Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-17 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge 1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2.MINUTES – February 3, 2014 3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 3.1 RCMP Introductions, Superintendent Fluegel 4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Bicycle Advisory Committee Structure Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CAP) Bylaw No. 7057-2014 be considered at the February 25, 2014 Council Meeting. COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA February 17, 2014 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 February 17, 2014 Closed Council 12:00 noon Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m. February 18, 2014 Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. Council Workshop February 17, 2014 Page 2 of 4 4.2 Tandem and Off-Street Parking Open House Summary Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be revised. 4.3 Transportation Plan (10:00 a.m.) Presentation by John Steiner, Urban Systems 4.4 Proposed Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 be finalized and brought forward to the next appropriate Committee of the Whole meeting. 4.5 Remedial Action for the Demolition of Derelict/Unsafe Structure at 22033 Lougheed Highway Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that the owner of the property at 22033 Lougheed Highway be required to perform remedial action requirements within 30 days of the receipt of a resolution of Council 4.6 Remedial Action for the Demolition of Derelict/Unsafe Structure at 22043 Lougheed Highway Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that the owner of the property at 22033 Lougheed Highway be required to perform remedial action requirements within 30 days of the receipt of a resolution of Council 4.7 Infrastructure Sustainability Funding Staff report dated February 17, 2014 providing information on municipal infrastructure sustainability funding. 4.8 140th Birthday Celebrations Verbal update by the General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation Council Workshop February 17, 2014 Page 3 of 4 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 National Dementia Strategy: Municipal Resolution and C-356 E-mail dated February 6, 2014 from Claude Gravelle, MP, Nickel Belt, requesting a resolution in support of a National Dementia Strategy. 6.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8.ADJOURNMENT Checked by: ___________ Date: _________________ Council Workshop February 17, 2014 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 municipality; (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. District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP February 3, 2014 The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on February 3, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Blaney Room of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business. PRESENT Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor E. Daykin J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer Councillor C. Ashlie K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development, Councillor C. Bell Parks and Recreation Services Councillor J. Dueck P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services Councillor A. Hogarth F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Councillor B. Masse Services Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary Other Staff as Required S. Rutledge, Manager of Revenue and Collections S. Wheeler, Director of Community Services J. Charlebois, Manager of Community Planning D, Spence, Fire Chief D. Fleugel, Superintendent, Ridge Meadows RCMP D. Splinter, Inspector, Operations Officer, Ridge Meadows RCMP L. Holitzki, Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca 1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted as circulated. 2.0 Council Workshop Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 2 of 4 2.MINUTES R/2014-054 Minutes It was moved and seconded January 20, 2014 That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of January 20, 2014 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil 4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Property Assessment Update Presentation by Derek Coburn, Acting Deputy Assessor, BC Assessment Staff report dated February 3, 2014 providing information on the 2014 Property Assessments. Presentation by the Manager of Revenue and Collections The Acting Deputy Assessor gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of the 2014 Property Assessments. He advised on BC Assessment’s role. He defined market value and addressed what the market has done in 2013. He provided examples of typical residential assessments and spoke to the relationship between assessments and taxes. He also advised on a desktop review corporate project for BC Assessment. The Manager of Revenue and Collections provided an overview of the 2014 Property Assessments. She advised that the information is preliminary as it is subject to appeals however it is a reasonable indicator of what can be expected. 4.2 Medical Marihuana Federal Regulations Implications Verbal report by Superintendent Dave Fleugal, Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment Superintendent Fleugal gave a PowerPoint presentation providing information on the upcoming transition of residential medical marihuana growing operations to commercial growing operations. He outlined the past history of grow operations prior to 2001 and the problems created by these grow ops. Council Workshop Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 3 of 4 The Fire Chief advised on the electrical fire safety initiatives used in other areas to aid in coping with illegal grow operations in the past. Superintendent Fleugal outlined the changes to the Health Canada regulations for the growing of medical marihuana. He spoke to the de- commissioning of existing medical marihuana grow ops as of April 1, 2014 and the possible impact on the District particularly in terms of enforcement. He also outlined options which can be used by the RCMP and the Fire Department to assist in the de-commissioning of existing grow operations. Staff will provide further details following a meeting of Police Chiefs. 4.3 Housing Action Plan/Seniors’ Housing Update Presentation by Brent Elliott and Noha Sedky, CitySpaces Ltd. Consultants Staff report dated February 3, 2014 providing an update on the status of the Housing Action Plan. The General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services introduced the Housing Action Plan. She spoke to the collaboration between departments in the development of the plan. She advised that the Seniors’ Housing Update is embedded in the Housing Action Plan. The Director of Community Services reviewed the report. Ms. Sedky, CitySpaces Ltd. consultation gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an update on the work done to date, what has been learned and future work. Note: The meeting was recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 2:38 p.m. Note: Item 4.4 was deferred from the January 20, 2014 Council Workshop Meeting 4.4 2014 Council Matrix Staff report dated January 20, 2014 recommending that the Council Matrix attached as Appendix I be adopted. The Manager of Legislative Services reviewed the report. Council Workshop Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 4 of 4 R/2014-055 2014 Council Matrix It was moved and seconded Adopted That the Council Matrix attached as Appendix I to the staff report dated January 20, 2014 be adopted. CARRIED Councillor Bell - OPPOSED 5.CORRESPONDENCE – Nil 6.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil 7.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT - Nil 8.ADJOURNMENT – 3:30 p.m. _______________________________ E. Daykin, Mayor Certified Correct ___________________________________ C. Marlo, Corporate Officer District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Bylaw to Establish a Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows have had a joint Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) since 1997. This committee was established by bylaw to advise the two Councils on cycling issues in their community. Recently the City of Pitt Meadows has created its own Pedestrian and Cycling Committee, effectively withdrawing from the Joint Bicycle Advisory Committee. In September 2013 Council passed the following resolution. “THAT Council direct staff to develop Terms of Reference for a Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee for Council’s review and consideration.” The Terms of Reference have been revised and form part of the proposed new bylaw. RECOMMENDATION(S): That Bylaw No. 7057-2014 to establish a Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, be finalized and forwarded to a Regular Council for first, second and third readings. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows have had a joint Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) since 1997. This Committee was established by bylaw (Attachment A) to advise the two Councils on cycling issues in their community. The Committee was comprised of seven (7) members. Recently the City of Pitt Meadows created its own Pedestrian and Cycling Advisory Committee, effectively withdrawing from the Joint Bicycle Advisory Committee. This matter was discussed by Maple Ridge Council in September 2013 and the following resolution was passed: “THAT Council direct staff to develop Terms of Reference for a Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee for Council’s review and consideration.” A new Terms of Reference has been drafted and form part of the proposed new bylaw attached to this report. It is intended that following Council’s discussion at Workshop the 4.1 bylaw will be finalized and forwarded to a Regular Council meeting for consideration of three readings. At that time the existing bylaw will need to be repealed. b)Desired Outcome(s): The desired outcome is the formation of a new Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to Council. This Committee would also liaise with the new Committee recently formed in Pitt Meadows. c)Financial Implication The former BAC was supported through an annual budget of $10,000. It is understood that this annual budget would transfer over to the new Committee and continue to be assessed on an annual basis through the Business Plan discussions. d)Interdepartmental Implications: Maple Ridge Departments such as Planning, Engineering, Operations, RCMP, Bylaws and Parks will have interactions with the Cycling and Pedestrian Committee (CAP). CONCLUSIONS: As per Council direction a Terms of Reference has been drafted and forms part of the proposed bylaw to establish a Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for Maple Ridge. The Draft Bylaw No. 7057-2014 is attached and following Council’s discussion at Workshop will be finalized and forwarded to a Regular Council meeting for consideration. At that time the existing bylaw will need to be repealed. “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, MBA, P.Eng General Manager, Public Works and Development Services “Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”_______________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW No. 7057-2014 A Bylaw to establish a Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee WHEREAS: Council may establish a Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee pursuant to Part 27 of the Local Government Act. NOW THEREFORE IN OPEN MEETING ASSEMBLED, THE COUNCIL ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.TITLE This Bylaw shall be known as “Maple Ridge Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee”. 2.INTERPRETATION “Committee” means the Maple Ridge Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. 3.ESTABLISHMENT, COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE 3.1 There is hereby established a Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. 3.2 That Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Bicycle Advisory Committee Bylaw 5510-1996 and amending bylaw No. 6682-2009 are hereby repealed. 3.3 The Committee shall be composed of not less than 5 persons. 3.4 Membership on the Committee shall consist of: Voting Members: a)One member from Council; b)Four Community-at-Large Members who reside in Maple Ridge. 3.5 The term of appointment for all members, with the exception of Councillors, is two years commencing on January 1st in the year they are appointed and terminating two years later on December 31st or until their successors are appointed. 3.6 In order to stagger the terms of appointment in the Committee, two Community- at- Large members will be appointed to serve a one year term beginning January 1, 2014 and terminating December 31, 2014. The two other Community-at-Large members will be appointed to serve a term beginning January 1, 2014 and expiring December 31, 2015 3.7 The members will elect annually a Chair person and Vice-Chairperson from amongst themselves by a simple majority vote. The Vice-Chairperson will act in the capacity of the Chairperson at any meeting where the Chairperson is absent. 3.8 A member who is absent, except for reasons of illness or with leave of the Chairperson, of the Committee or his/her designate, from three consecutive or five in any 12 consecutive regular meetings is deemed to have resigned, effective at the end of the third or fifth such meeting as the case may be. 3.9 Council may terminate the appointment of any member of the Committee, and Council will provide notice and the reason for such termination in writing. 4.QUORUM AND VOTING a)Quorum is three (3) voting members. 5.TERMS OF REFERENCE The Committee is appointed for the purpose of providing information and advice, educate and raise awareness, and provide recommendations all for consideration by Council and staff with respect to bicycle and pedestrian movements. 6.DUTIES AND CONSIDERATIONS OF COMMITTEE 6.1 Provide ongoing timely advice of a policy nature including appointing sub- committee(s). The Committee may, from time to time on an affirmative vote of not less than two thirds of the members present at any meeting, appoint a sub- committee(s) for any specific purpose(s) and may delegate to such sub-committee(s) authority with or without restrictions or conditions to execute and carry out any of the purposes of the committee. 6.2 Work within the strategic directives, as outlined in Council approved document and annual Business Plan. Three examples are the Transportation Plan, the Official Community Plan, and the Parks Master Plan. 6.3 Carry out work effectively, efficiently and creatively, and prepare an annual Business Plan for the committee. 6.4 It is expected that while making recommendations to Council and staff there will be opportunities to learn about our community, engage in community dialogue and partnership with groups and individuals, to debate about the issues in our community and to assist in creating broad visions of the community over the longer term. 7.MEETING SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURES 7.1 The Committee will conduct its meetings in accordance with parliamentary rules of procedure, provided such procedures do not contravene the Community Charter, District Bylaws, or other legislations. 7.2 The Committee will meet not less than once per quarter each calendar year unless otherwise directed by Council. 7.3 At least once a year the Committee will meet with the equivalent Committee of the City of Pitt Meadows to discuss projects and initiatives of mutual interest that support and encourage the interconnectivity on and off road facilities between the District of Maple Ridge and City of Pitt Meadows. 7.4 The Committee will seek out or receive Committee related presenters by various community interest groups, event organizers, recreation groups, clubs, safety propends organizations, and District of Maple Ridge departments. Examples, but not limited to, School District, other municipalities, RCMP, TransLink, Ride the Ridge, HUB, B.E.S.T, and other municipal advisory committees. READ A FIRST TIME READ A SECOND TIME READ A THIRD TIME RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED Mayor Clerk District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-096-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-Street Parking Open House Summary PURPOSE: On May 27, 2013 Council received a discussion paper on “Tandem Parking and the RM -1 zone”, which laid out several scenarios and one preferred approach to regulate the proportion of tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. At the May 28, 2013, Council Meeting it was resolved that staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. Staff prepared the relevant bylaws which were considered at the October 7, 2013 Committee of the Whole meeting. In the first reading report the following amendments were proposed for inclusion in the Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 RM-1 zone: a)Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. b)All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. In the first reading report the following amendments were also proposed for inclusion in the Off- Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990: c)In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. d)All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. e)The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. It was also recommended that 100% tandem units in the RM-1 zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. At the October 8, 2013 Council Meeting, a resolution was passed that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be given first reading and referred to a public process for comments and feed back. Pursuant to Council’s resolution of October 8, 2013, a Public Open House was conducted on Tuesday, November 13, 2013. The purpose of this report is to update Council on that session and discuss the implications and next steps. 4.2 - 2 - In response to the feedback received from the Public Open House a number of changes to the proposed bylaw are being recommended in this report. RECOMMENDATION: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013, be revised as per the staff report dated February 17, 2014. DISCUSSION: I. Background: In recent years, the District has seen an increase in the number of townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. Council and neighbourhoods have expressed concerns about the impacts of such developments. Council directed staff to review the use and impacts of tandem parking. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw permits both; a tandem garage or a single garage with a tandem parking space on the driveway apron, in certain single family zones, the duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The RM-1 zone is the only multi-family zone in the District permitting tandem parking. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may be wider and longer to accommodate additional vehicles. In some cases, there is on-street parking as well. In contrast, tandem parking can be a concern in townhouse sites as driveway aprons are typically not provided or the ones proposed are not adequate to park on, while the 6.0 metre wide strata roads do not permit parking. The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities and reviewed concerns with tandem parking in the existing townhouse complexes in the District. It compared 18 scenarios, to help understand the impacts of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. This review resulted in one development scenario that resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem (70%) and double wide units (30%) which maximized of green space/useable open space, as well as creating a well-articulated, livable design; while maintaining a viable unit yield. The first reading report dated October 7, 2013, recognized that there would be implications that these bylaw amendments may have on townhouse developments in the RM-1 zone. Council instructed staff to proceed with a public process to seek input from the residents and the development industry. II.Open House update: Pursuant to Council’s resolution at the October 8, 2013 meeting, a Public Open House was conducted on Tuesday, November 13, 2013 from 4:00 to 8:00 pm in the Council Chambers lobby. Approximately 15-20 people attended the open house and the attendees were a mix of Maple Ridge residents, realtors, developers and design professionals. - 3 - Prior to the Open House, advertisement for the open house was run in four consecutive editions of both the local newspapers dated November 1, 6, 8 and 12, 2013. Details of the Open House and all the background reports and presentations were posted on the District’s website as of October 29, 2013 and questionnaires were available on the District’s website from November 14, 2013 to December 2, 2013. Invitations were also emailed to all the stakeholders on October 29, 2013. The Advisory Design Panel members were also invited. The information panels displayed at the open house provided an overview of the definition, concerns, photos, graphic analysis on flat and sloping sites, and the proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, applicable to the RM-1 zone. These can still be found on our website, under the “Tandem Parking Section” of the Planning Department. Two separate questionnaires were provided at the open house: one for the general public (Appendix A) and the other for representatives from the development industry (Appendix B). Two separate questionnaires were drafted with an intention of capturing specific concerns from both the groups as buyers and sellers of townhouse units in the market. The questionnaire for the general public focused on capturing their preferences around choosing a tandem or double wide townhouse unit, site design, affordability, safety/emergency access, livability and feedback on proposed bylaw amendments. The questionnaire for the developers/consultants focused on site design, affordability from selling point of view and feedback on the proposed bylaw amendments. The responses received from both the questionnaires, including the two letters received from the development industry are attached as Appendix C to this report. Questionnaire Summary: As indicated earlier, approximately 15-20 people attended the open house, with 15 people signing the “sign-in” sheet and 16 responses (14 completed questionnaires and 2 letters) being received for a response rate of 80%. Appendix C attached to this report shows all the responses received. Out of the 14 completed questionnaires, 10 of them are from the general public; while 4 of them are from the developers/consultants. It is important to note that some of the attendees, who are residents (not developers), preferred to complete both the questionnaires, to be able to give feedback about all the questions. One of the developers (Portrait Homes Inc.) opted to send in a letter instead of completing the questionnaire, while the other letter is from the “Greater Vancouver Home Builder’s Association”. Summary of feedback from the general public: It is noted that only a small proportion of the residents of Maple Ridge attended this open house and those who attended are not residents of a townhouse complex. Based on this fact, the responses are not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge residents. Given the limited amount of feedback received from the attendees it appears that townhouse complexes with tandem units are not a favourable preference for buyers, especially seniors due to the size, form, on-site parking concerns and tandem garage conversions. It appears that a 2-car tandem garage with no driveway apron or inadequate apron size to park an additional vehicle is a concern for the public. The results also provide information on marketing of townhouse units which should be of interest to developers but is not necessarily a matter that the local government should concern itself with, assuming that the market will dictate form. The opinions expressed by those who attended the open house (attached to this report as Appendix C) may be summarized as below: - 4 - a)with an enclosed 2-car tandem garage, the inner tandem garage is used for storage/living area. This will force a vehicle to be parked on the street or on a small driveway apron; b)tandem garages are not big enough to park a pick-up truck and a car; c)tandem units offer multiple levels with three flights of stairs; not senior-friendly; d)due to the narrow form of tandem units moving furniture up the stairways is a challenge; e)tall narrow townhouse units do not have a visually pleasing streetscape; f)there is general support for limiting the block to six attached units; and g)there is general support for the tandem form in the Town Centre Area. Summary of feedback from the development industry: It is noted that only a small proportion of development community representatives attended the open house. Concerns with the proposed regulations were expressed by Portrait Homes Inc, the Greater Vancouver Home Builder’s Association and two other representatives of the development industry. The opinions expressed by this group at the open house and through a letter (attached to this report as Appendix C) may be summarized as below: a)there is opposition to the proposed 70% tandem restriction due to concerns about affordability (and selling) of the 30% 2-car double wide units with a bigger footprint. For a 2- car double wide townhouse unit, a greater proportion of land value must be assigned, making them higher in price. It was suggested that this will compete with smaller single family homes, making it more difficult to sell these townhouses. It was suggested that the 30% 2-car double wide garage requirement for any townhouse site, will reduce the total density and unit yield; b)there is support for 100% tandem developments as market seeks affordability. It was suggested that tandem units offer functional, livable homes with a smaller footprint. One developer building in Surrey noted that his tandem units sell for $30,000 to $50,000 less than the 2-car double wide units. There is overall support for the idea of townhouse developments having a variety of housing forms (tandem and double) but the flexibility be left to the project architect, to be assessed on a site-by-site basis rather than restricting tandem units to 70% in the RM-1 zone across the District; c)there is general opposition for requiring a full driveway apron for each tandem unit as this will result in 3 parking spaces per tandem unit which seems excessive and will increase the impervious surfaces on site. The driveway apron requirement will increase the parking required for tandem units but not necessarily discourage people from converting tandem garage space to living space. A Restrictive Covenant on all the parking spaces on site (enforced by the Strata Council) could be a measure to discourage owners from converting their enclosed parking spaces;there is general support for limiting the block size to six attached units, except one response recommending specifying the block length instead of number of attached units; d)there is general agreement that townhouse units with well articulated streetscape is an important selling feature; e)there is general support for the tandem form in the Town Centre Area; f)there is general agreement that increased useable open space/amenity area is a desirable selling feature, but general concerns that it will reduce the unit yield; g)there is general support for providing more on-site visitor parking on townhouse sites; and - 5 - h)there is general preference for the tandem arrangement shown below, i.e. single car garage with the second parking spot on the driveway apron. Common themes from the open house feedback: The narrow, 2-car fully enclosed tandem garage design can encourage some of the garage to be converted to habitable/ storage area which force a second car on the street. Restricting tandem unit proportion and increasing amenity area on townhouse sites can negatively impact the unit yield and affordability for buyers and sellers. Driveway apron requirement may address the parking concerns of a tandem arrangement. Increasing visitor parking ratio may help resolve some parking concerns. Limiting the block size is generally supported but some flexibility is required. Tandem form is acceptable in the Town Centre Area with better fit for a dense form and better access to transit. III.Implications of open house feedback on the proposed bylaw amendments: The participation and feedback at the open house suggests that the proposed bylaw amendments need to be revised. While the few residents who attended the open house are in general support of the proposed bylaw amendments as worded in the first reading report, none of them live in a townhouse complex and due to the very small proportion of citizen participation, the responses received are not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge residents. On the other hand, the development industry is concerned with project feasibility and reduction in unit yield if the 70% tandem restriction were to be adopted. The fear seems to be the competing price of a 2-car garage townhouse unit with a single family house. The development industry raises concerns about the negative economic impacts resulting from reduced unit yields. Countering this is Council’s expressed concern that tandem parking places undue pressure on street parking resources. In an effort to seek a balance, it is proposed that the following changes be considered: i)RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone: In the first reading report of October 2013, the following items were proposed for inclusion in the RM-1 zone: a)Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. b)All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. - 6 - Item a) above, i.e. “Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block”, is recommended to be revised as stated below: a)Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block or 45 metres (147.5 feet) in length, whichever is less. The open house feedback suggests that there is general support for this amendment. Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other jurisdictions and the District’s RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous façade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light and views. Smaller block sizes are also more sustainable as they could help save more trees due to a smaller footprint. One tandem townhouse unit is typically between 11.5 to 14 feet (3.5 to 4.26 metres) in width. A block of six attached tandem units ranges in length between 69 feet to 84 feet (21.03 to 25.60 metres). On the other hand, a 2-car double wide townhouse unit is between 22.0 to 25.0 feet (6.70 to 7.62 metres) in width. A block of six attached 2-car double wide townhouse units ranges in length between 132 feet to 150 feet (40.23 to 45.72 metres). A block of six attached units, with four internal units as tandem units and two external units as 2-car double wide units, ranges in length between 90 feet to 106 feet (27.43 to 32.30 metres). The above stated revision provides flexibility to accommodate any of the combinations and to encourage a mix of both types of units in each block. In addition, Council could always consider a Development Variance Permit to this provision, on a site by site basis. Item b) above, i.e. “All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms”, is proposed to be eliminated. The increased open/amenity space requirement proposed to be applicable to the tandem units, could impact the overall feasibility of a project, based on the feedback from the development community. If designed creatively, amenity areas can be functional and attractive, based on the existing ratios in the current bylaw, without making the project unviable. To discourage linear skinny areas to be included in the usable open space/amenity area calculation, the minimum width of a usable open space/amenity area needs to be at least 6.0 metres wide as per the current zoning bylaw. This will ensure functional and usable open spaces within the townhouse developments. Recognizing that multi-family uses require adequate usable open space/common activity area for the site, it is recommended that no variances be supported for the required usable open space/common activity ratios in the existing Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 RM-1 zone. ii)Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: In the first reading report of October 2013, the following items were proposed for inclusion in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: a)In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. b)All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. - 7 - c)The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. Item a) above, i.e. “In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area”, is proposed to be eliminated. The development industry is concerned about project feasibility and affordability, if the 70% tandem restriction is adopted. On a site specific basis, a mix of tandem and double wide townhouse units are being encouraged in the RM-1 zone, without jeopardizing the feasibility of a project. Several projects have made an effort to provide for a reasonable mix of tandem and 2-car double garage units. It is important to note that a combination of a driveway apron requirement applicable only to the enclosed 2-car tandem garage unit and limiting the block size, along with some creative designing, may improve the overall site design and substantially resolve the parking concerns on a 100% tandem townhouse development. Council could always choose to not support a 100% tandem townhouse development on a site by site basis. Item b) above, i.e. “All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area ”, is recommended to be revised as stated below: b)All the units with an enclosed 2-car tandem parking garage must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. The feedback from the open house suggests that a tandem arrangement with a single garage and a second parking space on the driveway apron would be most feasible. However, the design featuring a fully enclosed 2-car tandem garage seems to be problematic. This is because of the inner parking space having the potential to easily get converted to storage or habitable area. A driveway apron requirement for this specific unit type may help reduce parking problems. The development industry is concerned about every tandem unit requiring 3 parking spaces. The recommended revision will require a driveway apron only for the units having an enclosed 2-car tandem garage. With the proposed revision, the development will still have the flexibility of offering a proportion of both types of tandem arrangement based on their marketing plan. Some 2-car double wide units will also be encouraged by staff. Item c) above, i.e. “The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below………..”, is proposed to remain unchanged. This regulation is considering standard car sizes and the safe clearance required from the garage walls. The Building Department has confirmed these dimensions will work for most standard cars. The feedback from the open house suggests that these dimensions are not adequate for bigger vehicles. Any bigger vehicles like tow trucks, SUVs, etc. may be parked on the driveway apron. - 8 - iii) Definition of Tandem Parking: The definition of Tandem Parking is proposed to remain unchanged. In the first reading report of October 2013, Tandem Parking is defined as “the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road”. The above definition allows both the arrangements of tandem parking, i.e. a unit with 2-car tandem garage or a unit with one car garage and a tandem parking space on the driveway apron, as shown in the sketches below: AND The regulation of a driveway apron for tandem units is proposed to be revised as stated above to avoid extra long driveway apron for the second option above. In other words, the second option above will not require an additional driveway apron because it already shows an adequate parking apron for the required second parking spot. IV.In-stream development applications rezoning to RM-1: It is recommended that any in-stream townhouse development applications that have not been presented at a Public Hearing, before final adoption of the proposed bylaws, be permitted to seek a variance if they do not comply. V. Next Steps: A second reading report with revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 will be brought forward to a future Council meeting. It is important to note that amendments to the Off-street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 do not go to the public hearing. CONCLUSION: The Public Open House was a good opportunity for residents and developers to understand Council’s concerns with tandem parking and an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. Unfortunately the public turn out was low and none of them were residents of a townhouse complex. The feedback from these attendees are valid but given the low turn out, cannot be considered necessarily representative of all the citizens of Maple Ridge. However, the same can be said for the - 9 - development industry as their representation at the open house was low too. The development industry, however, did express concerns about project feasibility and affordability if forced to provide a proportion of 2-car double wide garage units. On a site-specific basis, staff is currently working through several townhouse projects that are making an effort to provide some reasonable proportion of 2-car double wide units (instead of 100% tandem units), e.g. The revised scheme of Portrait Homes on the townhouse proposal at 13260 236th Street now shows 70.49% tandem units and the rest of the units with a 2-car double wide garage. On a site-specific basis Council could choose not to support a 100% townhouse scheme. The proposed block size restriction and driveway apron requirement for all the enclosed 2-car tandem garage units may address Council’s concerns about on-site and off-site parking. Based on the open house feedback, the proposed revisions to the bylaw amendments are recommended and will be brought forward with the second reading report at a future Council meeting. It is recommended that Council direct staff to draft the second reading report with the revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025- 2013, as described in this report. “Original signed by Rasika Acharya”________________ Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner _”Original signed by Christine Carter”_________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn”_____________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, P. Eng., PMP 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 – Questionnaire for the general public Appendix B – Questionnaire for the developers/consultants Appendix C – Completed questionnaires and letters APPENDIX A OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: Tandem Parking in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? Y/ N 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y/ N 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y/ N 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? Y/ N Comments: 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 beingthe least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 5 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) 1 2 3 4 5 • .adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 4 5 • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 4 5 • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 5 • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604466-4327 by December 2, 2013. APPENDIX B OPEN HOUSEQUESTIONNAIRE FOR MAPLE RIDGE41 DEVELOPERS/BUILDERSK ndem Parkin; in the Kiwi ownhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? Y/ N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y/ N 3) Do you agree_that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? Y/ N 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. Y/ N 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y/ N Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long If yes, please explain: 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y/ N 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • units with double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 5 • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a smaller building block 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: S) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: _�illtllluli�` Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: yh� YJ+� Comments: 31f1&L'� +UtR MViT4i ih#ij3� sPhG� � 'tFY1E 1kP$81lJ Y/ N Y/N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 20130 Tandem Parking in the Kiwi (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y/(N J 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y N) �l�lr.'allsM�:��tc.