84 $7.96 Regular Use $26.48 $19.73 $6.59 Sport Field User Annual Contribution Fall/Winter Clubs $30 per registration Spring/Summer Clubs $15 per registration Class A Synthetic Fields at Samuel Robertson Secondary, Westview Secondary and Pitt Meadows Secondary; Hammond Stadium; Merkley Grass; Pitt Meadows Athletic Park; Thomas Haney Secondary; Albion Sports Complex (grass); Cliff Park; Harris North Class B Telosky; Albion; Jordan Park; Maple Ridge Park; Bonson; Ruskin Park; Selvey Park; Harris South; Tolmie Park; Edith McDermott Park Class C All weather fields at Merkley and Albion Sports Complex