HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Report June 15 2015
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 15, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: City-wide Amenity Zoning Overview and Options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Amenity zoning, or community amenity contributions as it’s commonly known, are widely used
throughout the Lower Mainland by municipal councils to help provide a variety of amenities that
cannot be achieve through the typical development approval process.
Section 904 of the Local Government Act outlines the regulations for zoning for amenities and
affordable housing, including the conditions by which a municipal council can secure additional
amenities in exchange for the provision of increased density.
The topic of amenity contributions in exchange for increase residential densities arose in Albion in
2011 when Council requested a report to provide an overview of amenity zoning and amenity
contributions in response to a number of rezoning applications that were seeking higher densities.
In 2012, Council directed the preparation of a study on Amenity Zoning, which was undertaken by
CitySpaces Consulting, with support from GP Rollo and Associates. The study provided an analysis of
the legislative authority and how other Lower Mainland communities are implementing this tool, a
discussion on ‘land lift’ and an analysis of five locations within the City where the principles of
amenity zoning might be applied and recommendations for Council’s consideration.
In October 2013, Council adopted Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments that
provide both the policy basis for amenity zoning within the City and density bonus provisions for the
Albion area. Through the public process, the development community were clear that the chosen
approach needed to be consistent.
As part of the 2015 work program, Council requested an overview of the previous information and
discussion regarding amenity zoning. Should Council consider implementing amenity zoning beyond
the Albion area, the information contained in this report is intended to assist in determining a clear,
transparent and consistent approach.
Should Council wish to consider amenity zoning on a city-wide basis, a follow up report could be
prepared based on the preferred option(s), necessary policy and regulatory changes and the process
that would be followed to undertake that work.
2
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is submitted for information only.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
In 2011, Council was presented with a report that provided an overview of the legislative
authority, issues and approaches for obtaining community amenity contributions through the
development approvals process. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix A. At that time,
Council decided to include the discussion on amenity zoning to the 2012 Business Planning
process and ultimately implemented amenity zoning in the Albion Area.
Local Government Act
The legislative mechanisms to implement amenity zoning are outlined in Section 904 of the
Local Government Act, which establishes the following provisions for zoning for amenities and
affordable housing:
904 (1) A zoning bylaw may:
(a) establish different density regulations for a zone, one generally applicable for
the zone and the other or others to apply if the applicable conditions under
paragraph (b) are met, and
(b) establish conditions in accordance with subsection (2) that will entitle an
owner to a higher density under paragraph (a).
(2) The following are conditions that may be included under subsection (1)(b):
(a) conditions relating to the conservation or provision of amenities, including
the number, kind and extent of amenities;
(b) conditions relating to the provision of affordable and special needs housing,
as such housing is defined in the bylaw, including the number, kind and
extent of the housing;
(c) a condition that the owner enter into a housing agreement under Section
905 before a building permit is issued in relation to property to which the
condition applies.
(3) A zoning bylaw may designate an area within a zone for affordable or special needs
housing, as such housing is defined in the bylaw, if the owners of the property
covered by the designation consent to the designation.
The density bonus provisions in the Zoning Bylaw conform to the provisions set out in Section
904.
Reserve Fund
Part 6, Division 4 – Reserve Funds of the Community Charter establishes the rules for reserve
funds as follows:
3
S. 188(1) A council may, by bylaw, establish a reserve fund for a specified purpose and
direct that money be placed to the credit of the reserve fund.
S. 189(1) Subject to this section, the money in a reserve fund, and interest earned on
it, must be used only for the purpose for which the fund was established.
Should Council decide to establish a city-wide amenity zoning framework and list of desired
amenities on a City-wide or area plan basis are identified, a reserve fund must also be
established in order to identify where the funds collected through amenity zoning contributions
will be allocated.
Albion Area Plan
Since 2011, discussions related to amenity zoning have been primarily focused within the Albion
Area Plan area. On March 19, 2012, Council was presented with a report titled Density Review
Process for North Albion Area following a 2011 discussion on sanitary servicing issues in the
north Albion area.
Between March 2012 and October 2013, the Planning Department was engaged in a review of
the residential densities within the Albion Area Plan, expanding the conversation to include the
entire area plan. As part of that discussion, Council directed that a study be prepared on the
potential amenity zoning within Albion. CitySpaces Consulting was selected to undertake that
work, and presented the final report, titled Amenity Zoning: Analysis and Options (Appendix B) to
Council on November 26, 2012.
Following that report, Council directed that the Albion Area be used as a pilot project for amenity
zoning and directed staff to undertake the work necessary to prepare the amendments for the
Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw. On October 22, 2013, Council approved the OCP and
Zoning Bylaw amending bylaws that provide the policy framework and density bonus options for
the Albion area, as well as approving the associated Reserve Fund Bylaw.
During the preparation of the Albion Amenity Zoning work, the development community was clear
that they wanted an approach that was transparent and consistent. As a result, the policies
contained in Chapter 10.2 of the OCP and the density bonus provisions in the Zoning Bylaw, were
adopted to provide this direction and align with the density bonus provisions included in the RS-
1d, RS-1b and RM-1 zones.
It is anticipated that the density bonus provisions available in Albion will result in approximately
280 additional lots with an estimated total Reserve Fund of $868,000 assuming all property
owners take advantage of the density bonus provisions available. While a number of
applications are advancing that have chosen to take advantage of the density bonus provisions,
to date no amenity zoning funds have been collected.
b) Strategic Alignment:
Council’s 2015 Workplan identified a series of reports focused on exploring options for funding
community infrastructure. This report on City-wide amenity zoning options forms part of that
larger discussion and is intended to provide Council with background information and options for
discussion.
4
c) Policy Implications:
Chapter 2 Growth Management of the Official Community Plan includes three policies (2-7
through 2-9) that establish the community amenity program. They set out the broad framework
for Council to consider how density bonuses and amenity contributions will be applied, including
through all OCP and Zoning Bylaw amending applications. An excerpt from the OCP has been
attached as Appendix C.
The Albion Area Plan includes five policies in Chapter 10.2, that provide detailed direction for
density bonuses and community amenity contributions within the area plan boundaries. These
policies may serve as a guide to Council through the discussion for a city-wide program. Policies
10-4 through 10-8 have been included for Council’s information as Appendix D.
Options:
There are several options that Council could consider for a city-wide amenity zoning program.
They include:
Density bonus provisions in the Zoning Bylaw, with associated community amenity
contributions.
This option follows the approach taken within Albion and would require determining
which zones could be considered for additional density based on either a per-unit charge
or a per square foot of development. It provides the greatest level of clarity for a
developer as they have the choice to develop under the base density or the bonus
density and can factor that decision into the overall development proforma. The Official
Community Plan already contains policies that would enable Council to advance this type
of program by amending the Zoning Bylaw.
Site-specific amenity contributions, to be negotiated with the developer as part of the
development approval process, based on the form and density of development.
The site-specific option would required a negotiated agreement between the City and the
developer for each new development application. While this option may at times enable
a higher level of community amenity to be achieved, it does not provide a clear and
consistent approach for prospective development and requires a significant amount of
staff time during the negotiations. This approach is somewhat common throughout the
Lower Mainland, as indicated in the Cityspaces report (Appendix B,page 5).
Area-based programs that identify different density bonus and community amenity
provisions within a defined boundary, such as an area plan boundary.
