HomeMy WebLinkAboutTandem Parking Oct 7, 2013DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: October 7, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-096-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Tandem Parking and RM-1 zone amendments;
First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024- 2013 and Off-Street
Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No.7025-2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On May 27, 2013 Council received a discussion paper on “Tandem Parking and the RM-1 zone”, which laid out several scenarios and one preferred approach to regulate the proportion of tandem
parking units in the RM-1 zone. For the RM-1 zone, the Discussion Paper recommended:
•a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking arrangement;
•a driveway apron, 5.5 metres long for each tandem unit;
•usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or larger unit and 50m2 for each two
bedroom or smaller unit; and
•limiting the building block size to six attached units.
It was also recommended that 100% tandem units in the RM-1 zone would still be permitted in the
Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form.
At the regular meeting of May 28, 2013, Council resolved that staff be directed to prepare the
relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking
and Loading Bylaw as described in that report. At the meeting Council raised issues regarding
impact on density and unit count, analysis on sloping sites, enforcement on strata lots, and
consultation with the development community, which are addressed in this report. The draft bylaw amendments reflect Council’s direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
1)That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 be given first reading;
2)That Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be given first
reading; and
3)That the above bylaw amendments be referred to a public process for comments and
feedback.
BACKGROUND:
Tandem Parking is the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only
one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road. The Off-Street Parking and Loading
Bylaw permits a tandem garage or a single garage with a tandem parking space on the apron.
1105
Council expressed concerns about the impacts of a 100% tandem arrangement in the townhouse
proposals seen recently and directed staff to do a review of tandem parking. It is important to note
that currently, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single
family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The RM-1 zone is the
only multi-family zone in the District permitting tandem parking. Tandem Parking has not been a
concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may
be wider and longer. In some cases, there is on-street parking as well. In contrast, tandem parking
has been a concern in the townhouse zone as driveway aprons are typically not provided and the 6.0
metre wide strata roads do not permit parking. In recent years, the District has seen a steady rise in
townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units.
Townhouse units with tandem parking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions
across the region. Typically, the tandem parking arrangement results in a tall, narrow unit with a
minimal driveway apron leading into a tandem parking garage. General discussions with staff from
other jurisdictions and the private sector indicated that while there is a general acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with 100% tandem townhouse
developments across the region.
The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities. It compared
18 scenarios, to help understand the impacts of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. The
accompanying presentation included photos of existing townhouse developments in the District. All
of the 18 scenarios considered both, fixed and variable elements, applied to a hypothetical piece of
land. The discussion paper concluded that by introducing a combination of the three variables (i.e. a
driveway apron; open space and percentage of tandem units); the density is mildly impacted, yet a
more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. The report further demonstrated that
if setback variances, facing a municipal street were supported, a similar density without seriously
impacting unit yields, can be achieved.
Out of the 18 scenarios, one scenario clearly resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem and double
wide units; maximization of green space/useable open space; and a well-articulated, livable design;
while maintaining a viable unit yield (Scenario 2E).
Based on the analysis the recommendation to Council was that, in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential
District) zone the following shall apply, except in the Town Centre Area:
•a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking arrangement;
•a driveway apron, 5.5 metres long for each tandem unit;
•usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or larger unit and 50m2 for each twobedroom or smaller unit; and
•limiting the building block size to six attached units.
The Town Centre Area Plan encourages more dense development and has better access to transit so
it was recommended to exempt from the draft regulation. It is important to note that setback
variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are subject to Council approval.
At the regular meeting of May 28, 2013, Council resolved:
- 2 -
That staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading bylaw, as described in
Section E of the “Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper” dated May 27, 2013.
DISCUSSION AND COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Tandem Parking can be defined as “the placement of one parking space behind another parking
space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or
highway”.
Reviewing the discussion paper, Council asked about implications on sloping sites, density or unit
yield, minimum density for financial feasibility. These are discussed below.
A)Density and implications on sloping sites:
The Zoning Bylaw contains several multi-family zones, of which the RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential) zone is the one intended to be for ground-oriented, pedestrian-friendly, low-
density developments. In the RM-1 zone, a parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit for residents
is required plus a parking ratio of 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors is also required.
