HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-18 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES –June 4, 2012
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 RCMP Integrated Teams Update
C/Supt. Janice Armstrong
--- BREAK --- 10:45 a.m.
Note: Item 4.2 will be presented at 11:00 a.m.
4.2 Building Better Communications between Metro Vancouver and its member
Municipalities
Mayor Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Regional Board
Councillor Raymond Louie, Vice Chair, Metro Vancouver Regional Board
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 18, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
June 18, 2012
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
June 18, 2012
Page 2 of 4
4.3 North Albion Area Plan – Open House Summary
Staff report dated June 18, 2012 recommending preparation of an Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw and a first reading report to advance the
proposed Albion Area Plan amendments.
4.4 Bulk Water Fill Stations Update
Staff report dated June 18, 2012 providing a status update on the initiative to
install bulk water fill stations on Jackson Road and the Kanaka Business Park.
4.5 Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Policy
Staff report dated June 18, 2012 recommending the “Residential-Exemption and
Resident-Only Parking Policy” be endorsed.
4.6 Housing Action Plan Process
Staff report dated June 18, 2012 recommending that staff be authorized to
proceed with the preparation of a Housing Action Plan.
4.7 UBCM Resolutions
Consideration of resolutions proposed by Councillors Ashlie and Morden
5. CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
5.1
Recommendation:
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
Council Workshop
June 18, 2012
Page 3 of 4
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
June 18, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipal ity;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations , where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 18, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: North Albion Area Plan – Open House Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the March 27 2012 Council Meeting, a resolution was passed that outlined the process for
consideration and public consultation related to proposed bylaw amendments to the Albion Area
Plan Zoning Matrix. The proposed amendment is to include two new single-family residential zones
within the existing Low and Low-Medium Residential land use designations that would provide
opportunities for higher single-family residential densities.
In addition, Council also endorsed a process for considering in-stream development applications that
would see all applications that had not proceeded to Public Hearing to be on hold, pending Third
Reading of Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6910-2012.
Pursuant to the approved public consultation process, an open house was held on Wednesday May
30, 2012 at Samuel Robertson Technical School and was attended by approximately 160 people,
78% of which stated that they are residents of the Albion neighbourhood.
Generally, there appears to be support for the proposed Official Community Plan amendments. In
addition a range of other land use and servicing issues were identified during the course of the open
house and through a short questionnaire.
On May 14, 2012, the Planning Department presented a report to Council on the scope and process
for the Amenity Zoning Study which is assessing its potential use across Maple Ridge which will
include a market assessment of the potential to achieve Community Amenity Contribution s in the
North Albion Plan area, beyond the standard development cost charges. That work is currently being
prepared by the consulting firm CitySpaces, and is anticipated to be completed in mid July. Based
on the feedback received at the Open House the consultant has been advised to continue and
complete the assessment on North Albion.
Base on the feedback from the public information open house it is recommended that the proposed
density amendments be advanced to the next stage of the process which is the preparation of an
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw and First Reading report to Council. That report will also
include a discussion on the opportunities for Community Amenity Contributions within the North
Albion Area and will enable further discussion with Council prior to First Reading of the North Albion
OCP amending bylaw.
4.3
2
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to prepare an Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw and First
Reading report to advance the proposed Albion Area Plan amendments to the next stage of
the process and for the First Reading report to include a discussion of the potential to
achieve Community Amenity Contributions in the northern portion of the Albion Area Plan.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
At the March 27, 2012 Council Meeting, Council passed the following resolution:
“That Option #3 Albion Matrix Amendment Process, as outlined in the report titled
“Density Review Process for North Albion” dated March 19th, 2012 be endorsed;
That the process for the processing of in stream rezoning applications in the study area,
as outlined in the report titled “Density Review Process for North Albion” dated March
19th, 2012 be endorsed;
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
location, 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 the only additional consultation to be required in
respect of this matter beyond posting of the proposed Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Amending Bylaw No. 6910-2012 on the District’s website, together with an invitation to the
public to comment, is the following:
i. Referral to the School Board; and
ii. An open house.”
The following excerpt identifies the proposed changes for the Albion Zoning Matrix, with the
proposed additions shown in bold text:
3
Included in the March 27, 2012 report was the public consultation process that identified an
open house would be held in April or May 2012.
b) Open House Update:
Pursuant to the approved process, an open house was held on Wednesday May 30, 2012 at
Samuel Robertson Technical School and was attended by approximately 160 people, 78% of
whom are residents of Maple Ridge.
Advertisement for the open house was run in both the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Times and
The News in the May 11, 18, 25 and 29, 2012 editions; details of the open house and
accompanying information was posted on the District’s website as of May 10 and a
questionnaire available on the District’s website from May 30 to June 11, 2012.
The information panels presented at the open house provided an overview of the proposed
new residential zones to be added to the Albion Zoning Matrix and are included in the report
as Appendix A. This information has been available on the District’s website since May 30,
2012 and can still be found under the Area Planning section.
A questionnaire was also provided at the open house and was available online from May 30
to June 11, 2012. It included questions related to the types and densities of residential
development that participants felt would be appropriate within the north Albion Area,
examples elsewhere within the Albion Area Plan area that were felt to be good h ousing
models and suggestions on ways to improve the walkability within the area. The full
summary of the responses received from the Questionnaire are attached as Appendix B.
Questionnaire Summary
As indicated, approximately 160 people attended the open house with 59 questionnaires
being completed for a response rate of 37%. The following is a summary of the feedback
received for each of the four questions.
4
Question 1: Do you support the proposed zones in the Albion Zoning Matrix, which
allow for a slight increase in density in the Albion Area Plan?
Yes 23 responses 39%
No 36 responses 61 %
If yes, can you please tell us why you support the density increase? If no, can you
please explain why you don’t support the additional density?
51 responses were received for the second part of Question 1.
Question 2: What kind of housing forms would you support in the North Albion Area?
Townhouse 1 response 2%
Small lot Single-Family 9 responses 17%
Medium to large lot Single-Family 23 responses 43%
Other 20 responses 38%
Comments received in the “Other” category included:
12 responses in support of all the suggested housing types, including
townhouses
5 responses for a mix of large and medium lot residential and village
commercial
1 response for agricultural use
1 response not supporting any of the housing options
Are there any housing types that currently exist within the Albion area that you think
are more appropriate than others?
38 responses were provided for the second part of Question 2
Question 3: Are you a resident of the Albion Area?
Yes 46 responses 78%
No 13 responses 22%
If you are a resident of Albion, do you walk in your neighbourh ood? If so, to what
destinations? Please explain any changes that would improve the walkability in your
area.
40 responses were provided for the second part of Question 3.
Question 4: Please provide any other comments or suggestions you may have.
37 responses were provided for Question with the full record included in
Appendix B.
5
The open house was well attended by area residents with the feedback received suggesting
there is some support for the proposed higher single-family residential densities. Additional
comments also identified concerns related to the future extension of infrastructure through
the north portion of the Albion neighbourhood, additional parkland and neighbourhood
commercial needs, and concerns related to safe pedestrian routes.
c) Policy Implications:
The participation at the open house suggests that area residents and landowners are very
interested in the future of the north Albion Area. The majority of the feedback received at the
open house suggests there is general support for the increase in single-family density.
In addition, many participants were not clear on how new development generates
development cost charges that fund infrastructure improvements.
As outlined above, feedback was also received related to the need for additional parkland,
concerns related to conservation areas and regulations, future road network and pedestrian
connectivity and the potential for additional neighbourhood-scale commercial uses.
Amenity Zoning Study
As part of the Planning Department’s 2012 Work Program, Council directed a review of
Amenity Zoning and its potential use in Maple Ridge. This review began in May 2012 and is
anticipated to be completed by the fall 2012 and incorporated into the Zoning Bylaw Review.
As part of the Study, CitySpaces Consulting has been hired to review the tools that are
available under the Local Government Act, summarize the pros and cons of the various
approaches, identify key priorities for the District and provide Council with a detailed
information package on the options and economic impacts of an amenity zoning framework.
The CitySpaces team will also be undertaking a market review of development impacts of
Amenity Zoning and will be using examples from the North Albion neighbourhood to aid in
that assessment. Staff provided an update to Council on the Amenity Zoning Study on May
14, 2012 at which time it was anticipated that the market review would be completed in time
to include in the North Albion Area Plan update. However, that work is still in process and
not expected to be completed until mid-July. The market review will provide important
information on the question of the financial viability of single-family residential developments
and whether or not the District can anticipate amenity zoning contributions (also known as
Community Amenity Contributions) in addition to the standard development cost charges.
This information will be very useful in assessing the mechanisms that the District may utilize
to provide the level of hard and soft services identified during the May 30 open house.
6
In-stream Development Applications
Council will recall that as part of the work discussed at the March 27, 2012 Council meeting,
a process for considering in-stream applications while the North Albion Area Plan
amendments were being considered was presented. The following process was approved by
Council:
“2. Applications that are in-stream or new, but have not proceeded on the Public
Hearing, are proposed to be deferred until such time as the Albion Area Plan
Amendments proposed are presented at Public Hearing and given Third Reading by
Council.”
It is recommended that the process for considering in-stream development applications in
the North Albion Area Plan Study Area be maintained.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Engineering Department provided information on the proposed road network, final
design cross-sections and several pedestrian network interim solutions as well as the
proposed sewer and water system. The extension of sewer and water infrastructure was a
key theme that arose at the open house and as part of the comments received on the
completed questionnaires. Many residents asked when these services would be extended
but did not necessarily understand that development enables the District to collect
development cost charges that fund additional infrastructure improvements.