This approach includes the discussion of community amenities through a larger planning
process, such as an area plan, to identify for Council what the residents within the plan
area boundaries feel are the most needed community amenities in the area. It would
contain a group of policies that identify how and when additional density would be
allowed and what the amenity requirement would be in return. This approach is similar
to the process for Albion and is also being incorporated into the current Hammond Area
Plan process. It differs from the city-wide approach in that the special characteristics of
the area can be identified and which may differ from other areas in the City.
5
While each of the above may achieve similar outcomes, the process for each is substantially
different. The Amenity Zoning: Analysis and Options report prepared by CitySpaces (Appendix B)
provides a comparative summary of the differences between density bonusing and site-specific
negotiations, which can be found on pages 3 through 5 of that report.
d) Business Plan Implications:
This report reflects Council’s priorities for the Planning Department’s 2015 workplan. Should
Council wish to pursue additional work on this item, it is uncertain at this point how that might
impact the initiation or completion of other projects.
NEXT STEPS:
Should Council wish to consider amenity zoning on a city-wide basis, a follow up report could be
prepared based on the preferred option(s), necessary policy and regulatory changes and the process
that would be followed to undertake that work.
CONCLUSIONS:
Amenity zoning is a tool that is widely used throughout the Lower Mainland to help municipalities
fund additional community amenities beyond what can be obtained through DCC’s. Recent
amendments to the Official Community Plan have established the general policy framework for
Council to consider when community amenity contributions are to be included in the development
approvals process.
Should Council wish to consider establishing a City-wide amenity program, additional analysis and
Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments will be required.
“Original signed by Jim Charlebois”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Community Planning
“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 Kelly Swift”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: Kelly Swift
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A: Report on Discussion on Amenity Zoning, May 9, 2011;
Appendix B: Amenity Zoning: Analysis and Options, prepared by CitySpaces Consulting, Nov. 2012;
Appendix C: Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Growth Management policies 2-7 through 2-9;
Appendix D: Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Albion Area Plan amenity zoning policies
APPENDIX A
District of Maple Ridge
Final ReportAmenity Zoning:
Analysis and Options
Prepared for the
District of Maple Ridge
November 2012
APPENDIX B
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Table Of Contents
................................................................................................................Introduction 1
..................................................................Municipal Infrastructure Funding Powers 1
......................................................................................Amenity Zoning Approaches 2
..............................................................................................................Density Bonusing 2
...................................................................................Community Amenity Contributions 3
.....................................................................................................Comparative Summary 3
........................................................................Amenity Zoning Across Metro Vancouver 5
.....................Can Amenities be Secured Through Amenity Zoning in Maple Ridge? 6
...................................................................................District-Wide Amenity Contribution 6
.......................................................................................Town Centre Density Bonusing 10
................................What Level of Amenity Contribution is viable in Maple Ridge? 11
....................................What Does it Mean? Implications, Options and Next Steps 12
Executive Summary
Within the context of escalating and welcomed residential growth in Maple Ridge, the District is challenged
to provide community amenities that keep pace with this growth. Fortunately, the extension of Maple
Ridge’s hard services infrastructure – water, sewer, roads and parkland – are largely secured through
powers such as Development Cost Charges (DCCs), as set out in the Local Government Act. Community
amenities, however, cannot be funded through DCCs. As well, increasingly, growing municipalities like
Maple Ridge are looking to use other planning and financial powers to help build and maintain community
amenities, such as affordable housing, community spaces, child care spaces, endowments or reserve
funding, and sustainability measures.
•In BC there are two zoning-based approaches to securing community amenities – Density
bonusing as established through predefined zoning schedules often in combination with efforts to
pre-zone areas, and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) secured through an OCP
amendment or rezoning process. The first is an out-right option to increase density/floorspace to a
permitted maximum provided certain required conditions are met; the second can either take the
form of a pre-established and known contribution or, through negotiation, a specific amenity
(amenities) package, or an equivalent financial contribution to allow the municipality to deliver this
amenity (amenities).
•The results are intended to be a good outcome for both parties – developer-applicant and
municipality.
TWO KEY QUESTIONS
The District commissioned CitySpaces Consulting and G.P. Rollo and Associates to assist in answering
two key questions:
1.Is there potential for the District to secure amenities through Amenity Zoning?; and
2.If so, what level of amenity contribution is viable in Maple Ridge?
THE ANALYSIS
To assist in answering the two key questions, the consulting team undertook:
•An exploration of the practices and outcomes of other municipalities in Metro Vancouver in their
quest to secure community amenities through Amenity Zoning;
•An analysis of five case studies in Maple Ridge selected by District staff, intended to provide a
“snapshot” of current development and potential land lift scenarios;
•A analysis of possible land lift generated through a series of hypothetical rezoning scenarios.
ANSWERS TO THE TWO KEY QUESTIONS
1.Is there potential for the District to secure amenities through Amenity Zoning?
In terms of land lift: Yes, but its modest and gradual, and subject to market complexities. As
well, it is noted that the District currently undertakes negotiations with developer-applicants to
secure rental housing and has already established in policy and zoning a density bonus
framework for the Town Centre area, resulting in an existing level of familiarity with amenity zoning
within the local development community. This will assist should the District opt to widen its use of
amenity zoning.
i DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012
2.If so, what level of amenity contribution is viable in Maple Ridge?
While perhaps simply stated in light of the findings that market conditions are always “ in play”, any
amenity contribution should ensure consistency, clarity and viability in terms of outcomes
relative to the development market and community interests. In other municipalities across the
Metro Region, levels of amenity contributions often range from 50% to 75% of the land lift, and
can be stated as a flat fee or other straight-forward metric (i.e. per lot/door, on a sq. ft./sq. m.
basis, etc.).
INFOGRAPHICS
CitySpaces has developed a series of infographics to help visualize the complexities of amenity zoning and
the financial value associated with “land lift” – the financial value resulting from rezoning and increased
floorspace / density. The associated infographic uses values that are currently present in Maple Ridge.
NEXT STEPS
Based on the discussion set out in this report and the more detailed analysis provided in Appendix A,
and should the District opt to explore amenity zoning further towards developing a Maple Ridge
amenity strategy, key next steps for consideration include:
•Undertaking additional analysis of land lift yields relative to development applications noting the
market complexities observed and the many neighbourhoods existing with the District;
•Establishment of a more detailed policy basis to support any expansion of amenity zoning,
particularly the use of an area-wide community amenity contribution approach and at which point
in the development process (i.e. at OCP amendment, at rezoning, or both) such CACs are
triggered;
•Defining a list of community amenities, ideally on a local area basis, that can be achieved wholly,
or in part, through bonus density or CACs; and
•Utilising a pilot project to unfold any additional exploration of amenity zoning and testing of further
analysis, potentially to coincide with area-planning and engagement efforts in a neighbourhood
experiencing significant growth pressures.
iiDISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012
A.Introduction
Between 2006 and 2011, the population of Maple Ridge grew to 76,052, representing a 10.3% change
(compared to the national average growth of 5.9%)1 – and continuing growth is expected. With growth
comes pressure on existing community services, and typically, on municipalities to provide additional
services. In the pursuit of livability, many municipalities are looking for ways to deliver amenities that are
not attainable through Development Cost Charges, or without increasing municipal taxes. Such amenities
can take the form of affordable housing, community spaces, child care spaces, endowments or reserve
funding, and at times, demonstrable sustainability improvements. These amenities contribute to a
location’s character, its desirability as a place to live, and often attract further investment and development.
