HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-09 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m.
Chair: Acting Mayor
1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS – (10 minutes each)
2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda:
1101 2016-434-AL, 11680 252 Street, Application to Subdivide within the Agricultural
Land Reserve
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Application 2016-434-AL
to subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve
not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission
1102 2016-398-RZ, 12178 and 12192 227 Street, RS-1 to RM-1
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to allow for future construction of
12 townhouse units be given first reading and that the applicant provide further
information as described on Schedules C, D and E of the Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
January 9, 2017
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
January 9, 2017
Page 2 of 4
1103 2016-411-RZ, 21188 Wicklund Avenue, RS-1 to R-1
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Application 2016-411-RZ
not be given first reading.
1104 2011-089-RZ, 22325 St. Anne Avenue, Heritage Revitalization Agreement
Amendment
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Heritage
Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw
No. 7306-2016 be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public
Hearing.
1105 2016-129-RZ, 11225 240 Street, Site Specific Text Amendment, C-1
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 for a site specific text amendment to a C-1
(Neighbourhood Commercial) zone to add additional permitted uses for a
proposed mixed use commercial and rental apartment project be given first and
second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
1106 2015-350-DVP, 24341 112 Avenue
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to sign and seal 2015-350-DVP to reduce the minimum setback from
an interior side lot line for the garage roof projection for proposed Lots 4 through
9 to permit 9 single family lots.
1107 2016-129-DVP, 2016-219-DP, 11225 240 Street
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DVP to allow buildings to be sited closer to
Kanaka Way (front lot line) and 240 Street (exterior side lot line), that the
Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-219-DP to permit a mixed
use commercial and rental apartment building in the C-1 (Neighbourhood
Commercial) zone and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the
Cancellation of Charges application to discharge DP/045/09 and DVP/045/09.
1108 2015-207-DP, 22650 136 Avenue, Wildfire Development Permit
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to sign and seal 2015-207-DP to allow the first phase of a four phase
single family subdivision located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
January 9, 2017
Page 3 of 4
3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police)
1131 Disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the disbursements for
the month ended November 30, 2016 be received for information.
1132 Adjustments to the 2016 Collector’s Rolls
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 submitting information on changes to the
2016 Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 3 through 11.
1133 Revision to Policy 10.1 Disposal of Found Goods
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending approval of revised Policy
10.1 Disposal of Found Goods.
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES
1151 Dog Off-Leash Areas – Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the trial dog off-leash
areas at Westview Park and Upper Maple Ridge Park be approved as permanent
off-leash areas.
1152 Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Operating Agreement
Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending the preparation of an
updated operating agreement with the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society (RMSS)
which removes RMSS involvement in strata fee management and increases
funding for the programming.
5. ADMINISTRATION
1171
6. CORRESPONDENCE (moved to consent section on Council agenda)
1181
Committee of the Whole Agenda
January 9, 2017
Page 4 of 4
7. OTHER ISSUES
1191
8. ADJOURNMENT
9. COMMUNITY FORUM
Checked by:________________ Date: ________________
COMMUNITY FORUM
The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to speak with
Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing
bylaws that have not yet reached conclusion.
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.
Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff
members.
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: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-434-AL
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Subdivide Land within the Agricultural Land Reserve
11680 252 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 21 (2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to
subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The
Applicant’s submission conforms with the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission.
This report evaluates the merits of this subdivision proposal within the policy context of the Official
Community Plan and the Agricultural Plan. Based on this analysis, the recommendation is not to
support this application for subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve. On this basis, the
recommendation is not to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Application 2012-107-AL not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission based on the
considerations as outlined in this report, dated January 9, 2017.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: Justin Endresen
Legal Description: Section: 14, Township: 12
OCP :
Existing: Agricultural
Proposed: No Change
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: No Change
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation Agricultural
South: Use: Park
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation Park
1101
- 2 -
East: Use: Park
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation Park
West: Use: 2 Properties, Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation Agricultural
Existing Use of Property: Agriculture & Rural Residential
Proposed Use of Property: No Change
Site Area: 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres)
Access: 252 Street
Servicing: Water, on site septic
b) Project Description:
The applicant wishes to subdivide the 2.5 hectare (6.2 acre) subject property into 3 parcels to
develop into smaller lot hobby farms.
This proposal conforms with the minimum parcel sizes of the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Zone which is 0.8 hectares (2 acres) where municipal water is available. Kanaka Creek traverses
the site at its eastern property line.
If this application is forwarded by Council, and receives Agricultural Land Commission approval, the
applicant will have to apply for a subdivision through the municipality. Through this process, the
applicant will have to demonstrate that all of the proposed lots will have on-site septic capability to
current standards. All new parcels must comply with municipal requirements with respect to lot
geometry, servicing, road frontage and parcel size.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan
The property is designated Agriculture in the Official Community Plan, which contains policies in
support of agriculture. On December 16, 2009 Council adopted an Agricultural Plan to support
agriculture within the rural area and the Agricultural Land Reserve. The merits of this application will
be viewed within this policy context.
Section 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture
Policy 6-12 states:
Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by:
a) adopting a guiding principle of ”positive benefit to agriculture” when making land use
decisions that could affect the agricultural land base, with favourable recognition of
initiatives including but not limited to supportive non-farm uses, infrastructure improvements
for farmland, or the inclusion of land elsewhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve;
b) requiring agricultural impact assessments (AIAs) and Groundwater Impact Assessment of
non-farm development and infrastructure projects and identifying measures to off-set
impacts on agricultural capability;
c) preserving larger farm units and areas by using appropriate buffers such as roads,
topographic features, watercourses, ditching, fencing, or gradually reduced residential
densities on properties adjacent to agricultural land;
- 3 -
d) discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into smaller parcels, except where positive
benefits to agriculture can be demonstrated;
e) reinforcing the concept that the Agricultural Land Reserve is intended for agricultural use by
increasing the minimum lot size for ALR properties that are zoned Rural Residential;
f) encouraging the amalgamation of smaller parcels of farmland into larger, more cohesive
parcels.
Policy 6-12 emphasizes the importance of discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into
smaller parcels, increasing the minimum parcel size of ALR properties with Rural Residential zoning,
and amalgamation to create larger farm parcels. Reasons for discouraging subdivision within the
Agricultural Land Reserve include minimizing incentives for land speculation in the Agricultural Land
Reserve, which increases the market value of farmland, and exacerbates the issue of economic
barriers to entry for legitimate farming interests.
Section 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy.
Policy 6-6 of the Official Community Plan describes alternatives to subdivision such as
leaseholds that could ensure greater utilization and retain larger parcels, as follows:
Maple Ridge will develop an Agricultural Plan that:
a) maintains an inventory of local agricultural products and agricultural land use;
b) develops and maintains a database of farm businesses and operators;
c) promotes leasing opportunities of agricultural land;
d) promotes agricultural heritage initiatives;
e) identifies appropriate land uses within agricultural areas and at the rural/urban
interface;
f) promotes urban agriculture;
g) recognizes the positive role that agricultural lands have on the environment;
h) will identify a variety of mechanisms to assist farm operators and to protect agricultural
lands, including but not limited to the creation of trusts, endowments, and life-leases;
i) includes an assessment of the agricultural land base; and
j) develops Development Permit area guidelines to direct non-agricultural development at
the urban/rural interface.
One reason for promoting alternative tenures (Policies 6-6 c and h) relates to the high cost of land,
which is a known barrier for new farmers wishing to start an agricultural business. By supporting
other forms of tenure that can delay or avoid the need for this capital investment by individual
farmers, the municipality can improve its agricultural potential, and bring more of its agricultural land
into full production.
For the above noted reasons, this application does not comply with the Agricultural policies of the
Official Community Plan.
- 4 -
Agricultural Plan
Issue 5 of the Agricultural Plan notes concerns with the loss of the agricultural land base, describing
the following situations that are pertinent to this application:
• Many small parcels
• High level of rural residential incursion into Agricultural Land Reserve
• Non-farmed areas of the Agricultural Land Reserve tend to be smaller parcels
• Continued conversion pressure from the District of Maple Ridge’s urban growth
• Financial pressure on farming
The Plan also notes that more recent priorities given to food safety, food security, and climate
change, includes the development of a local food system. Towards this end, the community would
benefit from greater certainty that the agricultural land base is not undermined by incremental land
use decisions. The Plan makes the following recommendations that pertain to this application:
b) Continue to implement the OCP policies to protect the agricultural land base by creating
guidelines for reviewing applications for non-farm use, exclusions, fill applications,
transportation and utility applications, subdivisions, and government applications;…
g) Explore retention of lots 2 ha (5 acres) and larger in the Agricultural Land Reserve.
Currently, the minimum parcel size in the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone is 0.8 hectares
(2.0 acres) where community water is available. This zone pertains to most of the land that is within
the Agricultural Land Reserve, including the subject property. The RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) zone pre-dates the creation of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Although designated for
Agriculture, there is a concern that this historic zoning contributes to the perception that farming is
not the primary use of this zone. The Agricultural Plan recommends that 2.0 hectares (5 acres) is a
more appropriate minimum parcel size for lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve.
Ministry of Agriculture
Research provided by the Ministry of Agriculture in their most recent inventory work validates
concerns raised in the Agricultural Plan about small lot sizes1. Conclusions drawn from this region
wide information have been summarized by Metro Vancouver, as follows:
Evidence exists that small parcels are less likely to be farmed and therefore further
subdivision of parcels in the ALR is not warranted and will only encourage more non-farm
use of ALR land. Currently 75% of the parcels less than 2 ha (5 acres) are not farmed. The
average size of parcels not used for farming is 3 ha (7.4 acres), while the average size of
parcels used for farming is 7 ha (17 acres).2
1 Maple Ridge was a project partner for the Ministry of Agriculture inventory work in 2011
2 Metro Vancouver, Farming in Metro Vancouver, Metro Facts in Focus | Policy Backgrounder, 2014
- 5 -
Figure 1 Source: Metro Vancouver, Farming in Metro Vancouver, Metro Facts in Focus | Policy
Backgrounder, 2014
Based on Ministry data, the above table demonstrates the connection between parcel size and
farming activity. This information indicates that the subdivision of this property will significantly
increase the probability that the 3 new parcels created will not be used for farming.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department
The Engineering Department would review this proposal for its servicing requirements as part of the
municipal subdivision application should Commission approval be granted. It should be noted that
the subject property has unconstructed access to 252nd Street. Road construction would be
required to serve all properties. Water connection to each parcel would be required and septic
capacity to current municipal standards for each parcel would need to be determined by a qualified
professional.
e) Alternatives:
If Council decides not to forward this application to the Commission, it will be considered denied and
will not proceed further. However, if Council decides to forward this application to the Agricultural
Land Commission, the Commission will evaluate the merits of this application, and make their
decision accordingly.
- 6 -
CONCLUSION:
This application has been evaluated for its consistency with the policies of the Official Community
Plan, and its implications for the Agricultural Plan, and is found not to comply with this policy
framework. On this basis, the recommendation is that this application for subdivision not be
supported.
“Original signed by Diana Hall”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA (Planning), MCIP, CIP
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 Photo
Appendix C – Subdivision Sketch prepared by Applicant
DATE: Nov 29, 2016
FILE: 2016-434-AL
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
252 ST116 AVE
´
Scale: 1:2,500
11680 252 STREETLegend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Edge of River
Indefinite Creek
Lake or Reservoir
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX A
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Nov 4, 2016
FILE: 2016-434-AL
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
11680 252 STREET
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015
APPENDIX B
SUBJECT PROPERTY:PCL. 30; SEC. 14; TWP. 12;
LD. 36; PL. 68686
PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS86 METERS86 METERS86 METERS70 METERS
122 METERS
FLOWS INTO KANAKA CREEKPROPOSED LOT 1
PROPOSED LOT 2
PROPOSED LOT 3
TENNIS COURT
POOL
HOUSECONNECTS TO 252ND STREET117 AVENUE
( 0.8 HA )
( 0.8 HA )
( 0.9 HA )
Te
UNCLEARED LAND
WITH DECOMISSIONED ROAD
#1
#2 #3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10+11
APPENDIX C
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-398-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016
12178 and 12192 227 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to allow for the future development of 12 townhouse
units. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below.
The subject properties are within the Town Centre Area Plan and therefore are exempt from the
Community Amenity Contribution Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016 be given first reading; and
That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D and E of the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: George (Guangping) Du
Legal Descriptions: Lot 65 of the west half of Section 20, Township 12, NWD Plan
19921
Lot 66, Section 20, Township 12, NWD Plan 19921
OCP:
Existing: GOMF (Ground-Oriented Multi-Family)
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family
1102
- 2 -
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family
West: Use: Single Family Residential, and School
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), and P1 (Park & School)
Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family, and Institutional/Park
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Multi Family Residential
Site Area: 0.26 ha. in total (0.65 acres)
Access: new lane to be created in rear
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
b) Site Characteristics:
The subject properties, located at 12178 and 12192 227 Street, (see Appendix A and B) are
approximately 0.65 acres in total. The properties are generally flat, and are currently bounded by
single family residential properties to the north, east, south and west, with 227 Street to the west ,
the Eric Langton Elementary School to the southwest. To the north, on the corner of 122 Ave and
227 Street an application is at third reading, to rezone to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential) to
subdivide into 3 single family residential lots.
c) Project Description:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to permit future development into approximately 12
townhouse units (see Appendix C). Access for the townhouse development is proposed to be from a
new lane in the rear, with temporary access off of 227 Street, until such time that the lane can be
connected to the public road and the temporary access can be closed off.
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 subject properties are located within the Town Centre Area Plan and are currently designated
Ground Oriented Multi Family. The Ground Oriented Multi Family designation is intended to provide
housing options that range from a low density attached form to a medium-high density attached form
of ground-oriented housing that will generally be a maximum of three (3) storeys in height with
ground level access to each unit. The development forms include townhouse, rowhouse, and stacked
townhouse. For the proposed development no OCP amendment will be required to allow the
proposed RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zoning.
- 3 -
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit the future development into approximately
12 townhouse units. The minimum lot size for the current zone is 668 m2, and the minimum lot size
for the proposed zone is 557m2. The total site area is 2660 m2.
Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance
Permit application. The applicant is proposing buildings located at 4.5m from both rear and front lot
lines. Staff is prepared to support a variance to allow a reduced front and rear lot line setback, from
7.5m to 4.5m.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.11 of the OCP, a Town Centre Development Permit application is required for
all multifamily residential, flexible mixed use and commercial development located in the Town
Centre.
Advisory Design Panel:
The Town Centre Development Permit will 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.
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) Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department; and
e) 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.
- 4 -
f) Development Applications:
In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999 as amended:
1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C);
2. A Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D); and
3. A Development Variance Permit Application (Schedule E).
The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the
assessment of the proposal progresses.
CONCLUSION:
The development proposal is in compliance with the OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council
grant first reading, subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second
reading.
It is recommended that Council not require any further additional OCP consultation.
“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. 7302-2016
Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan
DATE: Oct 18, 2016
2016-398-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
227 ST´
Scale: 1:2,000
12178 & 12192 227 StreetLegend
Stream
Indefinite Creek
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
2011-157-RZ
APPENDIX A
DATE: Oct 18, 2016
2016-398-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
227 STFLETCHER ST´
Scale: 1:2,000
12178 & 12192 227 Street
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
Legend
Stream
Indefinite Creek
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7302-2016
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. 7302-2016."