An evaluation of the potential densities and associated development cost charges would be
beneficial to determine the extent to which the provision of new infrastructure (roads, sewer
and water) can be achieved within the north Albion area. While the District will require
infrastructure upgrades and extensions to service approved development appli cations, what
is not yet known is whether or not it is financially viable for developers to develop within a
predominantly single-family housing form. A separate report on the options for servicing of
the north Albion area is currently being prepared and will be submitted for Council’s review in
conjunction with the next stage of the process.
e) Alternative:
That the proposed amendments to the Albion Area Plan, outlined in the March 27, 2012
report to Council, not proceed to First Reading.
7
CONCLUSIONS:
The feedback received at the open house event and through the questionnaire suggests that there is
general support for the proposed amendments to the Albion Area Zoning Matrix to add two new
single-family residential zones. In addition, a wide range of opinions and suggestions for residential
densities, infrastructure improvements and additional parkland provisions within the Plan area were
also received. As such, it is recommended that the North Albion Area Plan process be advanced to
the next stage for staff to prepare an Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw and First Reading
report.
“Original signed by Jim Charlebois”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP
Manager of Community Planning
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn,MBA, P.Eng
GM , Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A: North Albion Open House Panels
Appendix B: North Albion Open House Questionnaire Results
Summary Report
(Completion rate: 98.33%)
QUESTION 1 Do you support the proposed zones in the Albion Zoning Matrix, which allow
for a slight increase in density in the Albion Area Plan?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Yes 39%23
No 61%36
Total Responses 59
If yes, can you please tell us why you support the density increase? If no, can you please
explain why you don’t support the additional density?
The 51 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
QUESTION 2 What kind of housing forms would you support in the North Albion Area? For
example:
Response Chart Percentage Count
Townhouse 2%1
Small lot Single-Family Residential 17%9
Medium to Large lot Single-Family
Residential
43%23
Other 38%20
Total Responses 53
QUESTION 2 What kind of housing forms would you support in the North Albion Area? For example: (Other)
#Response
1.Acreages/Agriculture
2.see additional comments
3.none
4.homes on 2 acres
5.mix of small and medium
6.All of the above
7.All of the above
8.All of the above
9.All of the above
10.All of the above
11.All of the above
12.All of the above
13.All of the above
14.Townhouse/Small lot Single-Family Residential
15.Medium to large lot single-family residential & village commercial
16.Townhouse/Small lot Single-Family Residential
17.Townhouse/Small lot Single-Family Residential
18.lots such as mine are suitable for a small apartment suitable for seniors who have always lived in this area.
19.Mostly larger lot or "master planned"
Additional Comments - Are there any housing types that currently exist within the Albion area
that you think are more appropriate than others?
The 38 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
QUESTION 3 Are you a resident of the Albion Area?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Yes 78%46
No 22%13
Total Responses 59
If you are a resident of Albion, do you walk in your neighbourhood? If so, to what
destinations? Please explain any changes that would improve the walkability in your area.
The 40 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
QUESTION 4 Please provide any other comments or suggestions you may have.
The 37 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
Responders Name (optional)
The 36 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
Appendix
If yes, can you please tell us why you support the density increase? If no, can you please explain why you don’t
support the additional density? |
#Response
1.The density is already high, with little to no support services in the area. You have to get in your car every time
you need something!
2.Higher density makes more sense for supplying services, such as transportation services, streetlights, sidewalks,
(food) shopping and restaurants, etc..
3.Adhoc increase in density does not tie in to the surrounding area. Increase density will require an increase in
infrastructure and services.
4.I understand the need to upgrade existing infrastructure and to build additional roads and services to support the
already quickly developing area. With greater development comes $$$ Water and sewer lines are needed.
5.The lots sizes make sense. You should allow R-1 in Low?Medium in the south Albion area as well.
6.Due to the enviro, topo constrainsts and to further maximize on the new services, increasing in density makes
good sense. Lot sizes under R1 encourage and continue to make it viable for builders to construct detached
housing which is why families choose to continue to enjoy Maple Ridge for.
7.The Albion Area shouldn't be developed at all. It's only contributing to the sprawl. Instead, improve access to
existing sprawl-centers like Rock Ridge and Silver Valley, and continue up there.
8.Not enough support for roads and other infrastructure
9.-Not enough schools in the area
-240th street from 104th ave southward is not capable of handling the surplus traffic without turning lanes,
widening of roads, and proper sidewalks.
10.There is too much 'bulldoze and build' going on in maple ridge. It is becoming a suburban sprawl with inadequate
resources and planning to make them sustainable places to live/work rather than the current dormitories.
11.It depends. (I had to pick 'yes' or 'no', so please ignore my 'no').
In principle, I believe in increasing density in areas where it eventually leads to a relative certainty of getting
adequate transit , as well as when it is planned as a “complete neighbourhood”, i.e. with amenities such as a
school, (useful) shops – a decent grocery store, not just a convenience store, is a must - at walking or biking
distance, and useable parks (not just parks as in trees to look at from the confines of your backyard or driving by
in your car, but parks with trails and benches for people to sit, and trees for shade, a playing field for the kids to
kick the ball around, picnic benches to go for a picnic on a sunny Saturday, play structures for the kids to play.
The area in question appears to be challenging due to the topography, and creeks running through the area,
possibly limiting the possibilities to provide connections for walking and cycling other than along the main roads.
One possible solution might be to provide pedestrian/cyclist bridges at various locations, to be paid for by the
developers in return for the increased density. It may add some cost to developing this area, but that’s part of the
cost of developing areas with a less favourable topography. The more difficult topography is the reason why
developers are able to acquire the land at a good price.
I understand that part of the reason for the densification is to make the houses more affordable (or just more
affordable for the developers to build?). Is this considered the right area for “affordable” housing? Would one of
the basic requirements for people living in more affordable housing not be to have adequate transit and amenities
close by?
The District should aim for densification along transportation corridors if we can provide adequate access to these
transportation corridors from surrounding areas. That’s something that’s going to be very problematic here.
12.increased density without supporting amenities in Maple Ridge (shopping etc) increases the imbalance we have
today between population and those supporting amenities. increased density also stresses the environment
13.Until something is done to alleviate traffic congestion in west maple ridge and Pitt meadows I do not agree with
continuing to build more and more houses and townhouses when the roads are beyond capacity. Plan for the roads
ahead of the housing development. While I realize that people do need somewhere to live and that Maple Ridge is
one of the last affordable places in the lower mainland more planning of roads and transit services should be done
prior to allowing further development. As well schools are so crowded in the Albion area that children who live
there cannot even attend the schools that are nearby. Planning for this should be done first.
14.Poorly planned, not enough schools in area, no plans for traffic congestion, riparian area for the animals becoming
smaller and smaller around the river
15.maximum use of land for housing in an area that will have a lot of green space makes sense
16.There's not enough support ie schools in this area are mostly overcrowded.
17.The land in the urban development area needs to reach the best potential to afford the cost of services such as
water etc., to everyone. The increase is reasonable and in some cases because so much land is used for
conservation and terrain breaks it up could stand more density in pockets.
Good to support schools as well.
18.This will be the same old, same old. In he best interests of developers and investors NOT for the people. Public
input would more properly be the first step. Remember the visioning process of about six years ago? How about
the Silver Valley Plan? what about the consultants report on housing prior to the last OCP? If we keep doing what
we are doing we will keep gettng what are getting - development at the behest of investors that make specualators
the biggest buck. Never mind how it will affect the environment, water and climate and future generations.
19.Most of the land in this area is not being utilised efficiently and is open pasture land. The houses are ostly older
and single family. Our taxes are high. The sewer line etc. will rid the area of septic fields and clean up the creeks.
20.Since living in this area is no longer "rural", might as well expand the subdivision(s) and give long term residents
a chance to move on.
21.I support the density increase because the area has significant conservation areas, and sufficient school and transit
potential.The servicing of the area is challenging due to the sanitary sewer lift stations, and other higher that usual
costs.The density may assist in the feasability to service this area.
22.There is a shortage of space at Albion Elementary, and no immediate plans to expand or build a new elementary
school.
23.higher population will give us a bigger tax base for government spending such as transportation.
24.I believe the current road structure is not sufficient to handle the additional housing structure.
25.The area needs to change to keep up with all the growth around. The rezoning for RS-1d should also be zoned R-1
to keep in line with the other development in the area. Why would you have a school across from large lots?
26.I support the zoning. I would like to see some zoning allocated to commercial toward the top of the hill. Take
Westwood Plateau for example, just a small zone for a small convenience store like 7-11. This would reduce
traffic just by not having the whole hill having to drive down the road a jug of milk.
27.Needs more schools first.
28.Families with children will be moving into those homes. There are not enough schools to support the families
presently in this area. Many young children are walking along busy roads with no sidewalks to get to school. Stop
the housing development agenda and start community planning.
29.The current environmental setbacks have significantly reduced the yields within Albion. The increase density will
allow original objectives to be met. Also these setbacks have limited some lands ability to develop and higher
density will the help the land develop.
30.Higher density and these setbacks will help useful land develop, times superior to the senses.
31.I support current residential land use designations very much. Because of you are working and making an effort to
improve unreasonable policys of environmental setbacks and very old zones plan for all the people.
32.All the people of study area who we met support higher density and these setbacks plan. It is a very good idea.
33.1. Too many streans and ravines
2. Too many clay banks and steep slopes
3. Flood planes
4. Adverse effect on the quality of life
5. Adverse effect on some property values
34.1. The area of North Albion has been designated already under the present OCP as being unsuitable for
development over Low-Density (1/2 acre lots) because of the preponderance of ravines, watercourses, clay soil
banks and enviornmentally sensitive areas.
2. More development will result in sever traffic problems. Already with present population a major problem for
residential.
3. More development through deinsificatio cannot be serviced by existing schools or even the proposed school
(elementary) construction.
35.With population increasing, people have to live somewhre. Incrasing density is a must do. The Albion area is the
next logical place.
36.With the 12 lots becoming 30 and the 36 lots becoming 48 I see this as not being a slight increase but a high
density increase in a rural area which has not got the infrastructure to support such planning for the future.