In reviewing other municipal parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community. Some do not permit tandem parking; some permit tandem parking on a project by project
basis; some permit tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount
of tandem parking. Others require additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons.
Discussion with staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions have
concerns with 100% tandem unit developments.
i)Illustrations with no setback variances:
The following graphics illustrate the impact of the proposed regulations when setback
variances are not granted.
a)Scenario 1A- 100% tandem and no setback variances:
The example below illustrates the current regulations in place. With 100% tandem
arrangement at the maximum permitted FSR of 0.6 in the RM-1 zone; 21 townhouse
units can be achieved on a hypothetical one acre piece of land.
- 3 -
b)Scenario 2E- 70% tandem and no setback variances; driveway apron and
increased usable open space:
The example below illustrates the impact on unit yield if the recommended
regulations were applied. In the example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.47,
17 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit
count can be at least 18 units. If the proposed regulations were applied, the unit
count could drop from 21 (as shown on scenario 1A) to 17 or 18 units. But this is
likely to result in a more architecturally attractive development.
It is noted that Council raised the concern that the analysis on sloping site was
missing in the Discussion paper dated May 27, 2013. The same hypothetical parcel
of land is assumed to have a 15-17% slope as shown in the sketch below. The site is
assumed to be sloping down approximately 17% grade down from the north-west
corner as shown in the site section.
- 4 -
c) Scenario 2E- ss 70% tandem on sloping site and no setback variances; driveway apron
and increased usable open space:
If the recommended regulations were applied to the sloping site, the following
graphic illustrates that the same unit count could be achieved, however, creative
design, some retaining walls to achieve flat backyards and possibly stepping and
staggering of units to take advantage of the grades on site; will be required. In the
example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.47, 17 units are achieved. With the
maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 18 units.
ii)Illustrations with setback variances:
The following graphics illustrate the impact of the proposed regulations when setback
variances are granted.
a)Scenario 2F- 70% tandem with setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable
open space:
The example below illustrates the impact on unit yield if the recommended
regulations were applied and setback variances granted. In the example below, with
a proposed density of FSR 0.57, 20 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 21 units. If the proposed
regulations were applied and setback variances granted, the unit count will likely
remain same, yet a more architecturally attractive development can be achieved.
- 5 -
b)Scenario 2F- ss 70% tandem on sloping site with setback variances; driveway apron and
increased usable open space:
If the recommended regulations were applied to the sloping site and some setback
variances facing the streets were granted, the unit count achieved could be around
20 units. Again, creativity in design, some retaining walls and stepping/staggering of
the units to meet the grades will be required.
iii)ANALYSIS:
Based on the graphic examples above, the following can be concluded, by applying a 70%
tandem requirement:
•The density and unit count is reduced marginally, yet a more architecturally attractive
development may be achieved.
•With the tandem garage and a driveway apron, there will be three parking spaces per
unit available. If the owner ends up converting the internal parking space into a living
area, there will still be two parking spaces available. The bylaw will still require aminimum of 2.0 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors.
- 6 -
•On sloping sites, some retaining walls will be required to achieve flat backyards, which isconsistent with what is done currently. Smaller retaining walls may also be required to
achieve the driveway aprons.
•Some units will need to be stepped and staggered to take advantage of the grades on
site, which is consistent with the OCP policies around “respecting the land” and with
what is done currently.
•With setback variances the unit yield is quite similar to those achieved under the current
bylaw (21 units versus 20 units). The reduced setbacks facing municipal streets allows
for greater design creativity with stronger street presence, stepping and staggering of
units.
A simplified comparison of the above stated graphic illustrations is attached as Appendix A.
B)Tandem Parking in the Town Centre Area:
There was discussion regarding the appropriateness of exempting RM-1 properties in the
Town Centre Area from the draft tandem regulations. The Town Centre Area Plan through several policies talks about increasing residential density in the various precincts. The
“Ground-oriented Multi-family” designation allows RM-1 zone and the intention is to achieve
pedestrian-friendly strata developments that serve as a transition between single family and
higher density forms like low-rise apartments. A tall, narrow, three-storey tandem form would
fit well in the Town Centre Area, which encourages compact developments, more than other
areas in the District. The Town Centre area is also served by better access to public transit
and owners may choose to own a single vehicle. It is further noted that the exemption of the
Town centre properties from the tandem regulations may also serve as an incentive for
further town centre investment.