�:��.+.�r.'�-��_+� 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape Y/ N Comments: Wi�Ao( 1S hnt+�,Aul� `�( I%Su,�F4(.y P��N4 ? tiro s (� 91144AWA-Y1101iipi am, 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 «� 5 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) � 2 3 4 5 • adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 4 5 • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 C4) 5 • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 46 • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planningQmapleridge.ca or faxed to 604 466-4327 by December 2, 2013. OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: Tandem Parking in the RIVIA k ownhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? �/ N 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y/' 3) Would youn^consider liv��//ing in a townhounnse unit witha�tandem parking garage? Why? Y� 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? �'%/ N Comments: 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) o adequate garage width and length ® a cluster (block) of less than six attached units • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times Comments: Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planningQmaplerid�e.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. ► T TRM andem Parking in the -1(Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y' �.! �."r4 •: /b•'s'� ek'r � 1 lJ -- w' ,%� ;a, vlr-.r �'; _ L : °%` l,-'<"� ..Ci ,. w F� "� ! r ✓ �c:�''�J j :. �/%. 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for In townhouse in a complex with larger,_ amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? N Comments: AL' Fi" r ._% t.F',,%�<. ✓. � f - ..'., l.� � Z-.f' / /`"'�Crr f �e"-� .L"L'�l ./� c_ ✓�/ �" 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) ;'1,t 2 3 4 5 • adequate garage width and length 2 3 t4s • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 Comments. f f err r14, G1,^ rL — /' e :2 ✓;,i ; '� , w , ✓ Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604 466 4327 by December 2, 20130 Tandem Parking in the Rivtl k ownhouse Residential District) on Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: DES i DEW The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? ,% N 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y/� 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y/ 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger.._, amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? N Comments: � 1 ",„rt- � a+��� � <�% �a x�=a �i.�'st � c ems- � ;1-�'t,"� t�-� ..- � _ �} ,�vn.>t a d✓ai S t� z-i� C.'�< (C; �� j..- ,;%-E%f� "i`z f � <-; ' 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. t Least -----> Most Imp. E • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) 1i' 2 3 4 5 • adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 4 (�5,% • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 4 C5) • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 ('54 • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 4 5) o Comments ��;er.' i, r {l l rreR n� a? f'.!,��` �tI?v� f,t. _ Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@lop leridge.ca or faxed to 604 466 4327 by December 2, 2013. R �S1DMI Tandem Parking in the Rwk k ownhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y/N Y 1N 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y / N- /yid!',/ ✓/ B � J t�� t 42:+/LS t i A 1,41v'o0,1z,t1 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger_. amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape?% N 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. • a double wide 2-car garage • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) • adequate garage width and length • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 0 Least -----> Most Imp. 1 2 3 Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all time s 1 2 3 Comments: . 4 4 5 4 5' 4 1 4( Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planningQmapleridge.ca or faxed to 604 466 4327 by December 2, 2013a T ES►DEAT Cco<b i� f� -'fit 4 ,�✓ , ? ,FL% r`C, j 4 t/,,% r` 77 � r r °/ G 4 � � Z` Y t t'i {, i. � �v.. 5...� .f � (,,.F.'1' � a•-,.,.' � � ee��'.f%f ^ : �: £1 �- �.l - f �f'V" °ter/,Z< 4 14 SkDERT OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: Tandem Parking in the Kiwi (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? '!v S (frlCcl 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? / N Comments:,,3/`'l/d/f74/&7 %() kPT fi 6;1- CLDSC!/3 //y 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) 1 2 3 4 • adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 4 • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 4 5 • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: i GfJD�L6 /lJd% /fl�EV1WE-/yl% O�ulc/ . fo CIiUIJ oyUE Cvt��/ a 5M/�EYs w6 C006U)176�6T os11M% o3ou 12iclluP /N T116 Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-4664327 by December 2, 2013. %1% X67P617�/ /S 7 T 0w/tier5 WILL i giCIU icl g C AAK1 G 5S /N6 L5Z#C46 rr G'P4116- v1tt� /JOSS OC97i41X)C y 6 U 7WC t4lokU 7RCE T! 7d 67 /S 740 tf/-4 A &/V S (7 y rak 4") c/7 /MYZE 3006 -SPA(2//d6L y NDjfiN or FC)Ck) CICE-! CeloTe A, C'd/-1 v! CAL sl~Tes Lok �r4/t)sj c7pgT/ate CD k)ce)c/U o l#L GvP- e ie A,PE 47M6 Cl / bfif7/b "Ilb r TO .477e!7100 SC't�DDC I, IOCIA� �IIJG /S tr ���C6' 1. �4,� i /7 Cr7ln/ric// ��(6D�1� S4ICe /-r F 114 V6 " 71 E1b i?&OA C 104k 4( o k) 7 tC 5 / b el cwI4LGCS /�i Cl4CC S E T Iq /17f T //V IEf6I1c Ae/ U!!F�LI)A yS dlclj) /�W�s /S U J() 1+&61 (Ul7i f S/"E lewli y 16HEW DES iD�,�IT (co NTi�• ,�_ OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: Tandem Parking in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident_of Maple Ridge? N 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y/ 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y�N _. _1 € c� &-�i�=�-ate='; 7 =� i d`�.:a�--�i. -Y'��= �.�+ `_� a �'w ; �L = `_S `°c_ _ ,,. g.. �.,..� b ; �h- ' � .._ .._. -' tick t...� _.��_ __� ..;Xi`�. 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? �Y{ N � � �t Comments _ _ _ /�-i'.r �{ _ ��C ( t-"��' : 1. , _, J-�"�Z,� �-3?=�t t �---� 4- t_,�' �KF� � � '� � ! �_t ^,l i �� � r r� C-t,-4� � �� `" �� ��� t �,..�, €r.t., ��:Fi �f�..�-.it",.�c�c�7 �� l�„�� �'"t� �, �s=-� i '��_. c. C_s>� s �� __x w k<:�� � 'f 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 t415 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) 1(2 � 3 4 5 • adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 4 • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2' 4- 5 • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 15 • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 � 4 i 5�;� Comments. r� �. - - r .`"i`C,•E.-- '-c�� C;% L-7^..=-�'-'.._'� C '=sue _'�-'fi"�i— �,__`.. � '��"'k- `#��-::.,f '., ��.-`�'-:�"'t ii1.-e�-,.,,. �.`.�'�,, �;-� - - .__-: � �� �-T"_.k. 2 `.:� c,.�m- =� '...,� .�f.� rat- G-�e^-t. .rCX`v"� � 'E-' �i --'` <=�:.._ ��" � C..�� i "� � `— �t �� y 7.-�c_. c__�...� �.�� � '� 1_s�i',�.. '-� �' - t?' sue,=�.� ::.� h.._ �"� ��'�' , , �.._._ ...,.��� � c:.� � � -- <: cv Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. w Et F, � ;4_ ,�Y '�t�.�-tom, Completed �` "R� ` 'V �4.��, ... _ :_� __ _ } mil? �_, `�=--�C- : -- DES � Zvi (r�u-r� �� OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: Tandem Parking in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) one: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? Y 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y/i N 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? 1N 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. Y /N ��� t`=`i i. �C.:'; �._.'ei.%L...-k-� ,.,..._ a ("'�: 1, "r_��...,�4"-'Y- �.. � �":>-T•.i`'e- �.��:'(-`'V. V'..�;f a,.._� 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns. with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? (Y1 N Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long If yes, please explain: C--�%'S`t'i=�/'i::�.k..:�_" � �..rs€cam. i `�r—, �.`'.`wE.`�'--f`-`"L=-��.; '-�F`✓F-l"4C,`w _'- G�-ck�\+`� ._._-.°.1-y,,::;1=C�.;.-h..`Cf 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Yk ) 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • units with double wide 2-car garage 1 23 = 4 5 • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) 1 3 4 5 • units in a smaller building block 1 2 3 5 • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 (4) 5 • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Willlllll�' IM! Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: YI►� Comments: � �� 51N&L>� GAYt 4h¢A46 � WS'TH -TJrNA1FiM SPhG� oa -t�t�. �P'Ro1J Yj(N' Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466 4327 by December 2, 2013. `.. OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: Tandem Parking in the RM4(Townhouse Residential District) one: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? Y/N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the _ total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. QJ N /�} y 6110 Vyzy C Zell CT i4kb ,®OGf�li�7DG�/L ��%�,�/�E� ollE/2C If/E12E i5 466 �s S i-o s!{01010/IV6� 'o'-T�'y4iv 5,�VeM-i'l0 t� 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? N 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. ON PAC K S 4IV, m R k0A P016446MA 900 FEEL( Ub' 4f i fiPbeTAWT vwrTF+( U Ttfsyel)FLOPMEATri LAW) (APCgl-y0e7lm5 W)7H/�Ek 4e-:' 1 y 4RL=4- 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y/ N Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long If yes, please explain: 4DEf01 w TYPO h F� 64rL - Pie K UP 1 i2 ucKf S u U S 7 lygleES F©d2 4e"T# Fd n S1106-e °� bo4eo /� C41CA&C S )V ut &o I NOT 1�0w- E-UU G N- FD-e /01(The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural -light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y/ N 5 r\4 gieF m s Pic of� veoW o vi cE L (:-ns s) s >351✓ r(. 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • units with double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 G) • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a smaller building block 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: uiunuu�!+� Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: 5tN6►6� CAK 4/titAGt t, vVSYH 'f�NDEM SPRG>L 011 'tlt� I�4i�01J Comments: Y/ N Y/N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planningQmapleridge.ca oI faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • units with double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4G) • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a smaller building block 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Comments: v�u b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: Y/N _ IIIIIPIIIII r ` _ Illlilllllli,� _ �r I�I Y Comments: Thank you for completingthis questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466 432I by December 2, 2013. OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: Cz I DEMI Tandem Parking in the R1V-111ownhouse Residential District) one: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? Y/N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. /,1 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking �' in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? Y,/ 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. r YN �- �= i `� �?°r� ��� �,if;,: ,,✓ 'J �4�� `'�; 1 7 < -,' iY✓ f i�t v -iY�i72��r_�i !!iL 51 The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. no you have any concerns.., with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? may'/ N Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long ``'"'; �` t3�d `� °f`'`" Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long ; 4( If yes, please explain: 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y / N - _ - (fir€1iAe r��:^/� 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • units with double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4` • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) c> 1 2 3 4 5 • units in a smaller building block 1 2 3 4! • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 5 • units in a townhouse complex with awell-articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4k 5 / Comments: 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: N I ,a �nuun�l� yhrtD Comments: a 2 GAcR 'thN��M �piR1rc4:� w%Ot% ApR.eN b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: Yl►� Comments: StN6►t� CAR WtYH "ThN4tM tpltGg G11 'f1�fit �'Pi�01J Y/N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca oI faxed to 604-466 4327 by December 2, 20130 hi OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ®EVELOPERS/BU 1 LDERS: tz�s i bEA 7 Tandem Parking in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? Y/ N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y/ N p,_ 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? Y, 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. Y' N 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns -� with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y� N Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long � Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long- Ifplease explain: 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y/ IV - 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Most Imp. • units with double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 5` • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) 1! 2 3 4 5 • units in a smaller building block 1 2 3, 4 5 • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 '5. • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape 1 2 3 45�,' Comments: 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Comments: A tandem arrangement with single car Comments: rage and a driveway apron: wtY+� -��NQr-�A SPhGL Otl 'fl>r�c ,APiL01J Y/ N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@maplerid e.ca or faxed to 604-466 4327 by December 2, 2013. OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR v`ELo� DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? U N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 7004 of the total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y/� 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no Harking" zUone/and/ improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? N / HloSit GIC�4�k4e/ /i 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. c° r� N 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y� Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long If yes, please explain: 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y� V r 6, ,, o & 24� 'tJ r�-jd k (zi o h f arlr.* 0 er , /Jr °.lA o e 'YVVtS 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each. 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least --- • units with double wide 2-car garage • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) • units in a smaller building block • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape Comments: > Most Irrips 1 2 39 5 1 2® 4 5 1 2 3® 5 1 2 34 5 1 2 3 46) 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: r 0 ykRA � of t IM yhAo M 2 tAcR wrANj>SM c�p�tk4�C WtAN APRON Comments: LVC - relyA//A 114e6��eeiSed /4A ✓rduef 4r le;est e{1. b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron. ( YJjN iC a O- # �t. YI►tw 51N6►6'� CA1t 4h�itAG� W u H MTANDSM SP/tG� ON "MV4 AVIZO iW Comments: MS/��D�ion 0-(uora��e 17i �o)� y�`o Gi�ivt,v<<Jv� i7 l lS Gc /Uv/e W allc e w 'Z'441 de, Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca oI faxed to 604-466 4327 by December 2, 2013a OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: De:vleu°rm Tandem Parking in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) one: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? 4/Y,� N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y4( N 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? Y N 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? C��Y'j N Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long If yes, please explain: 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y/{N 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. ® units with double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 '5 • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car)Cl) 2 3 4 5 ® units in a smaller building block 1 2 3 CW 5 • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4)5 • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape 1 2 3 ' 5 Comments: , 1('V � r j 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: 2 CkR -fMNU>rt M w"N ApwoN Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: /N IA yew Yl►� Comments: 5tNG6�t CI�R 4hit1►G!. ' Wi7H "f1�NDtM Si'hGL t9N "fW� itPiZ01J Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca oI faxed to 6044664327 by December 2, 2013. OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BU 1 LDERS: ' ��6 Tandem Parking in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company sevelop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? C �V/ N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the �,��, total units in the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. � N —LI&C1 c��s2p�'�7 t� %0,J 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? Y,(N% R9 0:: r JCt M01 > S U-5i PJG �I</AcCi 6 -✓—�cL <�5T Aoi!e .rt' 6 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. Y �f •�--►t�" iS �- �� fib c�►�t � o rJ � t �` - 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long If yes, please explain: 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well -articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y N c itii rr> 13 ` :Z �i 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least -----> Most Imp. • units with double wide 2-car garage 1 24 5 • units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) 1' 2'13 4 5 • units in a smaller building block 10 3 4 5 • units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 4 5 • units in a townhouse complex with a well -articulated streetscape 1. 2 3 4 05 � Comments: 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: �uiuiluu� Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron:903 (;,7-�K- Yl►, Comments: s1Ndte t1t1R 4h�►4E � W�'fH "iJ�Nbt�M SPhGL ON '11Fw� RPit01J �OJ �N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca oI faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 212013. M The concern about sufficient parking for single family and townhome developments is the same. Both types of housing have the dilemma that people do not use their garages to park their cars. The requirement for an additional driveway apron length for an additional parking space will effectively increase the parking ratio for units with tandem parking to 3 spaces per unit. It will not discourage people from repurposing some of their tandem garage space. A Restrictive Covenant on all parking spaces is one measure to discourage people from repurposing any of their enclosed parking spaces. Home owner's insurance policies typically would discourage renovation of garages into habitable space. The shape and slope of the site has a large influence on the number of units that can fit on to a site in addition to the parking garage configuration, tandem or side by side. The increase in usable open space from 45m2 to 65m2 per unit is desirable but also has an effect on yield and affordability. The proposed changes will reduce the number of units anywhere from 5% to 20% as illustrated by the diagrams commissioned by the District. In order to optimize the FSR, the units will become larger and less affordable. As the size and price of these larger townhomes becomes similar to small single family homes, townhomes become less of an option for the developer. Land prices for RM4 zoning will need to drop to reflect single-family development rather than townhomes. If there is a goal to limit the length of building blocks, it may be more appropriate to specify a dimension rather than a number of units. 