37.I do not consider the proposal is a slight increase. Already there is not enough open area and natural green space,
nor parks created in the existing high density areas in Albion. the few roads re congested speedways and need to
be settled down before more vehicles are added. When natural area is gone, it's gone forever. (We will need larger
lots to help house the dispaced wildlife in our midst!)
38.As a homeowner in the affected area, I don't see any advantage to the proposed density increase. We moved to this
area beacuse it was designated as 'Low Density' on the OCP. Under the proposed zoning changes our area would
be effectively changing to 'Low-Medium Density'. Factor in the secondary suites that could also be potentially
built in these smaller lot houses and we are now living in 'Medium Density' - contrary to the OCP designation
(why even have 'Low Density' in the OCP?). In my immediate area, there are already four Development
Applications that include the proposed new zones (RS-1 & R-1), so obviously it's developers/builders who want
these new denser zones. I have not spoken to one neighbour who supports this, except for some of the ones that
have acreage and want to make the most money off their property and then move away! I also wonder how the
infrastructure in our area would support the traffic from this increased density. Every development application
currently posted in our area includes the denser zones, so this isn't going to be just a few 'here and there'.
39.It's needed. Large lots too expensive.
40.I'm very concerned about young families wo move in to discover there is no school in the area for their children to
attend, especially because the nearest schools are all grossly overcrowded.
41.After viewing the proposed zones, it seems you would like to cram more houses into the same zone. The reasons
given to me, were filled with excuses that did not care about human comfort. I feel you are turning the community
into a laboratory filled with rats and you like to add more rats with a reassuring smile on your face.
42.I am particularly interested in study area 2 specifically the area west of 248th and north of 108th. I have lived in
this area for over 35 years and participated in the community planning process before. The subject area has been
studied before with the resulting present density recommendations. What is being proposed is an almost 3 to 4
fold increase in densities which makes a farce of previous recommendations. This is not a slight increase. Over the
years I have seen a lot of damage to year round and seasonal water courses which will have to be restored with
any new development, particularly north and east of my property (24705 108 Ave). The property north of my lot
has been left “tranquil” for a number of years now so some streams are reappearing but are not gazetted yet. I am
concerned that with the proposed new federal guidelines on water streams they will all disappear.
The subject area should be left as half acre lots for several reasons:
• Most of the area is already subdivided into ½ acre lots and developing the entire area will be very difficult as
there are many very reluctant property sellers
• The area has so many water courses that it will be difficult to develop higher density areas under the new
guidelines without potentially resorting to much higher densities, perhaps even townhouses in the remaining
pockets
• There should be some pockets left in maple Ridge where larger properties (and not necessarily with huge
houses)are available and people can have some smaller farming and gardening opportunities. Considering all the
streams and slopes this would be an ideal area.
• The wild life in this area is significant due to its proximity to Kanaka Creek. I think there are more frogs in this
area alone than in the rest of Maple Ridge combined.
• I view the present push for higher densities mostly as a result from developers wanting to increase their profits
with no regard to what they leave behind.
43.I support the density increase because there is a lot of unuseable land in the study area.
44.It appears that this is developer-driven rather than based upon any real practical need for densification. A number
of developments are far from built out in Albion and there appears to be a considerable number of re-sale homes
on the market. Maple Ridge has no (and won't for quite some time, if ever) significant job-base to justify the
densification (Kanaka Business park is empty for example) and the proposed area is not that close to the roads to
get people on their way out of town to other jobs.
More importantly than the above, we need to be more proactive in preserving one of the best assets of Maple
Ridge: its natural beauty. Study after study has shown that no matter how you develop, increased development has
adverse impacts on streams (epecially in sensitive watersheds). In the future it would be nice to look back and say
"look how we maintained the character of Maple Ridge and preserved its natural assests" rather than "look how
we exploited all our sensitive areas with development". I have slowly seen the character of eastern Maple Ridge
erode (and beautiful rolling farmland/open space on 240 is now being paved over as well as Upper Jackson Farm
and other spaces). The monstrosity of a development that is Grant Hill - the massive clearing and muddly runoff
coming from there - seems like just a bit too much to me.
It seems to me that re-development of the core of Maple Ridge should be the focus. Densification should go there
with cheaper housing and proximity to schools (unlike the joke that is an overcrowded Albion Elementary with a
huge development going up right next to it, shopping and other amenities which are lacking in Albion.
45.Rezoning the area would lower the tax burden, and put more money in the Municipality.
46.This land is going to be built on now or the years to come, so why not rezone it this year.
47.The density of Maple Ridge should be restricted to areas closer to the downtown core. Further expansion of
homes in Albion will only exacerbate the problem of parking, vandalism, over-abundance of animals and lack of
services such as schools.
48.The density increase is of little value to me as a long time homeowner of Albion (40 years). Our property is not
included in the density increase. Our property has been referred to as an illegal lot. It is 16,353 sq ft. or 15,198 sq.
meters. It is 5625 sq. ft. less than 1/2 acre. I feel the rezoning unfair as developers in Highland Visa were allowed
to go back to council and have lot sizes changed to R! with as little as 471 sq. meters. Their reasoning was that the
market had dropped. In fact, during this time between May 2011 to May 2012 as reported by the Real Estate board
in the Province Maple Ridge showed an increase in sales unlike other lower mainland areas. Developers own the
property of 5 acres next to me. Once they begin to build my way of life with privacy and quiet is gone. We have
been informed once sewer and water comes we have to hook up to sewer immediately and water within 1 year.
We are pensioners how will we be able to pay for this? We deserve a increase in density just as well as the people
with 1/2 acre. Some of the lots my size wish to be left as is but they will not be affected as I will next door and
directly behind me
49.I am very concerned about traffic increases in Maple Ridge overall and this area has few good arterial roots.
Already the intersection of Lougheed Hwy., Haney Bypass, and Kanaka Way are getting overcrowded. Same with
240th and Lougheed Hwy. At both intersections I am lining up for a left hand turn lane in the Hwy fast lane. A
scary situation.
50.There currently aren't enough schools for the projected populations of the existing development sites as it stands.
51.60% not in favour, 40% in favour. While I must admit that I was relieved to see a proposal retaining some larger,
more substantial sized lots (RS-1's), I am still not quite there favouring this proposal. Firstly, I would not
characterize a minimum 30% increase in density (if these estimates are correct) a "slight increase". Secondly, no
one has explained to the public how the increased density--roughly 300 homes--will impact the local community
in terms of traffic, congestion, and further strain on our ridiculously overcrowded schools. (Please do not argue
that it will help, as norther Alb. will be requiring 2 additional schools.) Will council hold the line with the terms of
this proposal, if selected? Please, no further density beyond staff recommendations!
Additional Comments - Are there any housing types that currently exist within the Albion area that you think are
more appropriate than others? |
#Response
1.Too many houses squashed next to each other with little to no yard, trees taken down and the hill is becoming
ugly.
2.Kanaka Creek has higher density with nice looking homes.
3.A mixture of medium to large lot single family residential with some small lot single-family residential.
4.The Epic Home style development's entry level product, most having 3,500 - 4,000 sqft lots are in good demand
and most affordable.
5.Farms and homes with yards. Cramming more people into an over crowde area with a lack of schools, roads and
commercial resources is not smart.
6.I think there is something missing in this question, which is unfortunate. Why don’t we have the choice of having
mixed housing and possibly some commercial? We usually just see endless subdivisions sprouting up with similar
sizes of single family housing, and here and there some townhouses. Why can’t there be a variety of houses on the
same street? Why can’t our neighbourhoods be made to look more interesting and unique? That’s the option that I
would pick.
7.all communities need a mix of housing. there is a significant amount of high density in south albion and kanaka
creek
8.The housing I would like to see is one that provides amenities for small business owners and one that houses more
children in learning environment (meaning schools)
9.Smaller parcels should be sensified but not to 3,000 square foot lots. Better to have townhouse use than that.
10.We cannot see any reason that the housing density can't fit the requirement for housing.
11."Mixed neighbourhoods" offer a cultural diversity and appeal to all ages and stages of life. What boring
neighbourhoods if they are all the same.
12.I highly support small lot Single-Family Residential, and townhousing in areas of medium density where
conservation constraints make development difficult for access.
13.Single family homes on large lots are much more appropriate (townhouses are much too dense considering the
lack of school spaces available).
14.I don't think the roads are sufficient size to support smaller lots/townhouses.
15.Variety within reason; same grade within construction region. Plenty of greenland remaining around new homes.
Parks for children to play is necessary.
16.Mostly single family.
17.Townhouse development should be allowed in areas where environmental restrictions make single family
residential lots difficult to produce due to access and setbacks.
18.Our land is 2 creeks in both side. So after we make the road of access and setbacks we cannot build 2/3 (70%
more)of middle land. Therefore townhouse development should be really allowed about this land such as attached
concept site plan.
19.After you estimate envronmental setback about such as our land of both side creeks. In special case (one side is
about 30m deep the other side of ditch is very small). If you can throw it out totally whether you make single
family lots or if you throw it out impossible. We think that townhouse development should be really allowed for
useful development of land.
20.Just the next door (111 Ave) of attached our land is townhouse development zone. So after developers buy our
land they had tried to build townhouses of our land (110 Ave) and 111 Ave; land together from 17 years ago. But
you had refused in continuously. this time we thin you have to allow townhouse development.
21.Acreage as now. The existing low density zoning.
22.Considering the natural terrain of this area, only rural residential family housing is suitable for the majority of
land available. There are only a few areas suitable for anything else. The current low density zoning (1/2 acre)
would then be appropriate for these few. NOT medium density.
23.I think the planning dept. should include a wide range of housing options. Some townhouses or smaller lots may
be more affordabble for young familys.