In this overall growth context, the District of Maple Ridge, through its continuing process to review and
revise its Zoning Bylaw, engaged CitySpaces Consulting and G.P. Rollo and Associates (GPRA) to
investigate how an Amenity Zoning Strategy might use legislative planning powers towards assisting the
District in securing amenities through development. Specifically, through analysis and subsequent
discussion of five examples of “typical” development interest within the District, staff and the consultant
team sought to address two key questions:
1.Is there potential for the District to secure amenities through Amenity Zoning? and
2.If so, what level of amenity contribution is viable in Maple Ridge?
The intent of this report is to bring forward information and background about the planning powers
available to a municipality to secure amenities through development. Further, through the use of
infographics and mapped illustrations, the report seeks to present a summary of the insights gained from
the analysis. For more detailed findings undertaken by GPRA, please see Appendix A.
This report also highlights options for continued analysis towards the District’s establishment of a viable
Amenity Strategy.
B.Municipal Infrastructure Funding Powers
In BC, municipalities have a number of powers to obtain infrastructure contributions from development
projects. The more common of these tools include:
•Direct Provision of Lands
Can secure a maximum of 5% of site area, to be dedicated to parks and open space. Additionally,
municipalities may require land for road widening purposes.
•Direct Provision of Improvements
Used to secure off-site infrastructure improvements adjacent to or required by a development.
•Development Cost Charges
Collectively used to fund area-wide projects and may only be collected for water, sewer, roads,
and drainage improvements as well as park land acquisition.
1 Statistics Canada. 2012. Maple Ridge, British Columbia (Code 5915075) and Greater Vancouver, British Columbia (Code
5915) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released
October 24, 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012
Noting the intentionally restrictive nature of such powers, and in an effort to best balance the pressure and
the potential that can arise from new development, many municipalities are turning towards supplemental
measures and approaches.
C.Amenity Zoning Approaches
In BC there are two Amenity Zoning approaches – Density Bonusing and Community Amenity
Contributions.
Density Bonusing
The establishment through zoning of a base density (e.g., 1.0 Floor Space Ratio [FSR]) as well as a bonus
density (e.g., 0.5 FSR), over and in addition to the base density, if a property developer-applicant satisfied
the conditions that are set out under the same bylaw.
Density bonusing finds its statutory authority in Section 904 of the Local Government Act (see insert)
which states that density bonusing is founded on a municipality identifying in advance its amenity
needs, as well as the locations where addition development or density are appropriate. Further, it is
implied that the municipality would also pre-zone such locations, establishing a “base” or lower density
as well as the conditions (amenity contributions) that a developer-applicant may consider satisfying in
order to achieve the permitted density increase available.
2DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Section 904 of the Local Government Act
(1)A zoning bylaw may:
(a)establish different density regulations for a zone, one generally
applicable for the zone and the other or others to apply if the
applicable conditions under paragraph (b) are met, and
(b)establish conditions in accordance with subsection (2) that will entitle
an owner to a higher density under paragraph (a).
(2)The following are conditions that may be included under subsection (1) (b):
(a)conditions relating to the conservation or provision of amenities,
including the number, kind and extent of amenities;
(b)conditions relating to the provision of affordable and special needs
housing, as such housing is defined in the bylaw, including the
number, kind and extent of the housing;
(c)a condition that the owner enter into a housing agreement under
section 905 before a building permit is issued in relation to property to
which the condition applies.
(3)A zoning bylaw may designate an area within a zone for affordable or special
needs housing, as such housing is defined in the bylaw, if the owners of the
property covered by the designation consent to the designation.
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Community Amenity Contributions
This approach stems from a request by a developer-applicant to make a land use change and includes
the provision of a community amenity contribution (CAC) by the developer-applicant.
Utilizing the community amenity contribution approach, a municipality draws upon its discretionary
authority in considering an Official Community Plan amendment and/or rezoning request. Key to this
decision is consideration of how the proposed change might affect, positively or negatively, the public
interest.
In terms of implementation, a CAC program can be undertaken either on a site-by-site analysis or
through an area-wide program. The former approach involves a negotiated assessment with the
developer-applicant of the development being proposed relative to any potential ensuing impacts on
the community, and the resulting amenity needs. Under an area-wide community amenity program, the
assessment of possible development impacts and community needs is undertaken upfront, with the
intent of establishing a known level of CAC that all development would provide.
In both ways, the resulting provision of amenities by the developer-applicant then becomes a mutually-
beneficial strategy towards mitigating any potential impacts stemming from a change in land use.
Comparative Summary
The two approaches appear similar in terms of intent and outcome, but there are differences between
density bonusing and community amenity contributions, be they site-specific or area-wide in scope. To
assist in the comparison, four measures are used:
•Level of Discretion for the Developer-Applicant and the Municipality
•Clarity and Consistency for the Developer-Applicant and the Public
•Ease of Implementation
•Implications to Land Lift
LEVEL OF DISCRETION
Density bonusing is an “out-right” option, meaning a developer-applicant may opt for the density bonus
subject to meeting the required conditions without a rezoning or negotiations. An example within the
District’s existing zoning is the RM-6 zone which sets out a base density and the necessary out-right
conditions to achieve additional density. The provision of amenity contributions, either through a one-off
site-specific negotiation or as part of an area-wide program, are premised on the discretionary authority
afforded to a municipalities to either approve (or not approve) a change in land-use if requested.
CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY
Given the absence of discretion, density bonusing provides the same results consistently. As well, given
that density bonusing anticipates a zoned site, the implications of any amenity contribution to achieve the
bonused density are clearly known to the developer-applicant in advance. Similarly, an area-wide approach
to secure community amenity contributions can make clear in advance the amenity implications of
development, providing equally valuable levels of consistency. Conversely, community amenity
contributions defined through site-by-site negotiations make it difficult to ascertain in advance the amenity
implications stemming from development, increasing the level of uncertainty facing a developer-applicant.
3
EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of density bonusing is relatively straight-forward as it requires limited involvement or
review from municipal staff once the original zoning provisions are enacted, with the exception of
application review to ensure the required amenity conditions are achieved. That said, a municipality should
first work to quantify the proposed steps in density relative to the amenity requirements as well as initiate
the necessary text amendments/rezonings needed to put the density bonus scheme in place.
When community amenity contributions are provided through an area-wide program it is similarly important
that the municipality calibrate the basis for the contributions to ensure its requirements are supportable in
the existing development market. The negotiation of site specific community amenity contributions can,
however, be a more involved process, which at times may require resources beyond what some
municipalities can provide (i.e. proforma analysis).
IMPLICATIONS TO LAND LIFT
Key to the discussion of the two amenity zoning approaches is the premise of “land lift”, or the additional
financial value a developer-applicant might realize from their property if its inherent land use and/or
densities are changed. This increase in before and after values under either approach presents a possible
opportunity between the municipality and the developer-applicant for the sharing of the land lift towards
offsetting the amenity costs associated with the accommodation of the proposed development.
As noted above, density bonusing and area-wide community amenity contributions provide similar levels of
clarity and consistency, which can in turn assist the development community interpret land lift implications.