C)Consideration to accommodate seniors:
There was discussion regarding making townhouse developments more senior-friendly.
Ground-oriented units with a double car garage often result in a more senior-friendly form of
development than a 3- storey, multi-level, tall, narrow (12 to 15 feet wide) tandem unit. It is
felt that a reasonable balance of tandem and double garages will provide for an appropriate
housing choice for seniors and others.
D)Common variances supported and its impact on outdoor living space:
Historically Council has approved setback, height and parking variances on townhouse sites
in the RM-1 zone. Typically height variances are supported on sloping sites where the design
of the units takes advantage of the grades by rendering a 2- storey façade on one side and 3-
storey façade (11.0 metres) on the other side. This will be minimized with the adoption of the
new Zoning Bylaw where the maximum height of the structure is measured up to the mid-
point of the roof.
Setback variances facing municipal streets are common and align with the Multi-Family
Development Permit Guidelines that emphasize a better street presence and direct
pedestrian access from the townhouse units to the municipal streets. They also often create
a more livable rear yard.
- 7 -
Parking variances are typically fewer and considered on a site-specific basis.
The tandem parking arrangement results in more units, so to mitigate the impact of the form
and density, an increased usable open space ratio for the tandem units is recommended.
This should enhance the livability of the project and create better outdoor usable open space
and/or common activity areas. Larger open spaces are an effective marketing tool for
developers.
E)Economic implications:
Although there is an assumption that tandem units are less expensive, there is no statistical
evidence in the market to support this. Scenarios discussed above show that the unit-count
may drop marginally if the 70% tandem units regulation is adopted. On sloping sites, some
retaining walls and stepping of units may increase the development costs. However, the
benefits are thought to outnumber the density impact.
A copy the Council report dated May 27, 2013 was forwarded to the Advisory Design Panel to seek their input. The Panel advised that a feasible balance between tandem and double
townhouse units is important to safeguard the intention of the zone (low density multi-family
form) and the architectural character of the development.
The Advisory Design Panel is in support of this initiative and has provided the following
comments:
•Panel confirmed that tandem parking in the townhouse zones is quite common in all
the municipalities.
•Panel agreed that regulating the proportion of tandem parking will have some impact
on the overall density and unit count, but the benefits are larger.
•Panel confirmed that the tandem arrangement is not popular among buyers, but it is
used to maximize the unit yield on a site.
•The Panel also confirmed that while all tandem townhouse development fit well
within the Town Centre Area, a reasonable balance of tandem and double car
garages in areas outside the Town Centre will encourage a better streetscape;
improve landscaping with a staggering of the units; improve the overall architectural
quality of a development and the livability on site.
The proposed bylaw amendments strive to strike a reasonable balance between tandem and
double parking arrangement, which is economically feasible and architecturally desirable.
BENEFITS OF REGULATING TANDEM PARKING UNITS IN THE RM-1 ZONE:
The benefits of regulating units with tandem parking arrangement in the RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential) zone could be broadly categorized into the following:
1)Maintain the primary intention of the RM-1 zone which is to provide a low-density multi-family
housing form for the neighbourhoods. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form.
- 8 -
The townhouse form is often envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single
family and apartment building forms.
2)Encourage a proportion of the units to be a senior-friendly, ground-oriented housing option.
3)Reduce the parking concerns on a strata lot by providing for some driveway aprons. Minimize
parking infractions on a 6.0 metres wide strata road.
4)Encourage an interesting streetscape with staggering and stepping of units. Achieve a less
monotonous façade.
5)Promote natural light, ventilation, view corridors and “green links” between blocks.
6)Improve livability and quality of development by increasing the proportion of usable open
space to match the increase in the number of units due to tandem arrangement.
7)Reducing the risks associated with vehicle encroachment or overhanging on strata road by
regulating the minimum width and depth of an attached garage and adding the requirement
of a driveway apron for a tandem parking arrangement.
PROPOSED REGULATIONS:
Pursuant with Council’s direction of May 28, 2013, Zone Amending and Off-Street Parking Amending
Bylaws have been prepared.
i)RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone (refer to Appendix B):
The following items are proposed for inclusion in the RM-1 zone and were previously discussed
with Council:
•Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block.
Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other
jurisdictions and the District’s RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. This would help
promote natural light and ventilation between the blocks thus offering a less monotonous
façade. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous façade. Smaller blocks of
units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that
promote natural light, ventilation and views. The Advisory Design Panel in the past has expressed
concerns with the ramifications of having more than six (6) attached units in one block.
•All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 squaremetres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3
bedrooms.
This regulation is intended to improve the livability and quality of development by increasing the
proportion of usable open space with the number of tandem units on a strata lot.
ii)Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (refer to Appendix C):
Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw # 4350-1990 requires amendment to add the
following:
•In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site,
except in the Town Centre Area.
- 9 -
Townhouse units with a tandem garage are typically narrower (12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3
or 3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ
significantly, one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller,
narrow three-storey massing. A combination of tandem and double garage units have greater
potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered units, driveway aprons and inter-
linking green spaces.
•All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5
metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area.
Under the current Parking Bylaw, the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone does not
require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. Requiring the driveway
apron will provide an extra parking space per unit thus avoiding any encroachment or
overhanging into the 6.0 metre wide strata road. If the internal tandem garage gets converted
into a living space, the townhouse unit will still have two parking spaces, one within the garage
and one on the apron.
Following Council discussion, the Building Department have further recommended inclusion of
minimum garage dimensions in the proposed Bylaw:
•The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double
garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below:
Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long;
Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long;
Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long.
Currently the bylaw specifies a parking space (width, height and length) applicable for all zones.
It does not specify dimensions within a garage or underground parkade, where the space is
beside a wall to permit unobstructed access and clearance to open the car doors. Neither does it
specify dimensions of a tandem garage. For the RM-1 zone these amendments will help achieve
minimum clear dimensions required to park a car inside an attached or detached garage to a
townhouse unit.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department does not have any concerns with the proposed zone amendments.
Fire Department:
The Fire Department confirmed that parking on strata roads is a concern, and is supportive of the
driveway apron requirement.
Building Department:
The Building Department supports the minimum clear width and depth for single, tandem and
double car garage being added in the existing Parking Bylaw.
- 10 -
STRATAS, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND SIGNAGE IN THE RM-1 ZONE:
Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures. The
District cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property.
Within existing developments it is observed that typically garages are used as storage area, forcing
the cars to be parked on the driveway or along the streets. In a single family subdivision on-street
parking is an option except when the access is through a lane. With a 6.0 metres wide strata road
and no aprons for the driveways, this is a challenge on the townhouse sites.
Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after
the owner moves in. Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in
the streets, after this happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are
parked within the 6.0 metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for
enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful.
Research indicates that requiring a Restrictive Covenant to restrict the tandem garage from being
converted into a living space, is not a common solution. If Council directs, requirement of a Restrictive Covenant can be a condition of final reading, similar to the requirement for visitor parking
stalls. Once the project is approved and built, the District would rely on the Strata to enforce it. Legal
opinion sought on this confirms that Council can require a Restrictive Covenant as a condition of
final reading, which can be informative to the unit owners, but the District enforcement on strata lot
can be challenging. It should be noted that the District’s solicitor confirmed that such a legal
challenge is very expensive to prove in court and is not a necessarily practical solution.
It is important to note that “No Parking” signs would need to be enforced by the strata, after the
project is complete. The Building Permit drawings are required to show locations of “no parking”
areas, on the drawings. The stratas are expected to enforce the “no parking” signage and zones.
NEXT STEPS:
Recognizing the implications that these bylaw amendments may have on townhouse developments
in the RM-1 zone and the fact that amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw do not
go to the Public Hearing, it is recommended that staff host an open house to seek input from the
stakeholders.
Following first reading to both the bylaws, an open house would be organized for late October or early November 2013. Representatives from the development industry will be invited by letter to
comment on the proposed amendments. Advertisement will also be placed in the local newspapers. Council will be updated on the outcomes of this open house in the second reading report.
CONCLUSION:
As in other municipalities across the region, 100% tandem parking in townhouse projects has
generated a variety of concerns. To help alleviate these concerns, Council considered a Discussion
Paper, dated May 27, 2013 and endorsed regulation changes to the RM-1 zone and the Off-Street
Parking Bylaw. These revisions include limiting parking to 70% tandem units; the provision of a
- 11 -
driveway apron for tandem units; increasing the amount of usable open space for tandem units and
limiting the “block size” to six attached townhouse units.