24.Medium size lots would not overload our schools, parks, roads that would gridlock our transportation system like
what has happen in other municipalities ei. Langley 200 St. This may look good on paper and tax monies but it is
not a good long term planning.
25.Albion is a rural area dn could retain this character with a combination of single family lot sizes and reserving
larger natural areas.
26.A drive down 240th highlights the different housing types clearly. The 102ave area is horrible. I would think a
mix of townhouses and larger lot single family houses would have been better than the row upon row of little box
houses on tiny little lots. Head up to 104ave and it's starting to look just as bad. I cant imagine what that area will
look like in another 10 years if it continues.
The MapleCrest Subdivision I think is more appropriate for the area (larger lot single family houses and larger
duplex style townhomes - Trail's Edge).
27.Affordability is key.
28.Houses on medium lots with protected green space.
29.Houses backing onto greenspace with trails.
30.As long as there is sufficient green space. The proposed zones are not designed for human comfort. They are
designed for profits!
My housing types = designed for human comfort!
Your proposed housing types = designed for profit!
In this society profits always come first. Therefore my designs will never come to fruition.
31.see my answers above
32.Townhouses should be built besdie riparian areas as more families with extremely small backyards can enjoy the
natural surroundings.
33.One level houses would be nice.
34.There should be more one level homes for the seniors in the area.
35.NO! The residential expansion of Maple Ridge has happened too quickly. Taxes continue to rise with the urban
sprawl. Your direction should not be at the ruination of Maple Ridge's character - a jewel within the Greater
Vancouver Regional District.
36.The idea of larger lots on larger pieces or property mixed with smaller lots as at Beecham Place looks better than
many many small lots in the same area as on 102 Ave.
37.An opposite view. The very dense housing east of 240th and north of 102nd avenue is scarily dense. I would hate
to see a house on fire in that neighbourhood. I don't think the fire trucks would get in and the fire would spread
very fast.
38.Since the future development will not be occurring in a vacuum, I have to qualify my answer. What many of us
would like to see is mixed density deelopment as well as elements of master planned communities so this would
suggest that I would favour some townhomes in norther Albion. The reality is that there are very few, if any,
developers in this town that are committed to such products. Furthermore, we are already flooded w/townhomes
along 240th and its feeders. There hasn't been enough regulation. Therefore I favour generous sized (6000 ft2) lots
to prevent further erosion to the quality of life in northern Albion & Maple Crest.
If you are a resident of Albion, do you walk in your neighbourhood? If so, to what destinations? Please explain
any changes that would improve the walkability in your area. |
#Response
1.I walk in my neighbourhood but no where specific as there are no stores, fields, leisure services, gas stations etc.
2.Only to mailbox. Improvements would be sidewalks, stores, restaurants, better transportation services
3.Need more interconnected paths.
4.I walk to Cliff Park, the Louise Poole trail, the Erskine and Bear Ridge Trail. Sidewalks on 112th Avenue and
Lockwood
5.I barely walk in my neighborhood due to the high amount of bear traffic seen on a daily basis. I leave my
neighborhood to walk.
6.No, but I live very close to Albion and walk in Albion every day.
I am a resident of Cottonwood.
I do walk in my neighbourhood, but preferably not along Kanaka Way, because cars drive too fast and I find it
unpleasant. It’s a road that’s not particularly welcoming to people and all it will ever be is a traffic sewer, not a
neighbourhood. Other roads don’t really lead anywhere. You just keep walking through similar residential areas,
mostly along roads with cars. There are various stratas/gated communities in my area, which don’t welcome
strangers, so instead you just keep walking on the busier roads with cars. When I walk the dog, I always walk the
same route, every day. I walk the trail at Kanaka Creek and cross at the Rainbow Bridge, then walk along the trail
behind Tamarack, and do a loop around Planet Ice and the sports fields. It’s a nice and quiet route. The only
destination in my area I can think of is Planet Ice/Fairgrounds/sports fields (distance about 1 ½ km), and for
younger families of course Kanaka Elementary School. A destination for my kids is 7-11 on Lougheed. And
Thomas Haney SS used to be a destination. They had to walk along busy Lougheed to get there, or 232nd, without
adequate sidewalks part of the way.
Walkability improves
• if you have destinations to walk to (a store, a park, restaurant, pub etc.)
• if you don’t always have to walk along busy and noisy roads with speeding cars
• if there is traffic calming
• if roads are narrower (which slows cars down)
• if there are sidewalks
• if there are fewer stratas and gated communities
• if connectivity is good (e.g. pedestrian/cyclist bridges to cross a creek, paths/shortcuts between neighbourhoods)
7.current trails and "walkability" in south albion is very good. maintenance of conservation areas is good. i hope
north albion has similar walkability
8.Yes, I walk anywhere from Jackson Road down to Planet Ice depending. And Lougheed Hwy to bridge on 240th.
9.yes.yes.a path from 256th to the Fraser River along Kanaka Creek
10.Not enough sidewalks, part of 240th close to Albion elem needs better paving, it's a really busy road that needs
attention.
11.Rarely....if I do it is for recreation and exercise.
There are no services
12.Councils for many years have supported this type of planning. When will council say this is what we want now
who will build it as opposed to the present system where developers say this is what we want, let us do it now!
13.We walk both ways from 243B on 112th - sidewalks.
14.Yes I do walk almost daily but to NO DESTINATION. I suppose that I could get to Bruce's Mkt but to return
uphill with groceries would not be viable. So my walking at present is only recreational.
15.To and from Bruce's Market, Albion Park, Jackson Farm, SPCA/Kaitie's Place, Samuel Robertson Technical,
Albion Elementary, Albion Pizzeria/Albion Video/Kanaka Creek Coffee shop. The sidewalks in some areas are
too narrow (Country Lane development). The sidewalk, on 104 Ave is not continuous from 244 to 248 Street (at
S.R.T.).
16.coffee shop
17.It would be nice to have more stores in the area. I walk for my health.
18.Currently the area I live in is not very walkable. I live on Beecham Place. To get to the nearest childrens park ther
are no sidewalks and traffic is very fast along Jackson Road (where SPCA dog walkers walk). Sidewalks and
childrens parks are really needed in the 108th & Jackson area.
19.Trnas Canada Trail
Kanaka Creek Regional Park
Thornhill, Grant Hill
Kanaka Creek
No improvements necessary for "walkability".
20.We often walk the Trans Canada Trail.
Kanaka Creek area.
Thornhill, Grant Hill
21.We walk to the end of 110 Ave and beyond along Kanaka Creek to Turkey Trot and beyond. We also walk to and
along Kanaka Creek Raod and on to the fairgrounds. As for changes: 1) Completion of linear park along Kanaka
Creek.
22.Yes, I walk as much as possible but I am limited to the few streets and pathways safe enough to do so. For
example Kanaka Creek Rd, pathways to Planet Ice which are part of Metro Vancouver Kanaka Creek Park. Any
other street expecially 240th, is unpleasant and dangerous due to the heavy traffic even where there are sidewalks.
23.N/A. I have foot problems, so walking is not an option.
24.We walk on concrete sidewalks up and down 240 St and occationally drive and walk by Kanaka Creek. Parking is
not always desirable this area as the gate for the parking is closed. the local area animal population is also being
crowded which cause unexptected meeting with our animal (local) population.
25.Yes, I walk along a cement sidewalk on 240 St. thre is no walking path nor open space in our neighbourhood. An
improvement would be to have some access away from 240 St on a natural path into some natural areas/creek. My
opinion is to save some of the existing land close to over-buld areas for enjoyment liveability. (Of course,
blackberry bushes are a treasure to my thinking.)
26.We have a dog and regularly walk in Kanaka Creek Park around the Rainbow Bridge / 108 Loop area. We have to
drive there (we live off 112th and 243rd) as the walk down 112th to 240th is too dangerous (no lighting, no
sidewalks/shoulders). Hopefully green space/dog walk/park areas will be included in any redevelopement of the
North Albion area.
27.There is no where to walk to - ie - shopping.
28.Erskine Trail
Trail's Edge Trail Network
Epic Homes Trails
29.Constantly. Using trail network from Trail's Edge to Erskine to lookout above old gravel pit, to microwave towers
to Turkey Trot trail etc. Dog owners.
30.Yes.
31.All areas from Dewdney to 104th Avenue. Some of the proposed zones suggest next to no barrier between house
and street. I would be walking alongside "houses" not neighbourhoods.
32.I regularly walk through the entire area and appreciate the many new trails that have been added over the years. I
am looking forward to when the trail from the bottom of 108th Ave gets connected to 240th and eventually Haney
33.We do not walk in our neighbourhod. There are no desitnations close by.
A small strip mall with grocery store, coffe shop, neighbourhood pub/restaurant at 112 & 240th complete with a
wider 112 ave, with street lights and sidewalks are needed.
34.I walk/run in the area for exercise. Other than a few minor trails, this area has really no destinations within
reasonable walking distances. Enhancing the parkland/conserved areas would give be nice.
35.More sidewalks along 240 Street and road off that road.
36.More walking trails.
37.In fact I do walk in my neighbourhood on a regular basis - to where is actually irrevelant. Suffice to say, that I
often walk to the downtown area of Maple Ridge (6 kilometres) - bike lanes (few people use) and a substantial
lack of sidewalks. As I walk along the side of the Lougheed Highway, I am appalled at the garbage strewn in the
ditches and you and council wish to attract more cars and people. Wake up!
38.At present sidewalks only are built directly in front of new homes, there are undeveloped parts that are adjacent
which have the sidewalk end abruptly. One minute you are safe, the next you are almost walking in the ditch.
More sidewalks would improve the area - especially along Jackson (Industrial). Also along 104th, both sides
should be sidewalk very dangerous for kids. People seem to think they are in the "country" and walk 3 and 4
abreast on areas where there are no sidewalks.
39.Bruce's Market, Albion Park, local parks. Wider side walks make it easier when walking with a stroller and
another adult.
40.Yes, I am a resident, and I do walk through Maple Crest and its trail networks. I would like to see the streetscapes
along 240th to get plenty of attention so that they are pleasant to walk along. I would like to see more native plant
species and evergreens worked in and around new housing so that these areas have a similar feel to our trails. If
the city ensures attractive streetscapes, more people will walk the sidewalks. We would like to see trail systems
connected along Kanaka Creek. I would walk to various proposed malls.
QUESTION 4 Please provide any other comments or suggestions you may have. |
#Response
1.We have so many underdeveloped area's within the urban area of Maple Ridge - why not fill those up first and
then look to Albion, rather than constantly shuttling people further and further east with no services.
2.It makes sense to reduce sprawl. Smaller lots also means more affordable homes.
3.Before this goes ahead you need to have additional services such as schools, park and small retail as part of the
master plan to provide a community feel, rather than just a housing development. People in this area are drawn to
the nice family homes in the MapleCrest development.
4.Any assistance the District can by placing in the main services will encourage a consistent and sensible growth
pattern.
5.The intersection at Haney Bypass/Lougheed Hwy/232 st needs drastic improvement in the area of accessing 232
street.
Also the Bridge over the Alouette at 240th street needs building much sooner than currently scheduled. And while
at that, extend the Abernethy Way to 240th.
6.I believe that so much can be done in the existing parts of Maple Ridge when it comes to densification that would
really benefit the community. Certain older parts in Maple Ridge, west of the town core, in my view, are ripe for
redevelopment, and would seem much more appropriate for densification, since they are close to transportation
corridors and have much more potential for successful mixed zoning. Also densification along Dewdney would
seem more appropriate, because it’s more likely to get better transit, and connectivity + topography would seem to
be less of an issue.
I would like Council and staff to take a hard look at how much these types of developments are costing the
existing taxpayers in the long run, since it’s well-known that spread out developments generally don’t generate
enough tax-revenue to pay for the cost of maintaining and servicing them. The developer may pay for the initial
cost of building the infrastructure, but the cost of maintaining and servicing these areas will be a huge burden in
the future. A cost-benefit analysis would seem a wise thing to do.
7.I believe the keys to success in Maple Ridge are downtown development & population increase (I support the
current strategic plan), and development of shopping areas, which is an essential service for an area with 75,000
residents. Further urban sprawl before supporting amenities are at least approved will add to today's situation in
Maple Ridge (urban sprawl creating more service demands on the municipality, and more traffic leaving Maple
Ridge to shop and work).
8.Community planning for roads, schools and transit should be done ahead of building more houses. Our school at
Hammond is near capacity as well as many schools in Albion. Address this first as well as the roads and transit
then address building more houses/townhouses. I feel that Maple Ridge is putting the cart before the horse in this
case.
9.Please do not build anymore around here. There are many homes for sale in my neighborhood and creating a glut
will not be helpful to our local economy. Our schools are at capacity in the area and there is a sense of frustration
in the community that developers and Maple Ridge municipality are looking to make a quick buck instead of
really giving some to a more planned community.
10.I think schools should be built first before more housing, new families buy houses here only to find out that their
kids cannot even go to their catchment area.
11.Option 2 on sewer extension is more difficult to obtain right of way but makes a better route from an engineering
and economic point of view.
12.A healthy community must provide for the needs of all ages - walking distance to school, convenience store, green
space, meeting/entertainment place. Those small houses don't have space for even a birthday party. A variety of
housing - co-op, boarding homes, secondary suites, lane houses, mobile home park (ie Wildwood in Pitt
Meadows), smaller senior care centres closer to families. Involve the public in preparing the N. Albion Plan such
as in the Silver Valley Plan. Stick to the OCP.
13.A traffic light would be required at 112/240 intersection - needed now! And ravines like the one on our property
which are damp and muddy run-offs should be filled in.
14.Eventually there will be a great deal more traffic up 112th & 108th to Paul Hayes new development. I hope
someone has figured ot the road usage ahead of time??
*I appreciated the opportunity to speak with Frank Quinn who was able (and willing) to answer some of my
questions as to "Institutional" designation and the current progress.
15.This is a short sighted plan. save time. Save money. Think of future generations. Stick with the OCP.
16.I compliment planning staff on their good work.With the current geotechnical and DFO setbacks the yeilds have
decreased dramically from the original Albion Plan.The concern regarding the number of legal suites will decline
with the new higher density zoning prohibiting legal suites in those Zones.I support the new plan.
17.I believe we need to secure the elementary school spaces needed for sustainability, before we further densify,
however I support densification in the north Albion area if it is single family homes on large lots (the least dense
option), in the interim.
18.Please look at completed development in other cities, look at what worked and what didn't. Do not make roads too
small and consider inceasing park zones and the amount of sidewalks.
19.Please continue to increase the number of bicycle lanes with road improvements. This is a great assistance to
improve safety.
20.Continued from question #1; We do not have enough services to support this area at present. Before we build
more houses we need to address the entire community and the requirements - food, safety, schools, traffic,
shopping.
21.There seems to be plenty of open space closer to town. Why not develop there first?
22.I suggest this proposal of increasing the density in N. Albion should be re-visited and I hope the current OCP
designation of Low Density be maintained. Why not encourage more residential development in town, there are
still many ares in Haney needing re-development!
23.The Albion area should be the next spot for developed due to its prosimity to downtown.
24.There are not enough main arteries between Dewney Trunk and Lougheed Hwy. 240 is already getting crowded
with the expansions of higher density lots we will create the same problems with our roads like experienced south
of the the Fraser. Until the road planning and connectors are complete there shoul be no high density lots. Making
240 St a four lane will only create access problems for the local residents already there. Maple Ridge is not ready
for high density living. We do not need an anthill to live on.
25.At the open house I didn't see plans for additional roads to cope with all the vehicles that will heading from all the
new residents. It appears all will drive onto 240 St already a problem area. (I don't appreciate having to
contemplate moving from here because of speeding traffic.)
26.I am curious about the removal of the Density Transfer on properties with unbuildable areas - is this contingent on
the new denser RS-1/R-1 zones being approved?
27.More trails please! Use to live in Oakville, Ont. Fabulous connection of trails to subdivision. Huge population
biking walking running. this same Albion area is a gem for trails. Suggest trail on north side of Trail's Edge
between Kanaka River & Kimola. gorgeous area.
28.the District needs to provide more retail shops in the Albion Area before it creates its density. The District should
definitly purchase the property designated "school" 148th & 108th. No more density in that area it has a nice rural
flavour. Don't change everything all at once, go a little slower.
29.After taking part in the open house and speaking with represtatives I have concluded the following. The true
objective here is to "maximize profits regardless of social and environmental costs." I highly doubt that the person
suggesting these proposed zones lives in these zones, also know to me as rat cages.
30.I appreciate the ability to provide feedback. I hope it can make a difference
31.More bikelane/trails in the Albion area for family recreation and commuting.
32.Change is in some ways inevitable, in other ways not inevitable. The focus should be on the right mix of
appropriate preservation first, development second. Let's make this an area with good proximity to an enhanced
trail and park network that are the signatures of the beauty of this place. I am happy to put up with few amenities
(i.e. one pizza shop, one coffee shop and one market) in return for an area in which I can breathe.
33.Take a deep breath and ponder the fact that 71% of Maple Ridge's electorate did not necessarily support you in the
last municipal election!
34.Some areas such as 112th are to be developed and some areas such as 108th are being skipped. We live in old
homes, the people on 108th are for the greatest part not absentee land owners. If our way of life is now
compromised then our street should be rezoned to R1. Please reconsider the zoning for our "illegal lots". Building
permits were issued for them once, they can be changed again!
35.I have to question the reason for this whole exercise. I pessimistically have to assume council owes a
developer/campaign contributor a favour. Sorry.
36.It would be nice if there were some gargage bins in public areas.
37.1. Please explain to the public how the proposed density will impact the local ingrastructure. (I am concerned
about 240th & Kanaka Way and getting in and out Maple Crest.) I would like to stress that I am not entirely
opposed to the increased density proposed for norther Albion, with the exception of the 4000ft2 lots, which
scream uninspired "cookie cutter" housing. What I am most concerned with is further density beyone the amended
OCP. Council tends to interpret the OCP as being loose recommendations. Are we at the abosolute ceiling of
density increases?
Responders Name (optional) |
#Response
1.Lisa Prophet
2.Ryan
3.Luke
4.Mark Sherling
5.Danny Gerbrandt
6.Darren Munnich
7.Susan Boan
8.E. Fox
9.Bob Quinnell
10.Bernice Rolls
11.Keith Every
12.Sandra McKeever
13.Bernice Rolls
14.Ron Antalek
15.Sean Orcutt
16.D. Cougar
17.Ian Lndquist
18.Bill Durno
19.Barbara Durno
20.Grace
21.Curtis Yang
22.Jeff
23.Hana Park
24.Paul Schmitt
25.Christine Schmitt
26.Hasse Marthinsen
27.Colleen Marthinsen
28.Bruce Rae
29.Bob P.
30.Working class peasant
31.Andres Schneiter 604 467 1651
32.Dave Johnston
33.Barbara Moniuk
34.52 year old male
35.DM Cork
36.James Craig Ruthven
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: June 18, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: OPS1206
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: Bulk Water Fill Stations Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District of Maple Ridge has provided water stand pipes in Maple Ridge at which the public can
access free municipal water. In 2010 the Fraser Health Authority advised the District that the stand
pipes should be upgraded to comply with current water regulations. The District of Maple Ridge
received a letter from Fraser Health stating concerns associated with security at the four existing
water stand pipes (attached).