That is, with either approach, a developer-applicant purchases a property with a clear understanding of the
costs to achieving bonused or increased density potential, and is therefore informed of an appropriate
market value for the property relative to the anticipated market yield. Any associated cost involved in the
realization of the bonused or increased density can be calculated in advance and incorporated into a
development proforma, or assessment of anticipated costs and revenues, in order to help determine the
most viable form of development. As one might expect, it is harder to interpret in advance the land lift
implications stemming from a community amenity contribution that is negotiated on a site-by-site basis.
Infographic #1 aids in illustrating the comparative summary of amenity zoning options.
4DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Amenity Zoning Across Metro Vancouver
An assessment of the use of amenity zoning across the Metro Region indicates broad levels of acceptance
of the two amenity zoning approaches. From this high-level overview, it is clear that density bonusing and
site-specific negotiated community amenity contributions are well practiced within the Region, with only a
handful opting to undertake an area-wide community amenity contribution approach.
In terms of the amenities sought by the various programs, many municipalities identified the need for
community centres, libraries, child care, heritage preservation, affordable housing, endowment/reserve
funds and enhanced sustainability performance.
Table 1: Amenity Zoning Application in Metro Vancouver
Municipality Year
Established
Density
Bonus
CAC
Site-
Specific
CAC
Area-
Wide
Policy Direction
Burnaby 1997 ✓ OCP Polices and Zoning
Bylaw
Coquitlam 2004 ✓ ✓ OCP Policies
Langley City 2008 ✓ Council Resolution
Langley Township 1998 ✓ ✓ Neighbourhood Plans
North Vancouver City 1992 ✓ ✓ Council approval
North Vancouver
District
2010 ✓ ✓ Administrative Polices
Pitt Meadows n/a ✓ Council approval
Port Coquitlam 2009 ✓ ✓ Set through rezoning
conditions
Port Moody n/a ✓ Council approval
Richmond 1992 ✓ ✓ OCP Policies
Surrey 1995 + 2008 ✓ ✓ ✓ NCP and City Centre
Polices
Vancouver 1989 ✓ ✓ ✓ Area specific policies,
Financing Growth Policy
West Vancouver 2007 ✓ ✓ Council approval
5
GPRA 2012
D.Can Amenities be Secured Through Amenity Zoning in Maple
Ridge?
In reflecting upon the two Amenity Zoning approaches in the context of Maple Ridge’s regulatory
framework, it is noted that the District currently undertakes site-by-site negotiations for secured rental
housing. As well, the District offers density bonusing in its Town Centre Area under the RM-6 zoning
schedule. While there has been limited uptake on the optional bonused density for the RM-6 zoned sites,
as well as the density inherently available in the Town Centre as set out in policy and existing zoning, this
is likely more a result of market rather than regulatory conditions. Noting that, the focus within this study
has been given to areas outside the Town Centre towards identifying the potential for further use of
amenity zoning, in particular an area-wide community amenity contribution approach. A more detailed
assessment of the Town Centre and the ongoing use of density bonusing is also provided later in the
report.
District-Wide Amenity Contribution
G.P. Rollo and Associates undertook an analysis of land lift in Maple Ridge, utilizing two approaches:
•An assessment of 5 case studies provided to the consultant team by District staff. The case
studies were drawn from submitted applications requiring either an Official Community Plan
amendment and/or a rezoning. Table 2 identifies the case studies examined, outlining the property
address, existing zoning, proposed zoning and resulting land lift of each case study.
At a high-level, the collective intent of the case study assessment was to provide a "snapshot" of
the current development market and interests across the District. Noting the breadth of
development activity and interests present in Maple Ridge, as well as the overall size of the
District, it is acknowledged that the five case studies represent a small sampling of development in
the community. However, from these assessments, and from additional analysis undertaken by
GPRA, insights were gained and are shared through this section.
Table 2: GPRA Case Study Summary
6DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Case
Study
Property
Address
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Land
Lift
#1 23103 136th Ave A2
Mix of R-3, R-1, RS-1b,
RM-1 and other non-
residential zoning
$3,038,864
#2 24417 & 24371 112th Ave RS-3 Mix of R-1 and RS-1b $1,086,076
#3 11213 - 11333 240th St RS-3 Mix of RM-1 and C-1 $2,934,519
#4 11641 227th St RS-1 RM-6 $295,895
#5 20623 & 20615 113th Ave and
11312 206th St.RS-1 RM-2 -$60,047
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Map #1 Case Study Locations
7
•As noted, an additional analysis was undertaken by GPRA to examine the hypothetical rezoning of
a typical 1 acre lot in Maple Ridge from various single-unit detached zonings to a number of
alternative and more dense zoning options. The intent was to provide a more general
demonstration of how lift occurs across the many potential rezoning scenarios that may be
requested. The below infographic illustrates the property value gains as possible rezonings to
more intensive forms of development occur.
Infographic #2 provides a comparison of CACs for hypothetical rezonings.
Through both assessments, it is clear that sufficient land lift, or increased property values, are created from
a change of land use in Maple Ridge to accommodate the provision of an amenity contribution to the
District. It is recommended that the more detailed report prepared by GPRA (see Appendix A) be reviewed
in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the many influences and subsequent outcomes
inherent to an assessment of land lift. However, for brevity purposes, and to help illustrate at this initial
stage the general lessons learned from the assessments, a high level overview is presented below.
HIGHEST LAND LIFT INCREASE
As illustrated in Case Study #1, and as supported by the assessment of hypothetical rezoning scenarios, a
shift from an agricultural land use to a residential land use designations results in considerable land lift. If
such a shift is approved, the value of the property under the new land use designation and zoning
increases, creating land lift as illustrated by the green area of the below diagram. In this instance, an
amendment to the Official Community Plan may also be required.
8DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Infographic #3 illustrates a comparison of amenity zoning potential outcomes.
MARKET VALUE IN LARGE LOTS
Property value increases can also be realized through the retention of the existing land use designation,
but a shift to a zone with a higher density (as illustrated by the orange area in the above diagram). As
demonstrated by Case Study #2 and #3, land holdings in larger lot configurations result in modest land lift
when shifting to higher forms of density. This is supported by the analysis of hypothetical scenarios,
especially in comparison to the minimal to no-gain realized when rezoning properties zoned R1 or R3. The
latter instances are likely perceived in the market as already holding a "higher" form of density (small lots)
relative to other single-unit detached property options (i.e. RS-3), limiting the ability to increase property
values as density increases.
GREATER DENSITIES ≠ GREATER LAND LIFT
Beyond lot size, the limits of density increases in the Maple Ridge market are further evidenced by the drop
in land lift beyond RM-2 levels of intensity. As illustrated in Infographic #2, the assessment of hypothetical
rezonings and their corresponding land lifts reveals a general positive correlation between increased
densities and increased land values. However, the correlation ends after RM-2 levels of density as the
assessment focused on rezonings to RM-6 and its bonused higher levels of density. This is further
demonstrated by the limited land lift found in Case Study #4. The purple area above depicts such instances
where a rezoning to increase density may actually result in a form of development that does not meet
market acceptance, resulting in minimal gain or a possible loss of overall property value.
9
COMPLEXITY OF MARKET CONDITIONS
Understanding land lift and the application of amenity zoning requires a thorough comprehension of local
market conditions, yet even so, market complexity means that land lift values are not always intuitive.