Numerous benefits of regulating the proportion of tandem units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential
District) zone are described in this report. The Advisory Design Panel has commended Council for
taking up this initiative and is supportive of the proposed amendments. The proposed open house
will serve as an opportunity to seek input from the development industry. The graphic scenarios
show that the density and unit count achieved is mildly impacted by restricting the tandem
proportion to a maximum of 70% of the units. Additional usable open space and a driveway apron for
tandem units are anticipated to improve the architectural quality and reduce parking concerns. In
return a “low-density”, pedestrian-friendly, multi-family housing form with a reasonable balance of
tandem and double garages can be achieved. On sloping sites, creative design to take advantage of
the grades, retaining walls, staggering and stepping of units will be required.
The proposed bylaw amendments (Appendix B and C) are believed to strike a reasonable balance
between tandem and double parking arrangement. The intention is to encourage architecturally desirable development proposals that are economically feasible as well. It is recommended that
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013be given first reading and an open house be held to solicit input.
Original signed by Rasika Acharya
____________________________________________________
Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP
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 Jim Rule _______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A –Summary of scenarios
Appendix B –Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013
Appendix C –Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013
- 12 -
APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO.7024-2013
A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 – 1985 as
amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in
open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013".
2.This Bylaw provides conditions to regulate building block size and increased usable
open space requirement for townhouse units with tandem parking in the RM-1
(Townhouse Residential District) zone.
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended is hereby amended
accordingly:
a)PART 2, INTERPRETATION, is amended by the addition of the following definition
in correct alphabetical order:
TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind
another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed
access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway.
b)PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 602, RM-1 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, subsection 8, Other Regulations, is amended by replacing d) with the
following:
d)Useable open space shall be provided for each unit on a lot based on
the following minimum ratios:
i)45.0 m2 for each unit with 3 or more bedrooms;
ii)65.0 m2 for each unit with 3 or more bedrooms with tandem
parking;
iii)30.0 m2 for each unit with 2 or less bedrooms;
iv)50.0 m2 for each unit with 2 or less bedrooms with tandem
parking.
c)PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 602, RM-1 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, subsection 8, Other Regulations, is amended by adding g) after f) as
follows:
g)A townhouse use shall be limited to a maximum of 6 (six) attached
units per building block.
APPENDIX B
4.Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510-1985, as amended, is hereby amended
accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , 2013.
READ a second time the day of , 2013.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 2013.
READ a third time the day of , 2013.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , 2013.
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7025-2013
A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading
Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading
Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending
Bylaw No. 7025-2013”.
2.The District of Maple Ridge Off- Street Parking and Loading By-law No. 4350-1990 as
amended is amended as follows:
a)PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1(a), is amended by
replacing iv) with the following:
iv)shall comply with the following:
a)Within the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, R-1 and RT-1 zones, the parking may
be tandem parking;
b)Within the RM-1 zone a maximum of 70% of the units may have
tandem parking;c)Townhouse units in the RM-1 zone within the Town Centre Area Plan
as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan may have upto 100% tandem parking.
b)PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1(a), is amended by
adding the following after vi):
vii)Townhouse units with tandem parking in the RM-1 zone, other than
within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official
Community Plan, shall provide a minimum driveway apron of 5.5 metres
in length and 3.0 metres in width.
c)PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1, is amended by adding
the following new subsection 4.1c) in the correct sequence:
c)Off-Street Parking Spaces within a garage, for a townhouse
unit in the RM-1 zone
i)shall have internal dimensions of not less than;
a)3.1 metres wide, 6.1 metres long and 2.1 metres
high for a single car garage;
APPENDIX C
b)3.1 metres wide, 12.2 metres long and 2.1
metres high for a tandem parking two car garage;
c)5.6 metres wide, 6.1 metres long and 2.1 metres
high for a double wide (2 car) garage.
3.Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended is
hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the ____ day of _____________, 2013.
READ a second time the _____ day of __________, 2013.
READ a third time the ___ day of _____________, 2013.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the ___ day of ______________, 2013.
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER