Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-03-13 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA March 13, 2012 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber MEETING DECORUM Council would like to remind all people present tonight that serious issues are decided at Council meetings which affect many people's lives. Therefore, we ask that you act with the appropriate decorum that a Council Meeting deserves. Commentary and conversations by the public are distracting. Should anyone disrupt the Council Meeting in any way, the meeting will be stopped and that person's behavior will be reprimanded. Note: This Agenda is also posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca The purpose of a Council meeting is to enact powers given to Council by using bylaws or resolutions. This is the final venue for debate of issues before voting on a bylaw or resolution. 100 CALL TO ORDER 200 MOMENT OF REFLECTION 300 INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS 400 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 500 ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES 501 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 28, 2012 502 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of February 24, 2012 and March 5(2), 2012 600 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL Page 1 Council Meeting Agenda March 13, 2012 Council Chamber Page 2 of 6 700 DELEGATIONS 701 Agricultural Advisory Committee Update - Christian Cowley, Chair 702 BC Hydro, Interior to Lower Mainland Transmission Project Update - Melissa Holland, Project Manager 800 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Note: Items 801 to 803 have been forwarded from the March 5, 2012 Council Workshop Meeting 801 Town Centre Investment Incentives Program: Year 1 Progress Report Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that a future financial capacity review discussion include consideration for additional funding to support the town Centre Investment Incentive Program. 802 Proposed Bylaw Enforcement Complaint Criteria Policy Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that a bylaw complaint criteria policy include a limit on non -recurring complaints. 803 Recreational Vehicle Parking/Storage in Residential Zones Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending amendments to the District's Zoning Bylaw pertaining to recreational vehicle parking and storage in residential zones. 900 CORRESPONDENCE Council Meeting Agenda March 13, 2012 Council Chamber Page 3 of 6 1000 BYLAWS Bylaws for Final Reading 1001 RZ/113/10, 12028, 12038 and 12048 222 Street Staff report dated March 13, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6786-2010 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) zone to allow for future construction a four -storey apartment building with 75 units be given final reading. Final reading COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1100 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1100 Minutes - March 5, 2012 The following issues were presented at an earlier Committee of the Whole meeting with the recommendations being brought to this meeting for Municipal Council consideration and final approval. The Committee of the Whole meeting is open to the public and is held in the Council Chamber at 1:00 p.m. on the Monday the week prior to this meeting. Public Works and Development Services 1101 RZ/109/08, 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road, Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6902-2012 to allow for preservation, relocation and rehabilitation of an existing family heritage house be given first reading. 1102 RZ/072/09, 10175, 10121 and 10141240 Street, One Year Extension Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that rezoning application RZ/072/09 to permit a 159 unit townhouse development be granted a one year extension. Council Meeting Agenda March 13, 201:2 Council Chamber Page 4 of 6 1103 DVP/067/10, 23851 Kanaka Creek Road Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP/067/10 to vary a maximum building height of 11 meters to allow for better flexibility in house design. 1104 DP/DVP/113/10, 12028, 12038 and 12048 222 Street Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP/113/10 to vary setback requirements to the building fapade on the west and north sides and the entry porch columns on the west side and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DP/113/10 to permit construction of a four -storey apartment building with 75 units and underground parking. 1105 2011-008-RZ, Early Consultation Report, OCP Amendment, Ansell Street Area Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that no additional consultation other than early posting on the District's website, with an invitation for public comment, be required for Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6903-2012 to designate the subject area from Suburban Residential to Estate Suburban Residential. 1106 2011-045-SD, 5% Money in Lieu of Parkland Dedication, 12087 240 Street Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that the owner of the subject property pay an amount that is not less than $41,250.00. Financial and Corporate Services Eincluding Fire and Police 1131 Disbursements for the month ended January 31, 2012 Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that the disbursements for the month of January 2012 be approved. Community Development and Recreation Service 1151 WildPlay License to Occupy Rent Reduction Request Staff report dated March 5, 2012 recommending that a request by WildPlay Maple Ridge for a reduction in the annual rental rate for a period of two years be approved and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute a partnership agreement. Council Meeting; Agenda March 13, 2012 Council Chamber Page 5 of 6 Correspondence 1171 Other Committee Issues 1181 1200 STAFF REPORTS 1201 Lower Mainland Local Government Association 2012 Resolutions Staff report dated March 13, 2012 recommending that attached resolutions be submitted to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association. 1300 RELEASE OF ITEMS FROM CLOSED COUNCIL From the March 5, 2012 Closed Council Meeting • Pitt Meadows Airport Society Appointment of Director 1400 MAYOR'S REPORT 1500 COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 1600 OTHER MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 1700 NOTICES OF MOTION AND MATTERS FOR FUTURE MEETING 1800 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Council Meeting Agenda March 13, 201:2 Council Chamber Page 6 of 6 1900 ADJOURNMENT QUESTION PERIOD The purpose of the Question Period is to provide the public with an opportunity to ask questions of Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public (Hearing by-laws which have not yet reached conclusion. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to ask their question (a second opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to individual members of Council. The total Question Period is limited to 15 minutes. Council reserves the right to defer responding to a question in order to obtain the information required to provide a complete and accurate response. Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings, delegations and community forum. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future of this community. For more information on these opportunities contact: Clerk's Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca. Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapieridge.ca. Checked by. Date: : B S CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 24, 2012 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Ernie Daykin, Mayor Chairman J.L. (Jim) Rule, Chief Administrative Officer Member 1. RZ/113/10 Amanda Allen, Recording Secretary LEGAL: Lot 3, District Lot 399, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 9669; Lot 4, District Lot 399, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 9669; Lot A, District Lot 399, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan LMP8411 LOCATION: OWNER: REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: 12028, 12038, and 12048 222 Street 0724674 B.C. Ltd Rezoning Development Agreement; Covenants: Geotechnical; Visitor Parking THAT THE MAYOR AND CORPORATE OFFICER BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING DOCUMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO RZ/113/1O. Chair CARRIED J.L. (Jim) Rule Member .PZ =— ief Administrative Officer 502 38 2 N 0 274 12131 Ln 11 3 —aya Rem 99 <O 12 229 12120 4 10 a 273 G N 15 z P10689 � 100 121z3 r 12127 12112 5 (P 9669) a 16 6 7 8 9 272 280 12119 12128 12117 NWS 133 12106 n P 1 997 17 LMP 27702 281 a co o Q p Q r CY)0 G n F (n 12097 -8cli 12096 N d N N 12111 N N l 103 121 AVE. N „p „ r H 72086 M 104 Z 12080 n 105 12070 106 12M m IL N K N L N M N P 169 12075 P 169 7 J I H ^ G 12061 (P 38752) U) nc N 12098 N N 19 N N 12087 LMP 27701 Lnno tienao _ __ BROWN AVE. SUBJECT PROPERTIES 12061 Rem 8 P 20094 55 Lo n Cl) 107 CHURCH AVE. A "' Q. 12048 12048 LMP 8411 U P 20094 12051 108 m N F N 4 a 12032 2038 9 E 2002112 109 P 14898 1zo35 EL 3 m C cA P 20094750 12026 N 0_ a P 669 LO (D 110 q o 2 1 R A P 200 94 N co h In N 10 p W N (L N N N N N N N N N N n 'LMP2967 N DEWDNEY TRUNK RD. I RP 59105 W co Q Q 1/2 E m T Rem m m e N N N 1/2 2 N N N N A.. N n E E �12 11 1 A P 70168 ♦- 0 E o N¢ P 8978 N N N C P 3175 NWS 2870 w P 632 co P 32 6 NWS 3374 cc: NWS 3233 N BCP 22636 1t�80 "LMP4261 Pcl 121 BCS 2391 13 P 84262 P 3175 11963 11968 �• S 100 11950 a 11965 N 79 NWS 418 97 14 N N P 36157 N 4 11951 Mc BCP 28220 nQ7i 11960 11957 11041 J ID AIASXn s c nA 11924 City--0 Pitt _ Meadows = 12028/38/48 222 STREET 1.2 CORPORATION OF T, THE DISTRICT OF N District of `� - `� �' Li! I I � � MAPLE RIDGE Langley �. ��'�-.•-. • _ � 1„�: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE 1:2,000 y - �� �,F =. DATE: Nov 30, 2010 FILE:RZ/113/10 BY: PC ASER CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE March 5, 2012 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Ernie Daykin, Mayor Chairman J.L. (Jim) Rule, Chief Administrative Officer Member 1. DP/093/06 LEGAL: 8110411j1:61 Amanda Allen, Recording Secretary Lots 1 - 40, all of Section 29, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan BCP49303 LOCATION: 13550, 13556, 13562, 13568, 13572, 13578, 13582, 13590, 13579, 13573, 13569, 13563, 13557, 13545, 13537, 13531, 13525, 13519, 13511, 13502, 13495, 13485, 13475, 13465, 13468, 13472, 13478, 13486, 13492, 13500, 13508, 13516, 13528, 13536, 13542, 229 Loop; 13572 13565 13555 230A Street OWNER: Portrait Homes Hampstead Ltd. REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: Enhancement and Protection Agreement THAT THE MAYOR AND CORPORATE OFFICER BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING DOCUMENT AS IT RELATES TO DP/093/06. ,.. J.L. (Jim) Rule, Chief Administrative Officer Member - .. ,� 27w 26 25 24 13630 i 4' _ 6q 136 AAVE. 57 NN a 3fi20 1 RP 1728 58 83 U �3ca� 18 19 21] 21 22 23 2 03 �, 1 I � 4 13610 a r� 59 61 3625 mV tr � � 1 A 60 136 AVE. SUBJECT PROPERTIES - - N74 N N136 PR7685� 76 N N75 73 72 '1 �0 AVE 80 79N 78� 77 PARK Cp 13 12 11 10 9 oP F 14 tiA / 73573 8 7357, P 43 87 as:x m 1513569 7. 2 PARE( 13565 CP 4 6 6v 16 13563 3 m 1 17 1.1 4 17 18 19 ` JE' 'S5J3 ,360E 18 "S", S 19 t35a7 39 40 ca 38 1,591 BC 49303 'A 213525 °oo 37 t"� P 43 87 2219 PARK P 14756 35}6 36 23 tgtt 35 n P 5116 2 24 1�os' 200 3¢2 25 t3a. 5 341* 33� Rem.2 13486 26 yy as 32 27 +'�+ � 31 tyv6 30 28 29 BCP- 303 PARK P 48906 (LM .� DANK PAR P 9042 CE f Pitt J Mea ows ' N District of Langley SCALE 1:3,000 1 1 1 I LOTS 1 - 39, BCP49303 & 23020 135B AVENUE r� o CORPORATION OF i_ THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE �I PLANNING DEPARTMENT a.7 - DATE: Mar 2, 2012 FILE: DP/093/06 BY: PC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 5, 2012 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Ernie Daykin, Mayor Chairman J.L. (Jim) Rule, Chief Administrative Officer Member 1. DP/095/10 LEGAL: LOCATION: OWNER: REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: Amanda Allen, Recording Secretary Lot 1, District Lot 404, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan BCP47825 11176 Gilker Hill Road Bluetree Homes (Gilker Hill) Ltd. Release Covenant No. BX230412 THAT THE MAYOR AND CORPORATE OFFICER BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING DOCUMENT AS IT RELATES TO DP/095/10. 101=1211221AD J.L. (Jim) Rule, Chief Administrative Officer Member 22 m P 39988 112 A AVE. I I 16 m 15 1 11240 ' I 11230 1 $ 11231 11 1 11226 11227 ¢ 1 9 11220 N 11221 Rem 19 N 1 1 N f 3 a 10 P 35398 ! 11216 U 11217 l 4 m 11 11210 11211 629$ 5 12 t 12 A PQ N 11206 6 11207 13 PCI. 'A' LMP 26965 14 a N n I BCP 42842 BCP 21397 11195 11 1 v co a i VN pV ��91 np��=75ei:7 aeg-;�y���,I,� ri IE�II�� wGIk— • II SCALE 111 Qo. 1��� BCP 47825 ,e e 1 22 21 20 BC 12 53 23 a 24N M19 v18 17 ^11 SUBJECT PROPERTY 236 M F.. _ o W Rem 25 to LV 11145 111 A AVE. a 26 0 11135 a N 11125 "' N `O� �+ �Nj6 27 75— 74 13 12 11 N E 3 o 13 P 1 8 OC B p 2 67 8 9 10 11 2 3 45 n i .2 3 B P 1 853 2 N w a v ^mJPE NN h N N m Co N Nf?���3�4��5N1 �6N1co N7 22 12 21 o 20❑�9 �' 19 11176 GILKER HILL ROAD O y O �[ CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF - 1 MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Oct 19, 2011 FILE: DP/095/10 BY: PC District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater Height_: TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 5, 2012 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: TV-11 Centre Investment Incentives Program: Year 1 Progress Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District's Town Centre Investment Incentives Program is one-third of the way through its three- year term. Building permits have been issued for over $33 million in construction value, and over $77 million are in the process ($110 million total), representing 31 projects, close to 1,200 new residential units, and over 27,000 square metres of commercial space. This development will build upon the existing 1,100 units of higher density residential development that have already been added in the Town Centre over the past six years, and the District's investment of nearly $100 million in facilities and infrastructure in the Town Centre to support future growth. Council's incentive program strongly supports a strong and vibrant Town Centre, a key component of the vision for our, community. Council's Strategic Plan, the award -winning Smart Growth on the Ground Plan and the Town Centre Area Plan are all in support of this vision. RECOMMENDATION(S): That a future financial capacity review discussion include consideration for additional funding to support the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In late 2010, Municipal Council approved the framework for an incentive program to encourage and accelerate private sector investment. An important element of the incentive program was to ensure there were both upfront incentives to support developers, and downstream benefits to support property owners and tenants. Upfront incentives include priority processing, reduced parking requirements, fee reductions and partnering incentives to help offset front-end development charges. Property tax exemptions provide an incentive to downstream property owners. The program began a three-year intake period beginning in January 2011. To date, 31 projects are potentially eligible for the program, with financial benefits ranging from a few hundred dollars, to in excess of $1 million. The mix of projects is: 17 renovation/improvement projects, including Thrifty Foods and Haney Place Mall; one gaming centre; one hotel; nine multi -family apartment buildings; and three mixed -use projects which include both residential and commercial components. Project descriptions and locations are available for the public to explore on our Town Centre Incentives Project Map, available on our website right on the home page. • The Town Centre Investment Incentives Program has generated much discussion and received a lot of attention from a variety of development industry groups and individuals. A couple of endorsements we have received give a sense for how the program is perceived: 'The downtown incentive program has been extremely helpful in directing and encouraging both our existing as well as potential clients to invest in properties within the core area of our community. Having been in business here for the last 20 years, i have often puzzled over the many empty or underdeveloped downtown properties. Envisioning what they could be, I have long felt that a program such as the one council has now adopted is exactly the incentive required to create momentum within the private sector. Maple Ridge is a beautiful place with great potential but is also a unique market, requiring very specific and careful financial planning in order to tip the scales in favour of a successful development. In my opinion this program has secured a positive future for our downtown that will add long term benefits to both private investors and the community as a whole. in my opinion, achieving a fair and equitable balance between the two is wise community planning." (Feb.29, 2012) Wayne Bissky, Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc. "We deal with hundreds of cities and towns acroas the country and I find that the program is not only ground breaking and innovative - it is also going to be very, very effective in attracting the type and quality of investment that can revitalize Maple Ridge's economy and physical presence. This leadership initiative will help to keep Maple Ridge as one of the top Canadian cities in which to invest. I know for a fact that this program has already been a catalyst in our clients investing in the community. " (Feb.29. 2012) Don R. Campbell, CEO, Real Estate Investment Networkm" 'VI/ .w-, ` ad the privilege of building facilities in various communities in BC and and we can unequivocally state that our experience with the 3nemve5 offered by the District of Maple Ridge have given us the confidence will deliver a facility that the community and our company will be proud of.' (Feb.27, 2012) Terrance Doyle, VP Property Development & Operations Services, Great Canadian Gaming Corp. 'After seeing the success of this program, the Province of BC, through the BC Brownfield Renewal Strategy, has engaged a consulting team to develop a tool to assist other local governments in BC to develop similar Investment incentive Programs'(Feb.28. 2012) Tami Fur, BC Brownfield Renewal Strategy, Government of British Columbia b) Desired Outcome: To provide financial incentives to encourage developments that support Council's vision for a strong and vibrant Town Centre. c) Strategic Alignment: The Town Centre Investment Incentives Program is intended to accelerate the implementation of the award -winning Smart Growth on the Ground Plan, and the award -winning Town Centre Area Plan. The incentives are intended to stimulate growth and density, as well as to enhance the quality of new and existing development, all of which are guided by comprehensive development guidelines, The incentive program strongly supports the Town Centre and Council's vision for the community. d) Financial Implications: FEE REDUCTIONS: Discounts on fees are applied at the time of building permit issuance. No funding was set aside to cover these discounts; rather, they wO result in a lower building permit revenue figure, or arguably a higher one given the additional development activity as a result of the incentive program. To date, the discounts extended total $76,000. A rough estimate of future discounts for projects on the books could be a further $180,000. PARTNERING REBATES: Projects eligible for partnering rebates are for those where Development Cost Charges apply. Council approved $500,000 to fund these payments. To date, $31,000 has been paid out, another $140,000 is nearing payment, and a further $390,000 is estimated for applications having received at least first reading. These projects exceed the available funding by $60,000, assuming they all proceed to building permit stage by the end of 2013. Council may wish to consider increasing the funding pool by $200,000 or so to ensure that the program is not oversubscribed and to help encourage and accelerate new development proposals. No recommendation is given at this time, pending a 2011 year-end financial review. TAX EXEMPTIONS: Naturally, there is a lag between the time that a project is approved for the incentive program and when the construction takes place. That is why the exemptions in the early years are quite nominal however they grow quite quickly. For instance, beginning in 2012 the exemptions are valued at about $7,000 per year for a three year total of $21,000. In subsequent years, as construction is completed, this value could be in the range of $2 million to $3 million. It should be noted that these values are rough estimations and the final value and eligibility for exemption will be determined by BC Assessment. e) Alternatives: Council may wish to consider changes to the incentive program. Two potential changes would be extending the program's timeline, and extending the program's geographic boundary. Neither of these alternatives is recommended. TIMELINE: The program was given a timeline of three years, with a closing date of December 30, 2013 for building permit issuance. A hard deadline was selected to support the program's mandate to accelerate development. Staff comments suggest that the timing of activity on numerous inactive development files aligns with the incentive program launch. In order to maintain the pressure to keep these files moving forward, a hard deadline is desired. If, after the program lapses, Council wishes to resurrect the program, that can be achieved, but leaving that as a "maybe/maybe not" outcome would help to keep the "incentive" meaningful. For this reason, a change to the timeline is not recommended. GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY: In the past, Council discussed the possibility of considering incentives for development outside of the Town Centre. The current program offers incentives for both residential and commercial development, within the Town Centre only. Council wished to encourage residential development to address the need to increase density in the core, enhance safety and to support commercial business. The key impetus for the program was to address the issue of a Town Centre in need. Along with the incentives, the District made significant infrastructure investments to support the growth. Conversely, outside of the Town Centre, residential growth will continue to occur without the need to offer incentives, and the commercial will follow when the population can support it. At this time, it is not recommended that the program be expanded. An important consideration will be our financial capacity for both incentives and the District investments required to support growth in advance of the expected timeline. CONCLUSION: Encouraging residential and commercial investment in the Town Centre to increase density, enhance safety, and support commercial activities to create a strong and vibrant Town Centre is a key component of Council's vision for our community. Council's Strategic Plan, the Town Centre Area Plan and the Smart Growth on the Ground Plan are all in support of this'vision. An important aspect of the Town Centre Investment Incentives Program is to apply a balanced approach where upfront incentives support developers, and downstream incentives support subsequent property owners and tenants. There are currently 31 projects eligible for the program, with an estimated construction value of over $110 million, close to 1,100 residential units, and over 27,000 square metres of commercial space. Prepared by: LatrrAenson, CMA Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA G7@1 Manager: Corporate and Financial Services Y, s Approved y: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng General Manager: Public Works and Development Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer Schedule A: Town Centre Investment Incentives Program -At -A -Glance Criteria:1 Residential Commercial Site Facade Prep Improvements New New Renovations: On Council Renovations to ftruction: Construction: Construction: >_$20,000 approval commercial fagade mum 5 Minimum 4 >_$1,000,000 >_$10,000 ?ys storeys Area 2 Sub Area 1 Sub Areas 1 Sub Areas 1 Sub Areas Sub Areas 1 and 2 and 2 and 2 1 and 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes of DCCs 10% of DCCs 25% of DCCs n/a n/a n/a max, of to a max, of to a max. of 000 $50,000 $25,000 .000 for ($75.000 for (537,500 for /energy) LEED/energy) LEED/energy) ars 3 years 3 years 3 years (on 3 years 3 years ton renovation renovation portion) portion) tional Additional Additional Additional n/a n/a 3rs 3 years 3 years 3 years plus 50% plus 50% plus 50% plus 50% 50% tional additional additional additional 00 $6,000 $6,000 $1,200 Yes Sub Area 1 n/a n/a n/a only Yes Yes n/a Yes n/a Yes Yes Yes n/a n/a Yes Yes Yes n/a Yess n/a n/a n/a n/a DMR portion $75,000 over 3 years 1. Must also comply with all land use regulations; may require development variance applications; if a conflict exists between existing bylaws/regulations and this program, the former will prevail. 2. Fulfilment of agreed -upon Town Centre goals and objectives, to be negotiated on a project -by -project basis; maximum $500,000 program funding available as at March 14, 2011. 3. Property tax exemption from general municipal tax portion, on non -market change in assessed value of improvements 4. Building permit discount not to exceed total building permit fee. 5. Development permit required for alterations >_$25,000 if not consistent with DP guidelines. N Deep Roofs Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Proposed Bylaw Enforcement Complaint Criteria Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: March 5, 2012 Council Workshop At the July 25, 20:11 Council workshop, Council was presented with a detailed report on the proposed preparation of a bylaw complaint criteria policy (report attached). After reviewing the policy and discussing the various ramifications of the options presented, Council passed a resolution that the matter be referred back to staff to give consideration to the tenure of comments reflected in the discussion by Council and furthermore to bring back a subsequent report to a future Committee of the Whole meeting. This report amends the original resolution to reflect the concerns raised by Council at the July 25, 2011 workshop. RECOMMENDATION(S): That a bylaw complaint criteria policy include the following: • A limit of three (3) non -recurring complaints per complainant property, per calendar year. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Following concerns raised by members of the public, Council directed staff to develop a policy to establish criteria for handling complaints. A public open house was held and a subsequent detailed report was presented to Council on July 25, 2011. Council considered the resolutions of that report and directed that it be amended. The primary concern is understood to be the limiting of the complaints within a defined radius. The complaint system works on a non -disclosure basis where the identity of the complainant is not disclosed. Council's concern is that setting a defined area within which a complaint can be made would jeopardize the identity of the complainant. The original recommendation has therefore been amended to remove references to a geographical limit. By limiting the number of complaints from one complainant site on an annual basis will sufficiently control the problem of false or vindictive complaints we have seen in the past. The only area where this policy would differ is in the downtown core where Council has already provided policy that the complaints are not necessary for the enforcement of municipal bylaws and that they will be enforced on a proactive basis. • s CONCLUSIONS: Based on the feedback received from the open house on June 29, 2011 and Council's feedback, it is recommended that the bylaw complaint criteria policy be authorized to reflect only the number of complaints received per complaint property in a 12 month period. Furthermore, this policy is reviewed one ►ear after the date of approval. '1 Prepay y: E.' r(Liz) Holitz i Direct of Licences, Permits and Bylaws Approved by: rank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng General Manager, ub c Works & Development Services Concurrence: J.V.-(Jim) Ruh COief Administrative Officer LH/jd E MAPLE RIDGE Uear� Ronfs Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: July 25, 2011 and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop Proposed Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the May 2, 2011 Council Workshop, Council was briefed on the proposed preparation of a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy. The need for a formal policy stems from a proliferation of private property complaints recently received by the District. The current practice provides for any resident and/or business owner or operator to file an unlimited number of complaints regarding a potential violation of a municipal bylaw. On May 2, 2011 staff informed Council that the current practices needed to be reviewed. Council requested that in undertaking this review the practices of neighbouring municipalities be researched. This would include the municipalities to the east, south and west of Maple Ridge. The practices and or policies of eight (8) neighbouring municipalities were researched and over the past few months reviewed and presented in a report to Council at the June 13, 2011 Workshop. The June 1:3th report focused on the merits of establishing a geographical limit for complaints as well as placing a limit on the number of complaints an individual could make within a specific period of time. Following review of the report Council passed the following resolution: "That staff be directed to prepare a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy based on the criteria set out in the staff report dated June 13, 2011 and that work be presented at public open house to be held on June 29, 2011." An Open House was held on June 29, 2011. At the meeting each attendee was provided with a detailed workbook and asked to provide feedback through completion of the workbook. Workbooks were requested to be returned on or before July 6, 2011. The workbooks were also posted online and made available at the front counter. This report provides a summary of the feedback from the public for Council's review prior to preparation of the Bylaw Complaint Policy RECOMMENDATIONS): That staff be directed to prepare a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy that would include the following criteria: « that within an urban area a geographical limit be established at a radius of 100m for filing a complaint ■ that within a non- urban area a geographical limit be established at a radius of 400m for filing a complaint ■ That a limit of three (3) non -recurring complaints per complainant be allowed per year. I�I•Y+�f��9L�7� a) Background Context: On June 13, 2011 Maple Ridge Council received a staff report regarding a proposed Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy. Currently there is no formal policy and staff relies on past practices to address complaints. The report detailed the conditions required under the current policy for receiving and acting on bylaw complaints. The report was advanced in response to a proliferation of bylaw complaints over the past few months, well beyond the norm. The report provided detailed research from neighbouring municipalities and made recommendations with regard to potential policy criteria. Those recommendations included the establishment of a geographical limit for receiving complaints and limiting the number of complaints an individual could make within a specific period of time. The June 13 report is attached for reference. Council directed staff to solicit feedback on those recommendations at an Open House. An Open House was held on June 29 and this report presents the public feedback received. Open House Feedback The Open House was held on June 29, 2011 at the municipal hall from 5.00pm to 8.00pm. There were eight -four (84) people who attended and signed in. Feedback on the Orations Based on the Council report at the June 13th Workshop and Council direction, the following options were presented on large boards at the meeting. Option 1 - A geographic limit in an Urban Area - Proposal 100 metres. Option 2 - A geographic limit in a Rural Area - Proposal 400 metres. Option 3 - Limit the number of complaints filed by a single complainant within a specific time Period - e.g. three complaints frorn one address once a year. Everyone who attended was provided with a workbook and asked to complete the workbook and return it to municipal hall on or before July 6, 2011. The workbook was also posted online and copies made available at the Hall for those who could not attend. A blank copy of the workbook and a full full transcription of all the comments are attached as appendix B and C to the Recreational Vehicle Parking/Storage - Report on Results of Open House report dated July 25, 2011. In total seventy-four written responses were returned which included sixty-five (65) workbooks and nine (9) written responses via email and other correspondence formats. Council has also been provided with hardcopies of all the completed submissions. A binder with copies of all the submissions is available at municipal hall for public viewing. The following table summarizes the responses in the responses to the questions Total Yes Yes 1 No other Responses Responses Do you agree with setting 61 35 571 25 1 No - expand to 500 rn or min. 5 nearest a limit of 100 metres in properties an urban area for a bylaw complaint? Do you agree with setting 67 45 67`3i; 21 1 No - should be full city block a limit of 400 metres in a rural area for a bylaw complaint? Do you agree with limiting the number of bylaw 65 49 75% 14 1 Not sure 1 Somewhat complaints filed in a ' year? - A large majority (75%j agreed with limiting the number of complaints per complainant per year. The most prominent comments received in favour of setting this limit include: • More than, 3 complaints per year are only a nuisance for the Bylaw Department and encourages vendetta complaints. • As long as a repeated complaint about one issue is only one complaint. The most prominent comments from those who did not agree include: • Require that more than one complaint from separate households be received before action is taken. • Should be able to complain against another neighbour in regards to noise complaints as many times as necessary. Eased on the feedback received It would appear that establishing a limit on the number of complaints per year has merit and it is recommended that this be included as one of the criteria. The establishment of a geographical limit for filing and receiving complaints was supported by a large majority of the submissions received. There was also support for differentiating between the geographical limits for an urban setting and the geographical limit for a rural setting. There were however differences of opinions on how that geographical limit should be established. A majority of the responses received (57`i supported the geographical limit in the urban area being established through a 100m radius. The most prominent comments received in favour of a 100m radius include: • The complaint should originate from the immediate area affected. This will prevent aouse of the system. • What happens outside these limits does not have any effect on those within it. • Agree with the limits as long as a property is riot affecting the general area and bylaws are enforced. • Agree with limit because only your immediate neighbours should have the right to complain within your neighbourhood. Of the submissions that responded to the geographic limit question, and suggested other approaches. The most prominent of those include: Impossible to set above limits. Dogs barking day and night, people starting illegal fires in a green belt, noise from parties, vehicle s parked illegally, etc, can definitely affect neighbours in an urban area more than 100 m's way. The same argument for rural. A problem may be slightly larger/farther away than this ''arbitrary" number, but if you ;pass by it daily, it can impact your neighbourhood and quality of living. Maybe the numbers just need to be increased. Also what if it is 101m? Trash, barking dogs, noise could be more than 400 meters from property and affect quality of life. Within the rural areas establishing a limit using a 400m radius was supported by (67%) of the workbooks that responded to this question. The most prominent comments in favour of this approach include: I agree with this. Only people in the area should complain. Yes -Only immediate neighbours should have the right to complain within your neighbourhood. What happens outside these limits does not have any effect on those within it. The most prominent comments from those who did not favour a 400m. radius include. Further than 400 metres on a noise complaint. A problem may be slightly larger/farther away than this "arbitrary" number, but if you pass by it daily, it can impact your neighbourhood & quality of living. Maybe the numbers just need to be increased? Also what if it is 401m away. Impossible to set above limits. Dogs barking day and night, people starting illegal fires in a green belt, noise from parties, vehicles parked illegally, etc. Can definitely affect neighbours rural area more than 400 m away. Overall from the feedback received there appears to be agreement that a geographical limit be established. Based on the majority of the feedback received it is recommended that a radius of 100m be established for urban areas and a radius of 400m be established for rural areas. Because there is divergence on what the geographical limit there should be a one year review on the Policy which will provide feedback on how the limits are working. CONCLUSIONS: A review and analysis of other municipal policies pertaining to bylaw complaint criteria, was completed through May and early June of 2011 Based on this research options for change were identified for presentation at a Public Open House for public feedback. The Open House was held on June 29, 2011 and feedback received up to July 8' 2011. The results of that feedback has been compiled and presented in this report. Based on the feedback it is recommended that the Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy be amended to It reflect the incorporation of 100 metre boundaries in urban areas and 400 metre boundaries in rural areas with a limit of3 complaints per property in a 12 year period. Furthermore, that this policy be reviewed one year after the date ofapproval. D�rector of Licences, -Permits, and Bylaws Approved Frank Quinn General Manager ofOperations and Development Services / JJ_Uim0Rule Chief Administrative Officer 5 Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 5, 2012 and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop Recreational Vehicle Parking/Storage in Residential Zones EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At Council's direction staff held a public open house on June 29, 2011 to solicit feedback on the range of mechanisms presented in the report of June 13, 2011 prior to amending the District's Zoning Bylaw 3510 - 1985 as it relates to the parking and storage of recreational vehicles, boat trailers, and boats. On July 25, 2011 the feedback from the open house was reported back to Council with two recommendations. 1. That Council direct staff to make the necessary amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit the parking of any size recreational vehicle on residential properties provided that the entire vehicle can get within the private property and located entirely on the dedicated primary when parked in front property. 2. That Council direct staff to make the necessary amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to require that the recreation vehicles stored on residential property be owned by the property owner or occupier. A copy of the detailed July 25, 2011 report is attached to this report and it provides the background on the issues. Council did not support the recommendations and instead passed a new recommendation dealing with recreational vehicles parking and storage which reads: "That the report dated July 25, 2011 titled" Recreational Vehicles Parking/Storage - Report on Results of Open House" be referred back to staff to give consideration to the tenure of the comments reflected in the discussion by Council and bring back a subsequent report to a future Committee of the Whole meeting." The tenure of the discussion can be broadly categorized as follows: • Concern for safety due to potential sight line obstruction • Concern for the aesthetics of a neighbourhood Upon further review of the results from the open house of June 29, 2011, Council's direction of the July 2011 Workshop as well as other feedback and input from other municipalities in the recreational vehicle issue this report makes the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION(S): That Council direct staff to make the necessary amendments to the District's Zoning Bylaw to permit any size of recreational vehicles to be parked on private property provided that: • Within residential neighbourhoods built to an urban standard only one recreational vehicle can be parked in the front yard and that recreational vehicle must be parked on the designated driveway and/or on a hard surfaced area abutting one side of the driveway and located no further than 1.5m from the existing driveway. • The recreational vehicle must be setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from the curb or sidewalk so as not to create a safety hazard or sight obstruction to sidewalk and/or road users. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The background to the issues, detailed research and results of the public feedback are contained in the attached report dated July 25, 2011. In reviewing the number of options brought forward previously to Council and the public and in consideration of Council's comments during the Council Workshop meeting on July 25, 2011 the recommendation provided in this report responds to the outstanding issues for RV owners and other residents who reside in the same communities by ensuring RV's are kept completely on residential properties. The recommendations modified the original recommendation to reflect the comments provided by Council in July 2011 ensuring safety for the public, maintaining a pleasant visual appearance of all neighborhoods by maintaining respect for all members of our communities. Safe : At the July 25, 2011 Workshop, Council discussed concerns related to safety and in particular the concern with larger RV's potentially obstructing the view of pedestrians, cyclists and motorized vehicles. To address this, the recommendation requires that all RV's are parked on private property. In most instances the property line is set well back from the edge of the curb or sidewalk. In these instances RV's parked within private property will not obstruct sight lines for pedestrians, cyclists, etc. For those instances where the property line extends closer to the curb line or sidewalk a minimum setback of 1.5m (5 feet) has now been included in the recommendation to provide for a sightline clearance. Aesthetics: At the July 25, 2011 Workshop, Council also discussed the concern of how RV's would be parked in the front yards and how many RV's would be parked in the front yards in residential areas built to urban standards. Examples were cited of RV's parked across front lawns, or diagonally across the front yards in order to fit within the private property. To address this, the recommendation has been amended to require that RV's in residential areas be parked in the driveway or on an extension within 1.5 metres of the driveway. Also the amended recommendation allows for only one RV in the front yard in residential areas built to urban standards. 2 For rural areas there are no limits as to the number of RV's allowed to park on private property. b) Citizen/Customer Implications: On July 25, 2011 staff was directed to bring back a subsequent report to Council after giving consideration to Council's comments during the discussion of the subsequent report. In addition any recommended changes to the Zoning Bylaw will require a Public Hearing which provides an additional forum for public feedback on any proposed amendments. c) Tents With respect to the issue relating to tent structures, the matter will be addressed within the work being done on the Zoning Bylaw review currently under way. Staff will be proposing permitting a maximum one tent structure of a specific size per property under specific conditions. This will not apply to tents set up in residential backyards for children to play in during summer months. CONCLUSIONS: At the July 25, 2011 Workshop, Council received a detailed report on the parking of RV's on private property. Council directed that the recommendation from that report be reviewed and amended. This report provides an amended recommendation to address the concerns raised by Council. Prepared by: E. S. (Li H o l itzk! Director: ' en , Per ;Iyl- Approvedby., Concurrence: J.L LH/jd im) Rule I Administrative Office 3 I i Deep koats Greater He ahts TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: July 25, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop Recreational Vehicle Parking/Storage - Report on Results of Open House EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 2, 2011 Maple Ridge Council received a staff report regarding Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking and storage in residential zones. The report detailed the conditions required under the current Zoning Bylaw for keeping recreational vehicles on residential property. The report was advanced in response to RV owners concerns with the enforcement of the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. Concerns were also raised about the complaint process itself. At that time Council directed staff to conduct further research on the bylaw requirements in other communities, in particular communities in the Fraser Valley. Council also passed a resolution that enforcement on these issues be held in abeyance until a resolution on any possible changes to the Bylaw were made by Council. As directed by Council a review of similar bylaws in a broad range of communities, including those in the Fraser Valley, was completed. Based on the research and analysis of these bylaws a number of concepts with respect to the storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones were set out in a report considered by Council at the .tune 13, 2011 Workshop. Following a review of the June 13, 2011 report, Council passed the following resolutions: "That a Public Open House be held on June 29, 2011 to solicit feedback on the range of mechanisms presented in this report dated June 13, 2011 prior to amending the Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as it relates to the parking and storage of recreation vehicles, boats trailers, trailers or boats. That the feedback from the Open House be reported back to Council at the next available Council Workshop following the Public Open House." An Open House was held on June 29, 2011. The Open House provided information on concepts for how recreational vehicles could be potentially stored on residential property. At the meeting each attendee was provided with a detailed workbook and asked to provide feedback through completion of the workbook. Workbooks were requested to be retuned on or before July 6, 2011. The workbooks were also posted online and made available at the front counter. This report provides a summary of results of the feedback from the public. The complaint process is discussed under a separate report. -1- RECOMMENDATION(S): That Council direct staff to make the necessary amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit the parking of any size of recreational vehicle on residential properties provided that the entire vehicle can fit within the private property. That Council direct. staff to make the necessary amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to require that the recreational vehicle stored on a residential property be owned by the property owner or occupier or relative and temporarily for visitors. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: On May 2. 2011 Maple Ridge Council received a staff report regarding RV parking and storage in residential zones. The report detailed the conditions required under the current Zoning Bylaw for keeping recreational vehicles on residential property. The report was advanced in response to RV owners concerns with the enforcement of the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. Concerns were also raised about the complaint process itself. At that time Council directed staff to conduct further research on the bylaw requirements in other communities, in particular, communities in the Fraser Valley that also passed a resolution that enforcement on these issues be held in abeyance until a resolution on any possible changes to the Bylaw were made by Council. As directed by Council a review of similar bylaws in a broad range of communities, including those in the Fraser Valley, was undertaken. A copy of the June 13, 2011 report is attached as Appendix A to this report for reference. Based on the research and analysis of these bylaws a number of concepts with respect to the keeping of recreational vehicles in residential zones were identified and discussed by Council. A copy of the June 13, 2011 report is attached for reference. Following a review of the June 13, 2011 report Council passed the following resolutions: "That a Public Open House be held on June 29, 2011 to solicit feedback on the range of mechanisms presented in this report dated June 13, 2011 prior to amending the Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as it relates to the parking" and storage of recreation vehicles, boats trailers, trailers or boats. That the feedback from the Open House be reported back to Council at the next available Council Workshop following the Public Open House." Open House Feedback The Open House was held at on June 29, 2011 at the Municipal Nall from 5.00pm to 8.00pm. There were eighty-four (84) people who signed in as attendees. Feedback on the Concepts Based on the Council report at the June 13, 2011 Workshop the following concepts were presented on large boards at the meeting. -2- Concept A: Permit any size of Recreational Vehicle on a residential property provided that the entire vehicle can fit within the private property. Concept B, Permit any size of Recreational Vehicle on a residential property provided that the vehicle is set back a minimum of 1.6 metres (5 feet) from the property lines. Concept C: Permit any Recreational Vehicle measuring 7,6 metres (-25 feet) to be parked in the front yard of a residential property and any vehicle greater than 7.6 metres to be parked behind the front yard setback for the property provided the entire vehicle is entirely stored on private property. Concept D: Permit any Recreational Vehicle measuring 7.6 metres (-25 feet) to be parked in the front yard of a residential property and any vehicle greater than 7.6 metres to be parked in the front yard of a residential property and any vehicle greater than 7.6 metres to be parked behind the front yard setback for the property provided the entire vehicle is entirely stored on private property and sited a minimum of 1.6 metres (5 feet) from all property lines. Everyone who attended was provided with a workbook and asked to complete the workbook and return it to Municipal Nail on or before July 6, 2011. The workbook was also posted online and copies made available at the Municipal hall for those who could not attend. A blank copy of the workbook is attached as Appendix B. In total, seventy-four (74) submissions were made consisting of sixty-five (65) workbooks and nine (9) emails or other methods of written correspondence, There were a few submissions made after the deadline of July 6, 2011 that have been included in the results. A full transcription of all the comments is attached as Appendix C. Council has also been provided with hardcopies of all the submissions. A binder with copies of all the workbooks and other submissions is available at Municipal Hall for public viewing. The following table summarizes the responses in the workbook to the questions: Total Yes Yes % No ....................... Other Responses Responses Do you agree with 67 51 76% 11 3 Yes if municipal lot lines excluded concept A? 1 Yes if allowed to sidewalk or curb 1 Yes if no lot line restrictions Do you agree with 52 8 15% 40 3 Yes as 2nd option to Concept A concept B? 1 Yes as 2nd option to Concept D Do you agree with 49 11 22% 38 concept C? Do you agree with 46 6 13% 1 40 concept D? It is apparent that of the concepts presented the majority of the workbooks completed preferred Concept A. The recurring most prominent theme in the response that agreed with Concept A is that "as long as the recreational vehicle can be stored on private property it does not matter what size it is". -3- The prevalent concerns from the responses that did not agree with Concept A are: There has to be a limit in size and where on property it can be parked. Not just length, height needs to be a consideration also. Some 5+.h wheel RV's are extremely high at the front end. Storage of RV's in storage facilities,/eye sore/with many children playing becomes possible danger with propane tanks, improper set-up in yard, increased blind spots for playing children. Concept "A" not to be allowed for drop in neighbours property value. RV's do not belong in high -density residential nieghbourhoods. For esthetic and safety reasons. Obstruct view for driving and safety especially in neighbourhood with children. Grass/yard is not maintained around RV/Attract rodents if not kept clean. Overall it would appear that: the majority of respondents would like to see Concept A implemented. As with all bylaw and policy changes a one year review is standard procedure. It is recommended that the Zoning Bylaw be amended to reflect the incorporation of Concept A to be reviewed one year after the date of adoption. Feedback on Ownership_of RVs A further question was posed to the public asking if the RV stored on a residential property should be owned by property owner or occupier. The followingtable summarizes the responses to that question. Total Responses Yes Yes % No Other Responses Do you think the owner or 64 37 58% 20 3 Yes or kninediate family member occupant of the property 3 Maybe should be the owner of 3. Yes if in an urban area / no if in the RV? rural area Overall the majority of the submissions favoured the RVs being owned by the property owner or occupier. The most prominent comments in favour of this include: Helps to reduce the number of RVs on peoples properties. This will reduce the number of complaints. So properties are not used as storage facilities. Renting ones yard to store someone else's RV should prohibited. The most prominent comments from the workbooks that did not favour the RVs having to be owned by the property owner or occupier include: • if you borrow an RV you should be able to park it on your property. • There is not adequate RV storage locally, so there must be other options for people. Storing at a friend/family member's house should be permitted. • Visitors should be allowed to park their RVs. Based on the feedback Council may wish to consider a provision in the Bylaw that requires the RV to be owned by the property owner or occupier and relatives and visitors. in this way relatives that do not have sufficient space on their own properties could have a place to store their RVs. Visitors on vacation would also be able to temporarily store their RV. -4- It is recommended that the Zoning Bylaw be amended to require that the RV to be owned by the property- owner or occupier or relative and temporarily for visitors. CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: Council has directed that public feedback be solicited prior to any amendments to the Zoning Bylaw being brought 'forward for consideration. A Public Open House was held on June 29, 2011. Feedback from the Open House was received through completed workbooks and other correspondence. In addition any recommended change to the Zoning Bylaw will require a Public Hearing which provides an additional forum for further public feedback on any proposed amendments. CONCLUSIONS: A review and analysis of other municipal bylaws pertaining to parking storage of recreation vehicles; was completed through May and early June of 2011. Based on this research a number of concepts were identified for presentation at a Public Open House for public feedback. The Open House was held on June 29, 2011 and feedback received up to July 6. 2011. The results of that feedback has been complied and presented in this. report. Based on the feedback it is recommended that the Zoning Bylaw be amended to permit the parking of any size of recreational vehicle on residential properties provided that the entire vehicle can fit within the private property and it is also recommended that the Zoning Bylaw be amended to require that the RV be owned by -the property owner, occupier or relative. Prepare3yJ E.S. (Liz) Hiiiitzki Difector, Licences Permits and Bylaws Approved y: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Fng i General Manager, Public Works and Development Services Y .I �1 ji is Concurrenr,t.: 1•.L. IJintij Rule Chief Administrative Officer -5- MAPLE Deep Roots District of Maple Ridge Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 13, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/113/1O FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COUNCIL SUBJECT: Final Reading: Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6786 - 2010 12028, 12038 and 12048 222 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Bylaw # 6786 - 2010 has been considered by Council and at Public Hearing on March 15, 2011 and subsequently was granted Third Reading at the Council Meeting of March 22, 2011. The applicant has now requested that Final Reading be granted. The purpose of this application is to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) zone to allow future construction of a four -storey apartment building with approximately 75 units. This application is in compliance with the Town Centre Area Plan of the Official Community Plan. The subject site consists of three consolidated lots of roughly 0.92 acres (3730 m2) in size within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area. This project meets the requirements for inclusion in the Town Centre Incentives (TCI) Program under the "New Residential Construction-4 storeys and higher" category falling within Sub Area 1 of the Town Centre Area. RECOMMENDATION: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6786 - 2010 be adopted. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Council considered this rezoning application at a Public Hearing held on March 16, 2011. On March 23, 2011 Council granted Third Reading to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. NoBylaw# and Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6786 - 2010 with the stipulation that the following conditions be addressed: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; iii. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; iv. Road dedication as required; 1001 Consolidation of the development site; vi. Removal of the existing buildings; vii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking. The following applies to the above: 1. Item i above has been completed. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation was received on April 04, 2011; 2. Items ii, iii, iv, v and vii above have been executed, as per the "Letter of Undertaking" from the applicant's solicitor. All the signed legal documents have been returned to the solicitor for registration. The rezoning servicing security monies have been received; 3. Item vi above has been completed for two lots i.e. 12038 and 12048 222nd Street. The third lot i.e. 12028 222nd Street currently hosts a mobile unit which generally does not need a demolition permit, unless it is on a concrete pad and has a foundation. The developer has confirmed with Building Department that this unit will not require a Demolition Permit. The mobile unit will be removed and services disconnected at the time of Building Permit approval. CONCLUSION: The proposal is strategically located within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area and offers a variety of units ranging from studio to two bedroom apartments. The proposal fits well with Council's vision of densifying the Town Centre Area and qualifies for the Town Centre Incentive Program. As the applicant has met Council's conditions, it is recommended that Final Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6786 - 2010. k "I Prepared by: Rasika Acharya) B-Arch, M-Tech, LID, LEED® AP Plan er Approved by. Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Directo f PI ning Approved by. Arank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services oncurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6786 - 2010 -2- - 0 274 99 3 ,n 11 12129 0_ Rem APPENDIX A 12120 4 � 10 273 C' z P 10689 B n 100 12123 12127 12112 5 (P 9669) 16 6 7 8 9 272 280 12119 12128 12117 NWS 133 12106 n P 16997 co LMP 27702 17 281 T M Q p p N 12096 cN 0_ N N 12111 N N 1 12097 103 121 AVE. N „A„ 18 12086 Q m 104 m 12080 0 105 f 12070 106 m 12060 M w IZ (P 38752) p, N 12096 N N 19 N N N 12087 LMP 27701 SUBJECT PROPERTIES BROWN AVE. 12061 N Rem 8 P 20094 55 LO n 107 12048 CHURCH AVE. A IL 12048 LMP 8411 U) P 20094 q 12051 108 N i d 12032 N 4 0) a 2038 2002/12 109 p, P 14898 ^ E 12035 3 7 50 a' � m 12ozs C cn P 20094 M N a a P 69 LO 7 N 00 110 2 1 A � P 20094 � N a m on rn in I m N N a 10 N N N N N N N 'LMP2967Is N N DEWDNEY TRUNK RD. RP 59105 W j N N N @ R 7,1/2 1 .. m r Rem 6�i N N N n O E '� 2 N N N "A" r E iC 12 co 11 N 1 A P 70168 r N N N P 8978 P 32 6 N C P 3175 NWS 2870 m a P 632 N NWS 3374 w NWS 3233 N BCP 22636 11960 'LMP4261 BCS 2391 Pd. 121 P 3175 13 cNv P 84262 11968 �I S 100 F 11963 11950 co a 11965 79 NWS 418 97 14 N N P 36157 N 4 11951 11960 Mi BCP 28220 np7 11957 5 11941 P R]ai>_ _ _ n <c H • _ s<o2q f7924 m � CtT}}��..QQf Pitt _ L Meadows _ ° I = 12028/38/48 222 STREET o .cl) iM _ + CORPORATION OF 41. r i to THE DISTRICT OF N - _ MAPLE RIDGE District of ', ' ' •° � � Langley ��. I PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE 1:2,000 DATE: Nov 30, 2010 FILE:RZ/113/10 BY: PC FRRSER R� N N K N L N M N P 16917 12075 P 169 7 J I H n G N N N 12061 APPENDIX B 1 2 3. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO.6786-2010 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6786-2010." Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 3 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 9669 Lot 4 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 9669 Lot A District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan LMP8411 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1503, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential). Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 11t" day of January, A.D. 2011. READ a second time the 8t" day of February, A.D. 2011. PUBLIC HEARING held the 15t" day of March, A.D. 2011. READ a third time the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the PRESIDING MEMBER day of , A.D. 20 . day of , A.D. 20 . CORPORATE OFFICER 98 1L 75 139 12138 2 12 N 12139 0 274 99 u1 11 3 � 12129 t21 v 12120 0_ 4 10 273 z 1` co a j QQ 5 12123 113 W 12112 II 6 7 8 9 272 280 1 1 12119 rat 12106 ^ P 1 997 m 281 1 cv a 0 P O l C r _ co 7 12096 I a 0_ N 12111 N cm103 121 AVE. EP 30259 12086 r Q 104 N N N 1 0 12080 K M L N P 169 7 105 12075 71 12070 P 169 7 106 t 12060 rp J I H n G � c2 n N N N 12061 d 107 CHURCH AVE. 53 12048 —P — — — -- �— 108 F--- N 1 12032 j I E 109 P 14898 1 12035 m w C I 37 12026 I a "B" (P 9669) 12128 NWS 133 "A" (P 38752) '096 BCP 15939 LMP 12218 � 1I � f A IM48 LMP 8411 4 rn 12A39 a 3 0 Rem 0 G a P 10689 (L J LMP 27702 1 ,cL m N LMP 27701 BROWN AVE. 14 12131 ,,15 r 12127 a 16 12117 17 12097 18 +in n i a 19 12087 25 er 0- rCOi I P 669 m co 15 110 'co)Ar LU C 2 1 s n � CL a P 20094 10 a � N N I N g 'LMP2967 N DEWDNEY TRUNK RD. EP 54063 EP 49989 I W RP 59105 � N N N o N N � 1/2 1 2 m T Remo 2 N a N N A.' N o r OD I E N N E N n N N °C P 8978 S12 (V 11 C 1 A P 3175 P 70168 NWS 2870 m a 0[ W P 6325 NWS 3233 c) N P 32 6 NWS-337a MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 6786-2010 Map No. 1503 From: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) To: RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) N SCALE 1:2,000 Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 5, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/109/08 Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W First Reading Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6902-2012 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to enter into a Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement bylaw (HRA bylaw) for the property located at 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road (see Appendix A), to allow for the preservation, relocation and rehabilitation of the existing heritage house. The project involves converting the existing single-family heritage house into a duplex, and constructing a second duplex building on the property for a total of four units on the site. Included in the HRA bylaw is a proposed five-year property tax exemption, on the municipal portion of property taxes, for the existing heritage building only (see Duplex 1 in Appendix B). A Heritage Revitalization Agreement is a voluntary written agreement negotiated between a property owner and a municipality outlining duties, obligations and responsibilities of both parties with respect to conservation of the site's heritage value. This Agreement is adopted through Council by bylaw. Once the bylaw is passed, the owner of the property is legally required to protect the heritage value of the site over the long-term. The effectiveness of this tool is that it enables flexibility for the property owner in exchange for the protection of the site's heritage value. To enable this flexibility, a Heritage Revitalization Agreement has the power to supersede the provisions in various bylaws, including the zoning and parking bylaws. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act consultation during OCP amendment, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i. the board of the regional district in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a municipal official community plan; ii. the board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii. the council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. first nations; V. school district boards, greater boards and improvements district boards, and vi. the provincial and federal governments and their agencies; 1101 and in that regard staff recommends that no additional consultation be required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment; 2. That Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6902-2012 be given First Reading; and 3. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; iii. Registration of a Geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; iv. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Duplex Design to regulate the form and character of Duplex 2 (units 3 and 4) and a landscaping plan by the Landscape Architect, showing all the proposed landscaping on site, along with 100% of the landscaping securities; V. Road dedication as required; vi. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Wayne Bissky Owner: Grayston Contracting Ltd Legal Description: Lot: 141, DL: 396, Plan: 29594; PID: 003-072-762 OCP: Existing: Urban Residential Proposed: Heritage Revitalization Agreement Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) with a Heritage Revitalization Agreement Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential South: Use: Dewdney Trunk Road and Single Family Residential Zone: Road and RS-1(One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Road and Urban Residential -2- East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing: Companion Applications: b) Project Description: History of the site and heritage house: Duplex RT-1(Two Family Urban Residential) Urban Residential York Street and Single Family Residential Road and RS-1(One Family Urban Residential) Road and Urban Residential Single Family Residential Multi -Family Townhouse Residential 0.25 acre (1029.99 m2) York Street Full Urban None The subject site (see Appendix A) is listed in the Maple Ridge Heritage Inventory and its heritage value lies in the existing farmhouse that was constructed by Joseph Beeton in 1911. A Statement of Significance was prepared for this Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement bylaw (HRA bylaw) and is attached to this report as part of the HRA document. In 1919, the Daykin family purchased the house and continued farming on the 10-acre lot. In 1966, the large farm plot was subdivided into 22 smaller single family lots to accommodate the changing needs of the community. This historic house was home to the Daykin family over the course of 52 years and resold in 1971. Heritage RevitalizationAgreement: The subject HRA bylaw application was received in late 2008, making it the first one ever negotiated in the District. However, it was not the first one to be completed, as two more HRA applications followed in 2009 and 2010. Early in the negotiation process of the subject application, it was agreed that the application would proceed with only a Statement of Significance to support the HRA. A Statement of Significance provides information on the history of the site, identifies the site's heritage value, and lists the specific character defining elements. Additionally, the architect agreed to prepare architectural plans for the heritage building with notes clearly identifying what alterations will be made and also how character defining elements will be preserved. As such, a Statement of Significance, completed by a heritage consultant, and the architectural plans are attached to the HRA bylaw document and outlines the heritage value and character defining elements of the site (see Schedule B of Appendix C). The owner intends to rehabilitate and then relocate the heritage house on the same lot and add a new duplex (see Duplex 2 in Appendix B) in a design that is similar to the character of the existing heritage house. The historic structure, despite many external and internal changes over the 98 years, preserves sufficient early fabric to maintain the character and charm of an early 2011 century -3- farmhouse. The Statement of Significance is incorporated into the Heritage Agreement bylaw for reference. A HRA, written in the form of a bylaw can vary or supplement provisions of the development related bylaws. Hence, the property will remain zoned RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), but will be regulated by HRA bylaw and a Duplex Design Covenant, each which will outline the responsibilities of the owners. The Proposal: The proposal is to convert the single-family site to multi -family with two duplex buildings that will be accessed from York Street. It is intended to rotate the existing heritage house by 90 degrees, north so that the side that is currently facing York Street will face Dewdney Trunk Road. The building will also be moved 30 feet closer to Dewdney Trunk Road. Then the interior of the house will be renovated, so that it is converted into two separate strata units. Changes to some of the "character - defining elements" listed in the Statement of Significance, are proposed to accommodate the change in use from single-family to duplex form. The units in the heritage building (see Duplex 1 in Appendix B) are each to be two -bedroom units of 1742 ft2 and 1318 ft2. A new building containing two duplex units (see Duplex 2 in Appendix B) is also proposed for the site, each containing three bedrooms at sizes of 1396 ft2 and 1407 ft2 .. Tax Exemption Bylaw Under Section 225(2) (b) of the Community Charter, a municipality may exempt protected heritage properties from the municipal portion of taxation. It is proposed that upon approval and completion of a four unit development of the subject site, a five year tax exemption would be granted to the Duplex 1 (Beeton House rehabilitated), but is not applicable to Duplex 2. The tax exemption of heritage property is not new to the District. A 5-year tax exemption was granted to both the Miller Residence and Billy Miner Pub in exchange for protection of these properties through Heritage Revitalization Agreements, respectively passed in 2010 and 2011. The municipal portion of the taxes for the "Beeton House" on the subject site was $1564.75 for 2010 and $1714.95 for the 2011 taxes. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: Provisions for local governments to negotiate HRA's are set out in Section 966 of the Local Government Act. The mechanism provides flexibility and ensures the retention of non -conforming heritage resources that may otherwise be demolished. There are two policies that are supportive of protecting heritage resources through heritage management tools legislated within the Local Government Act. These policies are as follows: 4-43 The development application review process will include an opportunity to evaluate the overall impact of proposed development on the heritage characteristics and context of each historic community or neighbourhood. Conservation guidelines and standards should be prepared to aid in this evaluation and provide a basis from which recommendations can be made to Council. 4-44 Maple Ridge will endeavour to use tools available under Provincial legislation more effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools will also be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to heritage management in the District. The existing house is listed on the heritage resource inventory and should be preserved for its character defining elements. Policy 3-3(e) of the Official Community Plan states that "The stability of a neighbourhood's physical character is one of the keys to a successful community and Maple Ridge will protect residential neighbourhood character by encouraging the conservation and restoration of heritage resources". Policy 3-4(d) of the Official Community Plan states that "To foster a sense of community and neighbourhood identity, Maple Ridge will encourage preservation of heritage elements as a unifying feature throughout the community". The subject property is designated "Urban Residential" and is subject to the Major Corridor Infill policies in the Official Community Plan and the proposed use is in compliance with this designation. Section 8.4 of the Official Community Plan specifies Development Permit Area exemptions. For this application an OCP amendment is proposed to establish a policy that will authorize waiving the requirement of a Development Permit where changes to a heritage building are proposed as part of the original HRA bylaw and where the architectural plans specifying the changes are attached to the bylaw. A Development Permit Exemption is valid for heritage buildings as it is regulated by the HRA and Heritage Alteration Permit. Refer to Development Permit and Heritage Alteration Permit sections of this report for further details. Zoning Bylaw: The HRA bylaw has the power to supersede a Zoning Bylaw. As a result, the site will remain zoned RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and the HRA will establish the regulations for preserving heritage value as well as adding new development to the site. Schedule "F" of the attached HRA bylaw (Appendix C) outlines the zoning regulations that will apply to the subject site. The closest applicable zoning to the development proposed for the subject site is RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District). The RM-1 zone permits a maximum density of 0.6 times the lot area and the subject development proposal is seeking a density of 0.75. Setbacks are also proposed that do not meet the requirements of the RM-1 zone. While the Local Government Act makes a provision that setbacks within a Zoning Bylaw may be varied, there is no such provision for density. The proposed development compares to the requirements of the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone) as follows: -5- CRITERIA PROPOSAL (HRA) RM-1 ZONE 1. Minimum Lot size (m2) 854.1 m2 557m2 2. Minimum Lot Depth 38.38 Not applicable 3. Minimum Lot Width 22.25 m 18.0 m 4. Maximum density 0.75 times the net lot area (640.57 m2) 0.6 times the net lot area (512.46 m2) plus 50m2 per unit basement area. 5. Building Setbacks: Front 4.58 m 7.5 m Rear 7.45 m 7.5 m Interior Side 4.36 m 4.5 m (without window) or 6.0 m (with window) Exterior Side 2.94 m 7.5 m 6. Maximum Height 9.6 m 10.5m and 2 1i2 storey 7. Minimum Usable Open Space 457 m2 150 m2 8. Minimum Common Amenity Area Included in usable open space 20 m2 9. Minimum parking 9 spaces (8 residential plus 1 visitor) 9 spaces (8 residential plus 1 visitor) 10. 11. Landscaping Off -Street Parking 1m high landscape border around the visitor parking spot; all other parking spaces are concealed. 8 residential (two tandem spaces) and 1 visitor space 1m high landscape border for non -concealed parking spaces 8 residential and 0.8 visitor spaces Off -Street Parking gnd Loading Bylaw: As per the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, the proposed use (i.e. two duplexes or four units) requires 2 parking spaces per unit for residents plus 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors, requiring a total of 9 parking spaces (8 for residents and 1 visitor parking stall). The proposal is in compliance of this requirement and shows 2 car garages per unit and one parking space for visitors. Development Permit and Heritage Alteration Permi Neither of the first two HRA bylaws passed in 2010 and 2011 proposed any alterations to the heritage value of their respective sites that would result in the requirement for a Development Permit or a Heritage Alteration Permit. The subject HRA bylaw is the first to trigger the requirements under a Development Permit and a Heritage Alteration Permit. Development Permit: A site protected through a HRA bylaw is not exempt from Development Permit requirements, depending on intended use, such as the multi -family use for this application. As such, an amendment to the Official Community Plan is required for this proposal and the OCP Amending Bylaw is anticipated to be considered by Council with the Second Reading of the HRA bylaw. This WE Bylaw is anticipated to be considered by Council with the Second Reading of the HRA bylaw. This OCP amendment is to establish a policy in Section 8.4 (Development Permit Area Exemptions) that will authorize waiving the requirement of a Development Permit where changes to a heritage building are proposed as part of the original HRA bylaw and where the architectural plans specifying the changes are attached to the bylaw. Any future changes proposed to a protected heritage site, that would normally require a Development Permit, would instead just require a Heritage Alteration Permit. The design of the new duplex building that is proposed for the site will be protected over the long- term through a building design covenant. Heritage Alteration Permit: Section 971 of the Local Government Act requires that no alteration of a protected heritage building is permitted without a Heritage Alteration Permit, unless explicitly stated in the Heritage bylaw that protects the heritage site. The subject HRA bylaw template, that the Planning Department has used to date, contains a clause under the heading "Exemptions" (See Appendix C, page 2), which describes which of the minor and repair type of changes are permitted to a heritage building without triggering the requirement for a heritage alteration permit. A Heritage Procedures Bylaw is currently being drafted and is expected to be brought forward soon for Council consideration. Proposed in the bylaw will be procedures involved in applying for and issuing a Heritage Alteration Permit, along with procedures for applying for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement, Heritage Designation, and adding sites to the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Register. In the interim, it is anticipated that a Heritage Alteration Permit application for the subject site will be brought forward to a future Council meeting wherein final reading of the HRA bylaw is scheduled. d) Review process: Advisory Design Panel: Although it is proposed that a Development Permit be waived for this application, the applicant was requested to present at the Advisory Design Panel meeting and the project was reviewed by the panel on January 13, 2009. The Panel commended the applicant and encourages similar projects to be undertaken in the community. The panel supports retention of suitable existing trees and would like to receive a digital version of project -material for information purposes only. The Panel strongly recommended the following be addressed by the applicant and submitted to planning staff for review: • use of appropriate material (siding, roofing and windows) to match the period (era) • provide additional information on landscape materials; • consistent detailing; • pedestrian circulation on the east side; and • Simplification of roof forms on the new building. -7- The project -architect has addressed all the concerns through some revisions and the rehabilitation plan. Community Heritage Commission: On February 3, 2009 this proposal was reviewed at the Community Heritage Commission meeting. The Commission was generally supportive of this project with the following comments: • Use Statement of Significance that was prepared for the site as a guide for conservation of character -defining elements in conjunction with the "Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada"; • The above includes the horse chestnut tree at the front of the property; and • When the project has been completed with the construction of additional units, the heritage house should be distinguishable from the new units. This does not mean that the project shouldn't appear uniform, but the average person should be able to recognize a difference in time between the existing unit and the new ones. The project -architect has confirmed these are addressed through the rehabilitation plan. Members of the Commission are supportive of this application. The Heritage Commission was briefed with an update on the project at the February 7, 2012 meeting and the members had no further comment. Development Information Meeting: On April 8, 2009 the project -architect conducted a Development Information Meeting at Maple Ridge Travelodge from 7:00 to 9:00 PM. This meeting was attended by 6 people who were generally supportive of the project and had positive comments. They were pleased that the site was going to be improved and they found the proposal attractive. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering De a ment: The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: • Road dedications of 3.0 m along Dewdney Trunk Road and 2.4 m along York Street to make it a collector standard road; corner truncation of 3m X 3m on the corner of York Street and Dewdney Trunk Road is required. Existing power pole may have to be moved. • Road upgrades fronting the property including curb & gutter (on the east side of York Street), sidewalk (1.6 m wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of York Street), Street lighting and Street Trees (on the boulevard along Dewdney Trunk Road and York Street); pedestrian letdown at sidewalk intersection of York Street and Dewdney Trunk Road are required. Remove the existing sidewalk driveway crossing on Dewdney Trunk Road and reconstruct with standard barrier curb and sidewalk. IF-111 • Any new municipal service connection must be placed at 2% slope and the sewer main is on the west side of the road and will need crossing of a water main. Install a catch basin and lead at north end of the curb on York Street. Any trees along Dewdney Trunk Road must comply with the Highway and Traffic Bylaw for distance to the intersection and visibility sight line area along the boulevard. The municipal road boulevard must be planted with only lawn grass and Street Trees; any other shrubs or plants are to be planted on the private property. The existing chain link fence along west and south sides of the property is to be removed. Existing aboveground utility company plant fronting the site on both York Street and Dewdney Trunk Road will remain, in accordance with Schedule D of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw. However, all the utility company service connections to the development must be underground. Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the HRA bylaw is registered and the project built, they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project it is estimated that there will be an additional 6 trees which is based on the proposed landscape plan by DMG Landscape Architects, dated December 4, 2008. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will increase their budget requirements by $150.00. Fire Department: The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and do not have any comments at this time. Licences Permits & Bylaws Department: The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and has the following comment: Ensure code compliance for the spatial separation requirement of structures and for the proposed driveway design (driveway slope, break -over angle, maximum angle of approach and departure, etc). Financial Implications: In accordance with Council's Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost, provided by a Landscape Architect, will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping on site. This is a condition of the final reading as stated in this report. Ili f) Intergovernmental Issues: Ministry of Transportation: On December 23, 2008 the District received a preliminary approval from the Ministry of Transportation for the proposed development. Final approval will be sought following Council giving Third Reading for the proposed development. CONCLUSION: Heritage Revitalization Agreements, as set out in Section 966 of the Local Government Act, are a powerful tool for heritage conservation. A HRA bylaw is intended to provide flexibility that benefits the community, the municipality and the property owner. This being the third HRA bylaw in the District, it is an effort towards preserving and rehabilitating the 1911 Beeton house which is listed on District's heritage resource inventory. In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEEDS AP, MCIP Plan r Approved by. Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Direct of Planning L Approved by;/ Frank Quinn, , P.Eng Y : Publi o s & Development Services Concurrence: 91h" L. (Jim) Rule iefAdministrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Proposed Site Plan with Proposed New Duplex and Landscaping Plan Appendix C - Heritage Revitalization Bylaw and Tax Exemption Agreement No. 6902-2012 0tom APPENDIX A ti 12087 s N o N 251 Cv 21 I- 43 64 r ccy�o 0_ 12095 d i cr' 12071 12069 12066 "P 11060 71 12070 d 12086 T 250 42 65 72 8 P 23167 11 12075 12067 12050 12053 12060 0) 12060 CY) 6 33 41 66 18 � 10 r 12065 cY) 12063 It P 15319 12047 12046 0 12047 12050 ao c7 N 5 12050 34 40 67 d 1 5 Q 12055 12041 12041 SUBJECT PROPERTY 12046 a 4 12040 12042 35 39 2 8 7' 12039 CY) �_ � 12031 1 � 12029 12040 r 3 12030 00 � 36 r 0- 38 69 3 7 0. 12029 d 7 12028 2 LMP 36308 295! 4 P 14571 P 1 571 2 A 4 37 r-C' 5 6 41 142 1 12014 0 0 0N NN N N N N N N N 12 11999 11989 0 11 N to LO Lin n 11971 10 P L. 11949 9 City of Pitt Meadows 1-- NDistrict of Langley SCALE 1:1,500 ! oW co N 65' N 43 42 43 P 134 9 11988 64 65 P 1 685 11970 11965 P 14 685 63 62 11956 11957 N CD LO 0 7 N 8 N 13 14 P 1 113 P8 28 11993 11973 It It w N 07 z Y � o — � L 1 22031 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD 11970 6 12 I 11963 5 11 11962 i 11953 `n 4 10 N 11952 C7 r 11943 3 m 9 G'- 11942 0- d c0 O d' r LID N A N cco oBN IL LO rn T 0 2 1 0- 11970 W 2 11960 3 11952 Co CID 4 d 11942 1° i o CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF LE MAPLE RIDGE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Dec 10, 2008 FILE: RZ/109/08 BY: PC U 0 0 0 z C N c 1 H w w Y O APPENDIX B Mid a}!S posodad N'JI9U N`HM(1 31Nll3LH]NV yuewaei6 4390Oadd e6eyueH AJISSI9 N3Hd31S 3NAdM GVOU NNnu-L.l3NdM30 J co "€I1I tE F �w�..wrw � w.;:5"a..L�".1�: ��t1Ww.Mw «'�, SUOIIBA913 .� i c O M.w4w «a e..a,•�n o�tllwi�P+u�roR�wv.lb pasodad Z xaldn(] MJI9U YOM3WI 'JNINNVid i +, ��yy 3UOWGSJBy UOg6mIeynea OBeIueH NJI90 NV9Nn 3anll3 038adOLld ANSS19 N31HdUS 3NNNVw EL O _-R...�.�..4 � 6 � RY O it Oil c 0 U 6� m r OW Z w 0O i 'I OI CIO m CC o C N ❑ W 3N aZ ELD m x o I� - a a F 2 N� _ aELZ ■ O o L a 2 4 I, i 0 m: W o m. 0 0 Z x m G n :�I Z a v N a � - a X m a NO X 3 J Z - (L o a 0 a` it f 6 fit o l� fit �� f � � �!■ � . § |■ |� ||.■�� � ,■ | - | |||||| p q t� ) MUM a5aa����a� Q L� ; APPENDIX C CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO.6902-2012 A Bylaw to designate a property as a heritage property under Section 967 of the Local Government Act and to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement under Section 966 of the Local Government Act and to grant a Tax Exemption under Section 225 of the Community Charter WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge considers that the property located at 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge, BC has heritage value and that certain portions of buildings on the property should be designated as protected under section 967 of the Local Government Act; AND WHEREAS the District of Maple Ridge and Grayston Contracting Ltd. (Inc. No. 364839) wish to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement for the Property; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge wishes to exercise its discretion under section 225 of the Community Charter to exempt a portion of the Property from municipal property taxation subject to the terms of an exemption agreement; AND WHEREAS the District of Maple Ridge has provided notice of a proposed tax exemption bylaw in accordance with section 227 of the Community Charter; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: Citation 1.1 This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw 6902-2012". Interpretation 2.1 In this Bylaw, the terms "heritage value", "heritage character" and "alter" have the corresponding meanings given to them in the Local Government Act. Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement 3.1 The District of Maple Ridge enters into a Heritage Revitalization and a Tax Exemption Agreement (the "Agreement") with the registered owner of the property located at 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge and legally described as PID: 003-072-762, Lot 141, District Lot 396, Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 29594 (the "Property"). 3.2 The Acting Mayor and Corporate Officer are authorized on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge Council to sign and seal the Agreement in the form attached as Appendix "1" to this Bylaw. 3.3 Subject to all of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement, the Land and the Existing Heritage Building, excluding the New Building, as described in the Agreement, shall be exempt from District property taxation for a term of five (5) years effective from the date on which the Agreement comes into force. Heritage Designation 4.1 Council hereby designates that portion of the Property on which is located the Existing Heritage Building, as described in the Agreement, as protected heritage property for the purposes of section 967 of the Local Government Act of British Columbia. Exemptions 5.1 The following actions may be undertaken in relation to the Existing Heritage Building without first obtaining a heritage alteration permit from the District: (a) non-structural renovations or alterations to the interior of the building or structure that do not affect any protected interior feature or fixture and do not alter the exterior appearance of the building or structure; and (b) non-structural normal repairs and maintenance that do not alter the exterior appearance of a building or structure. 5.2 For the purpose of section 5.1, "normal repairs" means the repair or replacement of elements, components or finishing materials of a building, structure or protected feature or fixture, with elements, components or finishing materials that are equivalent to those being replaced in terms of heritage character, material composition, colour, dimensions and quality. READ A FIRST TIME this day of READ A SECOND TIME this day of PUBLIC HEARING held this day of READ A THIRD TIME this day of ADOPTED this day of PRESIDING MEMBER 2012. 2012 2012. , 2012. , 2012. CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX "1" - HERITAGE REVITALIZATION AND TAX EXEMPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the day of , 20 is BETWEEN: GRAYSTON CONTRACTING LTD. (INC. No. 364839) 21500 - 121 Avenue Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 3S4 (the "Owner") AND: THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, British Columbia V2X 6A9 (the "District") WHEREAS: A. The Owner is the registered owner in fee simple of the land and all improvements located at 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge, B.C. and legally described as: PI D: 003-072-762 Lot 141 District Lot 396 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 29594 (the "Land"); There is one principal building currently situated on the Land, known as the Beeton/Daykin Residence, as shown on the sketch map attached as Schedule "A" to this Agreement (the "Existing Heritage Building"), and the District and the Owner agree that the Existing Heritage Building has heritage merit and should be conserved; C. The Owner intends to apply to the District for approval to rotate the Existing Heritage Building on the Land and to construct a new building at the rear of the site, as shown on the sketch map attached as Schedule "A" (the "New Building"); ❑. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Existing Heritage Building does not include the New Building; Section 966 of the Local Government Act authorizes a local government to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement with the owner of heritage property, and to allow variations of, and supplements to, the provisions of a bylaw or a permit issued under Part 26 or Part 27 of the Local Government Act; Section 225 of the Community Charter authorizes a local government to enter into an agreement with the owner of eligible heritage property that is to be exempt from municipal taxation, respecting the extent of the exemption and the conditions on which it is made; G. The Owner and the District have agreed to enter into this Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement setting out the terms and conditions by which the heritage value of the Land and the Existing Heritage Building is to be preserved and protected, in return for specified supplements and variances to District bylaws and the exemption of the Land and the Existing Heritage Building, excluding the New Building, from District property taxation for a specified term; The date of final adoption of the bylaw to which this Agreement is attached is the "Effective Date"; THIS AGREEMENT is evidence that in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) now paid by each party to the other and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt of which each party hereby acknowledges) the Owner and the District each covenant with the other as follows: Conservation of the Existing Heritage Building 1. The Owner shall, promptly following the Effective Date, commence and complete the restoration, renovation and conservation of the Character Defining Elements in the Existing Heritage Building (the "Work"), as identified in the Statement of Significance attached as Schedule "B", which Work shall be done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications attached as Schedule "C" to this Agreement (the "Conservation Plans"). 2. The Owner shall not alter the Character Defining Elements except in accordance with the Conservation Plans. 3. Prior to commencement of the Work, the Owner shall obtain from the District all necessary permits and licences, including a heritage alteration permit. 4. The Work shall be done at the Owner's sole expense in accordance with generally accepted engineering, architectural and heritage conservation practices. If any conflict or ambiguity arises in the interpretation of the Conservation Plans, the parties agree that the conflict or ambiguity shall be resolved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Second Edition, published by Parks Canada in 2010, or any future update to this edition. 5. The Owner shall, at the Owner's sole expense, engage a member of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia or the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the "Registered Professional") to oversee the Work and to perform the duties set out in section 6 of this Agreement. 6. The Owner shall cause the Registered Professional to: (a) prior to commencement of the Work, provide to the District an executed and sealed Confirmation of Commitment in the form attached as Schedule "Y to this Agreement; (b) erect on the Land and keep erected throughout the course of the Work, a sign of sufficient size and visibility to effectively notify contractors and tradespersons entering onto the Land that the Work involves protected heritage property and is being carried out for heritage conservation purposes; (c) throughout the course of the Work, effectively oversee the work of all contractors and tradespersons and inspect all materials leaving and arriving at the site to ensure that the Work is carried out in accordance with the Conservation Plans; (d) obtain the District's approval for any changes to the Work, including any amended permits that may be required; (e) upon substantial completion of the Work, provide to the District an executed and sealed Certification of Compliance in the form attached as Schedule "E" to this Agreement; and (f) notify the District within one (1) business day if the Registered Professional's engagement by the Owner is terminated for any reason. Timing of Restoration 7. The Owner shall commence and complete all actions required for the completion of the Work in accordance with this Agreement within 12 months following the Effective Date. Ongoing Maintenance 8. Following completion of the Work, the Owner shall, in perpetuity, maintain the Existing Heritage Building and the Land in good repair in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in Maple Ridge Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 6710-2009. Damage to or Destruction of the Existing Heritage Building 9. If the Existing Heritage Building is damaged, the Owner shall obtain a heritage alteration permit and any other necessary permits and licences and, in a timely manner, shall restore and repair the Existing Heritage Building to the same condition and appearance that existed before the damage occurred. 10. If, in the opinion of the District, the Existing Heritage Building is completely destroyed and the Owner wishes to construct a replacement building on the Land, such replacement building must be constructed in compliance with the District's Zoning Bylaw, in a style that is acceptable to the District and substantially similar to that of the destroyed Existing Heritage Building, after having obtained a heritage alteration permit and all other necessary permits and licences. 11. The Owner shall use its best efforts to commence and complete any repairs to the Existing Heritage Building, or the construction of any replica or replacement buildings, with reasonable dispatch. Variations to District's Zoning Bylaw 12. District of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 (the "Zoning Bylaw") is varied and supplemented in its application to the Land and the Existing Heritage Building in the manner and to the extent set out in Schedule "F" to this Agreement. Heritage Designation 13. The Owner hereby irrevocably agrees to the designation of that portion of the Land containing the Existing Heritage Building as a municipal heritage site in accordance with section 967 of the Local Government Act, and releases the District from any obligation to compensate the Owner in any form for any reduction in the market value of the Land or those portions of the Land that may result from the designation. Tax Exemption Conditions 14. The District hereby exempts from District property taxation, for five (5) years following the Effective Date, the Land and the Existing Heritage Building, excluding the New Building, on the following conditions: (a) all items agreed to within this Agreement must be met; (b) any other fees and charges related to the Land, the Existing Heritage Building, and the New Building due to the District of Maple Ridge are paid in full; and (c) the Owner is not in contravention of any other District of Maple Ridge bylaw. 15. If any condition set out in section 14 above is not met to the satisfaction of the District, acting reasonably then the Owner must pay to the District the full amount of tax exemptions received, plus interest, immediately upon written demand. Interpretation 16. In this Agreement, "Owner" shall mean the registered owner of the Land or a subsequent registered owner of the Land, as the context requires or permits. Conformity with District Bylaws 17. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that, except as expressly varied by this Agreement, any development or use of the Land, including any construction, restoration and repair of the Existing Heritage Building and the New Building, must comply with all applicable bylaws of the District. Statutory Authority Retained 18. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit, impair, fetter or derogate from the statutory powers of the District, all of which powers may be exercised by the District from time to time and at any time to the fullest extent that the District is enabled. Indemnity 19. The Owner hereby releases, indemnifies and saves the District, its officers, employees, elected officials, agents and assigns harmless from and against any and all actions, causes of action, losses, damages, costs, claims, debts and demands whatsoever by any person, arising out of or in any way due to the existence or effect of any of the restrictions or requirements in this Agreement, or the breach or non-performance by the Owner of any term or provision of this Agreement, or by reason of any work or action of the Owner in performance of its obligations under this Agreement or by reason of any wrongful act or omission, default, or negligence of the Owner. 20. In no case shall the District be liable or responsible in any way for: (a) any personal injury, death or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever, howsoever caused, that be suffered or sustained by the Owner or by any other person who may be on the Land; or (b) any loss or damage of any nature whatsoever, howsoever caused to the Land, or any improvements or personal property thereon belonging to the Owner or to any other person, arising directly or indirectly from compliance with the restrictions and requirements in this Agreement, wrongful or negligent failure or omission to comply with the restrictions and requirements in this Agreement or refusal, omission or failure of the District to enforce or require compliance by the Owner with the restrictions or requirements in this Agreement or with any other term, condition or provision of this Agreement. No Waiver 21. No restrictions, requirements or other provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by the District unless a written waiver signed by an officer of the District has first been obtained, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no condoning, excusing or overlooking by the District on previous occasions of any default, nor any previous written waiver, shall be taken to operate as a waiver by the District of any subsequent default or in any way defeat or affect the rights and remedies of the District. Inspection 22. Upon request, the Owner shall advise or cause the Registered Professional to advise the District's Planning Department of the status of the Work, and, without limiting the District's power of inspection conferred by statute and in addition to such powers, the District shall be entitled at all reasonable times and from time to time to enter onto the Land for the purpose of ensuring that the Owner is fully observing and performing all of the restrictions and requirements in this Agreement to be observed and performed by the Owner. Enforcement of Agreement 23. The Owner acknowledges that it is an offence under section 981(1)(c) of the Local Government Act to alter the Land or the Existing Heritage Building in contravention of this Agreement, punishable by a fine of up to $50,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of up to 2 years, or both. 24. The Owner acknowledges that it is an offence under section 981(1)(b) of the Local Government Act to fail to comply with the requirements and conditions of any heritage alteration permit issued to the Owner pursuant to this Agreement and section 972 of the Local Government Act, punishable in the manner prescribed in the preceding section. 25. The Owner acknowledges that, if the Owner alters the Land or the Existing Heritage Building in contravention of this Agreement, the District may apply to the B.C. Supreme Court for: (a) an order that the Owner restores the Land or the Existing Heritage Building to its condition before the contravention; (b) an order that the Owner undertakes compensatory conservation work on the Land or the Existing Heritage Building; (c) an order requiring the Owner to take other measures specified by the Court to ameliorate the effects of the contravention; and (d) an order authorizing the District to perform any and all such work at the expense of the Owner. 26. The Owner acknowledges that, if the District undertakes work to satisfy the terms, requirements or conditions of any heritage alteration permit issued to the Owner pursuant to this Agreement upon the Owner's failure to do so, the District may add the cost of the work and any incidental expenses to the taxes payable with respect to the Land, or may recover the cost from any security that the Owner have provided to the District to guarantee the performance of the terms, requirements or conditions of the permit, or both. 27. The Owner acknowledges that the District may file a notice on title to the Land in the land title office if the terms and conditions of the Agreement have been contravened. 28. The District may notify the Owner in writing of any alleged breach of this Agreement to the Owner shall have the time specified in the notice to remedy the breach. In the event that the Owner fails to remedy the breach within the time specified, the District may enforce this Agreement by: (a) seeking an order for specific performance of this Agreement; (b) any other means specified in this Agreement; or (c) any means specified in the Community Charter or the Local Government Act, and the District's resort to any remedy for a breach of this Agreement does not limit its right to resort to any other remedy available at law or in equity. Headings 29. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement or any of its provisions. Appendices 30. All schedules to this Agreement are incorporated into and form part of this Agreement. Number and Gender 31. Whenever the singular or masculine or neuter is used in this Agreement, the same shall be construed to mean the plural or feminine or body corporate where the context so requires. Successors Bound 32. All restrictions, rights and liabilities herein imposed upon or given to the respective parties shall extend to and be binding upon their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. Severability 33. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid portion shall be severed and the decision that it is invalid shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Owner and the District have executed this Agreement on the dates set out below. GRAYSTON CONTRACTING LTD. by its authorized signatory(ies): Authorized Signatory: Authorized Signatory: Date The Corporate Seal of DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE was hereunto affixed in the presence of: Mayor: Corporate Officer: Date C/S SCHEDULE "A" PROPOSED_ ON Emil ■■1121111 � ■nn� ::I ■ Ew: -- �_ ilFn■ ' 1 �i■i■■■■■■�i�iiN t ���11�■�■■■■■ ■■■III;■ ■ �� . n,■■.o■m■■■nM:II.�..■1:_IIIE n�!■� ���.�..■■■_■..■■III �...n■■�,n■�' �■. .y■:�■���■■�■.��nn�:■■.�:�N■-■ ��■��.■ a11��■■ ■�!�■11�■■IN 7�■� ■■■ �N■�■■■■�■■m".agoIn■a�■n■�.■■■�1 Ewmm ■A■.El!■■�■■■: li■I!I 1 WWI Ingo n■ -- ■: a �� 4 � !!■rim . 1! � 1 ■Il��I.s.��■; It � I■■Ie INN ■■■ I■■ • • ' � • #Rt�ilil� SCHEDULE "B" STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance Beeton House Alternative name: Daykin House 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road Maple Ridge, BC ` April 2009 (revised) Description of Historic Place The historic place is an early-20th-century farmhouse located at the northeast corner of Dewdney Trunk Road and York Street (220A Street), at 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road in Maple Ridge, B.C. It was built by Joseph Beeton in or around 1911 in what was then the town of Haney. The house, which has been expanded and modified over the years, is a simple structure with a gable roof and enclosed verandas at the front and rear. The large corner lot contains a historic landscape feature, a mature horse chestnut tree located at the front of the property along Dewdney Trunk Road. A shed on the northeast corner of the property may have been moved from the northwest corner; it does not comprise a part of the historic place. Heritage Value The house has architectural value as a representative early-20th-century farmhouse, with its characteristically simple, vernacular design. The house was built by Joseph Beeton in or around 1911. Shortly afterwards Beeton lifted the house to add a basement and a shed dormer along the east side, in order to provide additional bedrooms required by his growing family. Calvert and Annie Daykin purchased the property in 1919 and continued to develop the 10-acre farm family farm. They built the craftsman bungalow immediately to the west (22007 Dewdney Trunk Road) in the 1920s to accommodate their increasing family. Additional changes were made to the subject house over the years, including replacing the open front verandah with a COMMONWEALTH HISTORIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Page 1 smaller, enclosed porch; and most recently an addition along the west side, reportedly constructed around 2000, to enlarge all three levels of the house; this changed it from a simple, front -gabled house to a cross -gabled building. The expanding house and the shrinking property have historical value in that they are representative of the long-time Lower Mainland family farm. The historic place was home to the several generations of the Daykin family over the course of 52 years, from 1919 to 1971. Ernie Daykin, the current Mayor of Maple Ridge, grew up here in the 1950s. The house also has representative value in that, despite the many external and internal changes to its fabric, it preserves sufficient early fabric to maintain the character and charm of an early-20th-century farmhouse. The farm, which began with a chicken hatchery, was expanded in 1940 to become a large Leghorn poultry operation as well as a dairy farm. The historic place has further historic value as an example of the modernization of the small family farm when, in 1947, the farm replaced its horses with one of the region's first Ford Ferguson Tractors. The large farm plot was subdivided in 1966 to produce 22 building lots, representing the suburbanization of Maple Ridge. The evolution of the house over the last century in response to the need for expansion and modernization transformed it from an early Haney farmhouse to a multi -family suburban residence on subdivided land, accommodating the changing needs of the resident families and the community. Character -Defining Elements The character -defining elements of the Beeton House include: • Its location along the historic Maple Ridge thoroughfare, Dewdney Trunk Road • The plain vernacular architectural features on the exterior, such as the front -facing, medium -pitched gabled roof, narrow horizontal wood siding, shingled dormer and basement walls, and simple wood trim • The original one -over -one wood -sash windows • The extant early interior features, including the chair rail and baseboards in the living room and dining room; the tongue -and -groove boards on the kitchen ceiling; the surviving original doors and door and window casings; and the hot-water radiators • The staircase hall in the entry, including the stairs and their plain balusters and newel post • The high ceilings on the ground floor • The enduring heritage character of the historic place, despite many changes made over the past century • The horse chestnut tree at the front of the property COMMONWEALTH HISTORIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Page 2 •`'"^ mar c,r i�-�--- COMMONWEALTH HISTORIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Page 3 Two last pictures c. 1955-58, courtesy Mayor Ernie Daykin. (Ernie Daykin is seen as a child with two calves.) All other pictures by H. Kalman, Commonwealth, 2009. COMMONWEALTH HISTORIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Page 4 SCHEDULE "C" HERITAGE BUILDING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS :oErcw.wa om'w.•' g'f l !i tE .:. -;�: mow. ,�� ,..� •:,� uO!d uo!le3!I!ga4ab -< P. �a j N� u�11WMYwIM1iW1�YYWe•Yfs•ti e.anwal /«P.O Iro2t:wOvaw> N`Dm NO .l nNINNW 9. luawaaJ6V uoljezlleUnaa a6eUiaH JOO!� ;UawaSeB Nokia Nmn 3nnu3 Av ANSSI9 N3Hd31S 3NAVM c- ----- - --- --- -- a o I, �- --' o c i 16 ff a Ix CTL � I j iFTl rio - O O O O O O O O a a i i a i i 1 i a N ��- 7� • � � ei = o ¢gp a&g�� ��� s QE�- j 1 fs.us. Jul Z I EAR Is III N LF fag N`t1 €SI $'[gP 2'' Sg ee4aa psC 3 - ✓ 12� if1 Eusiu�iSuMIJI`o`u1 .9 d�a .zt4x•IIx`iI ]! i! [E jl _ ..� w a .... - mP ww aoru'n° w I I ; a 'J p1 { f --��_y p u- m:� ue1d uO[jejq ge4a2j i ��uwa�,q�r.4xr4Mew.w'� wv¢rmaa�'awoew�i4w.a ��ma_Mwwo w N'JI94 MOIM3LJ1 JNINNVId m "� JOOI� U1e� • N'JIflO NV9Ml1 3tl(L1�3LHJW r CSS04108d AJISSig N3Hd31S 3NAVM O �x 2s yam.. 6Y i F7 o _ i aLLD 0 gg s ciWmt; � h� � c tP � g � 2� ; s� � $o�> i dos � i3 € 8 s b ! Ec akill§ hs ' : �8E a x E iis E €# �g � gii.€ 8 $gT + P$ S SLL Via- E 6 I I IMi�SINHyyAR '6b U. n 1! s a �gC:s ��e g s s `� : s $98 c o sa 8� eS 8 s s""$s�9 s€ ;° Mu 4 HE!a=g� $£say Ea o yam°.g.'s 338=Mp3 i 6a u $F 3 � iib �5 !$,W 3n o 1-If J ip ¢os Feg §g saga$ y$2i�a'�pP aee5$g�9a��s$�s sag 55 `:`se Hi`a;.E.ii`� -fiF n �ia�b�Y3Fgaa s o�2 uzS a �S u5i U0■ �uSiSe°oIm Ui Eeu91<¢4irc rc0EE33z SBz` & E ca a _ = a L � c c - - Q o x 6 ue1d uoi}e;ijigeyaj:{ :. x �`ow, W+1 �w..a 4�WR:wVI�NYJ ueId Joo1� jaddn Na19a NOR9WI aNINNVid Juewe816V uop2njeynea 9691JOH Nalsaa Nwsn 3NfIL-Am V 00eOd021d AJISSIG N3Hd31S 3NAVM $ �$ m ID1 $ o Y � 5 _ U $ `o ak IL � E W t y cc3 Ip o � o c � 3 3 § 1 HIM a �g aHy; I i yyaBLLyy� L�835; i`•RS9 3 �8 1 8 }� rr aawwMirl+lw�Y�w bere.md'e aootlA�tµpe04ji t0[L:e+.olaN[l N'JI53O MOIU3LJ1 'JNINNVid i suoi}enal3 6 6uiPl!�8 3uewaaj6yuogezgeynaba6eyieH rrDImoNvean 3anu3LHAV €€ GAS06021d ANSSIS N3Hd31S 3NAVM 09 U - U) • 7 a 7 7 of C) ;x F. C 0 4— F— P O 0 O ❑❑ D 7. w a ❑❑ E ' ❑❑❑ ai Y n N Y o € � i cn 7 pq s ❑c t 7 i P � I E � 4 7 { P it s6s � C 3 - # 1 m 7 � F ❑ fi fill if h Hm ���1�y-- � s$� I g S°�J4ssbs �; 3 7 $- P # eaF€�gi�gi�a�3B .fad ;gym S�� A a 6p yc 1tl: ��p■� i�ii]¢iaSESgzs�3�� y � n n • d o yy wee • � -- s c m m Y W V # m � 3 W � a o a j N .ds o8.4 — — y t Wco e __ W o a 1 3 7 } ! d 7 7e SCHEDULE"D" CONFIRMATION OF COMMITMENT BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL This letter must be submitted before issuance of a Heritage Alteration Permit or a building permit. To: THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE (the authority having jurisdiction) Re: THE BEETON/DAYKIN RESIDENCE 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge, B.C. Add ress PID: 003-072-762 Lot 141 District Lot 396 Grou P 1 New Westminster District Plan 29594 Legal Description The undersigned has retained as a coordinating registered professional with experience in heritage conservation to coordinate the design work and field reviews of the registered professionals required' for this heritage project. The coordinating registered professional shall coordinate the design work and field reviews of the registered professional required for the project in order to ascertain that the design will substantially comply with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, the B.C. Building Code, and other applicable enactments respecting safety, not including the construction safety aspects. For this project, field reviews are defined as those reviews of the work: a) at a project site of a development to which a Heritage Alteration Permit relates, and b) at fabrication location where building components are made that will replace deteriorated materials identified as character -defining elements for this project. That a registered professional in his or her professional discretion considers necessary to ascertain whether the work substantially complies in all material respects with the plans and supporting documents prepared by the registered professional and with the Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6902-2012, for which the Heritage Alteration Permit is issued. The owner and the coordinating registered professional have read the Beeton/Daykin Residence Statement of Significance and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. The owner and the coordinating registered professional each acknowledge their responsibility to notify the addressee of this letter of the date the coordinating registered professional ceases to be retained by the owner before the date that the coordinating registered professional ceases to be retained or, if that is not possible, then as soon as possible. The coordinating registered professional acknowledges the responsibility to notify the addressee of this letter of the date a registered professional ceases to be retained before the date the registered professional ceases to be retained or, if that is not possible, then as soon as possible. The owner and the coordinating registered professional understand that where the coordinating registered professional or a registered professional ceases to be retained at any time during construction, work on the above project will cease until such time as: a) a new coordinating registered professional or registered professional, as the case may be, is retained, and b) a new letter in the form set out in Schedule C in the Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6902-2012, is completed by the authority having jurisdiction. The undersigned coordinating registered professional certifies that he or she is a registered professional as defined in the British Columbia Building Code, who also has experience with heritage conservation projects and agrees to coordinate the design work and field reviews of the registered professionals required for the project as outlined in the attached plans and specifications. Coordinating Registered Professional Name (Please Print) Add ress Phone Date Owner Name (Please Print) Address Name of Agent or Signing Office (if applicable) Date Owner's or Owner's appointed agent's signature (if owner is a corporation the signature of a signing officer must be given here. If the signature is that of the agent, a copy of the document that appoints the agent must be attached.) (if the coordinating registered professional is a member of a firm, please complete the following) I am a member of the firm behalf of the firm. and I sign this letter on 1 It is the responsibility of the coordinating registered professional to ascertain which registered professionals are required. SCHEDULE "E" CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE This letter must be submitted after substantial completion of the project but prior to final inspection by the authority having jurisdiction. TO: THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE (the authority having jurisdiction) ICE Discipline (e.g. Architectural, Engineering etc.) (Print) Name of Project (Print) Address of Project (Print) Legal Description of Project (Print) (Each registered professional shall complete the following: Name (Print) Date Address (Print) Phone I hereby give assurance that: Professional's Seal and Signature a) I have fulfilled my obligations for field review as outlined in Section 6 of the Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6902-2012 and the attached Schedule C, Confirmation of Commitment by Owner. b) I am a registered professional as defined in the British Columbia Building Code. (if the registered professional is a member of a firm, complete the following:) I am a member of the firm and I sign this letter on behalf of the firm. SCHEDULE "F" ZONING_13 NO. S510-19$5 VARIANCES AND SUPPLEMI=NTS The RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone regulations shall apply to the Lands identified in the Agreement to which this Schedule is attached, with the following exceptions: • Part 6 Residential Zones, 602: o 5) Density, shall be amended as follows: ■ All buildings and structure shall not exceed a floor space ratio of 0.75 times the net lot area. o 6) SITING, shall be amended as follows: ■ The minimum setbacks from a property line shall be: • 4.5m from front lot line; • 5.7m from rear yard lot line; • 1.3m from exterior side yard lot line; • 0.7m from interior side yard lot line. District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 5, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/072/O9 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Rezoning - First Extension Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6731- 2010 and Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6732 - 2010 10175 240 Street, 10121240 Street and 10141240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant for the above noted file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to permit a 159 unit townhouse development under the RM-1(Townhouse Residential) zone. RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/O72/O9 and that the following conditions be addressed prior to consideration of final reading: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; iii. Amendment to Schedules "B" & `C" of the Official Community Plan; iv. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; V. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of the Environmentally Sensitive areas (wetlands) on the proposed development; vi. Road dedication as required; vii. Consolidation of the development site; viii. Removal of the existing buildings; ix. Park dedication as required; X. Registration of a Statutory Right-of-way to allow municipal access from 240 Street to the Park; xi. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking. 1102 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Platinum Enterprises Ltd. (Avtar Johl) 0902028 BC Ltd. Parcel "G" (Ref. Plan 2701), DL 405, GP 1, NWD; SE 198' x 660' (Plan with fee deposited No. 14240F), DL 405, GP 1, having a frontage of 198' on Baker Rd. by a uniform depth of 660' and adjoining Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 2701), NWD; and Parcel "H" (Plan with fee deposited 22319F) of Parcel "One" (Plan with fee deposited 14153F), DL 405, GP 1, NWD Agricultural Urban Residential, Conservation Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RM-1(Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: South East: 1►lky[�i Designation Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Servicing: Single Family Residential RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Agricultural, ALR Albion Elementary School P-1(Park and School) Institutional Single Family Residential R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Medium Density Residential, Conservation Vacant RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Agricultural, ALR 1 lot - single family residential, 2 lots - vacant Townhouse 240 Street Full Urban WM This application is to permit a 159 unit townhouse development under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. The following dates outline Council's consideration of the OCP Amendment Bylaw 6731- 2010: — First reading was granted on April 27, 2010; — Second reading was granted on April 27, 2010; — Public Hearing was held on May 18, 2010; and — Third reading was granted on May 25, 2010. The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 6732 - 2010 First reading was granted on April 13, 2010; Second reading was granted on April 27, 2010; Public Hearing was held on May 18, 2010; Third reading was granted on May 25, 2010; Second Reading Report (see attached) was considered on February 21, 2011; Second and Third Readings were rescinded on February 22, 2011; Second reading of the amended bylaw was granted February 22, 2011; Public Hearing was held on March 15, 2011; and Third reading of the amended bylaw was granted March 22, 2011. Application Progress: The applicant has completed most of the terms and conditions to be met prior to final reading of the Zone Amending Bylaw. The reasons for the extension are a result of finalizing the issues related to the Storm / Rain Water Management Strategy and other environmental considerations. The drawings and report analysis have been completed, and the necessary legal documents are being prepared and are expected to be submitted to the District for execution within a month. Assuming Council will be in a position to consider final adoption in the spring, the applicant plans to commence construction in the summer of 2012. Alternatives: Council may choose one of the following alternatives: 1. grant the request for extension; 2. deny the request for extension; or 3. repeal third reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing. -3- CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension. The applicant requires additional time to finalize the Storm / Rain Water Management Strategy, thus is requesting this extension. It is anticipated that within the next few months final consideration will be applied for. Prepared by. Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP ; Planning Technician 1 Approved by. Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP ;n7 ning Approved by. Arank Quinn, A, P.Eng � GM: Public Works & Cevelowl e�rt Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) R e / Chief Administrative Officer AK/dp The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Second Reading Report -4- APPENDIX A 102!0 PRF1K m I m �a 27 28 29 0 31 2 a M d 8 0 111250 [V c 102AAVE v m ❑ :i c " _ 7, A N 75' of 4 a 26 25 24 n 22 21 0 10222 Pfq-2�49�LMP 480572 5 6 1 P 39666 36 10188 7 10174 P1 6 10160 8 A 11 1; i (P 19526) PARK BCP 20970 17 22 16 o,so tpt lota5 18 21 15 1o1a2 1o1a� 1 14 19 20 r73 �A 10136 '•0135 13 a tp,2r 012 `O 55 54 a 11 ,ons 10111 U tp115 53 10 56 10111 s 7rp 57 66 58 67 100-0 ,9p6Y I loom 10074 59 n68 B5 m ,ao�, aa5s b 60 T 10 5 `� A N nod OC65 � 63 a1 70 71n 62 ti i0059 HIL L AVE Z} r❑ `� 1002R 7 `❑ a ❑ 1 v m a N 72 73 �•, 19 W74 75 I00,22 N 4 c -t w 1f1016 q7 8 FIX7F6 � S O[IOq EOJ v 10 17 0_ 100 AVE IN06 —S t 0000 T1 J 16 992 ❑ 9996 City of Pitt —; Meadows • i I 10121/41/75 240 STREET 1.1 O CORPORATION OF -- _ - THE DISTRICT OF !Q MAPLE RIDGE N District of .3 -� {' 1 Langley �� • • f f � PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE 1:2,500 DATE: Nov 3, 2009 FILE: RZ/072/09 BY: PC — FnAS, IO R- Deeo Roots Greater Heights DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: APPENDIX B February 21, 2011 RZ/072/09 CofW SUBJECT: Second Reading of Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6732-2010 10175, 10121 and 10141240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since this application received Third Reading approval of the OCP and Zone Amending bylaws on May 25, 2010, the applicant has undertaken a detailed analysis of the Stormwater/Rainwater Management requirements for the site and has determined that the required bio-filtration/wetland pond needs to be much larger than originally anticipated and will not fit within boundary of the area proposed for rezoning to RM-1 (Residential Townhouse). As a result, the location of the zoning boundary must be revised at the west end of the development site so that all the stormwater management infrastructure, is located within the development site and not within the area dedicated as Park. This change of land use after Public Hearing requires that the application return to Council for referral to a new Public Hearing, as per Section 894 (1) (b) (i) of the Local Government Act. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Second and Third Reading of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010 be rescinded; and 2. That Second Reading be given to the revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010 and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and 3. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading. approval from the Ministry of Transportation; ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; iii. Amendment to Schedules "B" & "C" of the Official Community Plan; iv. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; V. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of the Environmentally Sensitive areas (wetlands) on the proposed development; vi. Road dedication as required; vii. Consolidation of the development site; viii. Removal of the existing buildings; ix. Park dedication as required; X. Registration of a Statutory Right-of-way to allow municipal access from 240 Street to the Park; xi. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Robert Ciccozzi Architecture Inc. (Shannon Seefeldt) Owner: Donray Construction Ltd and ME Developments Ltd, Raja Holdings Ltd, Randhawa Development Ltd, and Gurdip Singh Bath Legal Description: Parcel "G" (Ref. Plan 2701), DL 405, GP 1, NWD; OCP: SE 198' x 660' (Plan with fee deposited No. 14240F), DL 405, GP 1, having a frontage of 198' on Baker Rd. by a uniform depth of 660' and adjoining Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 2701), NWD; and Parcel "H" (Plan with fee deposited 22319F) of Parcel "One" (Plan with fee deposited 14153F), DL 405, GP 1, NWD Existing: Agricultural Proposed: Urban Residential, Conservation Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RM-1(Townhouse Residential) WA Surrounding Uses North: Use: Zone: Designation South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Servicing: b) Project Description: Single Family Residential RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Agricultural, ALR Albion Elementary School P-1(Park and School) Institutional Single Family Residential R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Medium Density Residential, Conservation Vacant RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Agricultural, ALR 1 lot - single family residential, 2 lots - vacant Townhouse 240 Street Full Urban Since this application received Third Reading approval of the OCP and Zone Amending bylaws on May 25, 2010, the applicant has undertaken a detailed analysis of the Stormwater/Rainwater Management requirements for the site and has determined that the required bio-filtration/wetland pond needs to be much larger than originally anticipated and will not fit within boundary of the area proposed for rezoning to RM-1 (Residential Townhouse). The proposed new zoning boundary at the west end of the development site is more appropriate to the site conditions, will be a better use of the land, and will be simpler to delineate the boundary between the municipal park land and the ESA covenanted area on the residential development area. This development proposal is to rezone the subject property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to construct a 159 unit townhouse development. This application requires an amendment to the Official Community Plan to redesignate the land use to Urban Residential and Conservation, to amend the Urban Boundary to include this site, and to remove the 'starred property' designation from the site. This site was one of the starred properties identified on the 2006 Official Community Plan. The purpose of designating the property with a star was to signal the intent to include it in the Urban Area Boundary subject to it being removed from Metro Vancouver's Green Zone. The property was removed from the Green Zone by Metro Vancouver on October 24, 2008. On April 13, 2010, Council gave First Reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010 to rezone this property to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). The site is located on the west side of 240 Street, just north of the Albion Elementary School property. The site is relatively flat and is currently undeveloped except for one dwelling located on -3- the center property. A portion of the west end of the site contains wetland areas and is located within the Fraser River floodplain. The site is bordered by agricultural lands to the north and west, the school to the south and 240 Street on the east is a major arterial. route. The portion of the site to the west of the townhouses will be designated Conservation for the protection of the environmentally sensitive areas, with half of the ESA area dedicated as Park and half protected by a Restrictive Covenant for environmental protection. The most recent revision of the proposed townhouse development has 159 units in 25 buildings, down from 164 units in 26 buildings. The units are slightly larger but the overall site density is the same, at a floor space ration of 0.6. The units fronting the public street (240 Street) will have front entrances to the street. Each unit will be provided with 2 parking spaces, either a tandem garage or a single garage and a driveway parking space. Approximately 33 visitor parking spaces will be provided. All unit driveways and parking will be accessed from the internal strata road network and the main site entrance to the development would be centered on the 240 Street frontage. A gated emergency access to 240 Street is proposed near the north end of the site. Running concurrently with this application are a Watercourse Protection Development Permit, a Multi -Family Residential Development Permit and a Development Variance Permit. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: This application received Third Reading approval of Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6731-2010 on May 25, 2010. The proposed revisions to the Zoning boundary do not require a revision to the OCP amending bylaw. The OCP amendment is to re -designate the land use from Agricultural to Urban Residential and Conservation, to amend the Urban Boundary to include this site, and to remove the 'starred property' designation from the site. The Conservation area of the site will include the area to be dedicated as Park and the area to be protected by an ESA covenant that is part of the residential development area. The properties were approved by the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve on February 20, 2005 and this site was one of the starred properties identified on the 2006 Official Community Plan that was subsequently removed from the Green Zone by the Metro Vancouver on October 24, 2008. The development site is located on 240 Street, which is deemed to be a major corridor in the OCP, and the development is consistent with the policies of Sections 3-18, 3-20 and 3-21 for residential development on a major corridor. Zoning Eyjaw: The applicant is proposing to rezone the development site to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) and is proposing to construct approximately 159 townhouse dwellings. The maximum density for the RM-1 zone is a floor space ratio of 0.6 times the net lot area, excluding a maximum of 50m2 of habitable basement area per unit. The proposed development does not have any basements and the proposed floor space ratio will be 0.6 based on a net site area of 3.16ha (7.81 ac). The development site area includes the residential portion of the site and 4254.67m2 of land proposed i! for protection of the environmentally sensitive area by a restrictive covenant. The applicant proposes to locate features of the stormwater/rainwater management system within the development site and in the covenanted portion of the site. Proposed Variances: The applicant has requested a number of variances that will be the subject of a future Council report. The variances are as follows: 1. To increase the height of all buildings from 10.5m to 11m, and from 2 1/2 storeys to 3 storeys; 2. To reduce the required building setbacks on the front, rear and south interior side lot lines; and 3. To reduce the distance between buildings from 15m to 12m where a living room window faces another building end. Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: The applicant is providing the required number of parking spaces for this development of 2 spaces per unit for Residential Parking (318 spaces total) and 0.2 spaces per unit for Visitor Parking (32 spaces total). The residential parking spaces are either in a tandem garage or in a single garage and a driveway parking space. The visitor parking spaces will be located throughout the site. Development Permit: A Multi -Family Development Permit is required for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) development that will address the form and character of the design and provide guidelines for the development of the site. A Landscape Security will be taken as a condition of the issuance of the Development Permit. Conformance with the development permit guidelines will be the subject of a future report to Council. Advisory Design Panel: The project was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) at the February and March 2010 meetings. The Advisory Design Panel recommendations will be addressed when the final plans are submitted for the Multi -Family Development Permit. Development Information Meeting: The developer hosted a Development Information meeting on January 12, 2010 at Albion Elementary School. d) Environmental Implications: A Watercourse Protection Development Permit is required for the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment of the watercourse areas on and adjacent to the site. A security will be taken as a condition of the issuance of the Development Permit to ensure that the conditions of the Development Permit are met. The western portion of the site is located within the Fraser River floodplain. Forty-seven metres on the west side of the project site will be provided for Environmental protection. Half of this area will be dedicated as Park and the other half will be protected by a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of the environmentally sensitve area. -5- The stormwater/rainwater management system will include bioswales and rain gardens across the site, and a bio-infiltration/wetland pond to be located within the covenanted area. The landscaping and stormwater management infrastructure in both the residential portion of the site and within the ESA covenant area will be maintained by the strata through a Strata Maintenance Covenant as part of the stormwater management system. The developer and their consultants have recently undertaken a detailed analysis of the Stormwater/Rainwater Management requirements for the site and have determined that the required bio-filtration/wetland pond must be much larger than originally anticipated and will not fit within the boundary of the area proposed for rezoning to RM-1 (Residential Townhouse). As a result, the location of the zoning boundary must be revised at the west end of the development site so that all the stormwater management infrastructure, including the bio-filtration/wetland pond, is located within the development site and not within the area to be dedicated as Park. The consultants will need to ensure that the impact of the proposed development on water volumes and potential release rates/flows into adjacent properties will not negatively impact those neighbouring properties during and after the proposed development takes place. The bio- filtration/wetland design must ensure that the post development impacts will not have a negative impact on proposed trees to be retained or existing riparian areas. e) Agricultural Impact: An Agricultural Impact Assessment report was completed in October 2009 for this development. The development site borders the ALR on the north and west, which are mainly occupied by a wet forest system. The development would provide an 8m buffer to the agricultural land in the north, and a 47m buffer, as a wetland conservation and protection area, to the west. Most of the agricultural land on the adjacent properties is vacant, used for recreation, or forested wetland and only a small portion is used for agriculture. f) Traffic Impact: A Traffic Impact Study was completed in April 2009 for this development at the request of the District of Maple Ridge and the Ministry of Transportation. The report concludes that when added to the existing traffic volumes on 240 Street, the changes in traffic associated with the proposed development are generally within the normal range of fluctuation of the current volume levels and would generally not be a significant traffic impact. There is no traffic impact expected on the school site. g) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has identified that all the services required in support of this development application do not yet exist for the site. It will therefore be necessary for the owner to enter into a Rezoning Servicing Agreement and post securities to do the work identified in that agreement prior to final reading. The development site is now included within the Fraser Sewer Area. Comments provided by the Engineering Department include: 1. Road widening and improvements to 240 Street is required; 2. Upgrading of the downstream sanitary sewer system is required; 3. Storm sewer improvements are required; 4. Latecomer charges will be payable at the Building Permit stage for Latecomer Agreement LC 81/02; 5. A Statutory right-of-way is required from 240 Street to the dedicated Park lands; 6. All on -site works, including drainage works, must account for the Fraser River flood elevation. The drainage works must not allow flood waters to surcharge onto the site; 7. Ministry of Highways approval will be required because the development is within 800 metres of a controlled highway intersection. Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the development is completed they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project it is estimated that there will be an additional 15 trees; final servicing design will provide exact numbers. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will increase their budget requirements by $375.00. Fire Department: The Fire Department is satisfied with the proposed internal road network and the emergency access location at the north end of the site. A fire hydrant must be located at the main entrance. Well marked onsite addressing is required at the main entrance. h) School District Comments: The application was referred to the School District but no comments have been received to date. -7- CONCLUSION: It is recommended that Second and Third Reading of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010 be rescinded; and that Second Reading be given to the revised Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010, and that application RZ/072/09 be forwarded to Public Hearing. ,Flt Prepared by: n Edwards, CPT " Senior Planning Technician A prove by: Jan g, MCP, MCIP ctor of Planning Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng �. GM: Public Works fff& ©evelvpmer Services Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule- Chief Administrative Officer AE/ The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010 Appendix C - Site Plan Appendix D - Building Elevation Plan Appendix E -Proposed Bio-Filtration/Wetland Pond located within Zoning boundary REM. 1 P 7595 P 21583 4 Rem 5 Rem 6 S 5.25 CHAINS OF J RP 9287F Rem PG. L SK 32851 F J� ■� �r'akl ',R_i �c�slt:L ° F JI Il�� l6•'SP MY Appendix A +o2r0 � PARK 1 loxaa r�i LN P 7 2728 30 P1 10250 0 8 3 g 102AAVE Iw ,0273 m g 3 N 75' of 4 5 S a 28 l om PF92641 LMP480575 1 7 1„ G RP 2701 S E 198' ADJ PG. G RP 2701 SUBJECT PROPERTIES 10141 H P 22319F 21 P 57737 LOT 22 RP 64270 P 38144 15 1001 P 39666 36 pole" 7 B A 11 7 f 01r4 P 1 26 (P 19526) 6 PARK B�2097018 �22 101 6 10145 18 21 7 is 10142 10 10136 14 18 20 6 'n 10136 10135 10132 13 0 5 " X 10126 4 _ 12 10120 d ¢ +ans 101 55 18 54 1 m ton" 3 0106 53 2 10 56 10111 faros 9 10102 1 tat03 57 10097 100% 56 58 1 ,0090 10087 i1ge4 2 j667 59 100723 0011 leao loow e a� 84 60 10056 4 i 100A5 100`]� �m N 4 1 5 71 p01A 1o0ze 170 — 62 8 10059 HILL AVE. }002fi 7 O D 1 10024 Id n 18 B v 74 a. 10024 r 10af6 s 9 ru11L 'o § a. M N 18 loom-� r ^'� ta016 1 17 10000 100 AVE. I0DOG 21 11 � 16 gy2 F13H415 a 9a76 12 N c I 10121 /41 /75 240 STREET O 0 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Nov 3, 2009 FILE: RZ/072/09 BY: PC Appendix B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6732 - 2010 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the 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. 6732 - 2010." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Parcel "H" (Plan with fee deposited 22319F) of Parcel "One" (Plan with fee deposited 14153F) District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District South East 198 Feet by 660 Feet (Plan with fee deposited No. 14240F) District Lot 405 Group 1 Having a Frontage of 198 Feet on Baker Road by a uniform depth of 660 Feet and adjoining Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 2701) New Westminster District Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 2701) District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District and outlined in -heavy black line on Map No. 1479 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-1(Townhouse Residential) 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 20. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , A.D. 20. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 6732-2010 Map No. 1479 From: RS-2(One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3(One Family Rural Residential) To: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) 1:2500 PTO ALP RUA I PL- 7595 (�l �IT. FEE .EPOSITED WnIF) Appendix E REM I ?LAW 7593 ,LP ----------- MWhmv w 22 - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- WETLAND PROTECTION AREA MAPLE RIDGE Bronsh Cotumbia TO: FROM: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 5, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP/067/10 Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Cow SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 23851 Kanaka Creek Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Development Variance Permit application was submitted in support of subdivision application SD/067/10 to develop a site at 23851 Kanaka Creek Road with approximately 62 single family residential lots, one slightly larger lot for the existing residence being retained and 2 lots to be dedicated as park or transferred to the District for park purposes. This site is located directly east of Rainbow Creek and once was part of the Wynnyk Farm. Council recently approved rezoning application RZ/067/10 to rezone the site to R-1 (Residential District) Zone and the new R-2 (Urban Residential District) Zone. The developer is seeking a height variance to permit a maximum building height of 11 meters to allow for better flexibility in house design. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP/067/10 respecting property located at 23851 Kanaka Creek Road. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Applicant: Jorden Cook Associates Owner: John D. Wynnyk and Steve W. Wynnyk Legal Description: Lot 1 District Lots 404 and 408 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP46902 OCP: Existing: Med/High Density Residential Proposed: Med/High Density Residential Zoning: Existing: R-1(Residential District) Zone, R-2 (Urban Residential District) Zone Proposed: R-1(Residential District) Zone, R-2 (Urban Residential District) Zone Surrounding Uses North: Use: Park and Single Family Residential Zone: CD-1-93 (Comprehensive Development Zone) Designation Conservation and Urban Residential 1103 South: Use: Kanaka Creek Regional Park and Vacant Agricultural land Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Park and Urban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Urban Residential and Conservation West: Use: Park and Single Family Residential, Agricultural Zone: CD-1-93 (Comprehensive Development Zone) Designation Conservation and Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family/Agriculture Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 5.09 HA (12.5 Acres) Access: 110th Avenue and Kanaka Creek Road Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: SD/067/10, RZ/067/10, DP/067/10 Requested Variance: To vary the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw maximum height requirement from 9.0 metres to 11.0 metres for the R-1 (Residential District); and from 9.75 metres to 11.0 metres the R-2 (Urban Residential District) zoned lots. c) Project Description: The subject property (See Appendix A) is approximately 5 hectares in size and is bound by Rainbow Creek to the West, Kanaka Creek Regional Park to the Southwest and Urban designated properties currently being farmed to the Southeast, East and to the North. Directly West of Rainbow Creek is an existing urban residential subdivision. The property is characterized by undulating fields sloping East to West to Rainbow Creek along the western portion of the site. The current application includes 1 parcel of land that is part of the overall "Wynnyk Farm", which is comprised of 4 parcels in total. The subject site was recently rezoned from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) Zone and R-2 (Urban Residential District) Zone with application RZ/067/10. As part of Subdivision application SD/067/10 (See Schedule B), the applicant proposes to provide park land as park dedication or fee simple lots with title transferred to the District, including 22.5 metres along Rainbow Creek and approximately 15 metres for Arrow Creek, for stream habitat protection as per the policies of the Official Community Plan. A further 3 metre wide strip is proposed outside the 22.5 metre boundary for Rainbow Creek. This will act as servicing access for Engineering works and will provide a total of 25.5 metre setback width from Rainbow Creek. The current proposal provides motor vehicle access off 110th Avenue and Kanaka Creek Road. The applicant has provided a preliminary sketch plan showing a future vehicular connection from the existing 110th Avenue to 240th Street. Development of the subject property must be undertaken in a manner that takes account of the potential future development of the surrounding properties. A transportation study detailing the proposed traffic pattern and any traffic mitigation measures has been submitted by a qualified professional engineer. d) Planning Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations, and also establishes how calculations or measurements are to be done on matters such as height. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility for an applicant to sensitively fit proposed houses on challenging lots. Council has granted a number of such variances, including height in the R-1 or R-3 zones, particularly in the Silver Valley plan area, where building designs meet the intent but not the letter of certain zoning regulations. A review of the development records of the subdivision to the west of this site, which is separated by a low land area containing Rainbow Creek and an indefinite creek, revealed Council granted a similar building height variance for that project. Thus, the new homes planned for this site will be consistent with the adjacent neighbourhood. The developer has provided the following justification for the proposed variances: ■ An 11 m height will permit an aesthetically pleasing collection of diverse housing styles and roof lines on this sloping site. ■ It would allow the development of common housing forms present within Maple Ridge. ■ Due to the width and gradient of many of the lots, the roof ridgeline will run generally front to back. It is very challenging with the site gradients to both meet the bylaw height requirements, and still achieve an aesthetically pleasing house with a 6:12 or steeper roof pitch, which is the desirable look of the developer, builders and home buyers. ■ Few, if any, of the proposed new homes will actually require 11 metres. Therefore, the requested variances are as follows: 1. Part 6, Section 601 (C) (11) (b) of the R-1 (Residential District) Zone of the Zoning Bylaw, to vary the maximum height requirement from 9.0 meters to 11.0 meters. 2. Part 6, Section 601B (E) Height, Subsection 1 of the R-2 (Urban Residential District) Zone of the Zoning Bylaw, to vary the maximum height requirement from 9.75 meters to 11.0 meters. When changes are brought forth to the way height is determined in the new Zoning Bylaw, such height variances on sloping lots will become unnecessary. e) Alternatives: If this application is not approved, the applicant would have the options of: (a) waiting until the New Zoning Bylaw is considered for approval by Council because the need for a variance would be unlikely with new way of determining height; or (b) exploring ways of meeting the current Zoning Bylaw such as changing the building designs (e.g. moving to flatter roof forms) and/or reviewing their grading plans (e.g. adding retaining walls and rock walls to create artificial grades) so that the height would comply with current measuring requirements. Combinations of these two options may result in other implications for the subdivision such as reduce useable yard space, and / or modifications to the engineering drawings with regard to service locations, and driveway letdowns. -3- f) Citizen/Customer Implications: There are no citizen or customer implications with this application. The requested variance will permit the same housing form that was developed in other development on sloping hill sides, including the one to the west. g) Interdepartmental Implications: The following comments were provided: • Building Department: All the buildings to comply with BCBC part 9. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed height variances have been reviewed with respect to other hill side developments, the houses already built to the west of this site, with consideration to site conditions of steep slopes and with regard to the developer's request for steeper roof pitches to ensure a unified approach to their development. It is therefore recommended that Council approve Development Variance Permit VP/067/10. Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski Planning Technician �f7 4`' , Z L,, 41� — � Approved by: Christine er, M.PL, MCI irector Plan g Approved"by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. g it GM: Public Works.& De elopment Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Subdivision Plan -4- 23757 'VTR s 23 23753 11 22 12 29 a3�� 2a� 21 3 14 0 20 �P 19 1 15 o N� Nj wNp N� p •- t�j o ° 16 2, % N 2 13 14 4 3 aw � 10 9 y a 27 w � � 28 32 g, 15 11098 11096 14 i 3 33 12 29 30 11092 34 6 7 8 16 m 11088 35 17 "� � P i g5 1 2- 20 18 � N 11080 36 24 23 2-2�21 e pV�' ° 110�6 w 37 rap0 BpvE_ 110 ,� N N � m m 30 31 r1aa2 $ 44 43 39 1r059 g 42 p " 41 40 39 h 40 CVrra44 37 38 C 126 65 1 noas rr�041 Mp 35705 11039 2 4,2 11� 14 13 15 •a 11029 3 43 IF R t�0as `� 12 1 r1 1021 M 4 44 16 r100a Mara ;11aor m 11 0 11011 5 45 r1o72 11003 N 11004 C� N 17 11002 46 10 7F 0 AVE. 47 o-i 4 3 IR 2 1 ro 10 R9 N8 PARK PARK K LMP 28486 Kpnsp 5 P 3173 14 &20 B APPENDIX A EP 15665 P 19825 ! PARK E) P 19825 LMP 24722 3 L Subject Property BCP 46902 1 BCP 46902 2 Pt. 8 BCP 46902 P 809 CI f Pitt t U �nea °ws --} i 23851 Kanaka Creek Road o* CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF N District of - r . , MAPLE RIDGE Langley 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE 1:2,500 �`—a DATE: Feb 10, 2012 VP/067/10 BY: DT FRRSER FL SKE NG LOTTI,HDISTRICI T LOTSO4O4EAND 408,SION OF APPENDIX B NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT, PLAN BCP469O2 111 A14ME Ya ^ISraxCEs Ml Y w H n I6 I) P PK y DL 404 i a i n u � n Js I � zJ ra 1. u rJ zs Gp 7 t �1 IE x 1' M1 � 1 '11 N � u a➢ 6 Jf fl •b 1 f J6 J9 u 1 1 J A JB 11 )10I� SS DL 408 s � /}i w u se s1 sc ss s / K u ,� a1 PARY �/ a� a.. a Gp 1 µa Pa . w WA emu ----------- ----------------- -- --- District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: SUBJECT: Development Permit and Development Variance Permit 12028, 12038 and 12048 222 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: March 5, 2012 DP/DVP/113/10 C of W Development Permit and Development Variance Permit applications have been received for the above mentioned properties to regulate the form and character of the proposed apartment building. The subject site consists of three legal parcels within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area, just south of Brown Avenue. This project meets the requirements for inclusion in the Town Centre Incentives (TCI) Program under the "New Residential Construction-4 storeys and higher" category falling within Sub Area 1 of the Town Centre Area. This application is in compliance with the Town Centre Area Plan of the Official Community Plan. The proposal is for a four -storey apartment building with 75 units and under -ground parking in the RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential District). Council gave Third Reading to this proposal on March 22, 2011. This report will address the requirements of Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan for the Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines. A Final Reading report for the rezoning application (RZ/113/10) is anticipated to be considered by Council at the meeting on March 13, 2012, along with this report. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP/113/1O respecting property located at 12028, 12038 and 12048 222 Street; and further That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DP/113/1O respecting property located at 12028, 12038 and 12048 222 Street. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Focus Architecture Inc. Owner: 0724674 BC LTD. Legal Description: Lot: 3, D.L.: 399, Block: 6, Plan: 9669; PID: 002-036-690 Lot: 4, D.L.: 399, Plan: 9669; PID: 011-425-253 Lot: A, D.L.: 399, Plan: LMP 8411; PID: 018-066-496 OCP: Existing: Commercial Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) 1104 Surrounding Uses: North South East: West: Use: Proposed Supportive Housing apartment building and Brown Avenue Zone: RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) Designation: Low Rise Apartment Use: Zone: Designation Use: Zone: Designation Use: Zone Designation Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Previous Applications: b) Project Description: Commercial C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Town Centre Commercial Commercial and Plaza Street C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Town Centre Commercial Single Family Residential; Commercial and 222nd Street RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Town Centre Commercial Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential (Apartment) 0.92 acres (3729.99 m2). Plaza Street Full Urban RZ/113/10 The subject site is fairly flat and falls within the Civic Core Precinct of the Town Centre Area. It consists of three lots located at the south-east corner of 222nd Street and Brown Avenue. The consolidated gross lot area is roughly 0.92 acres (3730 m2) in size. A four storey, wood -frame apartment building with a floor space ratio of 1.4 (86 units) has been proposed with underground parking. All residential parking for the proposed building is underground to minimize the impact on the streetscape and disruption to pedestrians. The garbage and recycling facility is also proposed in the underground parkade. The main pedestrian lobby is from 222nd Street with the vehicular access to the underground parkade from Plaza Street. This proposal is taking advantage of the reduced parking standards within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area and the unit sizes are geared towards offering affordable housing options to a first-time home buyer. Landscape buffering is proposed along all edges of the property. A south and east facing courtyard is proposed facing Plaza Street. c) Planning Analysis: The subject properties are designated "Town Centre Commercial" in the Town Centre Area Plan. The proposed RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) zoning and the form aligns well with this designation. The development site is outside "Schedule G" of the Zoning Bylaw which means that although designated "Town Centre Commercial" a ground -floor commercial use is not required and hence a Multi -Family Residential use is permitted in this designation. This designation permits multi- family type of housing form or mixed -use developments and is intended to promote compact and vibrant commercial/mixed-use form of developments that are pedestrian -friendly. -2- The Town Centre Area is divided into seven precincts and the subject site lies within the Civic Core Precinct, which emphasizes on good quality, pedestrian -friendly developments that contribute towards re -vitalizing this area. Civic Core_ Precinct - Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines: The Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines are meant to provide possible design solutions for achieving architecture and site -related development objectives. Developments proposals within the Civic Core Precinct Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines are being assessed against the following key guidelines: • Promote the Civic Core as the "heart" of the Town Centre The proposal is strategically located within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area within walking distance of several public amenities such as the library, leisure centre, park, shopping, schools and restaurants. Adding this density will revitalize the downtown core and promote the use of existing facilities. • Create a pedestrian -oriented, boutique -style shopping district At this location, the Town Centre Area Plan does not require ground floor commercial uses. This is a purely residential development. However, it is important to note that vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been separated well and units facing 222nd Street and Brown Avenue have a street presence. Each ground floor unit does have independent pedestrian access to the street via a private pathway intended to enhance overall connectivity in this area. • Reference traditional architectural styles The proposed architectural style, design and materials such as composite asphalt roofing, hardie panel & horizontal vinyl siding for the walls and brick veneer at strategic locations, reflect the traditional west coast style and are compatible with the existing development. A variety of units ranging from studio to two bedroom apartments (465 ft2 to 841 ft2) have been proposed to cater to a variety of housing needs and affordability. • Capitalize on important views Units above the second floor enjoy some views of the mountains. • Enhance existing cultural activities and public open space This development is close to all the public amenities including the ACT, Public library and the Leisure Centre that host several cultural activities. Usable Open Space for residents is proposed as shown on the Site Plan (Appendix B). District is working on the park lands west of 222nd Street within close proximity of the subject site, which will add to some park & public open space for all the residents of this area. • Provide climate appropriate landscaping and green features The proposed landscape plan shows native trees, shrubs and ground -cover that are easy to maintain and absorb rain -water. The proposed trees are both shade -giving and ornamental in nature. WIN • Maintain street interconnectivity Street interconnectivity is anticipated to be enhanced with the proposed off -site upgrades such as new sidewalk facing 222nd Street and Plaza Street. Ground floor units accessng the street via private pathways & gates also adds to better pedestrian connectivity in the area. d) Zoning Bylaw: The proposed RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) zone is intended for low to medium density apartment use of 3 to 5 storey height. This zone permits a maximum floor space ratio of 1.8 times the net consolidated lot area. The zone allows the Common Activity Area to be included in the Usable Open Space area; hence the deficient Usable Open Space is more than compensated with the additional Common Activity Area proposed. For example the zone requires a Common Usable Open Space of not less than 20% of the site area (i.e. required is 745.99 m2, while proposed is 485.0 m2 (14%) and a Common Activity Area of 75.0 m2 (1 m2 per unit). A Common Activity Area of 440.6 m2 is proposed which is in excess of what is required so the project has a combined Usable Open space and Common Activity Area of 925.6 m2, while the required is 820.00 m2. The permitted minimum setback from all property lines for this zone is 7.5 metres. The proposal complies with the minimum lot size and width, maximum height, Usable Open Space, Common Activity Area and density permitted and the maximum height permitted in the zone. The applicant is seeking some setback variances as described below. Variances to the Zoning Bylaw: The zone specifies a 7.5 meter setback from all property lines. The applicant is seeking the following setback variances: 3.0 m setback variance to the building fagade on the west facing 222nd Street (i.e. proposed is 4.5 m and permitted is 7.5 m); 3.0 m setback variance to the building fagade on the north facing Brown Avenue (i.e. proposed is 4.5 m and permitted is 7.5 m); 5.05 m setback variance to the entry porch columns on the west facing 222nd Street (i.e. proposed is 1.2 m and permitted is 6.25 m). The setback variances proposed facing Brown Avenue and 222nd Street are with an intention of offering a better street presence for the units and are not anticipated to negatively impact any neigbours. These relaxations are consistent with others granted to similar projects within the Town Centre Area. Off -Street Parking & Ioadina BBvlaw: This proposal is subject to the revised minimum parking standards applicable within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area due to its location and because it qualifies for the Town Centre Incentives Program in Sub -Area 1. For this proposal, as per Section 10 of the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw 4350- 1990, a minimum of 0.9 space per studio unit; 1.0 space per one bedroom unit and 1.10 spaces per two bedroom unit, is required to cater to the residents parking requirement and 0.2 space per unit for the visitors parking requirement. Out of the total parking spaces required, a maximum of 10% of them can be for small cars. This proposal requires 78 residential parking spaces, which are all proposed in the underground parkade. It also requires eight on -site visitor parking spaces; seven are proposed at grade and one in the underground parkade, separated by a security screen from the residential parking (Appendix C). Long term and short term bicycle parking is also required for projects within the Town centre Area. 19 long term bicycle storage lockers have been proposed in the underground parkade as required. As per the ratio of 6 spaces for every 20 units, 24 short term bicycle parking racks are distributed facing 222nd Street, closer to the main entrance of the building and facing Plaza street, near the visitor parking stalls, in a well -lit area visible to pedestrians and cyclists (Appendix B). e) Advisory Design Panel: On January 11, 2011 the Advisory Design Panel reviewed the proposal for form and character. The panel recommended this proposal moving forward with the following concerns to be addressed by the applicant as the design develops and submitted to staff: • Consider visitor entry area and how the public will accesses the building • Consider the main entry statement distinguishing it from the adjacent balconies and further review of entry statements for the garden units • Consider carrying the taxis hedge around the hydro kiosk • Consider a plaza area at the corner of Browne and 222nd • Consider more scaled planting at the corner of Brown Ave and Plaza St • Consider at least 12" inches of soil depth for sod • Review the brick veneer locations and tying the various vertical pieces together • Consider addition of more visitor bike stalls • Review adequacy of the garbage enclosure • Review with Engineering Dept, possibility of a drop-off loading bay at the front entrance of 222nd St • Consider addition of wood trim at corners of vinyl sided areas • Review barrier -free let down at corner of 222nd and Brown Ave. • Consider more buffer between amenity room patio and adjacent private patios. Based on panel's resolution, the applicant made some revisions to address the concerns stated above. f) Intergovernmental Issues: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation was received on April 04, 2011. g) Citizen/Customer Implications: The mail -outs to inform residents of the proposed setback variances were mailed 10 days prior to the anticipated Council Meeting date. Concerned residents in the neighbourhood have had the opportunity to voice their opinions. h) Financial Implications: In accordance with Council's Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated landscape cost of $88,164.18, the security will be $88,164.18, payable prior to DP issuance. There will be some trees added to the municipal street tree inventory on completion of this project. The costs associated with maintaining these trees will need to be included in a subsequent operating budget. K'Z i) Alternatives: Council approval is required for the Town Centre Development Permit as presented in this report prior to a Building Permit being issued. Council has the option of not approving the Development Permit and the Variance Permit. However, not approving this proposal would result in a consolidated piece of land remaining vacant or the applicant having to significantly amend the current design. CONCLUSION: The proposal is centrally located with respect to many public transit choices, services and amenities. It is compatible with the surrounding uses and fits well with the policies of promoting maximum residential density within the Town Centre Area as stated in the Official Community Plan and the Town Centre Area Development Permit Guidelines. The proposed apartment building features articulated fagades with quality materials and a variety of units ranging from studio to two bedroom apartments (465 ft2 to 841 ft2), anticipated to serve a variety of housing needs and affordability. The proposal qualifies for the Town Centre Incentive Program. The developer has paid the required securities in anticipation of approval. Some variances are being sought to accommodate this development, as outlined in this report. These are not anticipated to negatively impact any neighbours and are consistent with other variances approved in the Town Centre Area. Therefore, it is recommended that DVP/113/10 and DP/113/10 be approved. Prepared by. y Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UDC, LEED® AP, MCIP Planner i.. Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCI Dir or of Planni Approved by./ Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Epg� GM;.�2ublic WorLs & p�evelo ment Services Concurrence: J. L. Vtm) RuleL/"- Chief Administrative Officer The following appengir*s are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Proposed Site Plan Appendix C - Proposed under -ground Parkade Plan Appendix D - Proposed Roof Plan Appendix E - Proposed Building Elevations & Sections Appendix F - Proposed Landscape Plan & details M � ick.yoz ._ N r�.�a �, " 0 274 I APPENDIX A 12131 99 3 � 12129 12120 10 d N 15 4 273 P 10689 "' Z B r12127 12112 100 5 12123 (P 9669) a 16 8 7 8 9 272 ,z,za 280 , 2119 12117 I 1z1o6 N P 1 997 NWS 133 LMP 27702 17 co °' Q P O 281 a T M� m 1 12097 1209 NN n N N 12111 N N 18 103 121 AVE. "A" n { (P 38752) m ,2086 a N N m 104 N N N 1'-096 N N 2087 N 0 12080 K L M N LMP 27701 P 169 7 LMP 12218 BROWN AVE. 105 12075 12070 N SUBJECT PROPERTIES ,zos, P 169 7 N Rem 8 106 �co I H G P 20094 0 12060 to � _ 55 Ln N N N 12061 M d uO 107 CHURCH AVE. A 0- 12048 P 20094 12048 LMP 8411 12051 rn N 108 F N a N 4 rn a 12032 2038 to 9 2002/12 B 0- 7 109 P 14898 12035 3 P 20094750 CD C 12028 12026 m N n P 1669 CD N Q 00 ^ A Lo P 20094 m 110 0 2 1 N rn a (NO m O m N tL u�7 10 [p N N N N N N N N LMP29674 N N N N N N N N N DEWDNEYTRUNK RD. RP 59105 W o �1/2 1 E T Rem m a N N N N N N I, Oo E LU 2 N M 12 11 N A.. CO N E N CV N N CO N P 8978 N N 1 A P 70168 E d P 632 N Cn N P 32 6' C P 3175 NWS 2870 [[ w NWS 3233 N NWS 3374 11980 'LMP4261 BCP 22636 Pcl, 121 13 N BCS 2391 P 3175 11968 cN P 84262 11963 o S 100 H 11950 11965 N 79 NWS 418 97 14 N N P 36157 N i 4 Mt 11951 � 11960 11957 BCP 28220 a N 0 r ram..... w 119411 Q—q-IA L p_4&a MA sso�a 11924 M m NJ CRY,Rf Pitt Meadows...! 0 12028/38/48 222 STREET I CORPORATION OF ' i '- THE DISTRICT OF N -5 MAPLE RIDGE District of Langley f- PLANNING DEPARTMENT {L _ "� � �• SCALE 1:2.000 1\� t,��� _ ..., -- W F�- v N IZ os0 i r Z a S VONH nmi A3NOM30 �— End ' APPENDIX B ��W6 Vim$ Ou- LLQr 1H "a -E a § �g W m # s s z .. I IV ✓ a ¢ - a a Masmmm a � vF sQ a E 9 ZF e �.�'• �' Yy �d R � 38 38 3 8 38 38 38 Y 3 F $ ! �a 4 a�DisAj _ 2 f gg�7�iyi e mn Nr � oo Rig °w W� �'s Z C2W3 UN Ug3 a Df Cat N �ry L APPENDIX a D 0 ofW OTz n1 t> i NORTFI I | | �§�|§ )� ■/%:�§(�} APPEND iLl=-■• I ■ Q»} !'! | ���� | �s| \|| ha it § B .§,9 ou 7 ;& \ j i E � \ \ I/ o§ '» «' e! -- VT* ® ^p.® , FP § . » s & 2 i > :_�F � . g n |; ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ � I b~ ------ . - \�ES ; ------ ! KD $ ^� \p� | u i .|l all� , _: .� _ ■■ � n : . m m I «g - g I 2&� § § _ ■ � Vm/ ;!! A P P E N D|) §§§\ / § | !§|§ /| � �§§ |||)))| seeerrG § |!| | § §`; § Ln4�| §, U. LU | -1 _( Lu §) wOc / e e IL — 2 Al. Z gsp gn ®p � �� amS fF . j a i1 d w I i rj y u Vi m' ago i �g p G O ui—e- iap -e■ .0 i o �O �mar �� f s if �T�.0 i9�� o W ffF 36 �0 da �3@ga ��Y±aa4 � i I � o000000 iE $ _ o000000 C]I s c L4 @ _IE;�J N _ _ EET] _ _ of = - LU w0000�i IE3C1 E. _ z FE � 11 LU a _I i � ilk 0 .I 3 �B E.IRIIx I ,a. Ul t; H �Eli. f �� I § ! § ■ & � /~ � ■ ./ )§� ` � ; \ - �` / .���� |\ � U) � � . ~~ APPENDIX F ° )i - d . 2 ■ OKI, , „ §G r LU LU V) N N N net S � c Uz a • ~ � �•i�wL!!!rl!!!a!la44i A rfummmniim 9M §§ !m ! #! ! a = District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 5, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-008-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Early Consultation Report Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6903-2012 Various Addresses (Ansell Street Area) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report is to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) to re -designate the Subject Area (see Appendix A) from Suburban Residential to Estate Suburban Residential to harmonize the proposed sewage system and service with the land use designation. This is a required step for establishing a Local Area Service (LAS) agreement for Ansell Street (Academy Park Phase 2). Council authorized staff to proceed with the next steps at a Council Meeting held on May 10, 2011. There are currently two rezoning applications in process that will require this OCP amendment prior to proceeding to Second Reading, therefore this OCP Amending Bylaw (see Appendix B) is being brought forward prior to the LAS Bylaw, in order to prevent delays in processing the rezoning applications. RECOMMENDATIONS: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; v. School District Boards, greater boards and improvements district boards; and vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies and in that regard it is recommended that no additional consultation be required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6903-2012 on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: District of Maple Ridge Owners: See attached summary of properties (Appendix C) Legal Descriptions: See attached summary of properties (Appendix C) 1105 OCP: Zoning: Existing: Suburban Residential Proposed: Estate Suburban Residential Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: This OCP Amending Bylaw is for the properties included in the LAS Bylaw that are currently designated Suburban Residential. Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential Existing Use of Properties: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Properties: Single Family Residential Site Areas: Various Access: Ansell Street, 124 Avenue, 125 Avenue, and 126 Avenue Servicing requirement: Rural Standard b) Site Characteristics: Project Description: In 2010, the District received approval from Metro Vancouver to include 19 properties in the Ansell Street area into the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA). The property owners have filed a petition for a sewer to be installed under a Local Area Service (LAS) process. Council approval was given to establish the LAS, proceed with the next steps for final design and construction, and the preparation of a LAS bylaw when the project is complete. The OCP land use designation differentiates between "suburban residential" type properties that are within the FSA, or are not. Properties designated Estate Suburban Residential are within the FSA, whereas properties designated Suburban Residential are not. Give the inclusion of these sites into the FSA, an OCP amendment is required. This purpose of this report is to seek Council approval that no additional consultation be required in respect of this matter beyond early posting of OCP Amending Bylaw No. 6903-2012 on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. Subsequent First and Second Readings for this OCP Amendment will be sought in a future staff report. -2- c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The purpose of this OCP Amending Bylaw (see Appendix B) is to re -designate the Subject Area (see Appendix A) to Estate Suburban Residential to reflect the recent FSA amendment and allow for municipal sanitary service connections. Zoning Bylaw: Currently, there are two applications involving three properties, seeking rezoning from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to permit future subdivision. The proposed subdivisions will add approximately three properties to the Subject Area, which will lower the LAS costs to the owners, as the total cost will be divided by more properties. These applications will be the subject of future staff reports. These properties would be able to rezone and subdivide regardless of the redesignation of the Subject Area, however, they would need to prove out septic feasibility if they were to rezone and subdivide under the current Suburban Residential designation. Metro Vancouver 2040 - Regional Growth Strategy: The subject properties are designated Rural in the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. Section 1.3.1 of the Plan states that the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) is not to extend regional sewer services into Rural areas, except for building footprints in cases where infrastructure is needed to address a public health issue. In this case, in 2010, the GVS&DD Board did amend the FSA boundary to include the Ansel] Street area properties into the FSA. The provision of sewer into the area does not necessitate a Regional Plan amendment to change the Rural Land Use designation and there are other examples in Maple Ridge where there are serviced properties in the Rural Land Use designation (i.e. Smith Avenue and Allco Estates). d) Citizen/Customer Implications This OCP amendment is intended to harmonize the proposed sewage system and service with the land use designation, to allow for municipal sanitary service connections. Under the LAS Policy, the full capital costs of the Ansell Street sewer system will be recovered from the property owners. Details of the costs associated with the LAS were outlined in the Local Area Service - Ansell street (Academy Park Phase 2) report, dated May 2, 2011(see Appendix D). -3- CONCLUSION: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. It is, therefore recommended that Council not require any additional consultation. Prepared by: Michelle Bast, AScT Planning Technician 01A,TI-4 Approved by. Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP Director of P,jagning Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng GM: Public Works-pevelopment Services Concurrence: J. L. Vim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer IW--A The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - OCP Amending Bylaw 6903 - 2012 Appendix C - Summary of Properties within the Subject Area Appendix D - Local Area Service - Ansell street (Academy Park Phase 2) report -4- APPENDIX A 126 AV E. 126 AV E. Subject Properties I J N Q 125 AVE. C[ I PULL Mea °w5-- V £'�� ; 124 Ave & Ansell St o 1.2 �!� L , + o * CORPORATION OF J I" THE DISTRICT OF N - MAPLE RIDGE ,i r District PLANNING DEPARTMENT Langleyy ' SCALE 1:3,500 CRY — DATE: Feb 28, 2012 2011-008-RZ BY: JV ASFR R. APPENDIX B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6903-2012 A Bylaw to amend Schedule "B" forming part of the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 6425 - 2006 as amended WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "B" to the Official Community Plan; 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 for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6903-2012." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 71164 Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 71164 Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 70674 Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 70674 Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan EPP1414 Lot 80, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72685 Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72087 Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72087 Lot 71, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 Lot 72, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 Lot 73, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72374 Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72374 Lot 75, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 Lot 76, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72831 Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72831 Lot 78, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 829, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby redesignated to Estate Suburban Residential. 3. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 20 READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 20 . PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 20 . READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 20 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER ,A.D. 20 . CORPORATE OFFICER MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 6903-2012 Map No. 829 From: Suburban Residential To: Estate Suburban Residential N SCALE 1:5,000 APPENDIX C Summary of Properties within the Subject Area Civic Address: 24421124 Avenue Owner: Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 71164 PID: 003-304-698 Civic Address: 12447 Ansel] Street Owner; Legal Description: Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 71164 PID: 003-304-663 Civic Address: 1.2475 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 70674 PID: 002-619-997 Civic Address: 12497 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 70674 PID: 002-619-989 Civic Address: 24383 125 Avenue Owner. Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan EPP1414 PID: 027-979-636 Civic Address: 12555 Ansel[ Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 80, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 PID: 001.468-812 Civic Address: 24370126 Avenue Owner: Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72685 PID: 004-901-878 Civic Address: 12621 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72087 PID: 004-417-399 Civic Address: 12665 Anseli Street Owner: Legal Description: LotI, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72087 PID: 004-417-381 Civic Address: 12680 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 71, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 PID: 003-284-166 Civic Address: 12640 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 72, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 PID: 007-151-799 1 Civic Address: 12610 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 73, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 PID: 007-151-811 Civic Address: 12670 Ansel] Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72374 PID: 004-603-869 Civic Address: 12550 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72374 PID: 004-603-885 Civic Address: 12530 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 75, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 PID: 001990-306 Civic Address: 12490 Ansell Street Owner, Legal Description: Lot 76, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 PID: 007-151-870 Civic Address: 12460 Ansell Street Owner. Legal Description: Lot 1, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72831 PID: 005-188-407 Civic Address: 12440 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 72831 PID: 005-188-415 Civic Address: 12420 Ansell Street Owner: Legal Description: Lot 78, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 43885 PID: 002-135-035 I_1,:121►111F�7 M Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 2, 2011 FILE NO: E04-010-058 MEETING: C of W Local Area Service - Ansell Street (Academy Park Phase 2) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2010, the District received approval from Metro Vancouver to include 19 properties in the Ansell Street area into the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA). The property owners have now filed a valid formal petition, as determined by the Clerks Department for a sewer to be installed under a Local Area Service (LAS) process. The formal petition follows a preliminary petition that was received previously and is the second phase of sewer services to the Academy Park neighbourhood. The formal petition received support from 58 percent of the residents, which is lower than has been received for previous LAS projects, but higher than the 50 percent required by the legislation. The Engineering Department took the additional step of reviewing the petition results with neighbourhood representatives who have confirmed that additional public meetings are not likely to result in changes to the petition. Because the petition results are greater than 50 percent, Council approval is sought to establish a LAS, proceed with the next steps for final design and construction, and the preparation of a bylaw when the project is complete. RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT staff be authorized to proceed with the next steps to establish a Local Area Service for Ansell Street (Academy Park Phase 2), as attached to the staff report dated May 2, 2011. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Since 2007, the District has worked with residents towards the extension of sewer services to Academy Park to address failing septic systems. This project originally included properties in the Ansell Street area, which at the time, were not within the FSA boundary. Because the process and authority to extend the FSA boundary required both Council and GVS&DD approval, Academy Park residents (within the FSA boundary) decided to proceed ahead of the Ansell Street properties, recognizing that the work on Ansell Street would follow, subject to Council's approval. In 2010, the GVS&DD amended the FSA boundary to include Ansell Street and staff informed the residents of the inclusion. Subsequently, in October the District received a preliminary petition signed by 80 percent of the residents on Ansell Street. This petition requested the following information: o the probable cost of the service o how the costs would be apportioned amongst the benefiting property owners a options for payment, and ® other information necessary for the residents to decide whether or not to participate. Petition Process In response to this preliminary petition, a cost estimate to serve 19 parcels on Ansell Street area (shown in Figure 1) and a formal petition were prepared and circulated to residents. On November 30, 2010, the formal petition was returned and the Corporate Officer has determined that the formal petition is sufficient and valid. A total of 57.9 percent of the number of properties with a value of 57.7 percent of total land and improvements signed the petition. Previous LAS experience indicates that formal petitions receive support in the range of 80 percent or higher (which is in line with the Ansell Street preliminary petition). As a result of the decrease in formal petition support to 58 percent, staff met with the petition representatives to discuss the reasons and evaluate the possibility of increasing the support. The meeting concluded that it was not likely to gain further support through additional public meetings and a follow up petition. However, staff sent a letter to all property owners informing them of the results and staff's intention to recommend the next steps to Council as well as inviting responses or clarification to their position. In accordance with Council's LAS Policy, the formal petition is being presented to Council for approval. Next steps In addition to the establishment of a LAS Bylaw, Council will also be required to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) to Estate Suburban Residential to harmonize the proposed sewage system and service with the land use designation. Currently, the designation is Suburban Residential. This change will be brought forward at the same time as the bylaw to establish the LAS. b) Strategic Alignment: The Corporate Strategic Plan includes financial management and environment as strategic focus areas. The financial management focus area encourages the continuation of a user pay philosophy and the provision of high quality municipal services to our citizens and customers in a cost effective and efficient manner. Using a LAS to construct services meets these objectives. The environment focus area encourages the identification and protection of environmental features (such as watercourses) and areas that require special recognition and management. By eliminating the potential of the disposal system failures in the Academy Park neighborhood, this project will satisfy this objective. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Under the LAS Policy, the full capital costs of the Ansell Street sewer system will be recovered from the property owners. Costs of the Ansell Street sewer service have been estimated at $461,461.69. This cost is in addition to the original cost of $1,581,712.63 incurred by the Academy Park residents to extend the services to the development while the Ansell Street FSA issue was addressed. The total estimated cost of $2,043,174.32 is to be shared equally among the 64 existing homes (the per property cost amounts to $31,924.60). When the final costs are determined, the owners will be offered the option to either pay the actual 'commuted' cost or have the cost placed on the tax roll and amortized over a period of 15 years at the interest rate set by the MFA and the Finance Department, with the eligibility of paying off anytime during the term without incurring a penalty. This service will provide a sanitary sewer system and a connection to the system at the property line. In order to complete and commission the service, owners will then need to install, at their cost, a connection from the residence to the sanitary sewer connection at the property line. d) Interdepartmental Implications: In conjunction with the establishment of the LAS Bylaw, the Engineering Department is working with the Planning Department to draft an amendment to the OCP to designate the properties as Estate Suburban Residential and eligible for a municipal sanitary service connection. When the construction of the service is completed, the Finance Department will confirm the actual costs, impose the final actual costs as a levy and place the notation on the tax roll of the benefiting property owner. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Should Council approve the Bylaw to establish the LAS, the Capital Program and Financial Plan will be amended to make sufficient funds available to cover the costs of this LAS until such funds plus appropriate interest costs are fully recovered from the property owners. f) Policy Implications: The 19 properties identified in this LAS are designated as Suburban Residential in the OCP. Suburban Residential has the same land use characteristics of Estate Suburban Residential but does not permit properties to be serviced by a municipal sewer. As noted earlier, should Council authorize staff to proceed with the next steps, staff will also prepare an amendment to the OCP to designate the properties to Estate Suburban Residential. This would be consistent with both the Academy Park designation west of Ansell Street and the FSA policies. g) Alternatives: As noted earlier, the percentage of owners is lower than previously anticipated from the preliminary petition. Based on the results, eight of the 19 properties are not in favour of the LAS. Reasons that were provided by four of those property owners include: the potential discounting of the LAS payments against the future sale price of the property, the expected longevity of their current septic system and the cost of the LAS fee. There are alternatives that Council may wish to consider including: reject the petition, reject the petition but direct staff to re -initiate the petition at a later date (or set date) when more public support is shown. In the interim, property owners with failed systems will be required to repair their sewage disposal system as necessary. With those alternatives, rejecting the petition affects requests of 11 of the property owners. Ultimately, though the final decision on whether to proceed with the LAS rests on Council. CONCLUSION: An extension to the sanitary sewer system has been requested by the residents of Ansel] Street (Academy Park LAS Phase 2) through a formal LAS petition. The percentage of those petitioning is greater than 50 percent and meets the threshold for Council to proceed with preparing a bylaw to establish a LAS and provide sanitary sewer service to the 19 lots on Ansell Street. As such, Council approval is sought. Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng. Manager of Infrastructure Development a Reviewer! by: 'Andrew-Wiiod, PhD., PEng. Municipal Engineer Approved by: -Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. Geae�al Manager: Public orks & Development Services I, 14 Concurrence: J.L.%{Jim) Rule CKief Administrative Officer SJ/ m i 126 Ave 125 Ave - Figure 1 Ansel Street Area Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer 5% Money in Lieu Of Parkland Dedication (12087 240 Street) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MEETING DATE: March 5, 2012 FILE NO: 2011-045-SD MEETING: C of W The above noted subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act regarding parkland dedication or payment in lieu of dedication. It is recommended that Council require payment in lieu of parkland dedication for the property located at 12087 240 Street. RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Local Government Act, Section 941, regarding 5% Parkland Dedication or payment in lieu, be it resolved that the owner of land proposed for subdivision at 12087 240 Street, under application 2011-045-SD, shall pay to the District of Maple Ridge an amount that is not less than $41,250.00. DISCUSSION: Section 941 of the Local Government Act requires the provision of parkland, without compensation, as a condition of subdivision, subject to some exceptions. The land, not to exceed 5% of the area proposed for subdivision, may be acquired in a location acceptable to the District, or a payment equal to 5% of the market value of the area proposed for subdivision is required. Section 8.9, Watercourse Protection Development Permit Area, of the Official Community Plan states that where watercourse protection areas are identified on the lands, the area is to be dedicated into public ownership as Park, where possible, for the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourses and riparian areas. These areas also provide large vegetated areas in urban neighbourhoods that provide corridors for wildlife and passive park areas for residents. Where there is either: no watercourse protection areas, or no suitable lands identified for park dedication, then 5% of the market value of the land is paid to the District. These funds are placed into a special Parkland Acquisition Reserve Fund, which enables the District to purchase areas deemed important for habitat protection but where the ability to achieve parkland through development is limited, such as the Blaney Bog. In this particular instance there are no watercourse protection areas and no suitable lands for parkland on the property therefore, it is recommended that money in lieu of parkland dedication be provided. 1106 _1_ In keeping with past practice, the District has requested that an appraisal be provided for the 5% market value of the development site. This appraisal is based on zoned but not serviced land. A report from a qualified real estate appraiser has determined that the market value of the land is $825,000.00, which indicates that the 5% value of this property is $41,250.00. CONCLUSION: As there are no watercourse protection areas and no suitable lands on the property for parkland dedication, it is recommended that Council require payment in lieu of parkland dedication as prescribed in the appraisal. Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT Senior Planning Technician a:&/ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PI, MCIP Director of Planning Approved . Frank Quinn MBA, P:Eng-) GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule ,/Chief Administrative Officer AE /dp The following appendices are attached hereto:' Appendix A - Subject Property Map Appendix B - Subdivision Plan -2- 12242 ABERNETHY WAY A RP 8440 EP 14184 $ D 12247 12224 o 'NA m 1 2 3 -4 3 N @2 NB 14� �13 BCP 3346 5 LMP 31 29 BCP 2 3644 BCP 3346 12239 CP 1334 6 10 g 11 g r 12225 W PARK 12 = 8 m 7 m s BCP 13346 22sa 6 12180 12209 8 �`p, ��� ���, 26 9 27 112183 2'S, 12155 1216D 7 aka 12145 12150 28 2 '2 10 u� 25 12169 36 6 '9m y 11 +' ?�03 _ 12 im � 24 12140 29 � 12162 5 �4 g'� 12 v1 72155 �� 2�00 t 3 y ' � 12125 23 N 30 m v 4 S 1 /2 8 - J 1213S1 Co 12141 14 LMP 133 21t3 21zo EL i 5 �1Q 18 19 20 22 •PP098 16 17 T 12'05 �2 SUBJECT PROPERTY N 1/27 N N & 1/2 7 121 AVE. 12126 BC 46754 6 P 2512 Rem N 1/2 6 12112 PP097 12087/12115 5 P 82308 3 12079 12084 Rem 1 0 2 4 12077 a Rem Pd. 'A' 1 12074 12067 3 v P 57747 12040 ico LMP 30402 n 20 I 14 a Rem 21 n co a a APPENDIX A Rem 2 P 88032 E _ g LMP 30401 P 86310 0EWPNEY TRUNK Clt�.qf Pitt _ r I Meadows_] 3 12087 240 STREET iy ,� CORPORATION OF Q �- THE DISTRICT OF N .` District ofy • � MAPLE RIDGE f { Langley f i �I,;I- PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE 1:2.500 �-asq p 1 DATE: Apr 27, 2011 FILE: 2011-045-SD BY: PC APPENDIX B k -c4l kca :%$b . E ztzt vs - k a 20h Street�A�[ .� _Nn }5 \��� ac 2Q �Q ra� At Deep Roots Greater heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer March 5, 2012 Committee of the Whole Disbursements for the month ended January 31, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council has authorized all voucher payments to be approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor and a Finance Manager. Council authorizes the vouchers for the following period through Council resolution. The disbursement summary for the past period is attached for information. Expenditure details are available by request through the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION: That the "disbursements as listed below for the month ended January 31, 2012 now be approved". GENERAL $ 7,914,424 PAYROLL $ 1,430,838 PURCHASE CARD $ 126,653 $ 9,471,915 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and provided authorization for expenditures to deliver municipal services. The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan. b) Community Communications: The citizens of Maple Ridge are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial disbursements. 1131 c) Business Plan / Financial Implications: Highlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution • Double M Excavating - Sanitary sewer extension to Corrections $ 820,862 • Emergency Communications - Dispatch levy 1st quarter $ 242,803 • G.V. Sewerage & Drainage - Jun-Dec'11 DCC collections $ 210,645 • G.V Water District - water consumption Oct 5 - Nov 1/11 $ 388,414 • G.V. Water District - water consumption Nov2-29/11 $ 371,574 • Imperial Paving - roadworks & 227 Street road improvements $ 155,184 • Minister of Finance - 2011 school tax requisition $ 731,290 • Municipal Insurance Assoc. - 2012 insurance assessment $ 287,337 • Receiver General - three payroll remittances in January $ 917,817 • Willis Canada Inc - 2012 Property & All Risk Insurance $ 212,835 d) Policy Implications: Approval of the disbursements by Council is in keeping with corporate governance practice. CONCLUSIONS: The disbursements for the month ended January 31, 2012 have been reviewed and are in order. Prepared by: G'Ann Rygg Accounting Clerk II Approved by: Trevor Th pson, BBA, CGA Manager of Financial Planning Approved by. OcAul GiII�BBA, CGA GM ��orpo & Fi n�}.�ervices 11 f Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer gmr i CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - JANUARY 2012 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT 0799341 BC Ltd Security refund A & A Testing Ltd Storm sewer inspections Active Network Ltd Class software maintenance fees BC Hydro Electricity BC SPCA Contract Jan Community Animal Centre development - 50% share Billesberger, Valerie Document management program Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd Maintenance: Banners Christmas lights & decorations Firehall Lapidary Club Operations Street Lights CUPE Local 622 Dues - pay periods 11/26 & 12/01 Chevron Canada Ltd Gasoline & Diesel fuel City Of Pitt Meadows Refund police services cost share overpayment 2010 Telus charge Park benches South Bonson Community Centre Hydro Double M Excavating Ltd Sanitary sewer extension to Corrections Centre River Road drainage improvements Douglas Lake Equipment Pathmaster paving machine Downtown Maple Ridge Business Fapade improvement program Emergency Communications Dispatch levy - 1st quarter Fitness Edge Fitness classes & programs Fort Fabrication & Welding Ltd Recycling collection equipment FortisBC - Natural Gas Natural gas Fred Surridge Ltd Waterworks supplies Fuseforward International Inc See -It annual subscription Gr Vanc Sewerage & Drainage Waste disposal Jun - Dec'11 DCC collections Greater Vanc Water District Water consumption Oct 5 - Nov1/11 Water consumption Nov 2-29/11 Guillevin International Inc Fire fighters' equipment Fire fighters' protective wear Leisure Centre electrical maintenance Operations electrical supplies Randy Herman Building electrical maintenance Imperial Paving 227 Street road improvements Roadworks Inprotect Systems Inc Pedestrian safety & accessibility improvements Insignia Homes Maple Ridge Ltd Security refund Manulife Financial Employee benefits premiums Maple Ridge & PM Arts Council Arts Centre grant Jan Program revenue Dec Theatre rental Maple Ridge Historical Society Quarterly fee for service payment Marten Timmer Excavating Ltd Core Park construction McRae's Septic Tank Service Catch basins Medical Services Plan Employee medical & health premiums Medisys Health Group Inc Fire Department medical exams & vaccines 27,527 1,333 570 15,734 250 169 878 2,432 143,193 2,114 1,263 1,968 820,862 1,655 1,117 210,645 388,414 371,574 9,925 42 141 7,542 214 149,145 6.039 46,392 16,226 4,442 AMOUNT 19,669 19,592 22,300 39,965 28,860 27,156 20,033 21,387 101,680 148,538 822,517 32,152 24,098 242,803 15,044 40,518 31,813 18,380 17,920 211,762 759,988 17,864 155,184 21,396 24,496 137,295 67,060 32,679 89,747 47,565 33,306 15,279 Microserve Microsoft Licensing, GP Minister Of Finance Minister Of Finance -Law Courts MR Landmark 2000 Centre Ltd Municipal Insurance Assoc Municipal Pension Plan BC No 265 Seabright Holdings Ltd Panorama LMS 4011 Pitt Meadows Heritage & Museum Raincity Janitorial Sery Ltd Receiver General For Canada RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Synovate Ltd Trans Western Electric Ltd Union Of BC Municipalities Universal Contracting Ltd. Valley Landscaping Ltd Warrington PCI Management Wedler Engineering Willis Canada Inc Workers Compensation Board BC Young, Anderson - Barristers Disbursements In Excess $15,000 Disbursements Under $15,000 Total Payee Disbursements Payroll Purchase Cards - Payment Total Disbursements January 2012 EOC computers Hardware upgrade relating to phone system upgrade Phone system upgrade Printer cartridges Server room upgrade Wireless access - meeting rooms Annual software licensing 2011 school tax requisition Security refund - garnishing order Tax refund supplementary 2010 2012 Insurance assessment Insurance deductibles Employee benefits premiums Security refund Strata fees Jan & Feb Semi-annual fee for service Janitorial services: Firehalls Library Municipal Hall Operations Randy Herman Building RCMP South Bonson Community Centre Employer/Employee remit PP11/26, PP12/01 & PP12/02 Ice rental Dec Curling rink operating expenses Nov & Dec Quarterly operating grant Jan - Mar Monthly contract for recycling Jan Weekly recycling Litter pick-up contract Citizens survey Lumec poles @ Memorial Park 2012 annual dues 124th Ave road improvements Websters Corners Park Advance for Tower common costs Jan Tower expenses Nov & Dec 256 Street sanitary sewer extension 2012 Property and All Risk Insurance Employer/Employee remittance 4th qtr 2011 Professional fees Dec PP12/01 & PP12/02 GMR \\mr.corp\docs\Fin\05-Finance\1630-Accts-Payable\01-Genera l\AP Disbursements\2012\[Monthly_Council_Repo rt_2012.x1sx]JAN'12 8,636 63,393 13,980 417 1,525 13.437 287,337 41.944 6,443 6,236 3,039 3,059 4,503 3,223 4,316 66,772 13,053 104,180 209 1,815 60,000 53,007 101,388 103,146 731,290 43,175 78,074 329,281 355,811 22,469 19,821 38,221 30,819 917,817 79,825 47,474 106,204 22,817 19,076 17,084 86,476 22,761 113,007 44,196 212,835 72,691 28,368 6,952,475 961,949 7,914,424 1,430,838 126,653 9,471,915 i RIDGEMAPLE District of Maple .Ridge Deep hoots Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: SUBJECT: WildPlay License To Occupy Rent Reduction Request March 5, 2012 CDPR-0640-30 C.O.W. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mr. Greg Martin, Chief Operating Officer, "WildPlay Maple Ridge", has metwith staff from the Strategic Economic Initiatives and Parks and Leisure Services departments to provide an update on the performance of the park to date, and also to request a relaxation of the annual rent for the WildPlay site at 132 Avenue. Wild Play has reported that the revenues generated at this site for the 2010-2011 seasons are 43.4% below the anticipated revenue figures contained in their original proposal submission. WildPlay has also reported a very unusual use pattern for the Maple Ridge Element Park, which sets it apart from all of the other WildPlay locations. Almost 76% of the participants at the Maple Ridge location are children or youth (under 15 years old), and only 24% of the participants are from the older demographic. It is believed that this combined with the current economic climate may be a contributing factor to WildPlay's current revenue challenges. RECOMMENDATION: That the WildPlay Maple Ridge request to reduce the annual rental rate of $32,000 by 50% for a period of two years be approved, and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the partnership agreement attached to the WildPlay License to Occupy Agreement report dated March 5, 2012. a) Background Context: The WildPlay Element Park opened in July 2010, which was more than half way through the typical season for this type of attraction. It was acknowledged at the time that this was less than ideal; however it was considered important to move forward with the project rather than postponing it to the following year. The weather conditions in the first half of 2011 were also very challenging for this type of operation, particularly while they were new to the area, and trying to establish themselves as an outdoor recreation attraction. b) Desired Outcome: WildPlay has invested significant financial resources to make a success of this adventure park in Maple Ridge. The WildPlay Chief Operating Officer believes that with some additional support from the District of Maple Ridge and appropriate cuts in other areas of their operating model, that they can survive the current economic situation, and continue to build on the success that it has already achieved in Maple Ridge. 1151 C:\Users\amandaga.MAPLE_RIDGE\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\Q R3CJ U P7\DM R_CR_W i Id play_License_To_0CCupy_Rent_Reductlori_2012.docx c) Strategic Alignment The WildPlay Element Park was considered to be very desirable by the participants of the community consultation for the "Family Friendly Outdoor Activities" survey conducted in 2009. The WildPlay Park also directly aligns with the District's economic development focus on the growth of its base tourism product offerings. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: If the Maple Ridge WildPlay Element Park is unable to reduce costs in a variety of different areas during this economically uncertain period, they may need to re-evaluate the viability of this operation, which could potentially result in the loss of this recreational amenity in Maple Ridge. In its first year of operation, WildPlay Maple Ridge drew in excess of 14,000 visitors to the facility. Of those, 68% originated from outside of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows which in turn, generates considerable support of and for the local economy. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: If the request to reduce the annual rental cost for the license to occupy is approved, a partnership agreement with WildPlay outlining this amendment will be required. This temporary reduction in revenue will be internalized for the period of the amended agreement. f) Policy Implications: A temporary amendment (addendum) to the License to Occupy agreement will need to be signed by both parties. g) Alternatives: This request could be respectfully denied however this is not recommended, as it may affect the long term viability of the investment of both WildPlay and the District of Maple Ridge in this initiative. CONCLUSIONS: Staff recommends that a temporary relaxation of the agreement be approved, as the Element Park is considered to be a valuable addition to the recreational facilities in our community, and also has the ability to attract visitors to our community from the region and outside BC, as shown in their visitor analysis (see attached analysis). r JL, Prepared David Boag, Director, Parks nd Facilities Approved by: Dell w' , General Manager, Community Development, P d Recreation Services Reviewed by.' Paul ill General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rii1e T Chief Administrative Officer :db Attachments: License to Occupy addendum and Analysis \\m r.corp\docs\CDP R-Admin\01-Ad m i n\0640-Reports-Stats\30- Reports\Council_M R\2012\DM R_CR_W ildplay_License_To_Occupy_Rent_Reduction_2012.docx Partner Agreement with WildPlay Ltd. Whereas the District of Maple Ridge conducted a very detailed community consultation to gauge the communities desire to attract "Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation activities in Maple Ridge". And Whereas the Residents of Maple Ridge expressed a desire for the District to seek proposals for the provision of a tree top adventure course at the former Maple Ridge Campground as a result of the community process held in this regard. And Whereas WildPlay Ltd. provided a proposal to install and operate the tree top adventure facility on Municipal lands that was acceptable to the District. And Whereas the District of Maple Ridge and Wildplay Ltd. desire to become partners in the provision of the Maple Ridge WildPlay Ltd. adventure park now located on Municipal Lands at the former campground site. The Terms and conditions contained in the WILDPLAY MAPLE RIDGE, License to occupy agreement dated May 3, 2010 shall remain in full force and effect with the exception of the rent due for the calendar years 2012 and 2013, which shall be payable to the District at the reduced rate of $16,000 for this two year period only. Other terms and conditions contained in the original proposal submitted by WiILDPLAY MAPLE RIDGE may be amended from time to time only by mutual agreement between the parties and shall be in writing and attached to the license to occupy agreement. Definitions Partner: Means WILDPLAY MAPLE RIDGE and the District of Maple Ridge have partnered in the provision of a Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation activity recognizing the importance and value of the provision of this unique recreational opportunity in Maple Ridge. Operator: Means WILDPLAY MAPLE RIDGE Landlord: Means the District of Maple Ridge Partner a reemen Means WILDPLAY and the District of Maple Ridge have partnered in the provision of this Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation activity through a License to Occupy Agreement. Therefore the signatories below have agreed that: 1. The Landlord hereby grants the request of Maple Ridge Excursions Ltd. , d/b/a WILDPLAY MAPLE RIDGE for a temporary reduction in the rent payable to the Landlord (as described in the WildPlay license to occupy agreement dated May 3, 2010), for a period of no more than 2 years and shall apply to 2012 and 2013 calendar years only. 2. All references to any party whether a party to this instrument or not, will be read with such changes in number and gender as the context or reference requires. The parties will execute and deliver all such further documents, do or cause to be done all further acts and things, and give all further assurances as may be necessary to giver full effect and provisions and intent of this instrument. This instrument will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. IN WITNESS THEREOF the parties have executed this agreement as of 20 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE Corporate officer MAPLE RIDGE EXCURSIONS LTD. d/b/a WILDPLAY MAPLE RIDGE Authorized Signatory MAPLE RIDGE District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater t Leigh= TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 13, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: LOWER MAINLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION 2012 RESOLUTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its February 6, 2012 Council Workshop Council identified topics for resolutions to be submitted to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association. Attached to this report are the draft resolutions for Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That the resolutions attached to the March 13, 2012 staff report be submitted to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association. C4� 2 &/4t-- Prepared by: Ceri Marlo Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program Rppr d b . Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services 14C ncurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer /cm 1201 District of Maple Ridge ENABLING FISH ,ACCESS TO HISTORICAL SPAWNING GROUNDS AT BC HYDRO DAMS WHEREAS the normal movement of fish in rivers and streams may be blocked by the location of hydroelectric dams contrary to Section 20-1 and 35-2 of the federal Fisheries Act; AND WHEREAS this may restrict the rearing and spawning activity of certain species of fish; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities urge the provincial government to require that BC Hydro include some form of appropriate access or passage for fish to their historical spawning grounds including fish ladders or bypass canals, where possible, at existing dam sites. District of Maple Ridge 9-1-1 POCKET CALLS WHEREAS the significant rise in cellphone use has resulted in a rise in the number of misdialed or accidental calls to 9-1-1; AND WHEREAS these so-called "pocket dials" are a significant drain on resources, both from a 9-1-1 call centre standpoint, and also in terms of police operational resources, to determine if the caller is in danger. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that... 1. the federal government require that the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) who represents cellular and satellite carriers and companies that produce cellular products/services impose better safeguards against inadvertent or unintended 9-1-1 calls; 2. the federal government require that Telus, Rogers, Bell & any other cellular service providers take a more active role in public education around accidental 9-1-1 calls by messaging their clients with this information and the limitations mobile devices have in terms of location information provided to 9-1-1; 3. the provincial government give consideration to establishing an awareness campaign providing the public information on how to prevent accidental calls to 9-1-1 as has been done in the Province of Ontario; and 4. the Federation of Canadian Municipalities be requested to also lobby for these changes.