While wood frame multifamily developments maintain a strong level of local market demand, land costs do
not always reflect this as evidenced by Case Study #5. Whether it was due to speculation raising the
assessed property values or a result that end pricing thresholds for multifamily wood frame development in
Maple Ridge are lower than in other Lower Mainland municipalities, the property value loss found through
this case study means diminished returns and minimal (if any) lift (again illustrated by the purple area in
above infographic #3).
Town Centre Density Bonusing
Given the pre-existing use of Density Bonusing in Maple Ridge, GPRA also undertook a hypothetical
assessment of the property value increase associated with each corresponding step in density for the
RM-6 zone, from the base to maximum density threshold. From GPRA’s analysis it is noted that a bonus
from 1.60 FSR (base) to 2.38 FSR results in land lift of approximately $500,000. Evident again was the
market sensitivity to increased density; meaning beyond this level of density property values, while they
increase, are no longer linearly correlated with increases in density (a step up to 3.15 FSR only resulted in
an additional property value lift of just under $350,000).
Table 3: Potential Density Bonus Land Lift
1 Acre Parcel GBA Land Value Land Lift
RM-6 @ 1.60 FSR 69,696 $1,154,359 -
RM-6 @ 2.38 FSR 103,455 $1,653,990 $499,630
RM-6 @ 3.15 FSR 137,214 $1,999,887 $345,897
This condition is visibly evident in the local market, noting that until recently, there has been limited
development interest in the additional density made available through the RM-6 zone. Further, beyond the
RM-6 zone, a closer examination of properties in the Town Centre across all zoning categories, with a
focus on comparing their potential densities to those existing, reveals a general level of under-utilization.
The below map of the Town Centre Area illustrating land use policy aspirations identifies the multitude of
opportunities for density within the District’s Town Centre.
Admittedly, the analysis and the current conditions might reflect the apprehension of developers to incur
increased developer costs associated with the increased cost of buildings as they get larger – particular for
concrete construction. As well, the observed under-utilization might stem from the smaller lot sizes evident
in the Town Centre, presenting the need for consolidation and with that, increased costs, inherent in any
development opportunity. However, it could also be illustrative of a market preference for levels of density
that are best pursued within low-rise, wood-frame forms of development, highlighting that the Maple Ridge
market place is not yet confident that higher forms of density are viable pursuits.
That said, land lift does occur, reinforcing the benefit to the District's use of this amenity zoning tool. As
well, and as evidenced by recent development applications, the market for higher-forms of density appears
to be maturing. With that change, it is anticipated that the opportunity to secure greater land lift and related
amenity contributions through density bonusing in the Town Centre will equally expand.
10DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012GPRA 2012
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Map #2 Maple Ridge Town Centre Land Use Policy Directions
E.What Level of Amenity Contribution is viable in Maple Ridge?
Through the above assessment, the described land lift represents 100% of the possible increased property
value stemming from a rezoning. While this has been done for illustrative purposes, it is not suggested that
the full amount of lift be considered when developing an amenity strategy. Development of any property
inherently presents risks. Noting that, and the intent to maintain a viable and profitable local development
market, most communities seek not to overburden the development and instead pursue a sharing of the lift,
typically in the 50% to 75% range depending on levels of development interest/demand.
In terms of how best to quantify an amenity contribution, whether as part of a density-bonus scheme or a
community amenity contribution it can be expressed in many ways: from a per lot/door basis to a per sq. ft.
basis. However, and in reflection of the importance placed on clarity and certainty, it is suggested that the
District pursue the establishment of a flat rate figure, one that is easily understood and lends itself to added
certainty amongst the development community as to the known associated costs related to the
development of a property. Further, and in absence of site specific assessments, such a figure should allow
for the variation that is present in the current market and which was evidenced through GPRA Case Study
analysis by targeting the lower range of potential land lift available.
The below table excerpted from GPRA's more detailed report (found in Appendix A) suggests possible
thresholds the District may wish to consider.
11
Table 3: Potential Area-Wide Community Amenity Contributions per Unit
Current R Zones Townhouse Low Rise Hi Rise
A-2 $16,000 $12,000 $12,000 $6,000
R-zones $5,000 $4,000 $8,000 $3,000
That said, the variations found in the local market place and the acknowledgement of the small number of
Case Studies pursued through this present study limit the ability to apply the discussed findings unilaterally
across the District. It is also been discussed that the market is evolving and at different speeds in the
various neighborhoods that make up Maple Ridge. As well, it is recognized that while amenity zoning is not
new to Maple Ridge, it is likely that further implementation to areas outside the Town Centre will receive
much public and development industry attention. Given this dynamic environment, additional analysis and
subsequent discussion with the development industry would benefit the District, lending greater comfort
that any amenity contribution received through rezonings represents an equitable and viable sharing of the
land lift.
F.What Does it Mean? Implications, Options and Next Steps
Through the above initial analysis, the presence of sufficient land lift stemming from changes of land use,
and to a certain extent increased densities, has been found towards making feasible the provision of
community amenity contributions. In addition, it is also recognized that amenity zoning in its various forms
is a common application across the Metro Region, especially in terms of the density bonusing and site-by-
site community amenity contribution approaches. These approaches are consistent with the practices
currently utilized by Maple Ridge and its existing regulatory framework. Such findings along with the
District’s existing familiarity present an opportunity to expand the use of amenity zoning towards a greater
sharing of the land lift between the municipality and the developer-applicant towards addressing the
amenity costs associated with expanded local growth. Yet in light of the earlier discussion on the
importance of clarity and consistency in the implementation of any expanded amenity zoning scheme, it will
be important that the District reflects upon the various implications inherent to amenity zoning and
implementation options available, towards developing an amenity strategy that best meets the District’s
needs.
Currently, the District’s use of density bonusing is focused solely within the Town Centre area. Expansion of
this approach to zones other than the RM-6 zone is timely noting the District’s current revision of its Zoning
Bylaw, as further implementation would necessitate an analysis of what best constitutes ‘base’ density
(relative to existing permitted density levels) as well as articulate the steps required to reach the proposed
density maximum. Further, any expansion of density bonusing within the Town Centre should be
coordinated with the District’s successful Town Centre Investment Incentive Program. It is noted that the
duration of the program is brief relative to the overall lifespan of any amenity zoning scheme, however, it
will be necessary to communicate and educate any implications to the program stemming from any
potential widening of density bonusing opportunities.
Outside the Town Centre Area, it will be valuable for the District to consider not only levels of development
interest, but the types of development proposals commonly received to determine if expanded amenity
zoning should take the form of density bonusing, a community amenity contribution, or both.
12DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012GPRA 2012
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY ZONING ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS REPORT | November 2012Specifically, and as noted earlier, further use of density bonusing outside the Town Centre would
necessitate the District consider appropriate density thresholds for certain areas in advance. Alternatively, if
development pressures stem from requests to amend the Official Community Plan or to undertake specific
types of rezonings (i.e. low density residential to more dense forms of residential), this could suggest that a
community amenity contribution program be more appropriate. Further, and towards provider greater
certainty to the development industry regarding amenity implications, the District may wish to evaluate if
any community amenity contribution program is best implemented on an area-wide or through a continued
site specific basis, as well as the most appropriate trigger for initiating a contribution, be it at Official
Community Plan amendment or at rezoning.
Beyond the approach, it will also be necessary for the
District to define what amenities it hopes to achieve
through amenity zoning. Currently, as noted in the
adjacent inset, it is clear that affordable, rental and
special need housing are envisioned amenities to be
delivered through density bonusing. While more detail is
not found in the District’s current policy framework,
inferences as to possible other amenity aspirations can
be identified; noting the encouragement for further
provision of public spaces such as libraries, museums,
community and recreation centres; public art; and outdoor
spaces such as squares, plazas, and courtyards. This
potential list coincides with the interpretation of amenities
across the Region.
Given the firm basis for density bonusing in Maple Ridge’s
founding policies, a further consideration for the District in light of its possible expansion of amenity zoning,
is the prior establishment of policy to support the development of a community amenity contribution
program. Further, and especially if such a program is undertaken on an area-wide basis, such policy
development could coincide with District-led area planning processes, through which staff could also
engage the local communities towards affirming appropriate amenity needs and interests.
In reflection of these implications and options, and in terms of next steps, the limitation of the five case
studies to accurately interpret the various market conditions associated with the many neighbourhoods in
Maple Ridge has been noted. Similarly, the sensitivity of land lift to local market conditions, as indicated
through the case study analysis, has also been raised. Given such found market complexities, it is
therefore recommended as a key next step that further analysis be undertaken in order to affirm the extent
and corresponding amount of amenity contribution proposed for an expansion of amenity zoning in the
District. Further, and noting the potential for divergent interests across the District’s neighbourhoods and
their corresponding varying levels of development interest, it is suggested that additional exploration of
amenity zoning strategies take the form of a pilot project, whereby further analysis is undertaken on the
market and resulting built form conditions within the neighbourhood facing the most constant pressures of
development interest and ensuring growth.
Towards developing an amenity strategy that is reflective of the entire Maple Ridge context, additional
piloted and area-specific efforts could then follow to unfold the amenity conversation on a neighbourhood-
by-neighbourhood basis.
13
“Maple Ridge will undertake a
further study to consider density
bonusing as a means of
encouraging the provision of
affordable, rental and special
needs housing, and amenities.”
- Official Community Plan
Section 3 - 30
| 14
Appendix A
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy
Case Study Analysis
GP Rollo & Associates
October 2012
1
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
October 11th 2012
Brent Elliott
CitySpaces Consulting Ltd.
Suite 585-1111 W. Hastings St.
Vancouver, BC, V6E 2J3
Re: Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
The District of Maple Ridge has retained CitySpaces Consulting Ltd. to prepare a
preliminary Amenity Strategy for the District. As part of this work CitySpaces has
brought G.P. Rollo & Associates (GPRA) on board to provide economic analysis to inform
the preliminary strategy and to provide some rough estimates of potential fees that
could be collected for amenities from the lift in land values that is created from
rezoning. Specifically, GPRA has addressed two key questions regarding Amenity
Contributions: is there potential for the District to secure Amenity Contributions
through rezoning of properties, and; if so, what sort of fees should the District charge at
rezoning.
The District has provided GPRA with 5 Case Studies1 for analysis that would be indicative
of the types of rezonings the District typically sees:
1. 23103 136th Ave: 14.57 acres of A-2 zoned land to be rezoned to a mix of R-3, R-
1, RS-1b, RM-1, and other non-residential uses;
2. 24417 & 24371 112th Ave: 9.29 acres of RS-3 zoned land to be rezoned to a mix
of R-1 and RS-1b uses;
3. 11213 – 11333 240th St: 14.8 acres of RS-3 zoned land to be rezoned to a mix of
RM-1 and C-1 uses;
4. 11641 227th St: 3.53 acres of RS-1 zoned land to be rezoned to RM-6;
5. 20623 & 20615 113th Ave and 11312 206th St: 0.5 acres of RS-1 land to be
rezoned to RM-2.
(Refer to the map on the following page)
1 A sixth case was provided for 21165 River Road from RS-1 to RS-1b, but the change in zoning results in
virtually no additional utility over existing zoning, and thus has no appreciable lift.
2
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
1 2 3 4 5 Not Used
3
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
The analysis consisted of preparation of residual land value analyses for each parcel for
establishing the maximum value that a developer could afford to pay for the site
assuming it already had the new zoning under current market conditions. GPRA used
standard developer proformas for each case to model the economics of typical
development as proposed/allowed under the new zoning.
The residual land value determined from this analysis was then compared to the value
of the site under current zoning to establish a ‘lift’ in value that arises from the change
in zoning. This lift in value represents the total potential monies that could be made
available for amenities or other public works not considered as part of the analysis.
Typically there is some sharing of the lift value between the Municipality/District and
the developer, but the percentage shared varies by community and by project.
4
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS
As indicated above, GPRA prepared proforma analyses for each of the Case Study sites,
and where necessary we created additional proforma analyses for multiple uses as
required for the analysis. Specifics on each site were provided by the District, including
new zoning and uses for each site.
GPRA determined revenues used in the analyses from a review of recent sales and
offerings for sale of newly developed single family dwellings, townhouses, and
apartments in both wood frame and concrete construction.2 Project costs were derived
from sources deemed reliable, including information readily available from quantity
surveyors on average hard construction costs for the District. Development or soft costs
have been drawn from industry standards, and from District sources. General
assumptions on timing for approvals, construction, and marketing have been made and
are reflected in interest costs borne by the development.
The analyses are created using a standard developer proforma wherein estimates of
revenues and costs are inputs and the remaining variable is the desired output. The
proforma is used by developers to determine project viability (does it achieve an
acceptable return?) and to secure financing. In typical proformas this output is usually
profit, following a revenues minus costs equals profit formula. For a residual land
valuation, however, an assumption on developer’s profit needs to be included in order
to leave the land value as the variable to solve for. For these analyses GPRA has
assumed 12% profit on total project costs for all single family projects and 15% profit on
all multiple family projects (these are typical profit margins utilized in these sorts of
analyses). The results of the proforma analyses are the maximum supported land value
a developer could pay for the site (under new zoning) while achieving an acceptable
return for their project.
For the purposes of this preliminary analysis GPRA has used current BC Assessment
assessed values for the test sites and has drawn inferences from this assessment data
on where market values generally lie for various single family zoned land in the District.3
Other options for establishing the base value for land under current zoning would be to
use comparable land sales or to use residual land value analysis as has been done to
establish the rezoned value of land. For the purposes of this exercise BCAA value was
deemed appropriate for the high-level nature of the analysis.
2 For apartments GPRA also surveyed Pitt Meadows due to limited project data for Maple Ridge
exclusively.
3 Conversations with BC Assessment for Maple Ridge indicate that they do not generally distinguish
between various single family zones, but rather rely entirely on comparable sales in the neighbourhood.
As such, if there is a trend toward subdivision of larger parcels and rezoning to denser single family uses in
a neighbourhood this would be captured in the assessment on other properties in the neighbourhood,
and may not truly indicate the value under current zoning.