2.Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 65 of the West half of Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District
Plan 19921;
Lot 66 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 19921;
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No.1700 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
122 AVE.
121 AVE.
122 AVE.
HINCH CRES.
12192
1221822609
12178
12139
12141226101225022652 12208
12240
12230
12222
12130
12184
12214
12193
12090
12239
12147
12263
12166/6822611
12157225872259222612
12102
12264
12128
12194
12153
12221
1223112270
12216
12281
12244
12230
12211
12152
12177
12195
1218722590 12203 12208
1215422580
12126
12275
12254
12114
12257
2262012162226172257712178
12219
12119
12253
2263212284
12136
12148
12272
2258212142
12261
12179
12136
12131
12228
12101
12243
1216722579 12185
121702264222589
12120
12111
12271
12260
175
S 1/2 A
N 50' 5
N 1/2 10
309
340
228
13
226
1
1
331
334
308
130
331
S. 52.5' 2
230
2
122259 121223
231
246
N 1/2 A 336
N 1/2 9
197
148
S 1/2 10
Rem. 5
221
332
9
S1/2 16
131
7
402
280
Rem. 64248
222
21
338
227
127
1
2
147
4
3
A
2
337
10252
2
N1/2 16
247
1
B
S 1/2 9
333
A
5
6
Rem. A
260
A
8
245
1
249
198
Rem 2
254
265
330
279
355
251 Rem 224
1
250
229
2
225
66
Pcl. A
2
261
353
2
2
65
123
1
339
253
1
264
232
354
Rem.P 11845P 32642P 14396
LMP 6030P 70504P 45792
P 66473
P 40082
LMP 1034RP 56793
P 11200
P 11845P 7948
P 38897
PARK
P 66473BCS 569
P 9944P 39918P 7219
*PP090
P 58171P 42772P 42134
LMP 4065P 21417P 68638P 11845P 56987P 39649P 62211 P 14396P 56893P 62578
P 67081P 28497P 71970
P 82923
P 42134
P 28939
P 57607
P 42134 P 28579P 19921P 11845P 23392
P 11845P 44381BCP 23946
RP 16335
PARK
P 72365P 42134P 23392
P 14396RP 84324
RW 18394RW 41758 EPP 66005HINCH CRES.
122 AVE.227 ST.122 AVE.FLETCHER ST.´
SCALE 1:2,000
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From:
To:
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
7302-20161700
APPENDIX D
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-411-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
21188 Wicklund Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 21188 Wicklund Avenue,
from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two
single family residential lots. As the application does not align with policies within the Official
Community Plan (OCP), the recommendation is to not support this development proposal.
This application proposes the creation of fewer than 3 new lots; therefore, it is exempt from the
requirements under the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Policy 6.31.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the subject application not be given first reading.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: Anita Chowdhury
Legal Description: Lot 119 District Lot 242 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan
47383
OCP:
Existing: Urban Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: R-1 (Residential District)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS-1b (One Family
Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
South: Use: Residential
Zone: RG (Group Housing Zone)
Designation: Urban Residential
1103
- 2 -
East: Use: Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
West: Use: Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 969 m² (0.24 acres)
Access: Wicklund Avenue
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
b) Site Characteristics:
The subject property is 969 m² (0.24 acres) in size and is bound by single family residential lots to
the north, west and east, and townhomes to the south. The subject property is flat with a row of
hedges to the rear of the property and a few trees located in the front and rear yards. There is an
existing house on the property that will require removal.
c) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to
R-1 (Residential District), to permit future subdivision into two single family residential lots not less
than 371 m². It is noted that the proposed lot sizes are larger than the minimum R-1 (Residential
District) requirements.
Staff had a pre-application meeting with the applicant advising that an application to rezone and
subdivide to the R-1 (Residential District) zone would not be supported. Alternative development
options were discussed noting that either Duplex or Triplex housing that would achieve similar
density and would be in compliance with the OCP.
At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the OCP and
provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made if Council
supports the proposal and once full application packages have been received. A more detailed
analysis and a further report will be required prior to second reading, should Council support this
development. 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 currently designated Urban Residential-Neighbourhood Residential. The
Neighbourhood Residential designation allows for single detached dwellings and other housing
forms, subject to the Neighbourhood Residential Infill policies. The rezoning and subdivision of this
property into two single family residential lots and, specifically, use of the R-1 (Residential District)
zone is not in compliance with the OCP, as per Policy 3-19 (a) (i), which states:
- 3 -
The proposed lot area and widths should be not less that 80% of the lot area and width
prescribed under the predominate or adjacent zoning in the surrounding neighbourhood.
During the OCP review, the above noted policy was created stemming from conversatio ns with
residents, who advised that infill developments need to fit the character of a neighbourhood. It was
acknowledged that slightly reduced lot sizes were considered appropriate in older, larger lot
neighbourhoods; however, there was recognition that the reduction in lot size should be nominal,
and that compatible lot width was key to preserving the character of a neighbourhood. For that
reason, the policies were written to allow for a lot width not less than 80% of the zoning in the
surrounding area. In addition, residents noted a preference to a Duplex or Triplex form, instead of
subdivision, to achieve similar density, noting that the lot area and width would remain unchanged.
The current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone requires a minimum lot area of 668 m² and lot
width of 18 m. The proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone would result in a lot area of 371 m² and
lot width of 12 m. Under this policy, the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
zone would be considered the appropriate zone, with a minimum lot area requirement of 557 m² and
a lot width of 15 m; however, the applicant can not achieve the minimum lot area required for two
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zoned lots. It has been suggested to the
applicant that a Duplex or Triplex housing form could be alternative options to achieve additional
density, without subdividing.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property, located at 21188 Wicklund Avenue,
from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two
single family residential lots. The minimum lot size for the current RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) zone is 668m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District)
zone is 371 m2.
The surrounding neighbourhood is made up of predominantly RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
zoned lots, with the exception of two properties north-east of the subject property, and two
properties to the west, which are zoned RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential).
Alternatives:
That staff be directed to prepare a Bylaw in support of the development application to the R-1
(Residential District) zone. Should Council support this development application, it should be noted
that it would not be referred to the Advisory Design Panel or is a Development Information Meeting
required, as it is for a two lot single family subdivision. Comments and input will need to be sought
from the various internal departments and external agencies and a complete rezoning and
subdivision application would be required.
The other alternative would be that the application be deferred, and the applicant be requested to
revise the application pending direction from Council.
- 4 -
CONCLUSION:
The development proposal is not in compliance with the OCP, as per Policy 3-19, and an amendment
to such is not supportable, therefore, it is recommended that this application be denied.
“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
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Oct 21, 2016
FILE: 2016-411-RZ
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENTFOREST PL.GLENWOOD AVE.212 ST.WICKLUND AVE.
122 AVE.212 ST.NOLAITY ST.12069 2122021170210971221912216
12240
12047
12245
2114521133211912111112115
211422116012116
12230
2111212243
12156
12239
1
2
0
2
0
12090
12056
12218
2110221111211582115321137211342113621210121122114612101-53
2113221151211062120721116211072108812098
121111222921195
12089
12061 2124012234
2117021101211552117821149120502119821103
2119312086
12
12200
120732117521188211662113912
2
3
1
2124712105
120702116112208
210962117512242
2115012128
2108921200211542118921152211472112812070
211122112312225
12217
121162112012222
211012109712062
12186
12050
12037
12038
12213
12219
1210621211211752112021196/9812145 212822118812138
12227
1223
9
211992111921190/92211021223512209
2110221178212412114412212
21201212302118512196
212002123121146120442110412203
18
12081
12209
2116521124211672122112101
12161
12171
21190211612114921127SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,000
21188 WICKLUND AVENUE
APPENDIX A
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Oct 21, 2016
FILE: 2016-411-RZ
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENTFOREST PL.GLENWOOD AVE.212 ST.WICKLUND AVE.
122 AVE.212 ST.NOLAITY ST.12069 2122021170210971221912216
12240
12047
12245
2114521133211912111112115
211422116012116
12230
2111212243
12156
12239
1
2
0
2
0
12090
12056
12218
2110221111211582115321137211342113621210121122114612101-53
2113221151211062120721116211072108812098
121111222921195
12089
12061 2124012234
2117021101211552117821149120502119821103
2119312086
12
12200
120732117521188211662113912
2
3
1
2124712105
120702116112208
210962117512242
2115012128
2108921200211542118921152211472112812070
211122112312225
12217
121162112012222
211012109712062
12186
12050
12037
12038
12213
12219
1210621211211752112021196/9812145 212822118812138
12227
1223
9
211992111921190/92211021223512209
2110221178212412114412212
21201212302118512196
212002123121146120442110412203
18
12081
12209
2116521124211672122112101
12161
12171
21190211612114921127SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,000
21188 WICKLUND AVENUE
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
APPENDIX B
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-089-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Heritage Revitalization Agreement Amendment
Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption
Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016
22325 St. Anne Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
For the property located at 22325 St. Anne Avenue (Appendices A and B), a letter has been received
(Appendix C) to request a change to the completion date in Heritage Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the conservation of the Morse/Turnock Residence (“the
Heritage Residence”) and the construction of a four (4) storey 66 unit apartment building. The
effective date of this Agreement was the bylaw adoption date of January 26, 2016, with the
conservation work being completed within 12 months (i.e. by January 26, 2017). It is being
requested that the completion date be extended from within 12 months following the effective date
to within 30 months of the effective date of the Agreement. This would change the completion date
to July 26, 2018. The proposed amending bylaw is attached as Appendix D.
The subject property is zoned Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012. Heritage Alteration Permit 2015-287-DP for the
conservation work and Development Permit 2011-089-DP for the apartment, have both been
approved and issued by Council on January 26, 2016. Building permits are complete and ready for
pick up by the applicant from the City for issuance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending
Bylaw No. 7306-2016, be given first and second reading and be forwarded to the next Public
Hearing.
DISCUSSION:
Legislative Background:
Council is granted the authority to enter into and amend Heritage Revitalization Agreements under
Section 610 of the Local Government Act. The specific provision concerning amendments is the
following:
(4)A heritage revitalization agreement may be amended by bylaw only with the consent of
the owner.
The authorized signatory for the company that owns the subject site has signed the Agreement thus
providing his consent in accordance with Section 610 (Appendix E).
1104
- 2 -
Under the Section 52 of the Transportation Act, the bylaw will need to be referred to the Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure (“MOTI”) to be approved before Council considers granting
adoption.
History:
Council adopted the Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption
Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-201 on January 26, 2016. The Heritage Alteration Permit 2015-287-DP
for the conservation work and the development permit 2011-089-DP for the apartment have both
been approved and issued by Council on January 26, 2016. The site plan is attached as Appendix F.
The development proposal is two fold.
1. The Heritage Residence is to be adapted into a duplex as part of the conservation work. It will
temporarily be moved to one corner of the site while the underground parking structure is
built. The heritage residence will then be moved again and placed on its new foundation on
top of the underground structure close to the corner of St. Ann Avenue and 223 Street; and
2. A four (4) storey 66 unit apartment building will be built behind the heritage residence. The
apartment units may not be occupied until the conservation of the Morse/Turnock Residence
is certified by the heritage consultant of record as being in compliance with the Heritage
Revitalization Agreement.
Agreement Requirements:
Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-
2012 was adopted by Council on January 26, 2016. The bylaw’s adoption date is the effective date
of the Agreement. Attached to the Bylaw is the Agreement together with the Heritage Conservation
Plan and Relocation Plan, both prepared by Donald Luxton and Associates, Ltd.
The timing commitments contained in the Agreement are as follows:
Section 2. The Owners shall, promptly following the Effective Date, commence and
complete the restoration, renovation and conservation of the Existing Heritage Building
(the “Work”) in accordance with recommendations set out in the Conservation Plan
attached as Schedule “C” to this Agreement (the “Conservation Plan”).
Section 8. The Owners shall commence and complete all actions required for the
completion of the Work in accordance with this Agreement within 12 months following
the Effective Date.
Applicant’s Request:
The owner has requested and consents to changing the completion date from 12 to 30 months of
entering into the original Agreement. The requested amendment to the Agreement would be a
change in the completion date from January 26, 2017 to July 25, 2018, allowing 30 months from
the effective date to complete the project (Appendix E).
The property’s ownership will be transferred shortly, having been sold after being on the market for
some time. The change will allow the new owners to have sufficient time to fulfill all the requirements
for the conservation of the Heritage Residence once their construction team is assembled.
The site continues to be secure and the security measures will be kept in place by the new owners.
The City also hold a forfeitable performance security of $100,000 that the Morse/Turnock
Residence will be placed on its new foundation and conservation will be completed in accordance
with the Heritage Conservation Plan attached to and forming part of the Agreement.
- 3 -
According to Bylaw and Licensing staff, there have been no reports of break-ins or other complaints
concerning the Heritage Residence. The owner confirmed that they continue to retain a security
company to patrol and guard the heritage house every night. The existing security measures and the
patrol have been successful in preventing problems. The new owners will be obligated to maintain
the security requirements in the original Agreement.
Assessment and Council Action:
A change to the completion dates is considered to be a minor amendment; however, a Public
Hearing is necessary. Therefore, Council can consider granting first and second reading, followed by
a Public Hearing and third reading. Council may consider adopting the bylaw following approval by
MOTI.
The security being held by the City is a strong incentive for the conservation work to be completed.
Given the complexity of keeping the heritage residence on site while constructing the underground
parking building, as well as for adequate time to carefully and safely move and relocated the
Heritage House onto its new foundation, the new completion period is more realistic for the
construction and conservation work involved for this project.
Therefore, proceeding with the attached bylaw authorizing the City to enter into an Amending
Agreement to the original Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement is reasonable
request.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that Council grant first and second reading to Maple Ridge Heritage Designation
and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016, and advanced
this bylaw to the next Public Hearing.
“Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner II
“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 - Letter from Owner/Agent
Appendix D – Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No.
7306-2016
Appendix E – Agreement
Appendix F – Approved Site Plan
DATE: Dec 22, 2016
2015-287-DP
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:1,500
22325 ST ANNE AVELegend
Stream
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX A
DATE: Dec 22, 2016
2015-287-DP
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:1,500
22325 ST ANNE AVE
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
Legend
Stream
Indefinite Creek
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX B
WAYNE
STEPHEN
BISSKY
ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN
HEAD OFFICE: 204-22320 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE BC PH 604-467-8300 FAX 604-467-8305
Attention: Adrian Kopystynski Planning Department
Company: City of Maple Ridge
Address: 11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC, V2X 6A9
Phone: (604) 463-5221
Fax: 604) 467-7329
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017
RE: Amendments to:
File #: 2011-089-RZ
Civic: 22325 St. Anne Ave Maple Ridge BC V2X 2E7
Legal: Lot A District Lot 398 Group 1 NWD Plan EPP52747 PID 029-774-071
Description: 1105 - Saint Anne Apartment & HRA
Dear Adrian,
This letter is a request for several amendments to the approved agreements as follows;
1) To amend the heritage revitalization and tax exemption agreement section 8. timing of restoration from
within 12 months following the effective date to within in 30 months of the effective date.
Sincerely yours,
Wayne S. Bissky
BA, C.Ed, MArch, Architect AIBC, MRAIC
This message is only intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain informations that is privileged, confidential and exempt
from disclosure. It the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original to us by mail. Thank-you. Page of 1 1
APPENDIX C
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7306-2016
A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption
Agreement Bylaw No. 6913 -2012
____________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Owner of the land requests and consents to enter into an amendment of the
heritage revitalization and tax exemption agreement attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge
Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012 ;
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the heritage revitalization and tax exemption
agreement attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and
Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012 as provided for in Appendix 1 to this amending
bylaw (the “Amending Agreement”):
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows:
1.This bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016”.
2.The City of Maple Ridge enters into the Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
(as amended by the “Amending Agreement”) with the registered owners of the properties
located at 22325 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge and legally described as:
PID: 029-774-071
LOT A; DL 398; NWD; PL EPP52747
(the “Property”).
3.The Mayor and Corporate Officer are authorized on behalf of the City of Maple Ridge to sign
and seal the Amending Agreement in the form attached as Appendix “1” to this Bylaw.
READ a first time the day of , 2017.
READ a second time the day of , 2017.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20
READ a third time the day of , 2017.
APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , 2017.
ADOPTED the day of , 2017.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX D
2
APPENDIX “1”
DESIGNATION AND HERITAGE REVITALIZATION AND TAX EXEMPTION AMENDING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the day of , 2017 is
BETWEEN:
PC MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT INC.
8138 North Fraser Way
Burnaby, BC V5J 0E7
(the “Owners”)
AND:
THE CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, British Columbia
V2X 6A9
(the “City”)
WHEREAS:
A. The City and PC MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT INC. (BC1008087) entered into a Heritage
Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement (the “Agreement”) setting out the terms and
conditions by which the heritage value of the Existing Heritage Building is to be preserved
and protected, in return for specified supplements and variances to City bylaws and the
exemption of the Existing Heritage Building from City property taxation for a specified term;
B. Name of the registered owner in fee simple of the land and all improvements located at
22325 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. and legally described as:
PID: 029-774-071
Lot A DISTRICT LOT 398 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN EPP52747
(“the Lands”); and
C. The City and the Owner wish to amend the terms of the Agreement to allow the completion
date to be extended.
APPENDIX E
3
THIS AGREEMENT is evidence that in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) now paid by
each party to the other and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt of which each
party hereby acknowledges) the Owners and the City each covenant with the other as follows:
Amendment
1. The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting and replacing Section 8 by the following:
Section 8. The Owners shall commence and complete all actions required for the
completion of the Work in accordance with this Agreement within 30 months
following the Effective Date.
Statutory Authority Retained
2. Nothing in this Amendment Agreement shall limit, impair, fetter or derogate from the
statutory powers of the City, all of which powers may be exercised by the City from time to
time and at any time to the fullest extent that the City is enabled.
Full Force and Effect
3. The City and the Owners hereby agree that the Agreement shall hereinafter be read and
construed in conjunction with this Amending Agreement and be regarded as being amended
only to the extent herein provided, that all the terms, covenants, provisos, conditions and
provisions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, shall continue to be in full force and effect
and that nothing herein contained shall operate or be construed to modify or otherwise affect
the rights and obligations created by the Agreement as amended hereby.
No Waiver
4. No restrictions, requirements or other provisions of this Amending Agreement shall be
deemed to have been waived by the City unless a written waiver signed by an officer of the
City has first been obtained, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no
condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City on previous occasions of any default, nor any
previous written waiver, shall be taken to operate as a waiver by the City of any subsequent
default or in any way defeat or affect the rights and remedies of the City.
Headings
5. The headings in this Amending Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not
affect the interpretation of this Agreement or any of its provisions.
APPENDIX F
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-129-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016
11225 240 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received for a site specific text amendment to the C-1 (Neighbourhood
Commercial) Zone for the property located at 11225 240 Street (Appendix A and B). The property is
already zoned and the purpose of this application is to add additional permitted uses for the
proposed mixed use commercial and rental apartment project for the subject site. The proposed 16
dwelling units will be rental in accordance with a Housing Agreement.
The proposed uses described in the letters provided by the applicant (Appendix C) have been
reviewed by staff and found to be acceptable for a Neighbourhood Commercial Centre to serve the
day-to-day shopping needs of the emerging adjacent neighbourhood to the east of 240 Street and
the Albion Area to the east.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 be given first and second reading and forwarded to
Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: 0784903 B.C. LTD. Sukhi Sanghe
Owner: 0784903 BC LTD
Legal Description: Lot A, Section 16, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan EPP25279
OCP :
Existing: Commercial
Zoning:
Existing: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Townhouses
Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
1105
- 2 -
South: Use: Mixed use commercial / rental apartments
Zone: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) with site specific text
amendment for daycare and rental apartments
Designation: Commercial
East: Use: Vacant
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Low Density Residential, Conservation and
Medium Density Residential
West: Use: Townhouses
Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Mixed use Commercial and Rental Apartments
Site Area: 0.478 ha.
Access: Kanaka Way and 240 Street
Servicing: Urban
b) Proposal:
A site specific text amendment application has been received, to allow additional Commercial Uses
in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone for the property located at 11225 240 Street. This is a
vacant property that slightly slopes from the north to the south. This proposal is for a mixed use
commercial and rental apartment project in accordance with a Housing Agreement (16 dwelling
units). Issuance of the development permit for this project is also being considered at the same
meeting of the Committee of the Whole.
Based on the information from the applicant’s letters (Appendix C), the requested uses, regrouped by
similar categories being proposed are as follows:
Licensee Retail Store / Liquor Store
Professional Services,
Medical Clinic
Dentist
Physiotherapist /Chiropractor
Hearing/Eye Clinic
Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic
Financial Services
Fitness
Pharmacy
Educational Facilities
Restaurant with patio
Coffee Shop
c) Planning Analysis
Official Community Plan:
The subject site is designated Neighbourhood Commercial Centre in the Official Community Plan
(OCP). The objective of this designation is to facilitate Neighbourhood Commercial Centres that
provide daily convenience shopping to serve residents. With respect to their scale, the following
policy applies:
6 - 32 Total commercial space in a Neighbourhood Commercial Centre is typically less than
930 sq. m. (10,000 sq. ft.) in area.
The types of uses being requested and the mixed use building in which they will be located conform
with both the objective and the size limitation stated in the OCP.
- 3 -
Albion Area Plan:
The subject site abuts the western boundary of the Albion Area across 240 Street. Although not
subject to the Albion Area Plan, its close proximity has an influence on the policies it contains.
The Albion Area Plan identifies the need to provide sufficient commercial land use opportunities as
the community grows.
At present there are two areas in Albion with commercial designated lands.
The first area is a Village Commercial Area at 102 Avenue and 242 Street. The Albion Area Plan
states that this designation is intended to provide for to residents of surrounding neighbourhoods in
a compact village form.
The second area is designated a Neighbourhood Commercial Centre, just like the subject side and is,
diagonally across the corner from the subject site at the southeast corner of 112 Avenue and
240Street. It is the subject of rezoning application (2016-244-RZ) for a portion of the site to be
rezoned to C-5 (Village Commercial) Zone, which allows a broader range of uses for convenience
shopping and personal services in the same spirit as the objective of the Village Commercial Centre
in Albion.
With respect to future commercial development in Albion, there is the following policy:
10 - 9 Growth in North East Albion may create a need for Neighbourhood or Village Commercial
Centres. Maple Ridge will consider the development of such centres to provide daily
convenience needs and services, subject to satisfying Parking Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw
requirements, traffic, access, site design, and compatibility with adjacent land uses.
Thus the broadening the range of uses convenience shopping and personal services being sought on
the subject site will complement the Albion Plan development policy to provide for centres that will
accommodate broader range of daily convenience needs and services for the emerging
neighbourhoods on both sides of 240 Street.
Commercial/Industrial Strategy:
The Commercial Industrial Strategy: 2012 - 2042 (the Strategy) prepared by GP Rollo and Associates
was consulted about applicable factors regarding Neighbourhood Commercial areas and land uses.
According to the report, the City has 180 hectares. (445 acres) of OCP designated commercial lands
and 140 hectares. (346 acres) of zoned Commercial lands. C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zoned
lands constitute a small portion of the zoned lands, about 3.0 hectares. (7.6 acres) or about 2.2% of
all Commercial lands (p. 34).
The subject site at 11225 240 Street is located in the Core East Commercial Precinct. This precinct
includes areas designated in the Official Community Plan for the following:
Community Commercial Node at Dewdney Trunk Road at 240 Street;
Neighbourhood Commercial Centre for three (3) corners of Kanaka Way/112 Avenue at
240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road at 232 Street; and
Historic Commercial Node at Lougheed Highway at 240 Street (Bruce’s Market).
In the Albion Area plan, the two northern corners of 102 Avenue at 242 Street are designated as a
Village.
- 4 -
In considering future demand for uses, the Strategy states:
Over 70% of new space demand will be for convenience goods and services (e.g. grocery,
liquor, financial and health services, pharmacy) and food and beverage (coffee shop,
restaurant, pub). The balance will be limited seasonal demand for comparison goods (tourist
apparel and sporting goods), perhaps some indoor recreation space, and automotive goods
and services. (p. 54)
All of the uses to be part of this site specific text amendment to the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial)
zone on the subject site are ones identified in the Strategy for the Core East Area.
Zoning Bylaw:
The common practice related to commercial areas in most communities is based on a notion that
urban centres are arranged in a hierarchical pattern of development, with differing sizes, diversity
and functions around a central place. In the case of Maple Ridge, the Maple Ridge Town Centre Area
is the central place with subordinate centres such as Rural, Historic, Neighbourhood, General and
Community Commercial Nodes and Centres.
Historically, in Maple Ridge and in other nearby communities, the smallest cen tres in terms of size,
function and range of uses are Neighbourood Centres, offering local conveniences, such as:
independent grocery and florist shops, video rentals; and basic personal services such as
laundromats and dry cleaning. This is reflected in the intent statement for the C-1 (Neighbourhood
Commercial) Zone described in the Section 701 of the Zoning Bylaw as follows:
This zone provides for the small scale retailing of commodities of a convenience nature and
related uses for household or personal needs in an urban setting.
The C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone current allows the following permitted principal uses:
a) convenience store;
b) restaurant;
c) personal services; and
d) personal repair services;
Comparing the requested uses to the permitted principal uses and definitions already contained in
the Zoning Bylaw, the following is noted:
Licensee Retail Store / Liquor Store are both the same use and already defined as a
LICENSEE RETAIL STORE means an establishment with a valid Licensee Retail Store License
provided by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch that is permitted to sell all types of
packaged liquor for consumption off the premise.
Restaurant is already defined and encompasses the applicant’s requested Restaurant with
patio and Coffee Shop. The definition is RESTAURANT means an establishment where food
and beverages are sold to the public and where provision is made for consumption on the
premises. The establishment may be licensed as “Food Primary” under the Liquor Control
and Licensing Act.
- 5 -
For consistency with the existing terminology in the definition of Assembly use “private
schools” is proposed to be used in place of the requested Educational Facility.
Medical Clinic, Dentist, Physiotherapist /Chiropractor, Hearing/Eye Clinics and Animal
Hospital/Veterinary Clinic are types of uses in the overarching category of Professional
Services proposed by the applicant. To be consistent with the terminology in the Zoning
Bylaw, Veterinarians is proposed to be used in place of Animal Hospitals/Veterinary Clinics.
Therefore, it is proposed that the Professional Uses specifically state and be limited to those
proposed by the applicant.
The remaining two uses are proposed to be their own separate categories – Financial
Services, Pharmacies and Fitness Facilities.
Staff considered the addition of daycare to the permitted principal uses. There is a demand to
provide daycare in the community. However, the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zoned property to
the south has already had a site specific text amendment for a daycare use (2015-158-RZ). The
project to the south had a site specific text amendment done by the same owner a s the subject site
to add daycare. The developer is not pursuing this use because of the transportation and traffic
related issues arising from accommodating parking, drop off/pick up and peak demands associated
with daycare uses.
The main driving factor for this and similar site specific text amendment is that the historically
permitted principal uses in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone limits the possible business
tenants to a narrow range of potential daily convenience shopping and personal services as
supported by OCP policies and the Commercial and Industrial Strategies.
Part of the reason for the applicant’s request, is due to the difficulty of finding businesses that fit in
within the currently permitted uses in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone. The traditional
local convenience-types of business no longer operate. For example, convenience stores are more
than a “Mom-and-Pop Store” or florist shops. Consumer demand and technological change have
resulted in once numerous video/DVD rental stores to vanish, replaced by vending machines at
grocery stores or video services like Netflix. The broadening of the permitted principal uses
requested by the applicant will assist to overcome the current market challenges, while still
complying with the intent of the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone for neighbourhood
commercial centres that are small in scale, convenient in nature and provide for households and
personal needs to close by residents in existing and emerging neighbourhoods.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal to broaden the range of uses for the property located at 11225 240 Street through a
site specific text amendment to the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone, aligns with objectives,
intent and policies in the OCP, Albion Area Plan, the Commercial and Industrial Strategy and the
Zoning Bylaw.
- 6 -
Therefore, it is recommended that Council grant Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016
(Appendix D) First and Second Reading and advance the bylaw to Public Hearing.
“Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner II
“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 – Letter from Applicant
Appendix D – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016
DATE: Jan 4, 2017
2016-129-RZ
BY: DT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
11225 240 ST
2016-244-RZ
2015-158-RZ
Legend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Edge of Marsh
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Lake or Reservoir
Marsh
APPENDIX A
DATE: Nov 16, 2016
2016-129-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
11225 240 ST
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015
Legend
Stream
River Centreline
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7303-2016
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. 7303-2016”.
2.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 is hereby amended as follows:
Part 7 Commercial Zones, Section 701 Neighbourhood Commercial: C-1, sub-section 1.
Permitted Principal Uses is amended by adding the following new clause g) as follows:
g) The following uses are permitted specific to the site legally described as Lot A Section 16
Township 12 New Westminster District Plan EPP25279 and PID 029-069-131:
i.Licensee Retail Stores
ii.Financial Services
iii.Professional Services limited to: Medical Clinics, Physiotherapists /Chiropractors,
Dentists, Veterinarians and Hearing/Eye Clinics
iv. Private Schools
v.Fitness Facilities
vi. Pharmacies
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , 2017.
READ a second time the day of , 2017.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 2017.
READ a third time the day of , 2017.
ADOPTED the day of , 2017.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX D
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-350-DVP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit
24341 112 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Development Variance Permit application 2015-350-DVP has been received in conjunction with a
rezoning and subdivision application to subdivide for the creation of 9 single family lots. The
requested variance is to:
i.reduce the minimum setback from an interior side lot line from 1.5m (5 ft.) to 0.61m (2 ft.) to
the garage, and to 0.46m (1.5 ft.) for the garage roof projection for proposed Lots 4 through 9.
Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2015-350-RZ on January 10, 2017.
It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2015-350-DVP be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-350-DVP respecting property located
at 24341 112 Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context
Applicant: Cipe Homes Inc.
Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 15, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan
77744
OCP:
Existing: Low/Medium Density Residential
Proposed: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation
Zoning:
Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Proposed: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with
density bonus to R-1 (Residential District) zoning requirements
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential, with
density bonus to R-1 (Residential District) zoning requirements
Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential
1106
- 2 -
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: R-1 (Residential District)
Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation
West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 0.43 ha (1 acre)
Access: 243B Street and Lane
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
Concurrent Applications: 2015-350-RZ/SD
b) Project Description:
The subject property is located within the Albion Area Plan and is approximately 0.43 ha (1 acre) in
size. The subject property is bounded by 112 Avenue to the south, 243B Street to the west, and
single family residential lots to the north and east (see Appendices A and B).
The applicant has requested to rezone the development site from RS-2 (One Family Suburban
Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with a Density Bonus, in
accordance with the Community Amenity Program, which allows for R-1 (Residential District) sized
lots.
The proposed development consists of approximately 9 R-1 (Residential District) sized lots (see
Appendix C), amounting to an Amenity Contribution of approximately $27,900.00. The final number
of lots and amenity contribution will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision. As per
Council Policy, this application will also be subject to the City-wide Community Amenity Contribution
Program, at a rate of $5,100.00 per single family lot created, which amounts to $45,900.00.
c) Variance Analysis:
The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family
development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval
process.
The requested variances and rationale for support are described below (see Appendices D and E):
1. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 601C(9)(c)(ii): To reduce the minimum side
yard setback from 1.5m (5 ft.) to 0.61m (2 ft.) for the garage wall and 0.46m (1.5 ft.) for the
garage roof overhang for proposed Lots 4 through 9, with no further siting exceptions allowed.
The applicant proposes that offsetting the garages would allow for an improved internal floor
plan and provide for a more attractive front façade with widened entry ways and front
porches. The resulting side yards will be reduced on one side of the lot to a minimal 0.61m (2
feet), essentially limiting rear yard access to one side only.
- 3 -
In an attempt to ensure long-term maintenance and fire safety, certain safeguards have been
required. They are as follows:
The garage will be required to be protected by fire sprinklers, like the home;
An easement on each lot will be required to allow long-term maintenance of the
building face, with a 0.61m (2 feet) side yard;
A side-yard fence attached to the home will be required to prohibit access along the
reduced side yard.
The proposed variance is supported because it is consistent with similar variances previously
supported for the area, and will allow development in the area to occur in a consistent manner.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council
consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or
tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to
the permit.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed variance is supported because the housing form is consistent with the overall
development, with similar building envelopes and setbacks.
It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer
be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2015-350-DVP.
“Original signed by Michelle Baski”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA
Planner 1
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Map
Appendix C – Proposed Subdivision Plan
Appendix D – Site Plan Showing Proposed Setback Variance
Appendix E – Streetscape Showing Offset Garage Siting Variance
DATE: Nov 19, 2015
2015-350-DP
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
24341 112 Ave
2011 Image
Legend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Indefinite Creek
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX A
DATE: Nov 19, 2015
2015-350-DP
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
24341 112 Ave
2011 Image
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
Legend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-129-DP
2016-129-DVP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Development Permit and Development Variance Permit
11225 240 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received for a new development permit for a mixed use commercial and
rental apartment building to be located at 11225 240 Street and that is zoned C-1 Neighbourhood
Commercial. The previously issued development permit (DP/045/09) expired earlier this year. The
new development permit includes 16 rental units in compliance with the Housing Agreement
registered on title.
There is an accompanying development variance permit application to allow the building to be sited
closer to Kanaka Way (front lot line) and 240 Street (exterior side lot line). This is to create a stronger
street presence to support the pedestrian environment and to strengthen pedestrian connectivity to
and from the emerging neighbourhoods near the local commercial node at the intersection of 240 th
Street and Kanaka Way (112 Avenue).
The applicant has addressed all matters raised by the Advisory Design Panel and is requesting the
new development permit and the development variance permit be issued by Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign a nd seal 2016-129-DVP respecting property located
at 11225 240 Street.
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DP respecting property located
at 11225 240 Street.
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the Cancellation of Charges Application to discharge
the previously issued development permits DP/045/09 and DVP/045/09.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: Ankenman Associates Architects Inc
(Mark Lesack)
Owner: 1005467 BC Ltd.
Legal Description: Lot A, Section 16, Township 12,New Westminster
District Plan EPP25279
1107
- 2 -
OCP :
Existing: COM (Commercial)
Proposed: COM (Commercial)
Zoning:
Existing: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial)
Proposed: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Townhouses
Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation Urban Residential
South: Use: Mixed use commercial / rental apartments
Zone: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) with site specific
text amendment for daycare and rental apartments
Designation: Commercial
East: Use: Vacant
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Low Density Residential, Conservation and Medium
Density Residential
West: Use: Townhouses
Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Mixed use Commercial and Rental Apartments
Site Area: 0.478 ha.
Access: Kanaka Way and 240 Street
Servicing: Urban
Previous Applications:
b) Project Description:
The proposal is to construct a two storey mixed use building with about 955 square metres of
commercial space on the first level, 16 rental apartments on the second level and 58 surface
parking spaces. The lands are already zoned C-1 Neighbourhood Commercial thus accommodating
this proposal. The residential parking and visitor spaces are grouped and separated from the
commercial parking.
c) Proposed Variances
The following variances are requested to Part 7 Commercial Zones, 701 Neighbourhood Commercial:
C-1 of the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985:
a) Section 6 Size of Buildings and Structures
This provision is varied to increase the maximum height from 7.5 metres to 11.0 metres.
- 3 -
b) Section 7 Sitting a)
This provision is varied by decreasing the minimum setback from the front lot line (Kanaka
Way) from 7.5 to:
5.99 metres to the building face;
3.3 metres to the face of exterior columns;
3.0 metres to the edge of the roof; and
5.73 metres to the face of the interior columns.
No projections into the varied setbacks would be permitted
c) Section 7 Sitting d)
This provision is varied by decreasing the minimum setback from the exterior side lot line
and including the corner truncation line (240 Street) from 7.5 metres to:
5.36 metres to the building face on the second floor to the truncation line;
2.73 metres to the face of the exterior columns (at 240th Street)
2.44 metres to the edge of the roof (at 240th Street); and
4.86 metres to the face of the interior columns;
3.86 metres to the outside face of the louvers from the truncation line.
No projections into the varied setbacks would be permitted
d) Section 8 Other Regulations f) (iii)
This regulation requires that an apartment use be limited exclusively to storeys above the
first storey of a building and above a permitted commercial use. The d esign of the building
includes an entrance lobby, mail boxes and storage space for the apartment residents on the
first level thus sharing a floor with commercial use. Therefore, a variance of this provision is
to provide clarity about calculating the floor area.
Justification: The rationale for these reduced setbacks includes bringing the building face and
storefronts closer to the streets thus creating a stronger pedestrian environment along 240 street
and Kanaka Way. It is similar to the reductions for the mixed use building to the south for the same
purpose and will begin to create the corner of 240 Street and Kanaka Way /112 Avenue landmark
element. Due to the length of the facades, there are column-like elements and roof projections that
extend or project beyond the building face to help break up, articulate and create more interesting
the building faces. The setback reduction for the semi-circular wall with its projecting canopy at the
corner gives the building greater visual prominence on the front onto two streets and better frames
this intersection.
The following variances are requested to Schedule “A” of the Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and
Loading Bylaw No. 4350 – 1990:
a) Section 1.0 d)
The Off Street Parking and Loading Bylaw does not have a requirement for apartment
parking in the C-1 Zone because an Apartment Use is not a permitted in that zone. If a use is
not specifically mentioned, the Bylaw allows the required off-street parking requirement to be
the same as for a similar class or use. Section 1.0 d) provides for the most similar use;
however, it requires the parking and the visitor parking spaces to be concealed. Given that
the apartments are rental units in perpetuity secured by a Housing Agreement, varying the
requirement for concealed or underground parking was deemed to be a reasonable trade off
in obtaining rental housing. The apartment parking is proposed to be located on a separate
portion of the site, identifiable with a distinct surface treatment and attractively landscaped.
- 4 -
Therefore, Section 1.0 d) is proposed to be varied as follows:
BUILDING CLASS OR USE REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES
Apartments in the C-1 zone 1.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit
plus 0.2 spaces per dwelling unit designated for visitors
Justification: The current regulation does not provide for Apartment Use parking requirement for
projects in the C-1 Zone. The most similar parking requirement will satisfy the residential parking
demand, but has the added requirement for the parking spaces to be concealed. This variance
applies the parking requirement in place for similar apartments above commercial uses to this
project without the concealment requirement. This is the same approach as approved by Council for
other similar projects and the original project which did not proceed because the permit lapsed.
The previous development permit for this site has expired, prompting a new application to issue the
necessary permits. This proposal in in accordance with the Rental Housing Agreement registered on
title and entered into between the original developer and the City to construct the required sixteen
(16) rental units.
d) Planning Analysis:
The previous development permit issued by Council (DP/045/09) was in conjunction with the
rezoning of a larger area of the northwest corner of Kanaka Way and 240 Street into a multi-phased
townhouse development that is nearing build out and the subject lands for a mixed use commercial
rental apartment building. This mixed use building was proposed to be 3 storey and containing 16
rental dwelling units subject to a Housing Agreement. The mixed use component was not preceded
with, prompting this new application because the former development permit has expired.
Acquired by a new owner, the application made is in accordance with the Housing Agreement,
providing a two storey (no loft level proposed) building with 16 dwelling units on the second floor.
The unit mix is proposed to be of 2–two bedroom units and 14-one bedroom plus den units. There is
an amenity room on the same floor as the dwelling units for the residents convenience as well as
resident bicycle storage and property maintenance equipment storage on the lower level.
The proposed site plan and parking layout is very similar to the earlier proposal.
The building continues to be sited close to the streets to create a vibrant pedestrian environment.
This requires a variance as described in the earlier section above. The proposed variance is similar
to the one previously granted; however, the new design has architectural elements like columns and
a semi-circular ornamental canopy element oriented to the corner requiring different setback
variances. In accordance with City requirements, this canopy is detachable to permit access to
utilities in a service easement along Kanaka Way.
A central open space with pedestrian amenities has been added, which is interconnected to
pedestrian ways on the site, including a direct connection to the townhouse development to the
west. Refuse and recycling is contained in an accessory building that borrows elements from the
architecture of the mixed use building.
This development has also incorporated a three tier storm water management plan as part of the
site plan and proposed landscaping. The stormwater management on site has been coordinated
between landscape architect and the civil engineer as follows:
- 5 -
1. Stormwater bioswales have been proposed on both street frontages, with rainwater leaders
from front face of building draining into bioswales. Calculations have been provided by civil
engineer and coordinated with the landscape architect for design depth of bioswales.
2. Interior of site, permeable paving has been proposed in parking lot area, with parking
drainage coordinated with the civil engineer. All parking lot areas will drain to permeable
paving areas. Calculations were coordinated with the civil engineer.
As for parking, there are 37 commercial parking spaces (5 more than the minimum requirement) 16
residential and 4 visitor parking spaces. A total of two spaces, one commercial and one residential
parking space, are designed for the use of the disabled. Resident parking is reserved and located as
a separate landscaped compound in the northern part of the site.
Notice on title for the existing development variance permit and the expired development permit is
proposed to be discharged.
e) Advisory Design Panel:
The following explanations describe how each comment from the Advisory Design Panel was
addressed by the Architect:
1. Consider stronger corner element feature for greater street presence on 240th and Kanaka
Architects response: Canopy revised to form full semicircular shape in plan. Canopy to be
constructed with removable sections to address encroachment into easement. Signage and
support backing has been pulled forward to align with outside building face for stronger corner
definition. Exterior lighting added at columns to provide greater definition/focus in evening.
2. Consider the signage at the corner to be brought forward from building façade and bring
additional interest to remaining signage for the exterior facing frontages with perpendicular
treatments
Architects response: Signage at corner revised per item 1. Signage locations at all elevations
revised to create more interesting visual pattern and provide greater visibility. Exterior light
fixtures added at building columns.
3. Consider stronger presence for the breezeway entry façade with additional detailing
Architects response: Cross-bracing added at breezeway to create stronger presence. Cross-
bracing elements are to repeat through length of breezeway. Final spacing are to be determined
at time of construction documentation.
Staff Comment: The bracing element was also requested and is being provided at the breezeway
entrance on the façade facing the parking area.
4. Consider additional glazing for north and south staircase facades
Architects response: Additional glazing added at north and west stairs.
- 6 -
5. Consider alternate treatments for venting with gable ends
Architects response: Gable end venting to be retained. Vent is functional element but also serves
decorative element. Form is consistent with desired architectural expression.
6. Support retaining wall detailing to the catch in place concrete with architectural finish
Architects response: Retaining wall to be detailed with painted inset reveals.
7. Confirm adjacent trail connections are aligned
Architects response: Walkway configurations revised. The north walkway intended originally to tie
into the adjacent property was deleted. The west walkway tie-in was relocated to match
neighbouring walkway location already built to property line. Final location is to be coordinated
with adjacent site condition.
Staff Comment: Although the walkway is removed, access to this commercial complex from the
townhouses to the north is by way of the sidewalk along 240 Street.
f) Citizen/Customer Implications:
In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council
consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or
tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to
the permit.
g) Financial Implications:
In accordance with Council’s Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of
the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated
landscape cost of $90,373.55, the security will be $90,373.55.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal is for a mixed-use development consisting of ground floor commercial and 16-unit
rental on the second floor. This complies with the with the Official Community Plan, the site’s existing
C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone is proposed to be varied, and the 16 rental units under the
Rental Housing Agreement with the City.
- 7 -
Therefore, it recommended that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DP
and 2016-129-DVP respecting property located at 11225 240 Street, as well as the Cancellation of
Charges Application to discharge the previously issued development permits DP/045/09 and
DVP/045/09.
“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 – Aerial Map
Appendix C – Architectural and Landscaping Plans
Appendix D – Site Plan with Variances
DATE: Apr 25, 2016
FILE:2016-129-DP
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
11225 240 STREETLegend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Edge of Marsh
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Lake or Reservoir
Marsh
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Apr 25, 2016
FILE:2016-129-DP
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
11225 240 STREET
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015
APPENDIX C
3/3/.$1$.$:$<),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'( 0),1*5$'( 03/3/7+67),1*5$'(0),1*5$'( 0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'( 0),1*5$'(06&$/( %HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU 352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$675((76&$3(6$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*867$675((76&$3(7+$675((76&$3(.$1$.$:$<5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/
835HHHHHHHHHHHHVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVH2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2OE1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFCFCFCFCFPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOE1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CD CD CD CD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOCFCFCFCFCFCFPOCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCD CDCD CD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCD CDCD CDCDCD CDCD CDCDCD CDCD CD CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDRRRRCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDRRRRCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDBOOOOOOCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDOOOOCDOCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPHPHPHROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROPOPOPOPO POPOPOPOPOCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCVR1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1OBBBBBPPPPPPPPVPPPPPPPPPVVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVOVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVOOVVVVVVVVVVVVVPPPPPPR1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1VVVVVVVVVVVVPPPPPPPR1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1POPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOFFFFFFFFFFFFE1FFFCC835 9,67 6067$//6727$/WK675((7.$1$.$:$<606060609,679,67605.0%3
P3
P3
P3
P3
P3
P4.0%4.0%4.6%3.9%4.0%4.0%P72:$//P72:$// P72:$// P72:$// P72:$//P72:$//
P3
P5(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(6$&&(668372(;,67,1*3$7+:$< P
5(65(6 72&21&)/2256/$% P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&(;,67,1*&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.(;,67,1*&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.+<'52307/$0367$1'$5' 7<3,&$/5()(572/$1'6&$3(':*6)2563(&,),&$7,216 &85%/(7'2:1 7<3,&$/ P'3 P'3P'3P'3PP
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
3/$17(53/$17(5/,1(2)%/'*$%29(P 6(7%$&. P 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&.)$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801723/P 6(7%$&. 3/$7&251(5&8772%/'*)$&(6(&21')/225'(&25$7,9(:$/.:$<75($70(17 5()(572/$1'6&$3(':*6 P
P
P
(;,67,1*+<'52.,26.(;,67,1*+<'52.,26.)+P
P
6(7%$&.('*(2)522)723/6(7%$&. )$&(2),17(5,25&2/801723/ 6(7%$&. )$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801723/ &21&5(7(81,73$9(5672'(/,1($7(:$/.:$<6 7<3,&$/ &21&5(7(81,73$9(56$75(6,'(17$1'9,6,7253$5.,1* 7<3,&$/ PP 6(7%$&. 3/$7&251(5&8772%/'*)$&(*5281')/225 6(7%$&. 3/$7&251(5&87722876,'()$&(/289(56PP6(7%$&.)$&(2),17(5,25&2/801723/522)/,1(P6(7%$&. )$&(2)522)723/ PP5(69,67&%&%&%&%0+0+0+0+0+A1.12
P
P
P
P3
P
P
P
P
P
P&%
P
P3.7%
&85% P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P5.2%
P P
PP
P
P P
P
P72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&P
P
P
P
P
P
5(6,'(17$1'9,6,7253$5.,1*21/<%(<21'7+,632,176,*1$*(02817('67((/3267
5(6,'(17$1'9,6,7253$5.,1*21/<%(<21'7+,632,176,*1$*(02817('67((/32676<1236,6=21,1*&&,9,&$''5(667+675((70$3/(5,'*(/(*$/'(6&5,37,21/27$6(&7,2172:16+,31(::(670,167(5',675,&73/$1(33 6,7($5($6,7($5($Pò 6) 6,7(&29(5$*(6,7(&29(5$*( PòPò *5266)/225$5($%8,/',1*)/225$5($ (;&/8',1*(/(&75,&$/6725$*(6(59,&(52206$0(1,7<$5($'(&.667$,56(/(9$725$1'/2%%< 0$,1)/225&200(5&,$/86( Pò 6) 833(5)/22568,7(6$5($21/<Pò 6) 0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7352326('35,1&,3$/%8,/',1*P0$;
3$5.,1*5(48,5(0(1765(48,5('352326('67$//3(5Pò [ 67$//3(55(6,'(17,$/68,7(9,6,725 [ 6(7%$&.6352326('1257+P )7 3/72%/'*)$&(6287+P )7 3/72)$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801P )7 3/72('*(2)522)P )7 3/72)$&(2),17(5,25&2/801($67 P )7 3/72)$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801P )7 3/72('*(2)522)P )7 3/72)$&(2),17(5,25&2/801:(67 P )7 3/72522))$&(&251(5&87P )7 3/$7&251(5&8772%/'*)$&(*5281')/225P )7 3/$7&251(5&8772%/'*6(&21')/225P )7 3/$7&251(5&872876,'()$&(2)/289(561(7)/225$5($0$,1)/225 Pò 6) 833(5)/225 Pò 6) LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]$%&'T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P72: P72: P72:6&$/( %HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU$VLQGLFDWHG352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$6,7(3/$1$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*8676&$/(
$6,7(3/$1$3$57,$/5(7$,1,1*:$//(/(9&21&5(7(:$//&203/(7(:,7+&$67,13/$&(5(&(66(63$,17('720$7&+%/8(-($13(50$,1%/'*127( :$//&216758&7,2172%(&21),50('&225',1$7(':,7+$'-$&(17'(9(/230(175(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/ $8* 5(,668(')25'3 0/
T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m]$%&'().+,/*P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
$$3/3/.$1$.$:$<T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]'$78037$9(2)'3'3 0'$78037$9(2)'3'30P 0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7-/,*+7,1*02817('72&2/801)$&(T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m]$%&'().+,/*P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
$$3/3/.$1$.$:$<T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]'$78037$9(2)'3'3 0'$78037$9(2)'3'30P0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7-LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m](T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P
P
T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P
9" 12"4" 12"P
LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m](T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P
P
LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P
6&$/( %HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU
352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$&2/285('(/(9$7,216$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*8676&$/(
$($67(/(9$7,216&$/(
$:(67(/(9$7,216&$/(
$($67(/(9$7,216&$/(
$1257+(/(9$7,216&$/(
$:(67(/(9$7,216&$/(
$6287+(/(9$7,21 +25,=217$//<,167$//('&(0(17,7,2866,',1* (;326(')$&( &2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($1 &(0(17,7,2863$1(/6 +$5',%2$5' &2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(/,*+7+286( %5,&.9(1((5&2/2857(;785(720$7&+ ,17(167$7(%5,&.3(:7(560227+( +,*+352),/($63+$/76+,1*/(6&2/285720$7&+ ,.2&$0%5,'*(+$59$5'6/$7( %8,/783:22')$6&,$&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 9,1</:,1'2:'225)5$0( :+,7( :,7+:,'(75,0&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($17+(50$//<%52.(1$/80,1806725()5217:,1'2:)5$0(&:'28%/(*/$=,1**/$=,1*&/($5)5$0(&2/285 %(1-$0,10225( :528*+7,521 0(7$/%5$&.(7+25,=217$//289(56&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 6/$77('&('$56,*1$*(%$&.,1*&2/285 6$16,1(19,5267$,1&/$66,&$87801*2/'&2$7 +25,=217$/6,*1%$1')/86+02817('&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(:528*+7,521 0(7$/5$,/,1*6<67(0&:0'2,1),/3$1(/&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< /289(5('9(17&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$<0$7(5,$//(*(1' 5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/ $8* 5(,668(')25'3 0/
T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m] 5(7$,1,1*:$//P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
3/3/7+67T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]$$T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m] P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
3/3/7+67T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]$$6&$/( %HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU
352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$&2/285('(/(9$7,216$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*8676&$/(
$1257+(/(9$7,216&$/(
$6287+(/(9$7,21 +25,=217$//<,167$//('&(0(17,7,2866,',1* (;326(')$&( &2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($1 &(0(17,7,2863$1(/6 +$5',%2$5' &2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(/,*+7+286( %5,&.9(1((5&2/2857(;785(720$7&+ ,17(167$7(%5,&.3(:7(560227+( +,*+352),/($63+$/76+,1*/(6&2/285720$7&+ ,.2&$0%5,'*(+$59$5'6/$7( %8,/783:22')$6&,$&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 9,1</:,1'2:'225)5$0( :+,7( :,7+:,'(75,0&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($17+(50$//<%52.(1$/80,1806725()5217:,1'2:)5$0(&:'28%/(*/$=,1**/$=,1*&/($5)5$0(&2/285 %(1-$0,10225( :528*+7,521 0(7$/%5$&.(7+25,=217$//289(56&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 6/$77('&('$56,*1$*(%$&.,1*&2/285 6$16,1(19,5267$,1&/$66,&$87801*2/'&2$7 +25,=217$/6,*1%$1')/86+02817('&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(:528*+7,521 0(7$/5$,/,1*6<67(0&:0'2,1),/3$1(/&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< /289(5('9(17&2/285720$7&+ %(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$<0$7(5,$//(*(1' 5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/ $8* 5(,668(')25'3 0/
A1.12CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com
A1.12CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com
CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com
CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com
APPENDIX D
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-207-DP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Wildfire Development Permit
22650 136 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Wildfire Development Permit application 2015-207-DP has been received in conjunction with the
first phase of a four (4) phase single family subdivision that will result in a total number of 100 lots
to be created. A Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) is required because the subject property
located at 22650 136 Avenue (Appendix A & B) is located within the Wildfire Development Permit
Area designated in the Official Community Plan.
The Planning Department, Licences, Permits & Bylaws Department and the Fire Department have
been monitoring the implementation of the Wildfire Protection Guidelines since they were adopted in
2008. To address some challenges, the original standards upon which the Guidelines were based,
Council accepted recommendations in a staff report dated July 25, 2016 and Official Community
Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 was given second reading on December 6, 2016, to move to
the more flexible set of standards contained in the Home Owners FireSmart Manual (B.C. Forest
Service Protection Program), referenced in this report as the “FireSmart Standards”. In the
meantime, to allow instream application to proceed without delay, the FireSmart Standards are
being applied.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-207-DP respecting property located
at 22650 136 Avenue
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: Paul Hayes
Owner: 581600 BC LTD
Legal Description: Lot 9, Section 29, Township 12, NWD Plan 9387
OCP :
Existing: Eco Clusters, Conservation
Zoning:
Existing: R-1 (Residential District), RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
1108
- 2 -
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: R-1 (Residential District)
Designation: Eco Cluster, Conservation
South: Use: Rural Residential, Agriculture
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Agricultural
East: Use: Single Family Residential, Park
Zone: R-1 (Residential District), R-2 (Urban Residential District)
Designation: Eco Cluster, Conservation
West: Use: Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Agricultural
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 11.76 hectares (29.06 acres)
Access: 136 Avenue
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
Concurrent Applications: 2015-207-SD (Phase 1), 2016-239-SD (Phase 2),
DP/096/07 (WP/NF)
b) Project Description:
The property was originally rezoned under application 2013-097-RZ in 2001, and a small
southeastern portion is currently under rezoning for Phase 4 for 10 lots (2016-239-RZ).
The site is to be subdivided and constructed in four phases. Currently, the Planning Department is
processing subdivision applications for developing Phase 1, 30 lots (2015-107-SD) and Phase 2, 24
lots (2016-239-SD) along with a Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit
encompassing all four (4) phases (DP/096/07).
The development of Phase 1 will include: construction of a sewer main connection between Foreman
Drive at 136 Avenue and the Nelson Peak development to the east; dedication of Park on the
balance of the site; and construction of a multi-purpose (horse) trail over the sewer right-of-way.
Completion of the sewer connection to Nelson Peak will allow removal of a temporary pump station
on that site. Phase 1 also includes the last portion of 136 Avenue needed to provide an east -west
connection between 224 Street and 232 Street.
c) Planning Analysis:
Under Section 8.12 of the Official Community Plan (OCP), portions of the City are designated as a
Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) Area. The purpose for this is for the protection of life and
property in the designated area that could be at risk for wildland fire and where the risk, in some
cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures.
These measures are specified in a Wildfire Protection Development Permit that is based on a
qualified consultant’s report.
- 3 -
Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. prepared the Wildfire Development Permit Assessment for this
project. The overall objective of this report is to assess the potential wildfire threat and provide
recommendations and tools to reduce this threat to the development site as a part of the Wildfire
Development Permit Area application. Specific goals for this project are:
To assess interface fuel hazards using an accepted fuel hazard assessment procedure and
present a summary of results;
To map the location of hazardous fuel types relative to the planned subdivision;
Provide a synopsis demonstrating that the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable Development Permit Guidelines provided by the City; and
Identify mitigation or compensation measures that may be specified as development permit
or rezoning conditions including, but not limited to, recommendations for:
o Building materials;
o Establishing and maintaining defensible space;
o Improving suppression access;
o Managing combustible construction debris;
o FireSmart fuel treatments to mitigate hazard in existing landscapes and natural areas;
and,
o FireSmart landscaping for the planned development as well as ongoing maintenance of
vegetation fuels.
The following is a description of how the recommendations and requirements of the Wildfire
Development Permit Assessment Report achieve the WFDP Key Guideline Concepts:
1. Locate development on individual sites so that, in conjunction with the use of mitigating
construction techniques, the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced;
Structures will be located 8m from the forest edges as per the Zoning Bylaw. The forested areas
beyond this point to about 30m will be treated to reduce the fire behavio ur potential of high risk
fuels. This treated interface area along with the use of fire resistant construction materials and
fuel treatments will reduce the wildfire hazard.
2. Mitigate interface fire hazards without compromising environmental conservation objectives
while respecting other hazards in the area;
There will be some fuel treatments in Park C of conifer trees. These treatments will include
mostly lift pruning of mature trees and removal of some trees along the forest edge. All
deciduous trees will remain and overall impacts to the ecological integrity of this forest will be
low.
3. Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land
development process;
All forested areas have been assessed and delineated into fuel types. Fire behaviour potential of
these areas has been analysed. These findings have driven the recommended fuel treatments.
4. Proactively manage potential fire behaviour, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire
suppression and containment, and minimizing adverse impacts.
Some low impact fuel treatments will include removal of conifers along the northwest edge of
Park C as well as some lift pruning of mature conifers. This will help to create a defensible space
for suppression and reduce the risk of a crown fire.
- 4 -
d) Interdepartmental Comments:
The Wildfire Development Permit Assessment was reviewed and all issues identified by the Planning,
Parks and Fire Departments were satisfactorily addressed by the consultant.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed four (4) phase subdivision at 22650 136 Avenue is located in an area designed by the
Official Community Plan to be a Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) Area. Therefore, application
2015-207-DP for a wildfire development permit has been brought forward to Council for
consideration and issuance.
As discussed in the report, this application has been considered and complies with the requirements
of the FireSmart Standards and the Key Guideline Concepts. It is recommended that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-207-DP respecting properties located at 22650 136
Avenue.
“Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
“Original signed by Christine Carter” “Original signed by Michael Van Dop”
_____________________________________________ ________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Michael Van Dop
Director of Planning Assistant Chief, Planning & Prevention
“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 – Air Photo
Appendix C – Subdivision Plan
DATE: Jul 8, 2015
2015-207-SD
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:4,000
22650-136 Ave
Legend
!(Ponds
\\Wetlands
GPS Creek Centrelines
Streams & Rivers (Topographic)
Feature Type
Indefinite Creek Centreline
Ditch Centreline
River Centreline
Rivers & Lakes (Topographic)
Feature Type
Canal
Flooded Land
Lake/Reservoir
Marsh
River
APPENDIX A
DATE: Jul 8, 2015
2015-207-SD
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
City of Maple Ridge´
Scale: 1:4,000
22650-136 Ave
Legend
!(Ponds
\\Wetlands
GPS Creek Centrelines
Streams & Rivers (Topographic)
Feature Type
Indefinite Creek Centreline
Ditch Centreline
River Centreline
Rivers & Lakes (Topographic)
Feature Type
Canal
Flooded Land
Lake/Reservoir
Marsh
River
2011 photography image
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
CityCityCityCity of Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridge
TO:TO:TO:TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING MEETING MEETING MEETING DATEDATEDATEDATE:::: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council
FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: MEETING: MEETING: MEETING: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The disbursements summary for the past period is attached for information. All voucher payments are
approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor and a Finance Manager. Council authorizes the
disbursements listing through Council resolution. Expenditure details are available by request through
the Finance Department.
RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:
That the That the That the That the disbursements as listed below for the month ended disbursements as listed below for the month ended disbursements as listed below for the month ended disbursements as listed below for the month ended November 30November 30November 30November 30, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016 bebebebe received for received for received for received for
information only.information only.information only.information only.
GENERALGENERALGENERALGENERAL $$$$ 8,650,5248,650,5248,650,5248,650,524
PAPAPAPAYROLLYROLLYROLLYROLL $$$$ 1,805,3111,805,3111,805,3111,805,311
PURCHASE CARDPURCHASE CARDPURCHASE CARDPURCHASE CARD $$$$ 96,96496,96496,96496,964
$$$$ 10,552,79910,552,79910,552,79910,552,799
DISCUSSION:DISCUSSION:DISCUSSION:DISCUSSION:
a)a)a)a) Background Context:Background Context:Background Context:Background Context:
The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and
provided authorization for expenditures to deliver municipal services.
The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan.
b)b)b)b) Community Communications:Community Communications:Community Communications:Community Communications:
The citizens of Maple Ridge are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial
disbursements.
1131
c)c)c)c) Business Plan / Financial Implications:Business Plan / Financial Implications:Business Plan / Financial Implications:Business Plan / Financial Implications:
Highlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution
• Eurovia BC – 203 St road & drainage improvements $ 479,310
• G.V. Water District – Water consumption Aug 3 – 30/16 $ 941,817
• King Hoe Excavating Ltd. – 128 Ave road & drainage improvements $ 1,580,980
• NWallace & Company – Storage building & shed construction $ 476,305
• Ridge Meadows Recycling Society – Monthly contract for recycling $ 189,713
d)d)d)d) Policy Implications:Policy Implications:Policy Implications:Policy Implications:
Corporate governance practice includes reporting the disbursements to Council monthly.
CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:
The disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 have been reviewed and are in order.
Original signed by G’Ann Rygg
______________________________________________
Prepared by: G’Ann RyggG’Ann RyggG’Ann RyggG’Ann Rygg
Accounting Accounting Accounting Accounting Clerk IIClerk IIClerk IIClerk II
Original signed by Trevor Thompson
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Trevor Trevor Trevor Trevor Thompson, Thompson, Thompson, Thompson, BBA, BBA, BBA, BBA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CGACGACGACGA
Manager of Financial PlanningManager of Financial PlanningManager of Financial PlanningManager of Financial Planning
Original signed by Paul Gill
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, Paul Gill, BBA, Paul Gill, BBA, Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CGACGACGACGA
GM GM GM GM –––– Corporate & Financial Corporate & Financial Corporate & Financial Corporate & Financial ServicesServicesServicesServices
Original signed by E.C. Swabey
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative Officer
VENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT AMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNT
0846904 BC Ltd Security refund 37,890
677560 BC Ltd Soil removal overpayment refund 15,390
Aecom Canada Ltd National benchmarking initiative 19,656
BC Hydro Electricity 124,022
BC SPCA Contract payment - Oct 28,558
Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd Maintenance: Albion Dyke service 9,877
City Hall 2,556
Cottonwood landfill service 9,913
Haney Wharf 1,386
Leisure Centre 14,804
Memorial Park 963
Pedestrian crossings 321
Street lights 1,928
Street signs 214
Telosky Park 2,503
Traffic cameras 571
Traffic lights 896 45,932
CUPE Local 622 Dues - pay periods 16/22 & 16/23 25,915
C&C Trucking Limited Soil removal overpayment refund 15,307
Chevron Canada Ltd Gasoline & diesel fuel 45,134
Co-Pilot Industries Ltd Gravel & dump fees 16,983
Donald Flooring Contract Sales The Act flooring 23,457
Epic Homes (2012) J.V.Security refund 15,000
Eurovia British Columbia 203 St road & drainage improvements - Lougheed Hwy to Golden Ears Way 479,310
Falcon Centre Joint Venture Security refund 86,376
Fitness Edge Contracted service provider - fitness classes & programs 15,329
Gotraffic Management Inc Traffic control 38,707
Greater Vanc Water District Barnston pump station 58,927
Water consumption Aug 3 - Aug 30/16 941,817 1,000,744
Hallmark Facility Services Inc Janitorial services & supplies Sep & Oct:
City Hall 3,427
Firehalls 4,552
Hammond Community Centre 4,205
Library 5,583
Operations 4,070
Pitt Meadows Heritage Hall 1,155
Randy Herman Building 4,766
RCMP 4,070
South Bonson Community Centre 3,592 35,420
Hanks Trucking And Bulldozing Roadworks hauling & bulldozing 19,097
Horizon Landscape Contractors Grass cutting 70,595
ISL Engineering & Land Serv 128 Avenue (216 St - 224 St) Construction support services 23,207
203 St Lougheed Highway - Golden Ears Way - Design 1,055
Culvert replacement program - McFadden Creek enviromental montoring 5,231 29,493
King Hoe Excavating Ltd 128 Avenue road and drainage improvements (210 Street to 216 Street)1,580,980
Lafarge Canada Inc Roadworks material 31,360
Manulife Financial Employer/employee remittance 150,256
Maple Ridge & PM Arts Council Arts Centre contract payment 53,102
Theatre rental 2,020 55,122
Maple Ridge Carpet One Flooring replacement:
City Hall 3,822
Fairview House 1,143
Firehall 2,607
Leisure Centre 368
Operations 499
RCMP 7,866 16,305
Mar-Tech Underground Services Culvert replacement program - Wood Stave culvert structural lining 127,332
McElhanney Consulting Services 203 Street road & drainage improvements (DTR to Golden Ears Way)36,617
232 St sidewalk (132 Ave - Silver Valley Rd)23,945 60,562
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGECITY OF MAPLE RIDGECITY OF MAPLE RIDGECITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016
VENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT AMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNT
McQuarrie, Hunter - "In Trust"Security refund 707,102
Medical Services Plan Employee medical & health premiums 40,750
Mertin Nissan Ltd Two Nissan 3/4 ton vans 71,820
Municipal Pension Plan BC Employer/employee remittance 480,391
North Of 49 Enterprises Ltd Contracted service provider - skating lesson programs 23,023
Now Solutions Inc Payroll software annual license 72,017
Nustadia Recreation Inc Subsidized ice purchased by P&LS on behalf of user groups - Oct 73,429
NWallace & Company Ltd.Operations storage building & shed construction 476,305
Oaken Developments (Haney) Inc Security refund 125,828
Pace Group Communications Inc Media relations & communication services 23,354
Parsons Inc Gravel review Ph2 - stormwater management plan for expansion area 17,996
Paul Bunyan Tree Services Tree maintenance & damaged tree removal 20,017
Province Of BC - 21312 2016 school tax remittance 38,310
Receiver General For Canada Employer/Employee remittance PP16/22 & PP16/23 615,863
RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd Ice rental Sep & Oct 120,692
Curling rink operating expenses Sep 4,258
Third surface insurance 6,682 131,632
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Monthly contract for recycling 189,713
Weekly recycling 468
Litter pickup contract Sep & Oct 3,846
Recycling station pickup Sep & Oct 660
Roadside waste removal 190
Toilet rebate program 188 195,065
Russell, Grant Security refund 21,914
Sandpiper Contracting Ltd 224 Street watermain replacement (122 Ave to 124 Ave)80,351
Snowden, Deborah Security refund 34,285
Softchoice LP Server Utility 1 & 2 replacement 21,342
Stantec Consulting Ltd 270A St reservoir & pump station 19,602
225 St pump station & River Road forcemain capacity study 18,173
108 Avenue watermain (Grant - Albion PRV)2,598 40,373
Total Power Ltd Generator maintenance Oct:
Firehalls 413
Library 206
Operations 206
Pitt Meadows Family Rec Centre 206
Portable generators 2,818
Pump stations 15,748
Radio tower 870
RCMP 206
Whonnock Community Centre 207 20,880
Triahn Enterprises Ltd 108 Ave watermain & PRV chamber 76,762
Warrington PCI Management Advance for Tower common costs 60,000
Disbursements In Excess $15,000 7,679,0417,679,0417,679,0417,679,041
Disbursements Under $15,000 971,483971,483971,483971,483
Total Payee Disbursements 8,650,5248,650,5248,650,5248,650,524
Payroll PP16/23 & PP16/24 1,805,3111,805,3111,805,3111,805,311
Purchase Cards - Payment 96,96496,96496,96496,964
Total Disbursements November 2016 10,552,79910,552,79910,552,79910,552,799
Page 1 of 2
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: Jan. 09, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2016 Collector’s Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
BC Assessment (BCA) has revised the assessed value for the 2016 Collector’s Roll through the
issuance of Supplementary Rolls 3 through 11. The Collector is required to make all the necessary
changes to the municipal tax roll records and reports these adjustments to Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Twelve folios were adjusted in total:
Appeals filed with the Property Assessment Appeal Board for 2016 resulted in adjustments to the
assessed value of eight residential and three commercial properties to more accurately reflect the
value of the improvements. One residential property had it’s farm status reinstated.
(Municipal tax revenue changes: Decrease in Class 1 (Residential) $6,898; Decrease in Class 6
(Commercial) $11,613; Increase in Class 9 (Farm) $387.)
b)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
There is a total decrease of $ 18,124 in municipal tax revenue.
1132
Page 2 of 2
CONCLUSIONS:
Adjustments by BC Assessment resulted in a decrease of $1,576,300 to the Residential assessment
base, a decrease of $977,564 to the Commercial assessment base and an increase of $11,485 to
the Farm assessment base.
This report dated Jan. 09, 2017 is submitted for information and is available to the public.
“Original signed by Silvia Rutledge”
______________________________________________
Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge
Manager of Revenue & Collections
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
_____________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
_____________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Revision to Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The current Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods requires some housekeeping revisions and staff
recommends changes to a current requirement to advertise found property (goods) in a local
newspaper two times before they are returned to the finder. In many cases, the cost of advertising
exceeds the value of the property. It would be prudent to set a threshold for when found property
must be advertised. In addition, the policy requires that unclaimed property be sent to public
auction, however this method of disposal is not always the best means to ensure the best value to
the City and it would be beneficial to allow for other options such as recycling.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That Policy 10.01 – Disposal of Found Goods be revised as outlined in the staff report dated
January 9, 2017.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
When property is turned into the RCMP or the City, the property is held for 3 months before it is
disposed of. If the item is unclaimed, the current practise is disposal is either though auction or
other method as determined by the Manager of Procurement to obtain best value. If the finder of
the property is interested in claiming the property it is returned to the finder.
Prior to disposal the current policy requires that staff publish a notice in two subsequent weekly local
newspapers as per the Community Charter requirement for ‘public notices’ (it should be noted that
under the Community Charter publication is not necessary for found goods).
The following table identifies the recommended changes and the attached policy shows those
changes in context.
1133
Page 2 of 3
Recommend Changes to Policy 10.01
Sections Current Revised Rationale
Section 3.0
Unclaimed
Property (1) and
Claimed 1
Property (1):
Reference to
Advertising after
the hold period.
…After that time,
notice will be given
in accordance with
Section 94 of the
Community
Charter.
…After that time,
notice will be given
in accordance with
Section 94 of the
Community Charter
for lost property
with an estimated
valued over $500
The purpose of the publication is to attempt to
find the owner of the found property. Recent
experience is that the City has had few
responses to such notices. These notices can
be costly, on average $50 per ad. Ads should
only be run for higher valued property.
Section 3.2:
Reference to
disposal through
public auction.
If the property still
remains
unclaimed, the
property will be
sent to public
auction.
If the property still
remains
unclaimed, the
property will be
sent to public
auction or disposed
of in another
method that brings
best value to the
City .
Public Auction is not always the most cost
effective means of disposing of unclaimed
found goods. In some cases the cost to ship
the items to auction exceeds the value
received from auction. In other instances, the
auction company will charge the City for
disposing of the goods if they are not sold at
auction (disposal is usually into the garbage).
The Manager of Procurement could be given
the authority to determine the option for
obtaining the best value back to the City, such
as auction, re-sale, recycling or directly
disposing of items in the garbage if there is no
other means of reuse – which would reduce
the costs to the City that an auction company
may charge.
Section 1.1 and
2.2: Reference
to Property that
has come into
possession of
the RCMP.
…has come into the
custody and
possession of the
RCMP
…has come into the
custody and
possession of the
RCMP or the
Municipality
The policy refers to found goods turned into the
RCMP. Often items are also turned into the
City directly, or picked up by the City during
regular operations in the field.
1 “Claimed” in this policy refers to the fact that the finder is interested in recovering the property if the owner is
not identified.
Page 3 of 3
b) Desired Outcome(s):
Revised Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods to reduce costs to City for advertising, provide for
other means of disposal other than auction when appropriate to realize better value to the
municipality, and include goods turned into or found by the City.
c) Strategic Alignment:
Changing the policy would follow the strategic alignment of fiscal responsibility.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Individuals who are honest enough to turn in found property will not have to wait extra time to
claim low value items while notices have to be advertised.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
RCMP support staff have been consulted on the changes.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Found milestone 2017.
g) Policy Implications:
Revisions to Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods.
h) Alternatives:
1) Leave the policy as is, and incur the advertising/auction costs and reduce best value options
for disposal of found goods.
2) On the advertising - reduce or increase the threshold recommended for triggering an
advertisement.
CONCLUSIONS:
Policy No. 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods was adopted in 2006 and would benefit from revisions as
identified herein. The City could realize better value and provide better customer service through
these revisions.
“Original signed by Laurie Darcus”
Prepared by: Laurie Darcus, MA, MMC, SCMP, CPM
Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M.
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:ld
Attachment: Revised Policy 10.01 – Disposal of Found Goods
Printed Page 1 of 3 Policy No. 10.01
185333
POLICY STATEMENT
City District of Maple Ridge
Title: Disposal of Found Goods
Policy No : 10.01
Supersedes: REVISED
Authority: Council
Approval: February 28, 2006 January 17, 2017
Effective Date:
March 1, 2006
January 18, 2017
Policy Statement:
1. In accordance with Section 67 of the Community Charter, property that has come into the
custody and possession of the RCMP or the Municipality on behalf of a Municipality may be
disposed of and the proceeds from that disposal dealt with in accordance with the regulations
under the Community Charter if
(a) the owner of the property has not been identified after reasonable effort, and
(b) a court of competent jurisdiction has not made an order in respect of the property.
2. Property may be disposed of at any time if
( a) the property is a perishable article,
( b) the property has no apparent marketable value, or
( c) custody of the property involves unreasonable expense or inconvenience.
Purpose:
To provide direction to Municipal and RCMP Staff with regard to property that has come into the
possession of the RCMP or the Municipality on behalf of the municipality.
Definitions:
Printed Page 2 of 3 Policy No. 10.01
185333
PROCEDURE (OPERATING REGULATION)
City District of Maple Ridge
Policy Title: Disposal of Found Goods
Policy Number: 10.01
Supersedes: REVISED
Authority: Council
Approval: February 28, 2006 January 17, 2017
Effective Date:
March 1, 2006January 18,
2017
1.0 POLICY STATEMENT (adopted):
1. In accordance with Section 67 of the Community Charter, property that has come into the custody and
possession of the RCMP or the Municipality on behalf of a municipality may be disposed of and
the proceeds from that disposal dealt with in accordance with the regulations under the
Community Charter if
(a) the owner of the property has not been identified after reasonable effort, and
(b) a court of competent jurisdiction has not made an order in respect of the property.