6 units that are 13 wide would result in a block 78' long. 6 units that are 25' wide (a typical non tandem unit allowing for a double garage and the unit entry) would be 150' long. #1003, 7495 - 132 Street Surrey, BC V3W 1J8 %lephone: 778-5G5-�288 Fax: 778-565-4289 Email: info@gvhba.org www.gvh}�a.org '`�C #1.0031 7495 - 132 Street e,. Surrey, BC V3W 1J8 `}L 11 1 a a Telephone: 778-5654288 Fax: 778-5654289 Email: info@gvhba.org www,gvhba.org To Mayor and Council ��1C�Lll"�I.DiC' ����� November 28, 2013 This letter is in response to the Tandem and Off Street Parking Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013. We attended the recent Open house that was held to seek input on proposed bylaw amendments resulting from this discussion paper. We hoped to find a balanced and objective presentation discussing the pros and cons of tandem parking as a planning tool. We were greatly disappointed to find a negative one-sided presentation apparently designed to solicit support against tandem parking. We have concerns regarding the methodology utilized in the discussion paper, the negative spin of the public information presentation and we disagree with the resulting conclusions. We feel the report failed to point out the advantages of tandem parking as a planning tool. We will present some alternate practical recommendations for Council's consideration at the end of this letter which we believe will ensure functional communities while allowing municipal planners and developers the flexibility to strategically meet affordability and market demands. The discussion paper starts with a statement: "The perception is that tandem townhouse units typically sell for less than the units with double car garage and it is often the preferred option with developers to maximize unit yield. Staff discussions with some of the private sector stakeholders suggest that tandem units are more affordable, however, there is no concrete evidence that tandem units sell for less." Our Comment: Maximizing unit yield is not the ultimate objective of a developer. Their business is to provide housing that is desired or needed in the market. Where the market is seeking affordability, it is appropriate to design functional and livable homes with a smaller footprint. In order to offset the high cost of land in today's market and create affordability for buyers, tandem parking homes are a useful and proven tool. By being smaller and utilizing less site area, townhomes with tandem parking o`er a common sense design solution. There is abundant market information that demonstrates that tandem parking homes sell at a lower cost than homes with double car side -by -side garages which utilize more site area. Where the discussion paper lists concerns/issues with tandem parking, it states: i. BC Building Code requirements: "Under the bylaw, the RM-1 zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. If it is not adequate to park one vehicle, this may result in individual vehicles possibly encroaching into the 6.0 metre wide strata road:' Our Solution: The simple solution to resolve this concern is to require driveway aprons of appropriate length. Apron lengths should be either 2.0 meters or less so there is clearly no room to park a vehicle or, if there is room, they should be at least 5.5 metres to fully accommodate a vehicle with maneuvering room -�;, �-. , Portrait Homes Ltd. #200 - 6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, BC V6W 1H9 • ph: (604) 270-1889 •fax: (604) 270-1841 i. BC Building Code requirements (cont'd): "Often the tandem or double parking garages on townhouse sites are built to meet minimum BC Building Code requirements for width, depth and height." Our comment: We are not aware of the width or depth of parking garages being specified in the BC Building Code but we welcome a specific code citation to support this statement. ii. Unit sizes, architectural design and streetscape: "A 100% tandem development maximises on the density or the unit count on site which can at times be at the expense of creating interesting, pedestrian -friendly streetscapes." Our Comment: We respectfully disagree with this generalization. There are considerable wonderful examples of interesting, pedestrian friendly streetscapes created in tandem townhome communities both within Maple Ridge and elsewhere. These generally result from a municipality and developer working together to produce excellent communities. The report assumes that side -by -side two -car garage doors and large driveways are somehow more appealing aesthetically than tandem parking. In fact, many consider double side -by -side garages greeting the public realm as both pedestrian unfriendly and architecturally undesirable. iii Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space; enforcement of tandem and visitor spaces: "Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area after the owner moves in." Ou Comment: Are there any statistics to demonstrate that garage conversion to living space is happening often? We have developed many tandem parking communities and we are not aware of a single occurrence where the unheated unvented garage space was converted to habitable area. "Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 meter wide strata road... laor the District it becomes a safety concern;' Our Comment: The safety concerns seem to be overstated. Later in the paper it is identified that 104% tandem parking will still be allowed in the town center. If this is a true safety concern why would it be allowed anywhere? Our Solution: The developer should provide adequate guest parizing within the planned development. #200 - 6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W 1H9 • ph. (604} 270-1889 •fax; {604) 270-1841 i The discussion paper shows analysis of a 100%tandem parking arrangement and compares it with other scenarios where tandem parlting is restricted. We have a number of comments and concerns with the analysis provided: 1. The 100% Tandem scenario shown below with which all other scenarios are compared is not a layout that any successful developer would propose or build, This would also never be approved by the Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel oi• even accepted by Planning Staff to be sent to the ADP for their consideration. Unfortunately to use this as the base of comparison results in conclusions that are not based in reality Below is a more realistic scenario utilizing the same parcel of land prepared by an experienced multi -family architect. The street oriented townhomes at the fi•ont create an attractive and interesting pedestrian oriented streetscape. Residents can meet and have conversations with neighbors or passers-by from their porches or front envy yards. This development is attractive, promotes community, walltability and eyes on the street. d200 - 6660 �raybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W iN9 • ph: ►604) 270-1889 •fax; (604) 270.1841 2, The alternative scenarios which incorporate some side by side parking units for comparison are drawn more creatively than the original 100% tandem scenario. Unfortunately, there are no accompanying unit plans. We are not aware of a side -by -side parking unit of 1000 sq. ft. as shown in these alternate scenarios that is being sold in the market. In addition we are unsure how the larger square units shown would be designed. If these unit plans are available, we would be happy to comment on their marketability. Dur Comment: Drawing conclusions based on site layouts using unproven unit types and comparing them to an unrealistic scenario is not agood way to determine policy. 3, The report states that "the City of Surrey permits tandem parking with a greater apron length on the driveway." Our Comment: This statement is incorrect Tandem parking is demonstrated throughout Surrey where they have applied acommon-sense and simple rule for tandem parking. If one of the two tandem spots is outside the garage, then they require a driveway length of 6.0 meters. This ensures that vehicles parked in the driveway do not impede the drive aisle. A 6,0 meter apron for all tandem homes is not a requirement. 4. The report concludes that "A combination of the three variables i.e, driveway apron requirements for units with tandem parking spaces; proportionate increase in the useable open space for units with tandem parking spaces and permitting up to a maximum of 70% of the total number of units to have tandem parking spaces; the density is not signiiicantlX compromised, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved". Our Comment: This example demonstrates a 19% reduction in the number of units unless a variance is approved. We see this as a significant reduction potentially malting a project economically un-viable. There is no demonstration that architectural attractiveness is improved. ;�200.6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W t N9 • ph. (604) 270.1889 •fax: �604) 270-1841 5. The report goes on to recommend that a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces be permitted and also requiring a driveway apron of 5.5 meters. Our Comment: The report does not demonstrate how they concluded that 70% was ideal. Why not b(1% or $0% or 90%? The requirement that 30% of the unr`ts be side by side parking is arbitrary and is a direct impact to affordability. The side by side units are typically larger and utilize more land and must be sold at a higher price. While we agree that it is often good to provide a variety of housing forms within a development, requiring 30% of the units to be more expensive is excessive and it is not demonstrated that any improvement in the development is achieved. Requiring a full apron on all tandem homes results in 3 full tandem parking spots for each tandem unit. is this much parking really necessary especially considering the trade-off of increasing the impervious surfaces on the site and decreasing the arnount of useable open space? The result would be an inordinate amount of hard surface parking well beyond what is currently required in the bylaw. How many families in townhome communities really need 3 full parking spaces? Conclusion and Recommendations: We do not agree with the underlying assumptions or the resulting conclusions in this discussion paper. We believe that affordability should be a primary concern of all municipal councils as we have recently been informed that 65% of British Columbians earn under $50,000 per annum**. The affordability implications have not been considered in the discussion paper recommendations. Tandem parking is a planning tool to enable municipal planners and developers to meet the housing needs of the b5% BC majority in an environment of constrained land supplies at ever- increasingprices. Tandem parking creates affordable livable homes that are well received by the marketplace. People living in a community are generally respectful of each other. Tandem parking provides more affordable homes and allows families to own ground oriented housing where they might otherwise be limited to renting, owning a condominium or seeking more affordable housing choices outside of Maple Ridge. An example is our Brighton community in Silver Valley. Here we had �.45 homes with 95%tandem parking. 26% of the residents are first responders, re- start households, nurses or teachers who are benefiting from the affordable ground oriented homes in this community. ** Rennie Marketing Systems address to the Urban pevelopment Institute, May 16, 2013. #200.6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W 1 H9 • ph: (604) 210-1889 •fax: (604) 270-1841 - _ �.� We suggest the following recommendations: 1. Specify that aprons be 5,5 metres or greater where a vehicle is intended to be parked in the apron and less than 2.0 metres elsewhere. This will eliminate the concern of parked vehicles impeding the drive aisle without creating an inordinate amount of impervious hard surface parking, 2. Ensure adequate visitor parking. If there is a demonstrated shortfall of off-street parking, the visitor parking ratio currently at 0.2 for all units could be increased to 0.25 foi• the tandem homes. Rather than imposing an arbitra►•y percentage limit on tandem parking, these recommendations will allow municipal planners and developers the flexibility to strategically meet affordability and market demands while ensuring a safe and functional community. Sincerely, Randy Dic VP Development Portrait Homes Ltd. #200 - 6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W 1 H9 • ph: (604) 270-1889 •fax; (604) 270-1841 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Proposed Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 18, 2013 the draft Noise Bylaw No. 7038-2013 was presented to Council Workshop for consideration. The proposed Bylaw recommends the introduction of decibel levels as one means of determining if a specific noise or sound is disturbing a person or persons in a neighbourhood. In order to accommodate the measurement of the decibel levels it will be necessary for the District to purchase decibel level reading equipment. Staff have sourced out the appropriate equipment and have an estimate of the equipment and the necessary training required for Bylaw Enforcement staff in order to use this method of sound measurement. The proposed Bylaw will also rely on the subjective test of noise disturbance as set out in the existing Bylaw whereby residents need only to report the nature of the disturbance, the time and duration they are being disturbed and if possible, the location of where the noise is emanating from. RECOMMENDATION(S): That draft Noise Bylaw No. 7038-2013 be finalized and brought forward to the next appropriate Committee of the Whole for Council’s consideration. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The existing Noise Control Bylaw is outdated as it was adopted under the authority of the Municipal Act. Our authority for this type of legislation is now set out in the Community Charter. As part of this review bylaws from municipalities across the lower mainland were assessed for “best practices”. The RCMP also provided input and recommendations for specific offences concerning vehicular noise. Currently the RCMP has no way of controlling the noise from motorcycles or from loud music coming from motor vehicles which is a source of numerous complaints to them. By providing decibel readings in these two areas this will give the RCMP an opportunity to at least address these issues when time permits. The definition section of the bylaw has been broadened and updated to provide greater clarity and consistency along with wording necessary for enforcing decibel levels. Page 1 of 3 4.4 While maintaining the subjective standard of any noise that tends to disturb the neighbourhood as a breach of the bylaw, the proposed bylaw adds more definitive levels, by using decibel levels that gives the public a clearer understanding of how much noise is too much noise. The proposed Bylaw has been amended to revert back to the current Bylaws where the timing for the mowing of lawns in the District has not been altered. This issue was raised by Council during the November 18, 2013 Council Workshop. The offence section has been amended to include a three step ticketing system for multiple offences under the same section of the Bylaw. b) Desired Outcome(s): To provide a current up to date easier to read bylaw that both the public and staff can work with to deal with noise issues in the community. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Noise complaints are one of the largest calls for service dealt with by the Bylaw Department. These proposed bylaw changes will provide clarity that will assist the public in these matters. d) Interdepartmental Implications: The introduction of this proposed Bylaw was discussed with the RCMP prior to the drafting of the Bylaw. Staff is awaiting the Municipal Solicitor’s consideration of the three step ticketing process for multiple offenders. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The estimated cost per decibel reader is $7,200.00 including the reader and the calibrator. The 2014 Budget allows for the purchase of one instrument. Further readers will be purchased in subsequent years depending on usage requirements. f) Alternatives: To not consider adopting this proposed Bylaw with decibel levels and direct staff to re-write the Bylaw using only the subjective standard. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of this report is to bring forward proposed Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 which is intended to replace existing Noise Control Bylaw No. 5122-1994. There are a number of proposed changes to the new proposed Bylaw including the introduction of decibel levels for certain types of noise as well as a significantly better definition section that will assist staff and the public in Page 2 of 3 understanding the meaning of some of the sections of the Bylaw itself. Following Councils review and discussion it is recommended that the draft Bylaw be finalized and brought forward to the next appropriate Committee of the Whole for consideration. “Original signed by E.S. (Liz) Holitzki”_________________ Prepared by: E.S. (Liz) Holitzki Director: Licences, Permits and Bylaws “Original signed by Frank Quinn”____________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng General Manager: Public Works and Development Services “Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”_________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Office Page 3 of 3 District of Maple Ridge Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 Effective Date: District of Maple Ridge Noise Control Bylaw No.7038 - 2013 Table of Contents Part 1 Citation ..................................................................................................... 1 Part 2 Severability ............................................................................................... 1 Part 3 Previous Bylaw Repeal ............................................................................... 1 Part 4 Definitions ................................................................................................ 1 Part 5 General Regulations .................................................................................. 3 Part 6 Objectionable Noises or Sounds ................................................................. 3 Part 7 Location of Point of Reception ................................................................... 6 Part 8 Exclusions ................................................................................................. 7 Part 9 Enforcement ............................................................................................. 8 Part 10 Offence and Penalty ................................................................................... 