5
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
The ‘lift’ for each test site is then determined by comparison of land value under existing
zoning to the residual or supported land value under the new zoning. Although market
values may fluctuate by neighbourhood and as the market changes, establishing a base
value allows for GPRA to illustrate the principle of lift and how the District can leverage
this lift for community benefits.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The following table outlines the assessed values for each site in the ‘Before’ column, the
supported land value in the ‘After’ column, and the Lift in the last column. More detail
on these results follows this table:
Before After Lift
Case 1 $4,481,000 $7,519,864 $3,038,864
Case 2 $3,954,748 $5,040,823 $1,086,076
Case 3 $6,311,000 $9,245,519 $2,934,519
Case 4 $2,460,000 $2,755,895 $295,895
Case 5 $779,200 $719,153 -$60,047
Case 1: Due to both the size of the site and that there are a number of non-residential
uses in this particular rezoning GPRA was unable to conduct a full analysis that would be
required to properly identify the lift potential for this site. An analysis of this nature is
far beyond the scope of this particular project, but may be of benefit for the District to
undertake in a separate piece of work. However, for the purposes of these analyses,
GPRA has completed a high level analysis of the rezoned uses using hypothetical 1 acre
development parcels for each zone to determine an average supported land value for
each use, and from that an estimate of the overall value of the site after assumed loss of
developable area due to roads. It is worth noting that if analyzed properly this particular
case could potentially have significantly less lift than indicated here due to the length of
time that would be required to develop and market this site and potential unknown
costs for servicing that could render the economics of development unviable.
Case 2: Two factors may have an impact on the lift potential on this site: the first is that
there appears to be some discrepancy between the size of the two properties and the
area proposed for rezoning; the second is that 24371 112th Ave has been valued by BC
Assessment as farm land, which is significantly lower value than the RS-3 zoning in place
for the property. GPRA has made an adjustment to the value of the property to have an
equivalent value per acre as 24417 112th Ave and applied that value to the 9.29 acres
identified by the District as being rezoned. The remaining site area has been excluded
from this analysis and is assumed to retain current use and zoning, thus contributing no
lift in value.
6
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
Case 3: This case includes both townhouse development at a 0.74 FSR and also
commercial space and residential rental apartments. The inclusion of the commercial
and rental space creates a drag on the value for the site in the after scenario. This
combined with the RM-1 use at higher than the base FSR create a value for the site
which cannot be used for other cases due to the specifics of this particular site.
Case 4: The rezoning from RS-1 to RM-6 is complicated by an indication that the site has
been valued by BC Assessment as multiple-family already and also by limited evidence in
Maple Ridge of the market for new concrete apartment development. Simply put, the
economics of development of apartments using concrete materials do not support high
land values at this point in time. As the market shows greater evidence that purchasers
are willing to pay higher prices for concrete product the supported land value will rise
and generate a more significant lift. As a result of the high value placed on the property
by BCAA GPRA has made an adjustment to RS-1 values for all additional analyses that
follow based on an average of other RS-1 values in the District.
Case 5: While there is a better market for wood frame apartments, the pricing threshold
is still lower than in other areas of the lower mainland. This, combined with very high
assessed values for the three properties comprising this site actually generate a negative
lift – i.e. a developer could not afford to purchase the 3 properties for current assessed
value and develop as proposed. The fact that an application is in process on this site
suggests that the sites were likely acquired for less than the assessed value. In general
terms, it would make more economic sense for a developer to acquire a site of similar
size in one parcel rather than 3 separate parcels that already maximize utility under
current zoning.
7
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES – REZONING HYPOTHETICAL 1 ACRE PARCELS
In addition to the 5 Case Studies GPRA also prepared analyses of various single family
zones for Case 1 as noted above. All these additional analyses assumed development of
a hypothetical 1 acre site under the base allowable development in the zone.
The following table illustrates in a general sense the way lift breaks down when rezoning
a hypothetical 1 acre parcel from the current zone (noted in the left side column) to
each of the other zones (arranged along the rows on the top) :
Note the variability in multiple-family options and how they do not necessarily conform
to results from the case studies above, nor to intuitive logic (i.e. the higher the density,
the higher the lift).
IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY AMENITY CONTRIBUTIONS
As noted above, the total lift identified through either a general set of analyses such as
these or through a separate analysis for a specific rezoning is typically shared between
the municipality or district and the proponent. In areas where development demand is
high a higher share of the lift would usually be sought by the municipality or district
(75% or higher in some cases), but in areas where development is slower a more
equitable split is usually made (50/50 for example).
GPRA has applied a 50/50 split to the lift identified through the case studies and
illustrates the resulting charges that could be introduced on a per unit/lot basis to
collect the District’s share:
Charge per Door/Lot @ 50%
Current RS-3 RS-1 RS-1b R-1 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RM-6 (base)
A-2 $32,881 $16,507 $17,205 $20,372 $21,382 $12,621 $12,471 $6,057
RS-3 n/a $5,777 $8,258 $13,751 $17,106 $8,288 $11,658 $5,135
RS-1 n/a $0 $3,441 $10,186 $14,803 $5,955 $11,221 $4,639
RS-1b n/a $0 $0 $7,640 $13,158 $4,288 $10,908 $4,285
R-1 n/a $0 $0 $0 $8,224 -$712 $9,971 $3,221
R-3 n/a $0 $0 $0 $0 -$9,045 $8,408 $1,449
Current RS-3 RS-1 RS-1b R-1 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RM-6
A-2 $130,000 $200,000 $250,000 $400,000 $650,000 $378,640 $1,150,292 $854,359
RS-3 $0 $70,000 $120,000 $270,000 $520,000 $248,640 $1,020,292 $724,359
RS-1 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $450,000 $178,640 $950,292 $654,359
RS-1b $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $400,000 $128,640 $900,292 $604,359
R-1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 -$21,360 $750,292 $454,359
R-3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$271,360 $500,292 $204,359
8
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
These charges can also be converted to a fee per square foot or square metre of GBA
using estimates of average sizes of unit types in the District:
Charge Sq. Ft. @ 50%
Current RS-3 RS-1 RS-1b R-1 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RM-6 (base)
A-2 $14.92 $4.59 $4.78 $7.65 $10.66 $7.24 $12.72 $6.13
RS-3 $0.00 $1.61 $2.30 $5.17 $8.53 $4.76 $11.89 $5.20
RS-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $3.83 $7.38 $3.42 $11.45 $4.69
RS-1b $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.87 $6.56 $2.46 $11.13 $4.34
R-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.10 -$0.41 $10.17 $3.26
R-3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$5.19 $8.58 $1.47
Typically, however, a municipality or district would not have so many discreet charges,
but will instead create a flat fee for each major rezoning type. In order to recognize the
varied results from the lift analysis and to avoid being punitive to developers GPRA
would typically recommend the fee be set at the lowest level indicated from the
analyses. An example of a potential CAC fee schedule is below:
Potential CAC Schedule per Unit
Current R Zones Townhouse Low Rise Hi Rise
A-2 $16,000 $12,000 $12,000 $6,000
R Zones $5,000 $4,000 $8,000 $3,000
Charging out fees in a manner such as this, or by GBA, or a combination thereof allows
for developers to clearly understand the expected costs for CACs when preparing to
purchase land and when determining project viability. GPRA must note, however, that
additional analysis is recommended before the District proceeds with codifying any fees
into Bylaws and implementing a CAC policy.