2. Property may be disposed of at any time if
(a) the property is a perishable article,
(b) the property has no apparent marketable value, or
(c) custody of the property involves unreasonable expense or inconvenience.
2.0 KEY AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Action to Take
Unclaimed Property
1. The Manager of Procurement will dispose of unclaimed property
provided it has been held for 3 months and provided that it is
no longer required for police purposes (i.e. evidence or active
police file).
Claimed Property
2. People who submit lost property to the RCMP or Municipality
may also submit a claim for this property to the Municipal Clerk.
Responsibility
Manager of Procurement
Municipal Clerk
3.0 DETAILED ACTIONS
Unclaimed Property
1. The lost property will be held for 3 months. After that time,
notice will be given in accordance with Section 94 of the
Community Charter for lost property with an estimated valued
over $500.
2. If the property still remains unclaimed, the property will be sent
to public auction or disposed of in another method that brings
best value to the Municipality.
Municipal Clerk
Manager of Procurement
Printed Page 3 of 3 Policy No. 10.01
185333
3. Proceeds from the auction will be held for 6 months from the
date of sale and will then be transferred to general revenue.
Claimed Property
1. The lost property will be held for 30 days months from the date
of the claim. After that time, notice will be given in accordance
with Section 94 of the Community Charter for lost property with
an estimated valued over $500.
2. If, after the notice is given, the item still remains unclaimed by
the owner, the item will be returned to the finder.
3. If the estimated value of the item exceeds $3000, staff will
report the claim to a closed Council meeting before the item is
returned to the finder.
4. If the owner claims the property within this period, the finder
will be advised in writing.
Manager of Procurement
Municipal Clerk
RCMP staff
Municipal Clerk
Municipal Clerk
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Dog Off-Leash Areas – Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Parks and Leisure Services Commission approved the creation of dog off-leash areas in both
Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks on the condition that staff provide a report of all
compliments or complaints after a six month period of operation, at which time a final determination
can be made on the future use of these sites as off-leash areas. Subsequently, these off-leash areas
were installed, Westview in November 2015 and Upper Maple Ridge in February 2016, and have
been well-received by the dog-owning community.
Along with the previously established dog off-leash areas at Albion Fairgrounds and Jerry Sulina Park,
these two additional areas have provided dog owners within our community legitimate areas for off-
leash activities as well as opportunities to socialize and exercise their pets closer to home while
minimizing impacts to other park visitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the trial dog off-leash areas at Westview Park and Upper Maple Ridge Park, be approved as
permanent off-leash areas.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
At the January 2015 Commission meeting, staff were directed to create a dog off-leash site at
Westview Park, Tolmie Park, and Upper Maple Ridge Park. Staff were also directed to work with
nearby residents and park users to identify appropriate areas within each park to be used as an
off-leash area and the hours that the off-leash locations are open. Community input was
garnered for these three locations and areas in each park were identified.
At the May 14, 2015 and July 9, 2015 Parks & Leisure Services Commission meetings
respectively, staff was directed to install dog off-leash areas at Westview Park and Upper Maple
Ridge Park, on the condition that the Commission be provided with a report of all compliments or
complaints after a minimum six month period of operation, at which time a final determination
could be made on the future use of these sites as off-leash areas.
The Westview and Upper Maple Ridge dog off-leash areas were installed and have proved
popular with dog owners seeking off-leash opportunities within our community. Complaints and
1151
2
compliments received, after installation of the dog off-leash areas in November 2015 and
February 2016 for the six month period of operation are attached (Attachment A).
The complaints have included concerns around noise, odours, cleanliness, proximity to
playground and loss of informal use of park area, while compliments have highlighted resident
dog owner’s appreciation for the opportunity to exercise their pets. Requests for minor
improvements have been received as well, with benches, small dog areas, dog watering station
and pathway improvements cited.
While these areas are appreciated and well used by the dog owning community, during the
period of operation, three requests for additional dog off-leash areas have been received. Many
Maple Ridge dog-owning residents value the opportunity to take dogs to parks for exercise and
socialization, a healthy activity for both dogs and dog owners. Dog owners are frequent park
users and they particularly value the opportunity to exercise dogs off-leash.
b) Desired Outcome:
To provide suitable permanent dog off-leash opportunities that are safe where dogs can exercise
and socialize where this activity does not detract from the enjoyment of other park users.
c) Strategic Alignment:
In response to the growing demand for dog off-leash areas expressed through multiple requests
made to staff and members of Council, identifying suitable locations has been included in the
Park and Facilities business plan since 2006.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The off-leash areas are an outcome of the community desire to accommodate additional off-
leash opportunities within the park system. Both of these dog off-leash areas in Westview and
Upper Maple Ridge Parks are well used and the feedback we received during the six months has
been that these areas offered a great opportunity for dog owners to socialize and exercise their
pets while few complaints have been expressed.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Enhancements to these two dog off-leash areas, such as additional signage, pathway
improvements, dog watering stations, small dog areas, and seating could be accommodated
under current operational budgets over time.
f) Policy Implications:
Approving these two dog off-leash areas supports the Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan
(2010) strategic objective to increase the number of dog off-leash areas, and place them
strategically to serve as many residents as possible.
g) Alternatives:
Although tere have been minimal complaints about the actual use of these sites for this purpose,
Council could choose not to endorse these sites as permanent off-leaqsh areas, however this is
not recommended.
CONCLUSIONS:
Along with the previously established dog off-leash areas at Albion Fairgrounds and Jerry Sulina Park,
the two dog off-leash areas at Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks have provided dog owners
within our community additional legitimate areas for off-leash activities as well as opportunities to
3
socialize and exercise their pets closer to home while minimizing impacts to other park visitors.
Complaints received from neighbours and park visitors during the six month period of operation have
been few, but have included concerns around noise, odours, cleanliness, proximity to playground
and loss of informal use of park area, while compliments have highlighted resident dog owners’
appreciation for these areas. These areas are well-used in all seasons and provide valued off-leash
opportunities.
“Original signed by Valoree Richmond”
Prepared by: Valoree Richmond, Manager of Park Planning & Operations
“Original signed by David Boag”
Reviewed by: David Boag, Director Parks & Facilities
“Original signed by Wendy McCormick”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager,
Community Development, Parks, Recreation & Culture
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:vr
Attachment A: Comments received during six month period of operation for Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Dog Off Leash Areas
David :•.q
From: David Boag
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 11:42 AM
To: '
Cc: Valoree Richmond
Subject: RE: Dog Park 236 Street
Hi
I can confirm that upper Maple Ridge Park was approved for use as a dog off leash park by the Parks and Leisure
Services Commission. The Commission have typically designated these sites as trial sites for 6 months or more to gauge
the use of the park and ensure that if an unforeseen undesirable outcome ensues, that they would have the ability to
revisit the placement of the off leash park. This does not mean that the Commission were soliciting additional feedback
on this topic or their approval of the park, it simply means that if through the normal operating of the park that any
unforeseen circumstances arose that were contrary to their intensions for the off leash park, that this could be
addressed effectively.
The signs that you have noted are similar in nature to the signs that have been posted at other off leash parks. Some of
the feedback that we have received since the opening of the off leash parks, is the view that dog owners should be
more respectful of residents who may live near these sites.,This is one of the site attributes that was beneficial in this
case because there is a space buffer to nearby residences. I have noted your concerns regarding the smell from dog
waste receptacles and have directed staff to increase the frequency of pick up, so that this is not an issue. I have also
asked staff to ensure that all off leash parks have cans with lids, which staff have indicated is the case. The cans
themselves will be phased out over time, as they do not present a very aesthetically pleasing look in our parks system.
What was once considered an economical way to address litter or waste in parks, is changing, however with so many
cans (garbage barrels) in the parks system, it will take time to replace them all.
I have visited the site and confirmed that Wild Play has locked the gate, which I anticipate is for security reasons in the
off season. This memo will confirm that they were granted access to the parking lot for Wild Play, however they do not
have exclusive use of the parking lot. The city will take steps to have the parking lot opened for off leash park
patrons, Unfortunately I ma not the best person to address the construction truck issue and will pass this comment
along to Mr. David Pollock (Municipal Engineer) to address, and I'm sure that he has much more experience and
knowledge of the appropriateness of this activity than I could explain.
Unfortunately the seasonal blow out of turf areas is not unusual for off leash dog parks. We can over seed in the spring
with some success, however it is not 100% effective as a result of the continuous use of the park. If and when the City
designates the park as permanent, we may look at the provision of a walking trail within the park, to encourage dog
owners to keep on the move with their pets thus reducing the impact on the same part of the site, while another parks
are under utilized. The water for the dogs is very important, however we decided to wait the final approval, prior to
installing other permanent fixtures such as water service, trail or benches etc. at the park.
I was not aware that there was a problem with garbage and that volunteers were feeling burdened with this. As noted
above, I have increased the frequency of the pick ups for the cans, and I will also ask staff to monitor the site more
closely so that our neighborhood volunteers are not being overburdened. Please feel free to drop me a line if there is a
particular group, individual or time of day when this occurs and we will follow up to try to correct this issue. We are
very grateful to you and the neighborhood volunteers who assist us to keep our parks and adjacent street clean and
tidy. I am surprised to hear that dog feces is being left in the park, as it is our experience that other dog park patrons
will call people out of they do not clean up after their pets. Certainly not 100% effective, however it is adhered to at a
much higher level within off leash parks.
I appreciate your acknowledgement of the social benefits of providing facilities such as this where residents can meet
for a chat and exercise their dogs at the same time (without having people telling them to leash their dogs). The off
leash sites has been one of the greatest improvements to the social fabric of our communities (and parks) in the lower
mainland community in a long time. Thanks so much for taking the time to share your observations about the off leash
park site, as this will help us ensure that local neighborhood concerns can be addressed appropriately.
Thanks
David Boag
Director, Parks and Facilities
Maple Ridge Parks, Recreation and Culture
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-467-7344 Fax: 604-467-7393
Web Facebook YouTube
Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful.
Survey Email Comments
From:
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:22 PM
To: David Boag
Subject: Re: Dog Park 236 Street
David Boag
Over the months of the trial period of Upper Maple Ridge Park as a fenced in Dog Park amongst the many
signs
around the Park none indicated that it was a Trial Park or that feedback was welcome.
One sign allowed that the neighbours should be respected, it is beside WildPlay, far away from residents living
by the park,
the two entrance gates or two of the ugliest, stinking dog poo containers.
WildPlay has closed & locked the parking lot, the only remaining toilet & access to
the only west gate. Construction trucks continue to use the parking across from the Park on 236 St in front of
city owned property, a mess of potholes mud & noise.
The grass on the east side of the park is gone, now only mud & dog feces remain.
There is no water for the dogs, so numerous plastic jugs, containers are brought to the
park & left there. The only maintenance in the Park is a private collection of the dog poo,
which in the summer months & heat is a foul smell in the neighbourhood. Other garbage
around the poo containers, park or parking around the park is left for the neighbourhood to
pick up. That is one couple in their mid nineties, one mid eighties, two mid seventy & myself
mid sixties all of us have been doing this for too long. We have tried leaving it, it just attracts
more garbage, this is our home & investment in this community.
On the upside the Dogs are having fun, happy dogs = happy owners, the owners
are talking to each other, these are good things. (does not mean I think taxes should pay for dog ownership,
especially when there are so many greater needs, housing, education, hospitals, poverty etc.)
Considering the number of dogs & owners the area is too small.
People & dogs mostly arrive in their vehicles parking where ever they can on 236 St. then
come thru the two east gates & stand in one spot while throwing balls.
Between the trucks & the dogs it can get pretty noisy around here.
If Dog Parks are to be part of our neighbourhoods i believe an effort from City staff
to keep the area clean, provide a parking area like the one on 232 St. that keeps construction
trucks away from parks & provides safe parking for park users & their dogs, provide water,
odour free poo containers & the area as attractive as possible for both residents & visitors to the Park & area.
Thank you for you time & effort.
On Mar 15, 2016, at 2:50 PM, David Boag <dboa @maplerid e.ca> wrote:
Hi
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the installation of the off leash park at Upper Maple
Ridge Park. I can confirm that the Parks and Leisure Services Commission reviewed supportive comments and also
concerns from a variety of interested residents and stakeholders via the feedback portion of the public process that
considered this as an off leash location. The Commission after consideration of all of the comments received, approved
this location as an off leash site along with 2 others in the community.
I believe that you may have confused the installation of the sidewalk fence in December which was an Engineering
project as being the off leash park fence. The off leash fencing has just very recently been completed, as the manager of
this file left the City to work in another part of the region. The six months trial will be conducted as a "fenced in off leash
park", which will allow both nearby residents and park patrons who use this facility to have the opportunity to share
their thoughts or concerns about the this activity at upper Maple Ridge Park. The trial period report to Maple Ridge
Council will be six months from now, as the fencing has recently been completed.
I understand that you do not agree with dog off leash parks, however there are a very large number of residents who do
desire these facilities, and have been asking Councils in both Communities for many years to provide an opportunity for
their chosen recreational activity, exercising their pets and meeting other people with similar interests. The existing off
leash parks continue to meet a large demand in our community where there are approximately 10,000 licensed dogs
between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows (Sourced from dog licenses issued).
This memo will confirm that I have included this correspondence in the trial period file, for inclusion in the information
report for Council's review in approximately 6 months from now.
Thanks
David Boag
Director, Parks and Facilities
image001.png>
Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-467-7344 Fax: 604-467-7393
Web Facebook YouTube
Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful.
Survey Email Comments
From:
Sent: Monaay, March 14, 2016 5:45 PM
To: David Boag
Cc: Nicole Read
Subject: Dog Park 236 Street
March 15th
Dog Park 236 Street
to the Dog Park I have always been opposed to it from the beginning
but the general use of parkland for dogs as opposed to people.
Maple Ridge has more then enough parks for dogs, perhaps we should give them coats
boots also. All the neighbours that are distance of this park are opposed to it.
The trial period for this fenced area of the park was to be six months for neighbours to have
a say, as usual that was never the intention of Parks. The fence went up sometime in December
over the winter months when few people are playing sports outdoors. As with the initial neighbourhood
survey/input during the short period this three month trial has been on.
Community input into this has been a joke, yes we love our dogs but do we want parks for dogs
over kids? Do we want to be borrowing 10 million dollars for Parks & Recreation! Do we want
to live next door to a dog park. NO!!
When I bought this property 24 years ago I envisioned Parkland to be much more valued than
Maple Ridge's Council appear to. You continue to devalue my property & lifestyle.
Not to mention taking away the only playing field in Silver Valley! At the same time you are making
plans to develop what were supposed to be playing fields not in the future, but now.
Where are your children going to play? Where do family's go to have a game of baseball, soccer,
play frisbee any of the hundreds of things people have done in that park since 1924.
where are the playgrounds within five minute walk of all residents
in Silver Valley? where are the connecting trail systems joining all greenspace? Where is the greenspace!
Maple Ridge has a history of making beautifully worded documents a bit like fairytales.