In response to the Health Authority’s concerns a ‘Bulk Water Fill Station’ was installed on Jackson
Road at 106th Avenue in early 2010, and a second station is planned for the Kanaka Business Park.
These new stations comply with the health regulations and provide the latest technology that
incorporates the desired security, the ability to monitor usage and a range of options for dispensing.
The ‘Bulk Water Fill Station’ uses ‘Smart Card’ technology to dispense water. Two Bulk Water Fill
Stations with four dispensers are intended to replace two stand pipes located on 102nd Avenue (1
commercial and 1 public) and two stand pipes located on 256th Street (1 commercial and 1 public).
Over the course of the past year the station on Jackson Road has been tested by both r esidential
and commercial users.
A public information and feedback session held in July 2011 was well attended. This report provides
a status update on this initiative.
RECOMMENDATION:
That this update be received for information.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The District of Maple Ridge received a letter from Fraser Health in October 2010 stating
concerns associated with security at the four existing water stand pipes (attached). Two of
4.4
the stand pipes (commercial locations) have now been decommissioned. In response to
these concerns the District of Maple Ridge has installed one ‘Bulk Water Fill Station’ on
Jackson Road and the installation of a second station is planned as part of the Capital Works
Program on Lilley Drive in the Kanaka Business Park.
The new stations are state of the art using smart c ard technology that ensures security,
optimum usage monitoring and a range of dispensing options.
With the existing stand pipes (which currently remain in operation) water is available to
anyone in any amount free of charge. In other words residents from any municipality from
anywhere can access Maple Ridge water in any amount free of charge.
The intent of the new stations is to ensure that the water is made available to residents of
Maple Ridge only, free of charge. However commercial haulers will be required to pay for
accessing Maple Ridge municipal water.
b) Desired Outcome:
The purpose of the new stations is to comply with the request from the Fraser Health
Authority. The new locations will also provide safer access for vehicle entry and egress
The desired outcome of the new stations is to ensure that the water is made available to
residents of Maple Ridge only, free of charge. However commercial haulers will be required
to pay for accessing Maple Ridge municipal water
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
During the public information session and testing period, residents suggested several ideas
to improve the service. Two of these items can be addressed by the installation of a tap at
the Bulk Fill Station. The issues identified were that the Bulk Fill Station is dependent on
electricity, and the flow of water is too rapid for filling of small vessels such as bottles. In the
event of a power failure residents could still obtain drinking water from the tap which would
also provide a location to fill small bottles and jugs. An uninterrupted power supply will supply
power for 6 to 8 hours.
As a result of this input modifications to the Bulk Full Station are proposed that will allow for
smaller containers to be filled.
Residents’ clear preference is that the water continue to be provided at no cost. Water at
these stations will be available to Maple Ridge residents at no cost.
Cards will be issued at the Municipal Hall. Residents will be required to provide proof of
residence in Maple Ridge.
The cards will have no monetary value and will be time sensitive, with re-application required
annually. An agreement will outline the responsibilities and expectations of card holders. It
is anticipated that further discussions will be necessary to outline to residents how to use the
new system.
Commercial haulers are required to pay for water.
d) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The Bulk Water Fill Stations are included in the approved Financial Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Removal of the four existing stand pipes and replacing them with new state of the art stations will
meet backflow protection standards for safe drinking water. The stations also provide optimum
usage monitoring and a range of dispensing options. The new locations will also provide safer access
for vehicle entry and egress. Water will remain free of charge for Maple Ridge residents.
Commercial haulers will be required to pay.
“Original signed by Russ Carmichael”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Russ Carmichael, AScT, Eng.L
Director of Engineering Operations
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager, Public Works and Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 18, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: E02-008-001
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Ongoing growth in the District can, in single family residential areas adjacent to high parking demand
such as hospitals, transportation hubs or commercial hubs, heighten the level of concern of
residents around excessive non-local vehicles taking up on-street parking. It is prudent to establish a
consistent policy framework for dealing with such parking-related issues as they manifest
themselves in these high demand areas.
In April 2012 a report on the consideration of resident-exempt and resident-only parking was brought
to Workshop and Council passed Motion R/2012-187 that states:
That staff be directed to develop a policy to address resident parking issues in residential
neighbourhoods adjacent to areas of high demand such as hospitals, transportation or
commercial hubs.
This report outlines the parking policy for Council’s consideration and endorsement. Doing so will
ensure that a consistent approach is applied in all circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Policy” to address parking issues in single
family residential neighbourhoods adjacent to areas of high demand, be endorsed.
DISCUSSION:
Residential areas adjacent to areas of high parking demand such as hospitals, transportation hubs
or commercial hubs often have to deal with non-resident vehicles taking up the limited on-street
parking. The implementation of resident-exempt or resident-only parking strategies under defined
policy procedures is intended to address and resolve situations where a chronic and heavy demand
for on-street parking by non-residents is a concern.
Permit parking for residents in a neighbourhood allows residents to have parking priority in a signed
area within a reasonable distance of their home but does not guarantee residents the right or ability
to parking front of their own property.
4.5
a) Background Context:
In single family residential areas adjacent to high demand hubs where there is competition for
limited parking stalls there are two basic situations that may exist:
a lack of available on-street parking, or
a preponderance of non-resident vehicles that park within a neighbourhood and while
residents may have adequate off-street parking on their properties it is seen as an imposition
or detriment to the neighbourhood.
Resident only parking permit zones are generally established where there is a chronic and heavy
demand for on-street parking by non-residents and not to address short term intermittent parking
problems generated by schools, churches, pubs etc. Likewise, permit parking regulations are
generally implemented in single family neighbourhoods and not intended to deal with the demands
of higher-density residential uses such as townhouses or apartments as these zones are required to
provide adequate off-street parking.
One caveat of a parking permit system is that it can significantly reduce the availability of on-street
parking that may be considered as contrary to the intended use which is to provide an amenity to all
members of the public unless the permit system is combined with unregulated or time limited
parking areas.
Within the District of Maple Ridge there are currently no areas where parking is limited to local
residents to the exclusion of others; there is a network of time limited parking areas, mostly around
the Town Centre but also, for example on River Bend adjacent to the Haney Stati on or Patterson
Avenue off 203 Street. The time limits range from 15 minutes for a loading zone up to 3 hours.
There are two basic types of permit parking regulations:
Option 1 – Time Limited Parking with Resident Exemptions (RE)
Time limited parking is generally set for one to two hours in order to allow parking for the general
public while allowing residents to park for a longer period under a permit. Depending upon the
adjacent land use, the time limited parking may be in place for a defined period each day, may
be in place Monday to Friday, or may be in place 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Option 2 – Resident Only Parking (RO)
This method is generally implemented where there is a demonstrated lack of available on-street
parking, even for local residents, and there is considerable demand from external vehicles.
Council considered the development of a policy to govern RE and RO permit parking at a Workshop
in April 2012 with the following stated objectives:
Enhance residential amenity by eliminating or restricting opportunities for non-residents and
commuters to park all day on residential streets in high-demand areas such as those
adjacent to such as hospitals or institutions, transportation hubs or commercial hubs
Provide equitable on-street parking opportunities for road users
Support green transportation objectives and strategies
Encourage public transportation usage by limiting unrestricted parking in high demand areas.
Subsequent to Council’s direction to develop a policy to address resident parking issues in
residential neighbourhoods adjacent to areas of high demand such as hospitals, transportation or
commercial hubs staff have created a “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Policy” for
Council’s consideration and endorsement, a copy of which is attached in Appendix A of this report.
b) Desired Outcome:
The implementation of a resident-only parking policy will provide some certainty for residents
concerned about the livability of their neighbourhood by controlling the number of non-resident
vehicles parking for extended periods of time.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
A consequence of limiting on-street parking for resident in a high-demand neighbourhood is the
inconvenience in having visitors seek to park on the street and possibly be ticketed. There is the
cost of the decals or permits to residents as well as having to renew permits annually at Municipal
Hall although this situation exists for many residents through the issuance of animal licences as an
example. The policy does not allow for the issuance of visitor permits as they are often misused and
it is difficult to track appropriate usage. It is expected that residents would allow visitors to use their
driveway while they park on the road while in the case of larger private gatherings the residents
should contact the Bylaws Department to make them aware of the guest vehicles.
It is noted however that the installation of a resident-only parking zone does not guarantee that
residents will be able to park in front of their residence – the parking is available to any eligible user.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department will enforce the regulations within the designated RE
or RO zones. The issuance of permits or decals will be handled through the Bylaws Customer Service
Counter in Municipal Hall.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
There will be a cost to administer the issuance and record-keeping of the RE or RO decals. The
annual costs associated with this program will depend largely upon the number of streets where RE
or RO is implemented.
It is recommended that the annual fee for RE or RO decals be included in the District’s Fee and
Charges Bylaw, and reviewed annually in future years. For 2012 it is recommended that the annual
fee for a single RE or RO decal be set at $10. Costs for parking permits vary in other jurisdictions
from $10 up to $74 per annum.
Municipality Parking Permit Costs
New Westminster $10.00
West Vancouver $10.00
City of Coquitlam $18.00
City of North Vancouver $25.00
White Rock $33.60
Vancouver (various locations) $37.00/$55.00/$74.00
The enforcement of the regulations will be undertaken by Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department
staff in the course of their regular shifts.
f) Policy Implications:
The new policy will govern the consideration and implementation of RE or RO zones.
g) Alternatives:
Should the proposed policy to govern RE and RO zones not be supported then staff will continue to
address issues of residential parking conflicts on a case-by-case basis but without the benefit of a
guiding framework.
CONCLUSIONS:
The endorsement of a Council Policy to address concerns of residents around excessive non-local
vehicles parking should alleviate potential conflicts and dissatisfaction of affected residents in
neighbourhoods adjacent to areas of high parking demand such as hospitals, transportation hubs or
commercial hubs.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: David Pollock PEng, Municipal Engineer
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Liz Holitzki, Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn PEng., MBA, General Manager,. PW & DS
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
DP/dp
Attachment: Appendix A – “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Policy”
"Original signed by David Pollock"
"Original signed by E.S. (Liz) Holitzki"
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Appendix A
Page 1 of 2 Policy
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking
Policy No :
Supersedes:
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date:
June 26, 2012
Review Date:
June 26, 2013
Policy Statement:
Requests for Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking will be addressed in accordance with
the strategies, practice and measures as contained in the document titled “Resident-Exemption
and Resident-Only Parking Procedures”, as attached.
Purpose:
Residential parking issues are a concern of both the District and its residents. The application of
consistent processes and practices will ensure that neighborhood parking issues will be addressed
in a balanced, efficient and cost effective manner that respects the needs of residents and road
users.
Definitions:
See attached “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Procedures.”
Page 2 of 2 Policy
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Neighborhood request for Parking Restrictions
Evaluate request based on procedures (see attached) and forward
recommendation to Municipal Engineer
Approval or denial
Install signs
Issuance of annual permit
Parking enforcement
Responsibility
Residents
Bylaws and Engineering
Municipal Engineer
Operations
Bylaws
Bylaws
Date: June 26, 2012
RESIDENT-EXEMPTION AND RESIDENT-ONLY PARKING PROCEDURES
(An attachment to Policy No: )
INTRODUCTION
Residential areas adjacent to areas of high parking demand such as hospitals, transportation hubs
or commercial hubs often have to deal with non-resident vehicles taking up the limited on-street
parking. To resolve such issues jurisdictions may choose to implement parking strategies in
situations where a chronic and heavy demand for on-street parking by non-residents is a concern.
Permit parking schemes for residents in a neighbourhood allows residents to have parking priority in
a signed area within a reasonable distance of their home but at the same time it is noted that
residents are not guaranteed the right or ability to park in front of their own property.
Restricted parking schemes are generally implemented where there is a chronic and heavy demand
from on-street parking by non-residents and is not to address short term intermittent parking
problems generated by school, churches, pubs, etc.
The form of parking scheme will vary with the intensity of the parking problem. In general terms
access to on-street parking becomes more difficult once a level of 70 percent parking occupancy is
reached. This threshold is applied as a guide for determining when parking control schemes should
be introduced. Residential streets that consistently have parking levels less than this threshold will
largely remain uncontrolled, apart from controls to maintain traffic efficiency and safety standards.
Once the 70 percent parking occupancy threshold is consistently exceeded, the implementation of
restricted parking zones will be considered if a majority of 65 percent of residents support the
implementation on the affected length of street.
OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of a policy to guide requests for Resident-Exempt (RE) or Resident-Only (RO)
parking schemes are:
Enhance residential amenity by eliminating or restricting opportunities for non-residents and
commuters to park all day on residential streets in high-demand areas such as those
adjacent to such as hospitals or institutions, transportation hubs or commercial hubs
Provide equitable on-street parking opportunities for road users
Support green transportation objectives and strategies
Encourage public transportation usage by limiting unrestricted parking in high demand areas.
Permit parking regulations, whether they be RE or RO are generally implemented in single family
neighbourhoods and not intended to deal with the demands of higher-density residential uses such
as townhouses or apartments as these zones are required to provide adequate off-street parking.
DEFINITIONS
There are two basic types of permit parking schemes:
RESIDENT-EXEMPTION (RE) PARKING:
In this case an area is posted as a time-limited zone where the parking limit is generally set for
one to two hours in order to allow parking for the general public. Residents are able to park for a
longer period under a Resident-Exemption permit. Depending upon the adjacent land use, the
time limited parking may be in place for a defined period each day, may be in place Monday to
Friday, or may be in place 24 hours a day, seven days a week . Residents are not guaranteed an
on-street parking space and availability is on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Date: June 26, 2012
RESIDENT-ONLY (RO) PARKING:
This strategy is generally implemented where there is a demonstrated lack of available on-street
parking even for local residents and there is considerable demand from external vehicles.
CONSIDERATION OF RE AND RO ZONES
RE and RO parking areas should be considered for neighbourhood streets that are in close proximity
to public facilities such as institution facilities, transit hubs, commercial districts and tourist
attractions.
If there is a desire for RE or RO parking on an applicable street the District’s Engineering Department
(Traffic) will undertake a parking evaluation with assistance from Bylaws to determine the validity of
the concern and appropriate measures. The evaluation may include the following:
Inventory of the existing number of on-street parking spaces
Survey of on-street parking demand
Review and evaluation by the Traffic Management Group comprised of staff from RCMP,
Engineering, Bylaws, Speedwatch, Planning, Parks and ICBC.
RE and RO parking areas will be considered on an area-specific basis with the minimum area being a
complete street block, both sides.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Eligibility for a RE or RO permit will be determined as follows:
Single Family dwellings and Semi-detached dwellings (duplex, 3-plex and 4-plex) are eligible
to receive a maximum of two permits, provided that there are two or more cars registered at
the address.
Multi-family dwellings (apartments, townhouses, low and high rise buildings are not eligible
for permits as these zones are required to provide sufficient off-street parking.
In addition to the above;
The permitted vehicle must be registered to the residential address and cannot be a
commercial truck, bus, caravan, recreational vehicle, boat trailer, nor can the vehicle exceed
5000 kgs L.G.V.W.
No visitor or temporary permits will be issued to eliminate mis-use.
Permit holders are permitted to park in designated areas and does not guarantee an on -
street parking space. Parking availably will be on a first come first serve basis.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
All affected residents, business and/or property owners of the street proposed for permit parking will
be notified in writing. A questionnaire survey on the proposal and/or some other form of
communication such as neighborhood street meetings may be used to assess the area residents’
support and willingness to participate in the program. The District is looking for a minimum 65
percent participation rate in any identified area to initiate either a RE or RO scheme.
APPROVAL PROCESS
The Municipal Engineer will have final authority on designating a subject neighbourhood as a RE or
RO area.
Date: June 26, 2012
APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL PERMITS
Residents seeking either RE or RO permits are required to make an annual application at the Bylaws
counter at Municipal Hall. In applying for exemption, residents are responsible to provide the
necessary documents to the District’s Bylaws Department as specified in the application forms.
FEES
Fees for permits shall be as listed in the District’s Fee and Charges Bylaw. These fees will be subject
to annual review.
Any replacement permits required due to damage to original permit, sale of vehicle etc. will be
provided upon receiving new documentation and payment of fee.
USE OF PERMIT
Any issued permit is not transferable.
Permits must reflect the vehicle plate number of the vehicle in which it is displayed and designated
area in which it is parked.
If circumstances change and the permit holder does not meet the eligibility criteria, the permit is no
longer valid and must be returned.
RENEWAL OF RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT
Resident Parking Permits must be renewed at the beginning of each calendar year, subject to
satisfying eligibility criteria. It is the permit holder’s responsibility to make sure that the permit is
valid at all times. Residents must be aware that it is not an automatic renewal.
RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The Traffic Management Group will provide input to the Municipal Engineer for all new requests to
establish permit parking areas.
The Municipal Engineer will have final authority on designating RE and RO areas.
The Engineering Department (Traffic) will be responsible for the installation of all traffic controls in
designated RE and RO areas.
The Bylaws Department is responsible for the processing of applications and issuance of all resident
parking permits.
The Bylaws Department is responsible for the enforcement of all permit parking areas.
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 18, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR-0640-30
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Housing Action Plan Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this report to is obtain Council’s authorization to proceed with the proposed process
for the preparation of a Housing Action Plan (HAP) for the District of Maple Ridge. The HAP will
articulate a vision, guiding principles, goals and objectives, and a plan for municipal actions and
strategies with the goal of achieving an adequate supply of housing to meet the full range of incomes
and needs in our community.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be authorized to proceed with the preparation of a Housing Action Plan, in accordance with
the process outlined in this staff report dated 2012-06-18.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The proposed HAP was approved as a part of the 2012 Business Plan under the title Affordable
Housing Strategy. This title has been modified to be called the “Housing Action Plan” to align
with the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS).
In July, 2011, Metro Vancouver adopted the RGS with the support of member municipalities.
Maple Ridge Council accepted the RGS on March 22, 2011. The RGS demonstrates that
affordable housing with a range of housing options is an essential part of a complete community.
It outlines a series of municipal actions including the development of Official Community Plans,
Regional Context Statements, and Housing Action Plans as actions to assist municipalities in
increasing the supply and diversity of affordable housing at key points along the housing
continuum.
The RGS provides ten year estimates of future housing demands across the region. The 10-year
estimate for Maple Ridge is for 6,600 new housing units; with 4,300 being ownership units and
2,300 being rental units. Of the rental units, it is estimated that 1,700 will need to be affordable
in order to accommodate low and moderate-income households. Of the 1,700, it is estimated
that there is a need for 800 non-market social housing units and 900 affordable market rental
units.
Scope
The District of Maple Ridge’s HAP will identify actions currently underway and will recommend
strategies to address current and future housing needs, with a particular focus on the needs of
low and moderate income households for whom home ownership is not an option. The HAP will:
assess local housing market conditions, by tenure, including assessing housing supply,
demand and affordability;
identify housing priorities, based on the assessment of local housing market conditions, and
consideration of changing household demographics, characteristics and needs;
4.6
identify implementation measures within the jurisdiction and financial capabilities of
municipalities;
identify strategies to encourage the supply of new rental housing and limit the loss of existing
rental housing stock;
identify opportunities to participate in programs with other levels of government to secure
additional affordable housing units to meet housing needs across the continuum of housing.
Through a community and stakeholder engagement process, the HAP will focus on the housing
continuum from home ownership through to non-market housing to identify key
recommendations to address the supply of:
Non-market housing for low income households and for groups that require supportive or
special needs housing;
Market rental housing for low and moderate income households, and
Affordable home ownership.
Non-Market Housing:
Through the Social Planning function, the District of Maple Ridge has been working with
community partners to facilitate solutions to the issues related to inadequate housing options.
Work has included:
Being informed and understanding the issues;
Acting as an advocate to other levels of government, funders, and community stakeholders;
Supporting the implementation of solutions through actions that are within the municipality’s
mandate.
Over the last several years, the District has been proactive in serving as a catalyst for action to
address homelessness. Examples include:
Participation on the Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness;
Support for the development 2004 Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Ending Homelessness Action
Plan, as well as the update to this Action Plan that is currently underway;
Support, and in some instances in-kind contribution, for numerous community initiatives
including: the Iron Horse Youth Safe House, the Alouette Home Start Community Outreach
team; the Family Inn; Alouette Heights Supportive Housing; and the Route 29 Youth Housing
support program.
The HAP will explore strategies to build on the Municipality’s current activities and identify
options and opportunities to help increase the supply of non-market housing for low-income
households and supportive housing for seniors, youth and people with disabilities.
Market Rental Housing:
The development of a HAP will provide an opportunity for Maple Ridge to undertake an analysis
of its current market rental housing stock, examine the municipal policies and regulations that
impact the supply of rental housing, and identify priority issues and recommended actions for
tracking and increasing the supply of rental housing.
Home Ownership:
The preparation of the HAP will include an analysis of the municipality’s land use policies and
regulations and investigate how to support and encourage the continued supply of ownership
housing in a variety of forms, and explore opportunities for affordable home ownership.
Proposed Process
The attached HAP flow chart outlines the proposed process for this project. The proposal is that
the Social Planning Advisory Committee will act as the Steering Committee for the HAP, guiding
the process and making recommendation on decision items to Council. The Parks & Leisure
Services department staff that support SPAC will be the key staff liaisons to the project and the
Planning Department will provide technical support.
The flow chart indicates that background work to prepare for the HAP is already underway. The
chart indicates that the work to prepare for the HAP began with the participation in the RGS. It
is anticipated that this work will coincide with the hiring of a consulting firm which will then begin
the process of conducting research related to the HAP. The background studies and policy
papers being prepared by staff include:
Housing and Market Conditions Update - the Official Community Plan includes a section on
population and housing trends, including the population profile of the community at the time
(2005) and housing distribution (2001) and projections. The 2011 Federal Census provides
an opportunity to update this information to ensure it provides relevant information for the
other studies being completed as part of the Housing Action Plan.
Secondary Suites Review - this work includes a review of the Zoning Bylaw regulations and
general issues related to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses (TRU’s), to
investigate options and ideas to solve the issues and to recommend a set of policy and/or
bylaw amendments for Council’s consideration.
Ending Homelessness Action Plan – work to update the 2004 Action Plan is in the SPAC
2012 Business Plan. The work will be conducted with the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Katzie
Community Network Housing Planning Table. The Action Plan will provide an analysis of
current resources and services and will identify current priorities within the format of an
action plan. This plan will guide the work of the Housing Planning Table and partners over
the next five years. The issues and priorities that are identified in this plan will provide
background information to inform the HAP.
Seniors & Special Needs Housing Assessment - the Official Community Plan also includes
planning principles, objectives and policies respecting seniors and special needs housing.
The HAP process provides an opportunity to ensure that the current policies continue to
provide direction for seniors and special needs housing in the District.
These background studies and policy papers, together with additional research, will provide
valuable information and context for the HAP public consultation process. The proposed timeline
is for the consultation process to begin mid January, 2013. The public consultation process will
be designed to engage a diverse mix of stakeholders and community members in dialogue
designed to identify the key housing issues and explore options and opportunities to address the
issues.
The HAP will include a vision, goals and objectives, and actions and strategies. The proposed
final HAP will be assessed to ensure alignment with the RGS and to determine implications for
municipal policy or bylaw amendments. The final proposed HAP, along with an outline of
municipal policy implications, will be presented to SPAC for endorsement and a recommendation
to Council. This process is expected to be completed by the summer of 2013. Once endorsed,
the HAP will contribute to the development of the Regional Context Statement.
b) Desired Outcomes:
Housing is essential in creating healthy, sustainable communities and affordability plays an
important role in supporting a competitive local economy and in promoting the economic and
social well-being of families and individuals.
The proposed HAP will focus on developing recommendations designed to address the
critical needs in the community: the shortfall in the supply of affordable rental housing, the
shortfall in the supply of social housing, the homelessness and the increasing numbers of at-
risk of homelessness, and the shortfall in modest-cost housing appropriate for first-time
home-buyers.
c) Strategic Alignment:
This initiative aligns with Council’s strategic direction of creating a safe and livable community.
This initiative recognizes that the provision of adequate housing is essential to the overall health
of the community. There are three core arguments that suggest that the health and
sustainability of the municipality depends on the provision of adequate housing:
1. Housing, Health and Quality of Life: there is a correlation between housing, health and
quality of life:
2. Links to Economic Well-being: housing affordability is important in terms of supporting a
competitive local economy:
3. Public costs: Homelessness has a social and health cost to both the individual and to the
community:
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
It is estimated that for one-third of the region’s households, finding and remaining in affordable
housing to rent or own is a problem. Individuals unable to find housing that is suitable in size
and good repair without spending 30% or more of their household income on shelter are
considered to be in “core housing need”. The 2006 census estimated that 17% of households in
Metro Vancouver were in core housing need. It is critical to the well being of individuals and
family, and to the health of the overall community, that there is an adequate supply of affordable
housing options to meet the full range of incomes and needs in our community.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Parks and Leisure Services, under the guidance of the Social Planning Advisory Committee will
provide staff support to the development of the HAP with the technical support of the Planning
Department.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
It is anticipated that the recommendations developed for the HAP will have implications for
future business plans for both the Parks and Leisure Services and the Planning Department
business plans.
The endorsement of the HAP itself would not have any financial implications; however there is
the potential that specific recommendations may include a financial commitment. Such
recommendations would be considered by Council individually through the annual business
planning approval process.
g) Policy Implications:
The RGS requirement for municipalities to develop a HAP and to ensure the alignment of the
Official Community Plan with the RGS are implications for Municipal policies.
The RGS requires that within two years of its adoption, each municipality prepare an updated
Official Community Plan and Regional Context Statement. The Regional Context Statement sets
out the relationship between the RGS and the municipality’s OCP, and identifies how local
actions will contribute to achieving Regional Growth Strategy goals. Municipalities are required
to submit their Regional Context Statements to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance.
Should a municipality not complete components such as the HAP within the two year time
frame, it is acceptable to indicate in the Regional Context Statement that this work is underway.
CONCLUSIONS:
The development of a Housing Action Plan is an important step in advancing the municipality’s
sustainability objectives. The HAP will focus on meeting critical housing needs in the community
recognizing that housing is essential in creating healthy, sustainable communities and affordability
plays an important role in supporting a competitive local economy and in promoting the economic
and social well-being of families and individuals.
The Housing Action Plan will inform the development of the Regional Context Statement to be
submitted to Metro Vancouver outlining the relationship between the Regional Growth Strategy and
the municipality’s OCP, and identifying how local actions will contribute to achieving Regional Growth
Strategy goals.
The District of Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee has endorsed the proposed Housing
Action Plan process and is recommending that Council endorse the process and authorize staff to
proceed.
“Original signed by Sue Wheeler”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Sue Wheeler
Community Services Director
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Kelly Swift
General Manager: Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence by: Christine Carter, Director of Planning
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
:sw
Attachment: Housing Action Plan Process
Regional Growth Strategy:
Municipalities to prepare
and implement a Housing
Action Plan
District of Maple Ridge
Council direction to
undertake the work
in 2012
Background Studies and Policy Papers
Summary of Background Studies
and Policy Papers and additional
Research Papers as
required
Key Housing Issues
Housing Action Plan Content
Vision
Goals & Objectives
Actions & Strategies
Alignment with the Regional
Growth Strategy
Recommendations to Council on policy
or bylaw amendments
Housing Action
Plan
Secondary
Suites Review
Ending
Homelessness
Action Plan
Seniors & Special
Needs Housing
Assessment
Housing Market
Conditions
Update
July
2011
December
2011
May
2011
Fall
2012
Winter
2012 / 2013
Spring
2013
Summer
2013 Ongoing Consultation with Residents, Service Providers, User Groups and other levels of Government SPAC
District of Maple Ridge
LONG TERM TRANSLINK FUNDING MODEL
WHEREAS TransLink is responsible for regional transit, cycling and commuting options, and
the Major Road Network for the Metro Vancouver area which is home to approximately 50%
of British Columbia’s population;
AND WHEREAS TransLink is unable to generate sufficient funding to meet the needs of this
growing area through its current funding model;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities urge the
provincial government to provide a permanent and appropriate long tem funding model for
TransLink.
4.7
District of Maple Ridge
MUNICIPAL PRICE INDEX
WHEREAS municipal spending is often compared to or linked to the Consumer Price Index
which measures changes in the price level of consumer goods and services purchased by
households;
AND WHEREAS municipalities experience with inflation can differ greatly from the Consumer
Price Index as the largest municipal expenditures are typically labour, materials and
contractual services which are different factors than those found in the Consumer Price
Index;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities request that
the provincial government include in the Terms of Reference of the Municipal Auditor
General the creation of a Municipal Price Index that will improve the accuracy by which
municipal costs can be projected.
District of Maple Ridge
Remuneration Levels for Municipal Councils
WHEREAS there are a variety of methodologies used throughout the Province to set
remuneration levels for elected officials at the municipal level;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities urge the
provincial government to include in the Terms of Reference of the Municipal Auditor General
responsibility for determining the most appropriate methodology for establishing
remuneration levels for Municipal Councils.