9
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES – BONUS DENSITY ON RM-6 1 ACRE SITE
We also analyzed the RM-6 zone as a hypothetical 1 acre site as above to examine
density-bonusing potential. For the RM-6 we therefore assumed base development at
an FSR of 1.6, with the potential to develop up to 3.15 FSR in return for a cash or in-kind
contribution (this assumes the same maximum potential FSR attainable under current
policy, but does not apply the current requirements of LEED, underground parking, and
other considerations). The table below illustrates the potential total cash equivalent
that the bonus density granted would be worth to the developer, which the District
could seek a portion of either as cash or as in-kind, including the conditions already in
policy:
1 Acre Parcel GBA Land $ Lift Total Lift/Bonus sf
RM-6 @ 1.60 FSR 69,696 $1,154,359 - -
RM-6 @ 2.38 FSR 103,455 $1,653,990 $499,630 $14.80
RM-6 @ 3.15 FSR 137,214 $1,999,887 $345,897 $10.25
Note the drop in lift from the mid-point of bonus density to the maximum is a function
of additional costs for a larger development, including, but not limited to additional
time, additional parking, and additional site improvements.
10
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
CONCLUSIONS
GPRA’s analysis answers the first question of whether Amenity contributions could be
generated from rezoning. The results of the Case Studies and hypothetical case analyses
indicates that there is potential for amenities to be secured through rezoning, either
through ad hoc negotiations, or through a formal flat amenity contribution fee. It is
important to note that the lift indicated from GPRA’s analysis represents 100% of the
potential increase in value from the change in use for a parcel of land, and typically
communities seek only a portion of that total lift value.
Likewise, GPRA’s analysis of the increase in land value that accompanies bonus density
indicates the total potential monies available through this policy, either as cash or in-
kind, but again this represents the total value which is typically split between the
developer and the community. Any additional costs during development could reduce
the lift, which is why GPRA generally recommends the municipality or district seek less
than 100% of the lift. As well, additional requirements for on-site or off-site
improvements can also impact lift, and in some cases may be considered as an in-kind
amenity contribution or as a credit against the CAC owed.
Although the analysis of both the 5 Case Studies and of the additional hypothetical 1
acre sites do provide some indication of the potential for the District to secure
amenities, either as cash or in-kind, it would be premature to extrapolate from the
results contained herein and attempt to apply them across the board without further
analysis due to the high level nature of the analysis.
As noted above, there are oddities and discrepancies between intuitive logic and the
results of the analysis that warrant further analysis, and there are also concerns that
GPRA has about the market for multiple-family development in Maple Ridge that may
be diminishing the potential lift value in the analyses. As the market for concrete
construction matures in the District there will likely be much greater potential to secure
amenities at rezoning.
However, some preliminary modeling has been prepared to illustrate how the District
could begin charging CACs based on the results of the Case Study Analyses, with a
recommendation that no more than 50% of the lift be sought as a CAC. Were the District
to seek a higher share of the lift there would a significant risk that developers could
become overburdened by the fee due to differing costs between projects which have
the potential to reduce the supported land value as rezoned (such as requirements for
additional parking, delays in approvals, additional on-site and off-site improvements not
considered in these analysis). For the District to implement an amenity contribution fee
structure GPRA recommends additional analysis should be undertaken to lend more
certainty as to the actual fee amounts that should be charged at rezonings.
In any case, these results and conclusions from the analyses should provide sufficient
data to work with in formulation of some general amenity strategies and are illustrative
of the principles involved in amenity contribution analysis.
11
Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-277-1291 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: gerrymul@telus.net
I trust that our work will be of use in the continued formulation of an Amenity Strategy
for the District of Maple Ridge. I look forward to further discussion on these analyses
and our continued efforts.
Gerry Mulholland |Vice President
G.P. Rollo & Associates Ltd., Land Economists
T 604 277 1291 | M 778 772 8872 |
E gerrymul@telus.net| W www.rolloassociates.com
Suite 585, 1111 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC V6E 2J3 | 604.687.2281
5th Floor, 844 Courtney Street, Victoria BC V8W 1C4 | 250.383.0304
Suite 300, 160 Quarry Park Boulevard SE, Calgary AB T2C 3G3 | 403.336.2468
www.cityspaces.ca
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 2, Page 3
2 - 6 Maple Ridge supports and maintains the Urban Area Boundary recognizing the role that it has on
limiting urban expansion, preserving community character, reducing land speculation within the Agricultural
Land Reserve and protecting the agricultural land base, and in providing for the efficient delivery of services.
Adjustments to the Urban Area Boundary:
a)will only be supported if the District has an adopted Agricultural Plan;
b)will be considered in cooperation with the Agricultural Land Commission and Metro Vancouver; and
c)will only be conducted during a Comprehensive Official Community Plan review, or Council directed
Comprehensive Urban Area Boundary review, and applications considered outside of either review are
considered premature.
2-7 Maple Ridge will establish a Community Amenity Program, within areas of the District where Council
determines that Density Bonuses and Amenity Contributions will be applied, to provide amenities in a
sustainable and economically viable manner.
2-8 The Community Amenity Program will be integrated into the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw to identify
the conditions under which Density Bonuses will apply.
2-9 Density Bonuses and Amenity Contributions may be considered at Council’s discretion for all Official
Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amending applications to help provide a variety of amenities and facilities
throughout the municipality.”
2.1.3 A SUMMARY OF POLICIES
The Official Community Plan policies are summarized according to the 10 theme areas identified by the
Community during Community Visioning Sessions. The summaries are as follows:
Community Character and Sense of Place
Residents of Maple Ridge appreciate the character of the community, noting that it is rooted in diversity. The
diversity ranges from natural and rural to suburban and urban, and includes the physical make-up,
infrastructure, and social characteristics.
The Official Community Plan policies reflect that Maple Ridge is a unique community and that residents want
to ensure that it does not become like “everywhere” else. The Growth Management Policies identify that
Maple Ridge is a unique community and that Council is committed to maintaining and fostering this
uniqueness. The Heritage policies acknowledge that built, natural and cultural lands of Maple Ridge have
resulted in the community’s strong sense of place, and are committed to preserving community character.
APPENDIX C
Chapter 10, Page 8 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
OBJECTIVE
To support increases in density as a means of providing additfonal amenitfes in the Albion Area Plan.
POLICIES
Albion Area Community Amenity Program
10 - 4 A Density Bonus through the Community Amenity Program will be permitted on lands designated Low
Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential in the Albion Area Plan.
10 - 5 Where a Density Bonus optfon is utflized in a single-family subdivision, an Amenity Contributfon is to
be applied to all of the single-family lots in the subdivision that exceed the base density permitted in the
zone.
10 - 6 Where a Density Bonus optfon is utflized in a multf-family development and the base density is
exceeded, an Amenity Contributfon is to be applied to all of the dwelling units on the site.
10 - 7 Maple Ridge Council may consider Density Bonuses as part of the development review process for
Albion Area Plan amendment applicatfons seeking a land use designatfon change that would permit a higher
density than currently permitted.
10 - 8 A Density bonus will only be permitted on those lands that are located entfrely within the boundaries
of the Albion Area Plan and Urban Area Boundary.
General Development Policies
10 - 9 Growth in North East Albion (Figure 1) 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 satfsfying Parking Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw requirements, traffic, access, site design, and
compatfbility with adjacent land uses.
10 - 10 The sequence of development is to proceed in the most efficient manner, with capital costs and
ongoing servicing costs to be minimized. To achieve this, a lot consolidatfon may be required.
APPENDIX D