Maple Ridge BC
image004.jpg>
David Boaq
From: Frank Quinn
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:27 PM
To: David Boag
Cc: Paula Melvin; Robin MacNair
Subject: RE: Dog bylaw
FYI
From: Paula Melvin
Sent: November 30, 2016 3:22 PM
To: Robin MacNair
Cc: Frank Quinn
Subject: Dog bylaw
Hi Robin,
I received a call from he may have already called you directly). He is concerned that there are only 4
fields in the community where you can walk your dog off leash. He wants to know where his property taxes and the
licensing money goes to. He feels that the sports associations are hostile towards the dog community and that it's not
fair treatment. He has been told to leave fields that he has paid for through his taxes. He does not want a call back.
Thanks, Paula
David Boaq
a.;:le.. .. >i .dear.`Y ,.s ia,:... :,sci "'oo, 3i,. vk, .. .n/vsLf. w.,. Y+. .r.'l9%
From: Chris Lisowsky on behalf of Parks and Leisure
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:06 AM
To: '
Cc: Malcolm McDougall; Aaron Billard; David Boag
Subject: RE: new dog park 236th Maple Ridge
Hello
Thank you for your email letting us know you are happy with the new dog park at Upper Maple Ridge Park. We are
happy to hear that all of you are enjoying it. I have copied some of the Parks Department staff that were responsible for
getting this dog park up and running as they will like to hear from residents such as yourselves.
Have a great day!
Regards,
Chris Lisowsky
Clerk II, Business Operations
Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services
11925 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-460-6721
clisowsky mapleridge.ca
Web Facebook YouTube
Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful.
Survey Email Comments
Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:06 PM
To: Parks and Leisure
Subject: new dog park 236th Maple Ridge
Hello,
I am just emailing about how much my family and our dog love the new dog park on 236th. It is a lovely place to take
your dog for some off leash running, in a safe in closed area. All the other dogs and families we have met there are
awesome, and dog owners are very good with picking up after their dogs. Love this park.
Thank you for the awesome new park!!
David Boaq
rie T f t,,. tt:_: fv r z ,, a.. ,,:' h.,r3.a. n,h:F3. to /J, ii,l .+-n„^ „. f, .,, /. s+,., n', .,rY/lfr 1.: .. N. sv: ,+.,ux :;:.b ."1,:.. ,i..fiN-:,GrH 5 /. ^': /:,/
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:39 PM
To: David Poag
Subject: Dog Park @ Maple Ridge Upper Park
Good Afternoon:
I am writing this email as i understand that this new dog park is temporary? I was surprised
when i heard this because all of the posts we're cemented into the ground. This is the BEST dog park in Maple
Ridge and my two dogs absolutely love it , I take them 2 — 3 times a day. Since this park has opened up i have
had nothing but a positive experience with all the dog owners and everyone's dogs. My only complaints are
that it needs a second garbage can at the gate ( the 236th gate) and the inside black gates should be replace
with the type that we're installed outside gates with the "U" shape lock instead of the black chain. I don't feel
the black gate is secure enough.
Please consider keeping this park on going because it will be devastating if it's closed at some
point!!! I am not happy with the Albion Dog Park at all.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my email and again PLEASE keep this park open.
Sincerely:
Maple Ridge
David B•.•
Thank you for the response.
Saturday, February 13, 2016 9:21 AM
David Boag
Re: Westview Dog Off Leash Park
image001.png
Sent from my Samsun- Galaxy smartphone.
Original message --------
From: David Boag <dboag@mapleridge.ca>
Date: 2016-02-12 12:07 PM (GMT -08:00)
To:
Cc: Kelly Swift <kswift@mapleridge.ca>
Subject: Westview Dog Off Leash Park
Hi
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you regarding your inquiry, I do recall reading your
email quite some time ago, and I'm very surprised to hear that you have not received a response from our department
in this regard.
It is very unfortunate that your visit to Westview Park was not a good experience for you and your family. We would
certainly not condone the behaviour of the dog owner that you have described in your memo below. I understand frorr
what you have said that the dog was tied up to a park bench closer to the playground and was not in the off leash park.
If this is the case, there are no park regulations that would prohibit the owner of the dog from being there, provided it
was on a leash. Having said that, there are bylaws that could potentially be used if a person is causing a nuisance and
detracting from other park patrons use of the park.
There is no doubt that there continues to be an issue with regard to owners not picking up after their pets which has
been a concern for many years and has been discussed at great length by the Commission and Council. Most of the
complaints are specific to sports fields, children's play grounds, sport courts and even in water play parks. The City
adopted bylaws last year that prohibit dogs from being in or on these areas, and has also authorized parks staff to issue
tickets if they observe infractions such as this. This does not mean however that a family cannot bring their pet to the
park when they visit with their children. A leash is required in all parks with the exception of designated off leash parks.
It is our experience is that the designated off leash areas are much less likely to have this problem, as the dog owner
check on each other while in this space, which has been confirmed by the observations of our parks maintenance
personnel.
The off leash park proposal at West View Park went through a significant neighborhood process and the feedback from
the community was shared with both the Parks and Leisure Services commission and Maple Ridge Council prior to be
approved. This is not to suggest that there were no concerns raised, however there was also significant support for this
initiative. One of the reasons this site was selected was the tree cover and absorption of potential noise from the off
leash park. The fence was also placed in a manner that the dogs would not be introduced to the creek within the park.
In fairness, other than a large stand of blackberries there was not a lot of ground vegetation below the tree canopy prior
to the off leash area being installed. In addition every effort was made to maintain the informal dirt bike track that had
previously been located at West View Park. I certainly understand why some of our residents do not agree with the off
leash parks, however with 10,000 licensed dogs in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, the desire of families who wish to
bring their pet with them when the visit the park or exercise their pet is significant, as they consider their pet to be a
member of the family. There are now 6 off leash sites and 2 leash optional trails for pet owners, so there is much less
need for dogs being off leash in open park areas where children and other park patrons are using these spaces.
I can confirm that the City does not have any current plans to close any of the existing off leash parks, in fact staff have
been asked to look for additional sites where this activity could be incorporated, as well as considering off leash areas in
any new park developments where there is a request / need in that area. It is very regrettable that you will no longer
contribute to your community by volunteering for adopt a block, as this is a very valuable contribution to the
community. I certainly understand your decision under the circumstances and thank you for your past efforts to
improve your neighborhood through volunteerism.
If you have any additional questions regarding this topic or if you have any additional suggestions, please feel free to
send me an email or call me at the number listed below.
Thanks
David Boag
Director, Parks and Facilities
PARKS& LEISURE SERVICES
Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-467-7344 Fax: 604-467-7393
Web Facebook YouTube
Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful.
Survey Email Comments
From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:03 AM
To- Parks and Leisure
Cc:
Subject: Westview Park - Opposition to Leash Off Area
To the City of Maple Ridge Parks and Leisure Department,
As a local resident living at who used to regularly frequent Westview Park with my
I have to comment on how inappropriate it is to have a dog park adjacent to a children's
playground. The location and layout of the park took over space that children and youth have been using as a small
bike track for a few years now. Not to mention it was a wonderful urban forest that kids could explore, play hide
and seek in or other games kids enjoy without concern for dogs and their owners. Both my
and were sorely disappointed to find their favorite local park and playground disrupted by a leash
off area.
On November 3 and the last day I will visit this park a local resident tied up his dog to a bench immediately
adjacent to the playground. The dog would not stop barking which was a major nuisance in itself. As well every
time kids or another dog got within 10 feet it would lash out aggressively which was a significant safety concern
had the leash gave way or one of the many children playing there got too close. It actually got to the point where I
kindly suggested to the owner to go elsewhere with his dog before there is an incident. Unfortunately he declined
causing my family to make the decision to leave before we intended to. When children are playing at a municipal
playground they should not have to be concerned with unruly dogs displaying hostile tendencies that are
congregating at the park.
Further pet owners do not always clean up after them and the aroma of dog feces over the summer discouraged
my family from enjoying the park and playground during the hotter weather. Now that the cooler weather is upon
us we have been recently trying to visit Westview Park as a family. Unfortunately we did feel comfortable at the
children's playground we were trying to enjoy due to an irresponsible owner and an unmanageable dog that was in
close proximity to where my kids were playing.
Although the park is in an urban area, with the stream that runs through, the forest itself and because it is a
habitat for many different animals there should be some consideration for the environmental sensitivity. Dogs are
notorious for quickly eroding land and it is evident the forest floor in the fenced in area is quickly deteriorating
from digging and otherwise. Also the forest used to be very active with various animals and now I noticed this is no
longer the case likely since dogs tend to harass wildlife.
During my regular strolls through the neighborhood I have noticed the leash off area is not even highly utilized
likely due to its discrete location and the lack of awareness by dog owners. More often than not when I am passing
by Westview Park there are very few or quite often no one using the leash off area making the location that much
more ludicrous considering children previously played in the area regularly on a daily basis. Unfortunately the very
few times I have visited Westview Park lately with my family there have always been nuisance dogs and owners
there that often make the experience less than enjoyable. It seems a colossal waste of space usage if the leash off
area is not regularly utilized by dogs while families who frequented the area are now restricted.
After researching dog parks in the Maple Ridge area as well other lower mainland communities I found the
locations typically are not in close proximity to children's playground equipment. Other community dog parks I
have investigated are placed in areas that do not affect children and families who want to enjoy an area
unimpeded by dogs. Most other dog parks I have looked into are either located in rural areas such as Jerry Sulina
or Tynehead's leash off areas where they are not impacting people who want to use the facilities. Other dog parks
that are in residential areas are intentionally located so as to not interfere with others who are trying to enjoy the
space without be hassled by dogs and their owners.
It is unfortunate the city has installed another leash off area that has infringed on people who do not want to
be bothered by dogs. Apparently no lessons were learned as a result of the fiasco from building a dog park
adjacent to a playground at Volker Park. In my opinion Westview Park is not a suitable location for a leash off area
for so many reason with the obvious being the liability to the city should an unfortunate incident occur between
a dog and a child.
Unless the city takes action to remove the leash off area my family will no longer visit Westview Park. We
will continue to monitor the situation closely in hopes the dog park is removed so we can once again enjoy the
playground and urban forest unimpeded.
As community ambassadors who have maintained the area surrounding and including Westview Park through the
Adopt Block program for over a year now, my family (will no longer be providing our
volunteer services. Although we feel let down by the city and displaced from our favorite local park and
playground, we will be more than happy to resume our adopt a block services for Westview park when and if the
leash off area is permanently removed.
Please ensure this email is directed to the appropriate stakeholders and respond to let us know the status of the
leash off area at Westview Park as well as the City's plan moving forward.
Regards,
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Operating Agreement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
City of Maple Ridge (CMR) and Ridge Meadows Seniors Society (RMSS) have been in discussions to
re-negotiate a new Operating Agreement to replace the 2015-17 Agreement. These conversations
became a necessity due to the expiry of the Joint Leisure Services Agreement in October 2016. The
timing of these discussions also provided an opportunity to restructure the manner in which strata
fees are being managed.
CMR & RMSS have a long history of working together to improve this operating model and in 2016,
met on multiple occasions in this regard. These discussions have led to an agreement in principal
that the City will reduce the operating grant by $75,600 and the City will assume ongoing
responsibility for all strata related fees. In addition, the City will increase funding to meet increased
programming needs by $45,000 as recommended in the 2017-2021 Financial Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to prepare an updated operating agreement with Ridge M eadows Seniors
Society that removes RMSS involvement in strata fee management and increases funding for
programming by $45,000.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
For many years the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society (RMSS) has provided excellent services to
the citizens of Maple Ridge who are fifty-five years and older.
The current agreements with the City signed the 1st day of January of 2015 are; an Operating
Agreement with the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Commission (The Commission)
and a Lease Agreement with the City of Maple Ridge. These agreements have been replaced with
the “assumption agreement” that transitions both agreements from The Commission to the City
of Maple Ridge.
RMSS operates out of the Elderly Citizen’s Recreation Centre (ECRA) on 224th which is a seniors
residential tower operating as a Strata Council. RMSS has representation on the Strata Council
and as per the Operating Agreement, is responsible for all “Operating Costs” which includes all
fees paid to the management company that are related to the Strata, such as gas, water and
sewer, snow removal, landscaping, electricity, fire protection and general maintenance. As
these fees can and do fluctuate annually, the Strata Council sets an estimated budget, based on
the previous year, and invoices the City monthly for the Cit y’s portion and RMSS portion. At the
1152
end of each fiscal year there is a reconciliation process and the City is either invoiced for the
outstanding amount or reimbursed for any overpayment. This has placed an ongoing burden on
RMSS and hinders their ability to focus on seniors programming , as for a number of years now
the reconciliation has resulted in RMSS receiving an invoice for the difference.
In order to simplify the process and allow RMSS to focus on programming for seniors, City staff,
including Parks, Recreation & Culture and Finance, have held a number of meetings with the
RMSS President and Board Executive. This has resulted in an agreement in principal that sees
the City retaining $6,300 per month ($75,600 per year) from the operating grant in lieu of
payment towards the RMSS portion of the strata fees. This will alleviate the uncertainty for
forward planning and eliminate the extra steps of having our Finance Department invoice RMSS
accounting for the purpose of returning the Strata costs that RMSS receives back to CMR, who is
ultimately responsible for this payment.
During these discussions RMSS also expressed the need to hire additional program staff to keep
up with the increased membership and activity demands of the demographic they serve. It is
clear that Maple Ridge has an aging population and that service demands have and will continue
to increase. The Maple Ridge Local Health Area, also known as Ridge Meadows, is experiencing
unprecedented population growth. The total estimated population in Ridge Meadows in 2014
was 97,592, 14 percent (13,663) of the residents were age 65 and over. (It is important to note
that RMSS membership begins at age 55). In the next ten years it is anticipated the senior’s
population in Ridge Meadows will grow by 62 percent, (compared to 53% in the overall Fraser
Health Region) adding an additional 8,494 seniors to the area. By 2027, it is projected one in
five residents of Ridge Meadows will be over 65 and the older age groups (75+ and 85+) will
make up around 8% and 2% of the community’s total population, respectively. This data
supports the staff recommendation to increase RMSS funding by $45,000 in the 2017-2021
Financial Plan to provide for increased programming.
b) Desired Outcome:
To continue to support RMSS in the independent delivery of leisure services for seniors while
easing the financial burden to the Association.
c) Strategic Alignment:
Support of these recommendations aligns with the Safe and Livable Communities Strategic
Direction and the Age Friendly Community recommendations.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Proposed changes will ensure that RMSS can continue to provide programs and services.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The proposed restructure of the strata fee management system will reduce the burden on
the Finance Department to prepare invoices, reconciliations and other communications w ith
RMSS.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The budget reallocation associated with the transition of the management of strata fees from
RMSS to the City has no overall impact on the budget. Inflationary costs are anticipated and
will be accommodated within the existing financial plan.
CONCLUSIONS:
RMSS & CMR have had a long standing working relationship that has added tremendous value for
people 55 plus in Maple Ridge. The recommendations have addressed concerns raised by RMSS
and are supported by staff. The updated operating agreement will allow RMSS to flourish by
spending less time on strata fee management and more time on providing quality social and
recreational programming for the our senior’s demographic.
“Original signed by Tony Cotroneo”
Prepared by: Tony Cotroneo, Manager of Community Services
“Original signed by Wendy McCormick”
Approved by: Wendy McCormick, Director of Recreation and Community Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:TC