8 District of Maple Ridge Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 A bylaw to regulate or prohibit the making of certain noises or sounds in the District of Maple Ridge under the Community Charter. WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge deems it expedient to provide for regulations and prohibitions regarding the making of noise; AND W HEREAS Council may by bylaw regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to the protection and enhancement of the well-being of its community in relation to nuisances, disturbances and other objectionable situations, including noise that is liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the District of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: Part 1 Citation 1.1 This bylaw may be cited as Maple Ridge Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 Part 2 Severability 2.1 If a portion of this bylaw is held invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then the invalid portion must be severed and the remainder of this bylaw is deemed to have been adopted without the severed section, subsequent, paragraph, subparagraph, clause or phrase. Part 3 Previous Bylaw Repeal 3.1 Maple Ridge Noise Control Bylaw No. 5122-1994 adopted on October 17, 1994 is hereby repealed. Part 4 Definitions 4.1 In this bylaw: “Bylaw Enforcement Officer” means every person designated by Council as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer, and includes every peace officer; Page 1 of 9 “Construction Noise” means any noises or sounds made on or associated with a construction site: a)in carrying on work in connection with the construction, demolition, reconstruction, alteration, or repair of any building or structure, b)in carrying on any excavation or filling in of land or other operation, or c)in moving or operating any machine, engine, or construction equipment; “Continuous Sound” means any noise or noises, other than Construction Noise, continuing for a period, or periods, totalling three (3) minutes or more in any fifteen (15) minute period; “Day” means the period of time from 0700 hours (7:00 am) to 1800 hours (6:00 pm) on each week day or Saturday and from 0900 hours (9:00 am) to 1800 hours (6:00 pm) on a Sunday or Holiday; “Director” means the Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws for the District of Maple Ridge or their designate; “District” means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge; “Highway” includes a street, road, land, bridge, viaduct and any other way open to the public use, but does not include a private right of way on private property; “Holidays” means Statutory Holidays as defined by the Interpretation Act; “Inspector” includes the Director, Inspector/Bylaw Enforcement Officer employed by the District, a Member of the Ridge Meadows RCMP and any employee acting under the supervision of any of them; ”Meter” means an instrument which accurately measures levels of sound pressure on an “A” weighted scale in accordance with the American National Standards Institute standard for meters set out in S1.4-1983 as amended from time to time; “Motor Vehicle” means a vehicle that is designed to be self-propelled and includes off-road vehicles, parts and equipment; “Night” means the period of time from 1800 hours (6:00 pm) on one day to 0700 hours (7:00 am) on the next and from 1800 hours (6:00 pm) on one day to 0900 hours (9:00 am) on the next day when the latter is a Sunday or a Holiday; Page 2 of 9 “Non-continuous Sound” means any noises or sounds other than Continuous Sound and Construction Noise; “Point of Reception” means the place where a Meter is located to measure the Sound Level from a source of noises or sounds; “Power Equipment” means any tool, equipment or machinery powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor that is used for construction, lawn, garden, building and property maintenance, and includes hedge trimmers, line trimmers, rototillers, pressure washers, carpet cleaning equipment, and hand operated power tools including but not limited to chain saws, chippers and leaf blowers; “Premises” means the smallest unit of ownership or occupation of real property, whichever is the lesser; “Sound Level” means the Meter reading or recording in decibels using an “A” weighted network at the slow response setting of the Meter. Part 5 General Regulations 5.1 No person shall make or cause, or permit to be made or caused, any noise or sound which: a) disturbs or is liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of individuals or the public; or b) exceeds the Sound Levels prescribed in this Bylaw. 5.2 No owner or occupier of real property shall allow the real property to be used so that noise or sound which emanates from the real property: a) disturbs or is liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of individuals or the public; or b) exceeds the Sound Levels prescribed in this Bylaw. 5.3 Despite compliance with Part 6, a person may be found in violation of sections 5.1 or 5.2. Part 6 Objectionable Noises or Sounds 6.1 Without limiting sections 5.1 to 5.3 the following noises or sounds are Page 3 of 9 deemed to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public and are prohibited: 6.1.1 any noises or sounds produced within or outside a Motor Vehicle and created by the following: a)a Motor Vehicle engine or exhaust system when such noises or sounds are loud, roaring or explosive exceeding 90 dBA; b)a Motor Vehicle horn or other warning device except when authorized by law; c)a Motor Vehicle operated in such a manner that the tires squeal; d)a load or tow of a Motor Vehicle which causes a banging, clanking, squealing, or other like noise or sound due to improperly secured load or equipment, or inadequate maintenance; e) a radio, television, tape player or other sound playback device, amplification equipment, or a musical instrument, which can easily be heard by a person outside the Motor Vehicle which exceeds 90 dBA. 6.1.2 any of the following noises or sounds: a)temporary construction noise: (i)except on a Sunday or a Holiday; (ii)except before 0700 hours (7:00 am) or after 21:00 hours (9:00 pm) on Mondays to Saturdays provided Saturday is not a Holiday; b)power equipment: (i)on a Sunday or Holiday; (ii) during the Night; c)noises or sounds from operation of a lawnmower or power gardening equipment are permitted between the hours of seven o’clock in the morning and nine o’clock in the evening on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday and between the hours of nine o’clock in the morning and nine o’clock in the evening on Sunday and Statutory Holidays as defined in the provincial Interpretation Act. Page 4 of 9 d) noises or sounds from the loading or unloading of goods, materials, machines, equipment, waste or garbage by any means: (i) on a Sunday or holiday; (ii) before 0730 hours (7:30 am) or after 1800 hours (6:00 pm) on any other day that is not a Sunday or Holiday. 6.1.3 Any noises or sounds, the occurrence of which extends continuously or non-continuously for fifteen (15) minutes or more which can be heard from a contiguous parcel, created by the following: a) a dog or any other animal or bird; b) a radio, record, tape, or disc player, television set, or other instrument or apparatus for the production or amplification of such; c) a burglar alarm or security system; 6.1.4 Any noises or sounds resulting from the operation of a public address system outside of a building or structure; 6.1.5 In addition to the noises or sounds described in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4 or 6.1.5: a) any Continuous Sound that exceeds the following Sound Levels at the Point of Reception: Sound Level (i) during the Day 55 dBA (ii) during the Night 45 dBA b) any Non-continuous sound that exceeds the following Sound Levels at the Point of Reception: Sound Level (i) during the Day 80 dBA (ii) during the Night 65 dBA Page 5 of 9 c)any Construction Noise that exceeds a Sound Level at the Point of Reception: Sound Level (i) during the Day 80 dBA Part 7 Exemptions and Relaxations by Approval 7.1 A person may submit an application for an exemption or relaxation from the provisions of this Bylaw to the Director, in a form and with content satisfactory to the Director who may allow the exemption or relaxation with or without terms and conditions or refuse the exemption or relaxation provided that the exemption or relaxation is limited to a period of not more than forty-eight (48) hours. 7.2 With respect to exemptions or relaxations from the limitations imposed by this Bylaw for construction projects, the Director may grant the exemption if satisfied that: (a) the volume of traffic in the area of the proposed construction is such as to not cause danger to the workers on the job, or to not cause excessive or dangerous traffic congestion, or (b) the impact and inconvenience to residents in the area of the proposed construction can and will be minimized, or (c) the construction cannot be undertaken efficiently or safely during the normal working day; or (d) interruption of any service during normal working day would cause any person undue hardship. 7.3 If an exemption or relaxation is granted by the Director the applicant must, at least forty-eight (48) hours before the start of the exemption period, distribute a notice, in a form and with content satisfactory to the Director, to all residences within a one hundred (100) metre radius. Such notice is to include, but will not be limited to, all times and dates, the specific location and general description of the activity. 7.4 An applicant who has been refused an exemption or relaxation by a decision of the Director may apply to have Council reconsider that decision in accordance with the following procedures: (a) The applicant may apply by notice to the Municipal Clerk within 14 days of any refusal by the Director to grant an exemption or Page 6 of 9 relaxation; (b) The applicant may address Council in writing or in person concerning the specific exemption or any future exemptions; and (c) Council may allow or revise the exemption or relaxation with or without terms and conditions or refuse the exemption or relaxation. 7.5 A person may, in respect to a specific property or specific properties, submit an application for a modification of this Bylaw in respect to a rating level set out in this Bylaw to the Director in a form and with a content satisfactory to the Director who shall refer the application to Council for consideration with recommendations. Part 8 Location of Point of Reception 8.1 For the purpose of enforcing this bylaw, measurement of Sound Levels shall be made: a) in the case of noises or sounds in or on a Highway, in a public park or in another public place, from a Point of Reception not less than 5 metres from the noises or sounds; b) in the case of noises or sounds created by Construction, from a Point of Reception on any Premises, not including the Premises on which the Construction is taking place; and c) in all other cases, from a Point of Reception not on the Premises upon which the source of the noise or sound is located. Part 9 Exclusions 9.1 This Bylaw does not apply to: a) police, fire or other emergency personnel vehicles and equipment in relation to an emergency; b) vehicles and equipment used to make emergency repairs to public utilities and services; c) transit buses operated by a public authority; d) work carried out by officers, employees or agents of the District. Page 7 of 9 Part 10 Enforcement 10.1 Every Bylaw Enforcement Officer is authorized to enforce this Bylaw, and, for that purpose, a Bylaw Enforcement Officer may enter at all reasonable times any real property to ascertain whether the provisions of this Bylaw are being observed. Part 11 Offence and Penalty 11.1 Every person who violates a provision of this bylaw, or who consents, allows or permits an act or thing to be done in violation of a provision of this bylaw, or who neglects or refrains from doing anything required by a provision of this bylaw, is guilty of an offence and is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 in accordance with the Offence Act. 11.2 Each day that a violation continues or exists under this bylaw is a separate offence. 11.3 No person may interfere with an Enforcement Officer in issuing a ticket or bylaw notice or otherwise carrying out his or her duties in accordance with this bylaw, and it is an offence for any person to interfere with an Enforcement Officer in the enforcement of this bylaw. 11.4 No person shall interfere with or obstruct the entry of the Enforcement Officer onto any land, into any building, or any vehicle to which entry is made or attempted pursuant to the provisions of this bylaw. 11.5 Every Person who commits a first offence of any section of this Bylaw shall pay a fine of $300.00 , reduced to $150.00 if paid within thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt of the Municipal Ticket Information. 11.6 Every Person who commits a second offence of the same section of this Bylaw as set out in 11.5, shall pay a fine in the amount of $500.00, reduced to $300.00 if paid within thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt of the Municipal Ticket Information. 11.7 Every Person who commits a third offence of the same section of this Bylaw as set out in 11.5 and 11.6 shall pay a fine in the amount of $750.00, reduced to $500.00 if paid within thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt of the Municipal Ticket Information Page 8 of 9 READ A FIRST TIME on [Date] READ A SECOND TIME on [Date] READ A THIRD TIME on [Date] ADOPTED by the Council on [Date] CORPORATE OFFICER PRESIDING MEMBER Page 9 of 9 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer Meeting: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Remedial Action for the Demolition of Derelict/Unsafe Structure at 22033 – Lougheed Highway EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The property at 22033 Lougheed Highway is owned by Paulo Batista Branco (the “Owner”). The building (the “Structure”) on site has historically been used as a single family dwelling for many years (age unknown) and is now in a dilapidated fire damaged condition and poses a hazard and nuisance to the neighbourhood because the Structure has been damaged and allowed to deteriorate to the point where it no longer complies with minimum building code requirements for occupancy purposes. The structure was extensively damaged by fire on April 26, 2013 and at the time of the fire the damage to the structure was assessed to more than 50% of its assessed value. Since the initial inspection, due to the fire and unauthorized access by unknown persons, the electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems have been damaged or removed to the point where they are no longer recognizable or functional and would require to be replaced in their entirety. The Structure has been thoroughly inspected by both the Manager of Inspection Services and the Fire Chief on June 06, 2013 and as a result it has been determined that the Structure does not comply with or provide the basic life, health and safety needs as outlined in the Districts current Building Bylaw and is not habitable with respect to the British Columbia Fire Code 2012. Reports from both the Manager of Inspection Services and the Fire Chief are attached as Appendix I and Appendix II respectively. Photos taken of the site inside the Structure and outside the Structure are set out throughout the attached report marked as Appendix I. Throughout the building, there is an accumulation of combustible building contents such as tables, chairs and discarded material that constitutes a fire hazard as it is easily ignitable. In addition, the type and condition of the material presents a hazard to fire fighters who may enter the structure including but not limited to broken glass, sharp objects and other fire damaged building elements are found throughout the structure. The building is not habitable and these premises are now in such a state of disrepair that a fire starting in them will spread rapidly and endanger life and property. Firefighters will not be able to enter this structure to safely fight a fire or rescue anyone that may be inside the building. Although the Fire Department took immediate steps to fence and board the building this structure has been found insecure on numerous occasions since September 2011 resulting in vandalism to the structure itself and material inside the structure. Page 1 of 4 4.5 There is another residential structure located to the west of the Property and this vacant structure constitutes a fire hazard to this building. Based upon the above referenced information on this matter staff recommends Council pass the following resolutions. RECOMMENDATIONS: NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved: • THAT Council hereby consider that the property located at 22033 Lougheed Highway, and legally described as PID 009-504-834, Lot 6, District Lot 397, Group 1, New Westminster Plan 11251 (the “Property”) is in a hazardous condition and creates an unsafe condition within the meaning of Sections 73 (2)(a) and 73 (2)(b) of the Community Charter, as a result of the Structure being fire damaged and insecure from time to time over the past two years and the Structure’s continual structural deterioration that the Structure contravenes the Maple Ridge Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 and the BC Building Code. • THAT Council hereby declares that the Property is a nuisance, within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the Community Charter, as Council considers the Structure to be so dilapidated and unclean as to be offensive and pose a risk to the community, and Council considers that there is a danger to people adjacent to or visiting the Property, especially children due to the likelihood of harm or personal injury. Council therefore resolves that within thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of this resolution, the Owner of the Property is required to perform the following Remedial Action requirements: 1. Demolish the Structure, remove the foundation and all demolition materials from the site. 2. Any excavation resulting from the demolition must be filled in to prevent water from ponding on the site. 3. The owner must follow all Work Safe BC Hazardous Materials requirements for the safe removal of any and all hazardous materials in the structure. In the event the Owner has not performed all of the Remedial Action requirements within 30 days after notice of this resolution is delivered to the Owner, the District may, by its own forces or those of a contractor engaged by the District, enter the Property and perform the Remedial Action requirements. In the event the District takes the above referenced action, the District may recover the expense from the Owner, together with costs and interest, in the same manner as municipal taxes in accordance with sections 17, 258, and 259 of the Community Charter. If a person with notice of this resolution wishes to request reconsideration of these requirements by Council, written notice of this request must be provided to the Manager of Legislative Services within 14 business days of that person receiving notice of this resolution. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Page 2 of 4 The Structure on the Property located at 22033 Lougheed Highway poses a safety and nuisance concern in the community. The purpose of this report is to recommend Council use the authority provided under Part 3 Division 12 including Sections 73 and 74 of the Community Charter to impose Remedial Action requirements on the Owner as recommended in this report. The structure was extensively damaged by fire on April 6, 2013 and at the time of the fire was constructed as a single family dwelling. The nature and location of the fire resulted in its extending onto the neighboring property to the east, 22043 Lougheed Highway, causing heavy fire damage to that property as well. The hydro electric and gas services have been disconnected from the subject structure. Inspections conducted on April 26, 2013 and June 6, 2013, by the Manager of Inspection Services revealed the Structure does not comply nor provide the basic life, health and safety needs as prescribed in the Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 as follows: • Exterior windows and doors no longer in place or functional. • 35% of exterior cladding damaged by fire and exposed to the environment. • Exterior walking surfaces fractured and broken leading to tripping hazards. • Objective statement OS2.3 – Damage to or deterioration of building elements. In the body of the report, on page 2, from the Manager of Inspection Services is a breakdown of sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met. These items are considered to be of health and life safety concerns in accordance with the objectives of the B.C. Building Code and would require upgrading to be in compliance with the B.C. Building Code. a) Citizen/Customer Implications: This Structure continues to deteriorate and in doing so devalues the neighbouring properties in the area. The exterior of the structure is attracting a fair amount of vagrants and in spite of staff’s attempts at securing the structure is still being entered from time to time. By removing the fire damaged structure the safety of the site will be restored. b) Alternatives: Council could decide not to pass the Remedial Action order and direct staff to prepare an alternative approach to dealing with this hazardous Structure. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Fire Department and the Building Department report that the Property at 22033 Lougheed Highway has been damaged to the extent that repairing the structure is not feasible and therefore the structure should be demolished. If another fire were to start in the subject Structure it could pose a serious danger to the property adjacent to the west. The structure has deteriorated to the point where it no longer complies with minimum building code requirements and based upon a thorough inspection the Structure by both the Building and Fire department staff recommend that the structure should be demolished. Page 3 of 4 District staff recommends that Remedial Action requirements as described in the recommendation in this report be approved. The recommendations contained in this report have been reviewed with our municipal solicitors. “Original signed by E.S. (Liz) Holitzki”___________________ Prepared by: E.S. (Liz) Holitzki Director: Licences, Permits and Bylaws “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 Office Appendices: I. Memo from Manager of Inspection Services II. Memo from Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief, Prevention & Planning Page 4 of 4 1 Interoffice Memorandum TO: LIZ HOLITZKI, DIRECTOR LICENCES, PERMITS & BYLAWS FROM: STEPHEN J. CÔTÉ-ROLVINK, MANAGER OF INSPECTION SERVICES SUBJECT: REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT FOR 22033 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY, MAPLE RIDGE DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2014 Introduction The following report is in support of the Districts and public's desire to have the above mentioned building removed as it creates a nuisance to the general public and is a building that is unsafe. The building located at 22033 Lougheed Highway was subject of a fire on April 26, 2013 since that time the building has not been maintained nor repaired by the current owners. Based on inspections conducted June 06, 2013 by Fire Chief Dane Spence and myself the building was found to be damaged to more than 50% of its assessed value. Based on Section 8.2.4. of the Districts Building Bylaw 6925-2012, this building is required to comply with all current codes and bylaws of the District and the Province. Since the initial inspection the Fire Department has attended the site due to insecure instances and has confirmed that the site remains in a state consistent with our initial inspection. In addition to the damage caused by the fire, further damage has occurred by persons gaining access to the space. Due to the fire and access, the electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems have been damaged or removed to the point where they are no longer recognizable or functional and would be required to be replaced in their entirety. As this is the case the following report makes no further reference to these items. The following report is based on the building code issues as it relates to the structure and the surrounding lands. The following report begins on the deficiencies and concerns with the exterior of the building and then moves into the interior spaces. History A safety inspection was completed on April 26, 2013. Upon review of both the exterior and interior of the building it was evident that the building has deteriorated and is damaged to the point where it no longer complies to the minimum code requirements. These findings are only in those areas of primary code concern being safety, health and fire protection of buildings and facilities as identified in the introduction to the BC Building Code page v. Based on the use of this building as a residence the building is being evaluated based on its continued use which the building code would class as a Group C occupancy classification. Using this as the defining guidelines the code requires any buildings of this use to be constructed under Division B Part 9 which places a high value on structural adequacy and life safety. 2 The code defines its Safety, Health and Fire Protection requirements in objective statements (OS) which are located in Division A – Part 2, Section 2.2 ”Objectives” of the 2012 B.C. Building Code. The statements in this section that are applicable to above referenced premises are: OS Safety, OS1 Fire Safety, OS1.4 – fire safety systems failing to function as expected; OS2 Structural Safety, OS2.3, OS2.5; OS3 Safety in Use, OS3.1, OS3.4, OS3.7; OH Health, OH1 Indoor Conditions, OH1.1, OH1.2 – inadequate thermal comfort, OH1.3; OH2 Sanitation, OH2.5 – contact with vermin and insects; OP fire and Structural Protection of Buildings,OP1 Fire Protection of the Building, OP1.4 - fire safety systems failing to function as expected; OP2 Structural Sufficiency of the Building, OP2.2, OP2.3, OP2.5; OP2.6;OP4 Protection of Adjacent Buildings from Structural Damage, OP4.3 - impact of the building on adjacent buildings. A complete list of the referenced objective statements is attached to this report as Appendix I. These findings do not deal with the broader topics of aesthetic or cosmetic irregularities within the building or on the buildings exterior which are often more apparent but not regulated within the mandates of codes. These findings also do not deal with current Building Code requirements where there is no issue in respect of the health or safety of the building. Objective Statements are found in Division A of the B.C. Building code 2012. Any other references to sections in this report are to Division B of the B.C. Building Code unless otherwise stated. Summary Building Exterior  Exterior windows and doors no longer in place or functional.  35% of exterior cladding damaged by fire and exposure to the environment.  Exterior walking surfaces fractured and broken leading to tripping hazards.  Objective statement OS2.3 – Damage to or deterioration of building elements. Following is a breakdown of sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met. These items are considered to be of health and life safety concerns in accordance with the objectives of the B.C Building Code and would require upgrading to be in compliance with the B.C. Building Code.  Subsection 5.1.4. Resistance to Loads and Deterioration  Sentence 5.1.4.1.(1) Defines the basic criteria for exterior cladding and that it is to be able to withstand both environmental and structural loads. o Environmental loads are those loads that the environment place on the building due to dissimilar interior and exterior environments. o Structural loads are the physical loads placed on the building whether from its own components that go to making the building or those imposed on the building by the environment such as wind and snow  Sentence 5.1.4.2.(1) Deals with component compatibility and resistance to deterioration of those components. 3  Subsection 5.6.1. Protection from Precipitation  Sentence 5.6.1.1.(1) defines the requirement that the exterior elements shall minimize the ingress of precipitation into the assembly and prevent it from entering into the interior.  Subsection 5.6.2. Sealing, Drainage, Accumulation and Disposal  Sentence 5.6.2.1.(1) identifies the need for materials to be sealed at joints or to allow for the provision for drainage.  Sentence 5.6.2.2.(2) identifies the need to ensure drainage is provided where horizontal surfaces can accumulate precipitation. Exterior photos of building 4 Building's Interior Top Floor  Entry door is no longer functional  Moisture content in the building's interior is causing interior mold  Thermal insulation and air or vapour barriers damaged to the point of no functioning.  Water penetrating through the roof.  Moisture penetration through the roof is causing further deterioration of interior and structural components.  Roof structure damaged by fire to the point where it no longer functions.  Kitchen damaged and elements removed.  All interior surfaces damaged to the point of not being able to perform their intended functions Following is a breakdown of sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met which would require upgrading.  Sub section 9.7.3. Performance of Windows, Doors & Skylights  Identifies the minimum functional criteria these elements require to achieve environmental separation.  Sub Section9.9.9.9. Egress from dwelling units  Establishes the minimum criteria for exiting a residential building.  Subsection 5.1.4. Resistance to Loads and Deterioration  Sentence 5.1.4.1.(1) Defines the basic criteria for assemblies to have sufficient capacity and integrity to resist or accommodate both environmental and structural loads.  Sentence 5.1.4.2.(1) Deals with component compatibility and resistance to deterioration of those components. o Environmental loads are those loads that the environment place on the building due to dissimilar interior and exterior environments. o Structural loads are the physical loads placed on the building whether from its own components that go to making the building or those imposed on the building by the environment such as wind and snow.  Subsection 5.1.5. Other Requirements  Indicates that structural and fire safety in other parts of the code must still be met.  Subsection 5.2.1. Environmental Loads and Design Procedures  Sentence 5.2.1.2.(1) indicates the need for determining these loads with established practices.  Subsection 5.3.1. Thermal Resistance of Assemblies  Article 5.3.1.1. indicates the need to ensure assemblies are able to resist or dissipate transferred heat. o Also only waves this criteria where it can be shown not to affect the users, the building or the buildings services.  Article 5.3.1.2. identifies the need to ensure condensation does not occur on the interior face or within the wall assembly. 5  Subsection 5.4.1. Air Barrier Systems  Article 5.4.1.1. indicates the need for assemblies to control air leakage and minimize accumulation of condensation and penetration of precipitation into the assembly.  Subsection 5.5.1. Vapour Barriers  Article 5.5.1.1. indicates the need to position materials to control vapour diffusion into the assembly or drainage out of the assembly. Top floor interior photos 6 Top floor interior photos continued Building's Interior Bottom Floor  All interior surfaces are covered with mold.  Interior wall finishes have been removed weakening load bearing elements.  Handrail to stairs is not present.  Heating system does not comply to code requirements, and is not functioning.  Electrical and plumbing system has been removed or damaged to the point of not functioning.  Debris and organic material prevent safe movement within the structure Following is a breakdown of sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met which would require upgrading.  Sub Section9.9.9.9. Egress from dwelling units  Establishes the minimum criteria for exiting a residential building  Subsection 5.1.4. Resistance to Loads and Deterioration  Sentence 5.1.4.1.(1) Defines the basic criteria for assemblies to have sufficient capacity and integrity to resist or accommodate both environmental and structural loads.  Sentence 5.1.4.2.(1) Deals with component compatibility and resistance to deterioration of those components. o Environmental loads are those loads that the environment place on the building due to dissimilar interior and exterior environments. 7 o Structural loads are the physical loads placed on the building whether from its own components that go to making the building or those imposed on the building by the environment such as wind and snow.  Sub section 9.8.7. Handrails  identifies what the minimum design, installation and load carrying ability of handrails.  Subsection 5.1.5. Other Requirements  Indicates that structural and fire safety in other parts of the code must still be met.  Subsection 5.2.1. Environmental Loads and Design Procedures  Sentence 5.2.1.2.(1) indicates the need for determining these loads with established practices.  Subsection 5.3.1. Thermal Resistance of Assemblies  Article 5.3.1.1. indicates the need to ensure assemblies are able to resist or dissipate transferred heat. o Also only waves this criteria where it can be shown not to affect the users, the building or the buildings services.  Article 5.3.1.2. identifies the need to ensure condensation does not occur on the interior face or within the wall assembly.  Subsection 5.4.1. Air Barrier Systems  Article 5.4.1.1. indicates the need for assemblies to control air leakage and minimize accumulation of condensation and penetration of precipitation into the assembly.  Subsection 5.5.1. Vapour Barriers  Article 5.5.1.1. indicates the need to position materials to control vapour diffusion into the assembly or drainage out of the assembly. Bottom floor interior photos 8 Bottom floor interior photos continued The items identified are items that do not comply with the codes Objective Statements for life and health safety and would need to be upgraded to ensure compliance with the B.C. Building Code. Further, due to the degree of environmental contamination from water ingress into the building and fire damage, all areas would not comply with minimum health safety requirements. Conclusion The items contained within this report are items that directly relate to the life and health safety requirements of the B.C. Building Code, B.C. Plumbing Code, Natural Gas and Propane installation Code and the Canadian Electrical Code, codes which are enforced under the District of Maple Ridge’s Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 as amended. These items in the opinion of the Local Electrical and Gas Safety Manager, Chief Building Official and Manager of Inspection Services are items that are required to be repaired to ensure life and health safety of persons occupying or attending this property. Further, it is my opinion that the building no longer complies to the minimum life, healthy safety, and structural safety required by the BC Building Code and that it would not be economically viable to rehabilitate the existing building. Stephen J. Côté-Rolvink, RBO, CRBO Manager of Inspection Services Local Safety Manager Chief Building Official 9 Appendix I District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: February 17, 2014 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer Meeting: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Remedial Action for the Demolition of Derelict/Unsafe Structure at 22043 – Lougheed Highway EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The property at 22043 Lougheed Highway is owned by Gursharanjit Singh Rakhra (the “Owner”). The building (the “Structure”) on site has historically been used as a single family dwelling for many years (age unknown) and is now in a dilapidated fire damaged condition and poses a hazard and nuisance to the neighbourhood because the Structure has been damaged and allowed to deteriorate to the point where it no longer complies with minimum building code requirements for occupancy purposes. The structure was extensively damaged by fire on April 26, 2013 and at the time of the fire the damage to the structure was assessed to more than 50% of its assessed value based on inspections conducted June 6, 2013 by the Fire Chief and the Manager of Inspection Services. Based on Section 8.2.4 of the Districts Building Bylaw 6925-2012, this building is required to comply with all current codes and bylaws of the District and the Province. Since the initial inspection the fire department has attended the site due to unsecure instances and has confirmed that the site remains in a state consistent with our initial inspection. From the time of the initial inspection, due to the fire and unauthorized access by unknown persons, the electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems have been damaged or removed to the point where they are no longer recognizable or functional and would require to be replaced in their entirety. In addition to the damage caused by the fire, further damage has occurred by persons gaining access to the structure. As this is the case this report makes no further reference to these items. Based upon the thorough inspection of the Structure by both the Manager of Inspection Services and the Fire Chief on June 06, 2013 it has been determined that the Structure does not comply with or provide the basic life, health and safety needs as outlined in the Districts current Building Bylaw and is not habitable with respect to the British Columbia Fire Code 2012. Reports from both the Manager of Inspection Services and the Fire Chief are attached as Appendix I and Appendix II respectively. Photos taken of the site inside the Structure and outside the Structure are set out throughout the attached report marked as Appendix I. Throughout the building, there is an accumulation of combustible building contents such as tables, chairs and discarded material that constitutes a fire hazard as it is easily ignitable. In addition, the type and condition of the material presents a hazard to fire fighters who may enter the structure including but not limited to broken glass, sharp objects and other fire damaged building elements are found throughout the structure. The building is not habitable and these premises are now in such a state of disrepair that a fire starting in them will spread rapidly and endanger life and property. Firefighters will not be able to enter this structure to safely fight a fire or rescue anyone that may be inside the building. Page 1 of 4 4.6 Although the Fire Department took immediate steps to fence and board the building this structure has been found insecure on numerous occasions since September 2011 resulting in vandalism to the structure itself and material inside the structure. There is another residential structure located to the west of property and this vacant structure constitutes a fire hazard to this building. Based upon the above referenced information on this matter staff recommends Council pass the following resolutions. RECOMMENDATIONS: NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved: • THAT Council hereby consider that the property located at 22043 Lougheed Highway, and legally described as PID 009-504-818, Lot 5, District Lot 397, Group 1, New Westminster Plan 11251 (the “Property”) is in a hazardous condition and creates an unsafe condition within the meaning of Sections 73 (2)(a) and 73 (2)(b) of the Community Charter, as a result of the Structure being fire damaged and insecure from time to time over the past two years and the Structure’s continual structural deterioration that the Structure contravenes the Maple Ridge Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 and the BC Building Code. • THAT Council hereby declares that the Property is a nuisance, within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the Community Charter, as Council considers the Structure to be so dilapidated and unclean as to be offensive and pose a risk to the community, and Council considers that there is a danger to people adjacent to or visiting the Property, especially children due to the likelihood of harm or personal injury. Council therefore resolves that within thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of this resolution, the Owner of the Property is required to perform the following Remedial Action requirements: 1. Demolish the Structure, remove the foundation and all demolition materials from the site. 2. Any excavation resulting from the demolition must be filled in to prevent water from ponding on the site. 3. The owner must follow all Work Safe BC Hazardous Materials requirements for the safe removal of any and all hazardous materials in the structure. In the event the Owner has not performed all of the Remedial Action requirements within 30 days after notice of this resolution is delivered to the Owner, the District may, by its own forces or those of a contractor engaged by the District, enter the Property and perform the Remedial Action requirements. In the event the District takes the above referenced action, the District may recover the expense from the Owner, together with costs and interest, in the same manner as municipal taxes in accordance with sections 17, 258, and 259 of the Community Charter. If a person with notice of this resolution wishes to request reconsideration of these requirements by Council, written notice of this request must be provided to the Manager of Legislative Services within 14 business days of that person receiving notice of this resolution. Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The Structure on the Property located at 22043 Lougheed Highway poses a safety and nuisance concern in the community. The purpose of this report is to recommend Council use the authority provided under Part 3 Division 12 including Sections 73 and 74 of the Community Charter to impose Remedial Action requirements on the Owner as recommended in this report. The structure was extensively damaged by fire on April 26, 2013 and at the time of the fire was constructed as a single family dwelling. The hydro electric and gas services have been disconnected from the subject structure. SUMMARY Building Exterior Inspections conducted on April 26, 2013 and June 6, 2013, by the Manager of Inspection Services revealed the Structure does not comply nor provide the basic life, health and safety needs as prescribed in the Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 as follows: • Exterior windows and doors no longer in place or functional. • 20% of exterior cladding damaged by fire and exposed to the environment. • Exterior walking surfaces fractured and broken leading to tripping hazards. • Objective statement OS2.3 – Damage to or deterioration of building elements. In the body of the report, on page 2 from the Manager of Inspection Servicess is a breakdown of sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met. These items are considered to be of health and life safety concerns in accordance with the objectives of the B.C. Building Code and would require upgrading to be in compliance with the B.C. Building Code. Building’s Interior Top Floor • Entry Door is no longer functional. • Moisture content in the building’s interior is causing interior mold. • Thermal insulation and air or vapour barriers damaged to the point of not functioning. • Water penetrating through the roof. • Moisture penetration through the roof is causing further deterioration of the interior and structural components. • Roof structure damaged by fire to the point where it no longer functions. • Kitchen damaged and elements removed. • All interior surfaces damaged to the point of not being able to perform their intended functions. Building’s Interior Bottom Floor • All interior surfaces are covered with mold. • Interior wall finishes have been removed/damaged weakening load bearing elements • Handrail to stairs is not present. Page 3 of 4 • Heating system does not comply with code requirements and is not functioning. • Electrical and plumbing system has been removed or damaged to the point of not functioning. • Debris and organic material prevent safe movement within the structure. a) Citizen/Customer Implications: This Structure continues to deteriorate and in doing so devalues the neighbouring properties in the area. The exterior of the structure is attracting a fair amount of vagrants and in spite of staff’s attempts at securing the structure is still being entered from time to time. By removing the fire damaged structure the safety of the site will be restored. b) Alternatives: Council could decide not to pass the Remedial Action order and direct staff to prepare an alternative approach to dealing with this hazardous Structure. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Fire Department and the Building Department report that the Property at 22043 Lougheed Highway has been damaged to the extent that repairing the structure is not feasible and therefore the structure should be demolished. If another fire were to start in the subject Structure it could pose a serious danger to the property adjacent to the east. The structure has deteriorated to the point where it no longer complies with minimum building code requirements and based upon a thorough inspection the Structure by both the Building and Fire department staff recommend that the structure should be demolished. District staff recommends that Remedial Action requirements as described in the recommendation in this report be approved. The recommendations contained in this report have been reviewed with our municipal solicitors. “Original signed by E.S. (Liz) Holitzki” __________________ Prepared by: E.S. (Liz) Holitzki Director: Licences, Permits and Bylaws “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 Office Appendices: I. Memo from Manager of Inspections II. Memo from Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief, Prevention & Planning Page 4 of 4 1 Interoffice Memorandum TO: LIZ HOLITZKI, DIRECTOR LICENCES, PERMITS & BYLAWS FROM: STEPHEN J. CÔTÉ-ROLVINK, MANAGER OF INSPECTION SERVICES SUBJECT: REMEDIAL ACITON REPORT FOR 22043 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY , MAPLE RIDGE DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2014 Introduction The following report is in support of the Districts and public's desire to have the above mentioned building removed as it creates a nuisance to the general public and is a building that is unsafe. The building located at 22043 Lougheed Hwy was subject of a fire on April 26, 2013 since that time the building has not been maintained nor repaired by the current owners. Based on inspections conducted June 06, 2013 by Fire Chief Dane Spence and myself the building was found to be damaged to more than 50% of its assessed value. Based on Section 8.2.4. of the Districts Building Bylaw 6925-2012, this building is required to comply with all current codes and bylaws of the District and the province. Since the initial inspection the fire department has attended the site due to unsecure instances and has confirmed that the site remains in a state consistent with our initial inspection. In addition to the damage caused by the fire, further damage has occurred by persons gaining access to the space. Due to the fire and access, the electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems have been damaged or removed to the point where they are no-longer recognizable or functional and would be required to be replaced in their entirety. As this is the case the following report makes no f urther reference to these items. The following report is based on the building code issues as it relates to the structure and the surrounding lands. The following report begins on the deficiencies and concerns with the exterior of the building and then moves into the interior spaces. History A safety inspection was completed on April 26, 2013. Upon review of the both the exterior and interior of the building it was evident that the building has deteriorated and damaged to the point where it no longer complies to the minimum code requirements. These findings are only in those areas of primary code concern being safety, health and fire protection of buildings and facilities as identified in the introduction to the BC Building Code page v. Based on the use of this building as a residence the building is being evaluated based on its continued use which the building code would class as a Group C occupancy classification. Using this as the defining guidelines the code requires any buildings of this Use to be constructed under Division B Part 9 which places a high value on structural adequacy and life safety. 2 The code defines its Safety, Health and Fire Protection requirements in objective statements (OS) which are located in Division A – Part 2, Section 2.2 ”Objectives” of the 2012 B.C. Building Code. The statements in this section that are applicable to above referenced premises are: OS Safety, OS1 Fire Safety, OS1.4 – fire safety systems failing to function as expected; OS2 Structural Safety, OS2.3, OS2.5; OS3 Safety in Use, OS3.1, OS3.4, OS3.7; OH Health, OH1 Indoor Conditions, OH1.1, OH1.2 – inadequate thermal comfort, OH1.3; OH2 Sanitation, OH2.5 – contact with vermin and insects; OP fire and Structural Protection of Buildings,OP1 Fire Protection of the Building, OP1.4 - fire safety systems failing to function as expected; OP2 Structural Sufficiency of the Building, OP2.2, OP2.3, OP2.5; OP2.6;OP4 Protection of Adjacent Buildings from Structural Damage, OP4.3 - impact of the building on adjacent buildings. A complete list of the referenced objective statements is attached to this report as Appendix I. These findings do not deal with the broader topics of aesthetic or cosmetic irregularities within the building or on the buildings exterior which are often more apparent but not regulated within the mandates of codes. These findings also do not deal with current Building Code requirements where there is no issue in respect of the health or safety of the building. Objective Statements are found in Division A of the B.C. Building code 2012. Any other references to sections in this report are to Division B of the B.C. Building Code unless otherwise stated. Summary Building Exterior  Exterior windows and doors no longer in place or functional.  20% of exterior cladding damaged by fire and exposure to the environment.  Exterior walking surfaces fractured and broken leading to tripping hazards.  Objective statement OS2.3 – Damage to or deterioration of building elements. Following is a breakdown of sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met. These items are considered to be of health and life safety concerns in accordance with the objectives of the B.C Building Code and would require upgrading to be in compliance with the B.C. Building Code.  Subsection 5.1.4. Resistance to Loads and Deterioration  Sentence 5.1.4.1.(1) Defines the basic criteria for exterior cladding and that it is to be able to withstand both environmental and structural loads. o Environmental loads are those loads that the environment place on the building due to dissimilar interior and exterior environments. o Structural loads are the physical loads placed on the building whether from its own components that go to making the building or those imposed on the building by the environment such as wind and snow  Sentence 5.1.4.2.(1) Deals with component compatibility and resistance to deterioration of those components. 3  Subsection 5.6.1. Protection from Precipitation  Sentence 5.6.1.1.(1) defines the requirement that the exterior elements shall minimize the ingress of precipitation into the assembly and prevent it from entering into the interior.  Subsection 5.6.2. Sealing, Drainage, Accumulation and Disposal  Sentence 5.6.2.1.(1) identifies the need for materials to be sealed at joints or to allow for the provision for drainage.  Sentence 5.6.2.2.(2) identifies the need to ensure drainage is provided where horizontal surfaces can accumulate precipitation. Exterior photos of building 4 Building's Interior Top Floor  Entry door is no longer functional  Moisture content in the building's interior is causing interior mold  Thermal insulation and air or vapour barriers damaged to the point of no functioning.  Water penetrating through the roof.  Moisture penetration through the roof is causing further deterioration of interior and structural components.  Roof structure damaged by fire to the point where it no longer functions.  Kitchen damaged and elements removed.  All interior surfaces damaged to the point of not being able to perform their intended functions Following is a breakdown of Sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met which would require upgrading.  Sub section 9.7.3. Performance of Windows, Doors & Skylights  Identifies the minimum functional criteria these elements require to achieve environmental separation.  Sub Section9.9.9.9. Egress from dwelling units  Establishes the minimum criteria for exiting a residential building.  Subsection 5.1.4. Resistance to Loads and Deterioration  Sentence 5.1.4.1.(1) Defines the basic criteria for assemblies to have sufficient capacity and integrity to resist or accommodate both environmental and structural loads.  Sentence 5.1.4.2.(1) Deals with component compatibility and resistance to deterioration of those components. o Environmental loads are those loads that the environment place on the building due to dissimilar interior and exterior environments. o Structural loads are the physical loads placed on the building whether from its own components that go to making the building or those imposed on the building by the environment such as wind and snow.  Subsection 5.1.5. Other Requirements  Indicates that structural and fire safety in other parts of the code must still be met.  Subsection 5.2.1. Environmental Loads and Design Procedures  Sentence 5.2.1.2.(1) indicates the need for determining these loads with established practices.  Subsection 5.3.1. Thermal Resistance of Assemblies  Article 5.3.1.1. indicates the need to ensure assemblies are able to resist or dissipate transferred heat. o Also only waves this criteria where it can be shown not to affect the users, the building or the buildings services.  Article 5.3.1.2. identifies the need to ensure condensation does not occur on the interior face or within the wall assembly. 5  Subsection 5.4.1. Air Barrier Systems  Article 5.4.1.1. indicates the need for assemblies to control air leakage and minimize accumulation of condensation and penetration of precipitation into the assembly.  Subsection 5.5.1. Vapour Barriers  Article 5.5.1.1. indicates the need to position materials to control vapour diffusion into the assembly or drainage out of the assembly. Top floor interior photos 6 Top floor interior photos Building's Interior Bottom Floor  All interior surfaces are covered with mold.  Interior wall finishes have been removed/damaged weakening load bearing elements.  Handrail to stairs is not present.  Heating system does not comply with code requirements, and is not functioning.  Electrical and plumbing system has been removed or damaged to the point of not functioning.  Debris and organic material prevent safe movement within the structure Following is a breakdown of Sections from the B.C. Building Code that are not being met which would require upgrading.  Sub Section9.9.9.9. Egress from dwelling units  Establishes the minimum criteria for exiting a residential building  Subsection 5.1.4. Resistance to Loads and Deterioration  Sentence 5.1.4.1.(1) Defines the basic criteria for assemblies to have sufficient capacity and integrity to resist or accommodate both environmental and structural loads.  Sentence 5.1.4.2.(1) Deals with component compatibility and resistance to deterioration of those components. o Environmental loads are those loads that the environment place on the building due to dissimilar interior and exterior environments. 7 o Structural loads are the physical loads placed on the building whether from its own components that go to making the building or those imposed on the building by the environment such as wind and snow.  Sub section 9.8.7. Handrails  identifies what the minimum design, installation and load carrying ability of handrails.  Subsection 5.1.5. Other Requirements  Indicates that structural and fire safety in other parts of the code must still be met.  Subsection 5.2.1. Environmental Loads and Design Procedures  Sentence 5.2.1.2.(1) indicates the need for determining these loads with established practices.  Subsection 5.3.1. Thermal Resistance of Assemblies  Article 5.3.1.1. indicates the need to ensure assemblies are able to resist or dissipate transferred heat. o Also only waves this criteria where it can be shown not to affect the users, the building or the buildings services.  Article 5.3.1.2. identifies the need to ensure condensation does not occur on the interior face or within the wall assembly.  Subsection 5.4.1. Air Barrier Systems  Article 5.4.1.1. indicates the need for assemblies to control air leakage and minimize accumulation of condensation and penetration of precipitation into the assembly.  Subsection 5.5.1. Vapour Barriers  Article 5.5.1.1. indicates the need to position materials to control vapour diffusion into the assembly or drainage out of the assembly. Bottom floor interior photos 8 Bottom floor interior photos 9 The items identified are items that do not comply with the codes Objective Statements for life and health safety and would need to be upgraded to ensure compliance with the B.C. Building Code. Further, due to the degree of environmental contamination from water ingress into the building and fire damage, all areas would not comply with minimum health safety requirements. Conclusion The items contained within this report are items that directly relate to the life and health safety requirements of the B.C. Building Code, B.C. Plumbing Code, Natural Gas and Propane installation Code and the Canadian Electrical Code, codes which are enforced under the District of Maple Ridge’s Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 as amended. These items in the opinion of the Local Electrical and Gas Safety Manager, Chief Building Official and Manager of Inspection Services are items that are required to be repaired to ensure life and health safety of persons occupying or attending this property. Further, it is my opinion that the building no longer complies to the minimum life, healthy safety, and structural safety required by the BC Building Code and that it would not be economically viable to rehabilitate the existing building. Stephen J. Côté-Rolvink, RBO, CRBO Manager of Inspection Services Local Safety Manager Chief Building Official 10 Appendix I INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To:Liz Holitzki –Director of Business Licenses, Permits & Bylaws From:Michael Van Dop –Assistant Fire Chief,Prevention & Planning Subject:22043 Lougheed Highway Date:January 2, 2014 This property consists of a single family residential structure that was heavily damaged by a fire that occurred on April 26, 2013.The home caught fire as a direct result of a structure fire at the neighboring property, 22033 Lougheed Hwy.During fire suppression activities, a marijuana grow operation was noted inside the structure requiring fire crews to extinguish the fire from the exterior.Since the day of the fire this property has been left vacant and has been boarded up at the direction of District staff to preclude entry, however, sections of the roof have been burnt through making the building difficult to fully secure.In addition to boarding, temporary fencing has also been put up around the perimeter of the building to further discourage unauthorized entry to the premises.Despite these attempts, the building has been broken into numerous times with thieves targeting the remaining building contents, copper wire, etc.The cost of boarding along with monthly rental costs for fencing has been covered by the District of Maple Ridge and billed back to the owners under the Vacant/Abandoned Building Bylaw.To date, the District has paid out $1339.00 in expenses for fencing/boarding on this property. Inside the structure, the interior wall plaster that was originally installed to provide a fire separation between the floors has been damaged or removed to the extent that it will no longer effectively prevent the spread of fire.Similarly, the plaster ceiling separting the living space from the attic has been damaged or removed to the point where it will no longer prevent the spread of fire.Without the protection offered by the fire resistive properties of the wall and ceiling finishes, the building structural elements are unprotected and will fail prematurely in the event of another fire. Listed below are some of the violations of the British Columbia Fire Code 2012 and municipal bylaws, with references to various photographs of the building.A copy of these photographs is attached to this report. Since the fire, this building has been found insecure in contravention of both the BC Fire Code and the Maple Ridge Vacant / Abandoned Bulding Bylaw No. 6958-2012. 1.BC Fire Code section 2.4.6.1 states:Vacant buildings shall be secured against unauthorized entry. 2.Maple Ridge Vacant / Abandoned Bulding Bylaw No. 6958-2012, section 3 states:An owner of any Vacant / Abandoned building must ensure the premises are made and kept secure against unaurthorized entry or occupation at all times. Photograph numbers 01 and 08 illustrate the board up / fencing procedures that have been put in place. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Many sections of the buildings wall and ceiling finishes have been removed and in my opinion this lack of fire separations will result in a fire rapidly spreading throughout the entire building. The BC Fire Code supports this by stating: 1.Section 2.2.1.1. (3) states:Rooms, corridors, shafts and other spaces shall be separated where practical by fire separations conforming to the British Columbia Building Code. 2.Section 2.2.1.2.(1) provides:Where fire separations are damaged so as to affect their integrity, they shall be repaired so that the integrity of the fire separation is maintained. Photograph numbers 22 and 25 illustrate the various areas through out the building where the wall and ceiling finishes have been damaged and/or removed. Due the nature of this home being utilized as a marijuana grow op, the electrical and plumbing systems have been tampered with and are no longer in compliance with building codes.In addition, there is evidence of vandalism and theft of the electrical wiring.Photograph numbers 12, 13 and 15 illustrate this. Photograph numbers 18, 10, 19 and 22 illustrate the debris left behind in the house. This combustable debris consists of old furniture and regular household items in addition to articals relating to the marijuana grow operation. I am of the opinion that this debris, in addition to the structures compromised condition would contribute to rapid fire spread. It should be noted that this structure is of the vintage where it is reasonable to assume that building materials such as drywall filler and ceiling spray texture would contain asbestos and the poor condition of these building elements exposes those entering the building to potentially hazardous materials.Work Safe B.C. Regulation, 6.2 and Sections 6.3 to 6.32 apply to a workplace where a worker is or may be exposed to potentially hazardous levels of asbestos fibre. Anyone entering the structure should be made aware of the presence of potentially hazardous materials. I have been in contact with the property owner, Mr. Gursh RAKHRA, on two occasions.Once in late November and again in mid December. During both convesations it was impressed on him that there was an increasing need to have the property dealt with in a manner that would either restore its condition or be demolished. Mr. Rakhra indicated in both instances that his intention is to demolish the structure. As of the date of this report,no activity has been noted in terms of applications for a demolition permit or service disconnections. In my opinion, this building is not habitable and has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the structural integrity of the building has been compromised. I find that these premises are now in such a state of disrepair that a fire starting in them will spread rapidly and endanger life and property. Firefighters will not be able to enter this structure to safely fight a fire or rescue anyone that may be inside the structure.Given the high visability of the building,and the volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, the house has become an easy target for vandals and arsonists.Accordingly, I find that the building is in, and creates an unsafe condition and should be repaired or demolished immediately. PHOTOGRAPH -01 PHOTOGRAPH -08 PHOTOGRAPH -22 PHOTOGRAPH -25 PHOTOGRAPH -12 PHOTOGRAPH -13 PHOTOGRAPH -15 PHOTOGRAPH –18 PHOTOGRAPH -10 PHOTOGRAPH -19 PHOTOGRAPH -22 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 17-Feb-2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Infrastructure Sustainability Funding EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Municipalities across Canada are facing the challenge of funding the infrastructure deficit, the difference between required annual funding for infrastructure renewal and actual funding. In 2006, Council directed staff to dedicate a 1% annual tax increase to infrastructure sustainability starting in 2008. In 2013, this was reduced to 0.5% per year through 2016, increasing to 0.7% for 2017 and 2018. Starting in 2014, the impact of this reduction is being partially offset by an annual contribution of $550,000 from gaming revenues. The replacement value of the District’s depreciable tangible capital assets exceeds $1.5 billion and the estimated annual funding needed to maintain, upgrade and replace them is approximately $30 million. By continuing on the path that Council directed staff to follow, annual infrastructure sustainability funding will increase from $2.6 million in 2013 to $6.29 million in 2018. This represents significant progress toward funding the infrastructure deficit though further improvement is still required to avoid more costly repairs in the future. RECOMMENDATION: None required; provided for information only. DISCUSSION: The municipal infrastructure deficit is the difference between required annual funding for infrastructure renewal and actual funding. It has been one of the key issues facing municipal governments for a number of years. Problems associated with aging infrastructure, such as the collapse of over passes or tunnels highlight the continuing need to close the gap between actual and needed funding to maintain, upgrade and ultimately replace our infrastructure. In Maple Ridge, the estimated replacement value of our depreciable tangible capital assets exceeds $1.5 billion and ensuring that there is a strategy in place to provide the funding to maintain and replace this infrastructure has been a priority for Council. In 2006, Council directed staff to begin dedicating a 1% annual tax increase to infrastructure sustainability, starting in 2008. In 2013, this was reduced to 0.5% per year through 2016, increasing to 0.7% per year for 2017 and 2018. In order to alleviate the impact of this funding reduction, starting in 2014 a portion of gaming revenues will be directed to infrastructure sustainability. Dedicated funding for infrastructure has been in place for six years now and the purpose of this report is to show how the funding has been used and how it has made a difference to our assets and what the funding picture for future years looks like. 1 of 7 4.7 Funding History Historically the District has set aside annual funding for the maintenance and replacement of our assets. The annual funding envelope was limited and any increases were unable to keep up with the pace of growth in the corresponding asset base. Starting in 2008, Council began directing a 1% annual tax increase to infrastructure sustainability. In addition to funding from taxation, Council has directed additional “one time” monies from annual surplus amounts to infrastructure sustainability when possible. The following table shows the total annual funding that has been directed to the various infrastructure categories since the 2008 funding program began: The following sections of the report will focus on the various infrastructure categories in isolation. Roads In 2008, when Council first began dedicating money to infrastructure sustainability, our roads were a clear priority as a result of years of deferred maintenance due to inadequate funding. A pavement condition assessment completed in 2008 indicated that over half of the District’s major and local roads were rated between fair and very poor and that road condition in Maple Ridge had declined since 1999. Consequently, the initial funding generated by the 1% annual property tax increase was dedicated to our roads, and they continue to receive the largest proportion of the sustainability funding. The pavement condition is being assessed again this year, with results expected to be available next year. In 2008, the consultants that undertook the pavement condition study recommended annual spending of $5.5 million to maintain just our roads. Infrastructure funding dedicated to the entire road network, which includes roads, bridges, sidewalks and streetlights, in 2013 was $1.4 million with an additional $13.9 thousand coming from pavement degradation fees. While we are still short of the recommended funding level, we have made progress in closing the gap. Sources of funding 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Totals Dedicated tax increase 419,417 866,559 1,337,332 1,833,563 2,357,888 2,634,458 9,449,217 Surplus - 1,000,000 1,031,338 - - - 2,031,338 Core Reserve 601,959 476,009 423,991 465,258 434,742 450,000 2,851,959 Drainage Levy - - - - - 167,579 167,579 General Revenue (fire)264,900 268,285 282,464 297,739 514,595 331,884 1,959,867 General Revenue (parks & fac)480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 2,880,000 Interest 117,398 89,508 52,860 44,076 45,222 42,762 391,825 Highway Degradation Fees 2,298 22,226 13,956 38,480 Disposal Proceeds 25,000 5,852 - 5,000 9,768 - 45,620 1,908,674 3,186,213 3,607,985 3,127,934 3,864,441 4,120,639 19,815,886 Uses of funding Highways 419,417 1,462,526 1,419,818 902,298 1,211,645 1,430,956 6,846,660 Drainage 100,000 460,000 180,000 287,216 477,579 1,504,795 Fire Department Equipment 403,300 418,871 550,706 448,925 679,687 498,432 2,999,921 Other Equipment 34,033 36,530 34,253 44,313 56,581 205,710 Parks & Facilities 1,085,957 1,170,783 1,140,931 1,562,458 1,641,580 1,657,091 8,258,800 1,908,674 3,186,213 3,607,985 3,127,934 3,864,441 4,120,639 19,815,886 2 of 7 Annual funding and spending for 2008 through 2013 is shown in the following table. In addition to an allocation of taxes in 2009 and 2010, Council directed that a portion of each year’s annual surplus ($1 million in 2009 and $600,000 in 2010) be directed to roads to help address the backlog of required maintenance. Council’s efforts have made a visible impact on the surface treatment of our roads with some key projects such as the improvements on Lougheed Highway and along 122 Avenue receiving infrastructure sustainability funding. A great deal more work is required to maintain our road infrastructure which includes items such as streetlights, sidewalks and full subgrade/alignment reconstruction. An upcoming example is the full reconstruction of 203 St. north of Dewdney Trunk Road. These projects are fundamentally larger than road resurfacing because they involve other features such as sidewalks, storm sewer, utility reconstruction and occasionally land acquisition. Due to the magnitude of the projects being undertaken, we often need to allow funds to accumulate in order to build the required funding capacity. An important point to keep in mind is that maintenance is still being deferred and the longer it is deferred, the greater the degradation of our roads and the greater the cost to repair them in the future. In five years, we have bridged some of the funding gap which is a significant achievement. Drainage Much like our roads network, maintenance on our drainage infrastructure has been deferred over the past number of years due to financial constraints. Beginning in 2013 a dedicated drainage levy was introduced as part of the annual property tax bill to begin building the financial capacity needed to improve our drainage infrastructure. In order to begin addressing some priority issues in advance of our ability to introduce a drainage levy, some of the annual infrastructure funding was directed to drainage. In addition, in 2010, Council directed that $300,000 of the annual surplus be directed to drainage as well. Annual funding and spending for 2008 through 2013 is shown in the following table: Roads Network 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Opening balance - 309,582 1,225,889 1,106,823 882,418 1,013,439 Contribution Infrastructure Funding 419,417 462,526 819,818 900,000 1,189,419 1,417,000 Transfer from YE surplus 1,000,000 600,000 pavement degradation fees 2,298 22,226 13,956 Spending Sidewalks & safer school travel prog.(109,835) (49,374) (49,895) (38,565) (41,059) Road resurfacing & shortblock paving prog.(406,877) (1,374,439) (927,387) (721,307) (1,196,254) Streetlight pole replacement (71,500) (61,847) (26,190) (41,805) (76,676) Traffic signal upgrades & replacements (35,562) (53,223) (69,276) (31,641) (104,387) Bridge repairs & structural upgrades (32,281) (53,955) (247,306) (189,169) Closing balance 309,582 1,225,889 1,106,823 882,418 1,013,439 836,849 *2013 numbers are preliminary; final numbers may differ 3 of 7 In many areas, the drainage system predates 1964, when record drawings and modern standards began. Areas such as Hammond and Haney were expanded in the 1930’s using shallow agricultural tiles with very few house connections. The discharge points were either ditches or undeveloped lowlands. Modern construction has been done in pockets with development, but these are not interconnected and do not have large receiving storm mains. Any rebuild of such systems will require extensive assessment before construction can proceed. Recent examples of large trunk storm main construction are at the 240 St discharge and the Carr St discharge to the Fraser River. Both of these projects utilized trenchless technology and now form a backbone for the drainage system in the area. Much of our drainage infrastructure has an estimated useful life of 75 years; the estimated replacement value of which exceeds $349 million. If we target setting aside 1/75 of this amount each year to maintain the asset base, we would need approximately $4.65 million in annual funding. The funding amount directed to drainage in 2013 was $477,579. Equipment The District has a comprehensive replacement plan in place for much of the major equipment in use throughout the District. The Equipment Replacement Reserve provides for the replacement of fleet vehicles and technology as well as fire department equipment. While the annual contributions from general revenue for fleet and technology replacement are adequate, the annual contribution for fire equipment was not keeping pace with the rate of cost increases for this type of equipment combined with the continued implementation of the Fire Department Master Plan. Inflationary pressures on infrastructure replacement monies are being experienced in all areas of our organization and as capacity allows we try to address those areas that are most in need. To address the pressures being experienced by the Fire Department, a portion of the infrastructure sustainability funding was directed toward fire equipment replacement starting in 2009. Additionally, there was no funding being set aside for the replacement of some of the District’s office equipment. Starting in 2009 a portion of the infrastructure funding was directed to building the capacity to replace these items in the future when they reach the end of their useful life. The following table shows the sources and used of funding for Fire Department equipment replacement. Drainage 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Opening balance - - 40,282 493,635 201,883 201,883 Contribution Infrastructure Funding 100,000 160,000 180,000 287,216 310,000 Transfer from YE surplus 300,000 Drainage Levy 167,579 Spending Culvert replacement program (59,718) (3,864) (84,926) (183,614) (233,577) 230St (Eagle - 123) improvements (2,784) (386,826) (14,272) (242) River Rd drainage Darby to Carshill (872) Drainage upgrade program (12,451) Video & spot repairs (40,479) (41,858) - 40,282 493,635 201,883 249,862 391,333 *2013 numbers are preliminary, final numbers may differ 4 of 7 The District has a sizeable investment in office equipment that will eventually need to be replaced. Starting in 2009, a portion of the infrastructure sustainability monies started being put aside each year to address this gap. Between 2009 and 2013 a total of $183,488 has been set aside for this purpose. Parks & Municipal Government Buildings Our Parks & Leisure Services department is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all our government facilities, including municipal hall and our fire halls. The District’s inventory of parks and municipal facilities has been growing over the years, but the annual allocation of funding for “lifecycle” maintenance has not kept pace with that growth. Lifecycle maintenance is defined as maintenance that is required on a periodic, but not annual, basis. Starting in 2009 a portion of the annual allocation of infrastructure funding was directed to the lifecycle reserve for our parks and municipal facilities to help address the funding pressures being experienced. While lifecycle assessments have been undertaken for our major facilities there is still more work needed before we can assess the target funding levels needed to maintain these assets. The following table shows the sources of funding and uses of funding in this area. Equipment Replacement - Fire 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Opening balance 3,231,526 2,970,470 1,195,781 1,724,245 1,957,152 2,484,499 Contribution Transfer from General Revenue 264,900 268,285 282,464 297,739 514,595 331,884 Interest Income 113,400 74,734 34,926 34,009 31,929 28,348 Disposal proceeds 25,000 5,852 5,000 9,768 - Compensation for forest fire assistance 131,338 Infrastructure funding 70,000 101,979 112,177 123,395 138,200 Spending Engine 3-2 replacement (664,356) (812) (3,593) Fleet replacement (fire chief vehicles)(185,717) (73,791) (38,503) Restoration of 1946 Fire Truck (21,824) (22,243) Rescue 1 replacement (680,963) Engine 1-2 replacement (656,659) Engine 1-1 replacement (647,585) Mobile computer replacement (112,298) (6,531) FD software - Move-up module (29,929) Portable radio replacement (71,066) SCBA upgrade (15,381) Roster module (20,859) Rescue 2 Replacement (284) 2,970,470 1,195,781 1,724,245 1,957,152 2,484,499 2,979,054 *2013 numbers are preliminary, final numbers may differ 5 of 7 Looking to the future The following table shows the funding committed to infrastructure sustainability in the 2014-2018 Financial Plan adopted by Council in January of 2014. Starting in 2014, a portion of gaming revenues has been directed to infrastructure to partially offset the impact of reducing the portion of the annual tax increase dedicated to infrastructure. In 2016 as the tax exemptions offered as part of the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program start to expire, the taxes generated from those projects are planned to be directed to infrastructure as well. In 2008, when Council first directed staff to dedicate annual property tax funding for infrastructure sustainability, the annual amount generated was $419,417. In 2014, as a result of Council’s commitment to bridging the infrastructure deficit the annual property tax set aside is $2.95 million with an additional $1 million from other funding sources. This will grow to $4.7 million with an additional $1.55 million from other funding sources by 2018. While this growth in the annual funding dedicated to our infrastructure has narrowed the gap between actual and required funding, we are still a long way away from dedicating the estimated $30 million needed each year to fund the replacement of our infrastructure. Parks & Facilties Lifecycle Reserves 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Opening balance 289,517 655,891 515,408 317,512 518,594 855,237.18 Contribution Infrastructure funding - 200,000 220,000 608,525 715,000 714,125.00 Transfer from General Revenue 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000.00 Transfer from Core Reserve 601,959 476,009 423,991 465,258 434,742 450,000.00 Interest earnings 3,998 14,774 16,940 8,675 11,838 12,966.00 Spending Parks (136,095) (344,907) (171,169) (400,051) (251,337) (743,680.53) Town centre facilities (354,615) (559,733) (511,475) (411,074) (384,066) (419,832.20) Other facilities (220,504) (194,965) (561,718) (402,973) (538,301) (545,335.74) Equipment (18,649) (35,138) (117,318) (81,614.08) Capital (8,370) (211,662) (75,816) (112,140) (13,915) (4,375.30) 655,891 515,408 317,512 518,594 855,237 717,490 *2013 numbers are preliminary, final numbers may differ Source of infrastructure funding 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Totals Property taxes 2,955,291 3,292,677 3,649,057 4,178,197 4,738,594 18,813,816 Growth revenue - TCIIP - - 66,500 421,200 552,900 1,040,600 Gaming 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 2,750,000 Core reserve 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,250,000 3,955,291 4,292,677 4,715,557 5,599,397 6,291,494 24,854,416 Uses of funding Highways 1,705,291 1,962,677 2,280,557 2,939,397 3,461,494 12,349,416 Drainage 400,000 450,000 520,000 660,000 775,000 2,805,000 Fire Department Equipment 150,000 175,000 200,000 275,000 325,000 1,125,000 Other Euipment 60,000 65,000 75,000 85,000 90,000 375,000 Parks & Facilities 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 8,200,000 3,955,291 4,292,677 4,715,557 5,599,397 6,291,494 24,854,416 6 of 7 CONCLUSIONS: Funding the municipal infrastructure deficit is a challenge that all communities across Canada are facing. Increasingly, municipalities are looking for ways to increase their infrastructure funding and are focusing their attention on strategic uses of available funds, including developing comprehensive asset management plans. By dedicating a portion of the annual tax increase to addressing this issue, Maple Ridge is starting to see visible signs of improvement to our assets. The reality is that maintenance is still being deferred, and the longer it is deferred, the more expensive the repairs become. Starting in 2013 the annual contribution to infrastructure maintenance was reduced from 1% of the annual tax increase to 0.5%. In order to minimize the impact of this reduction, some of the anticipated increase in gaming revenues will be directed to infrastructure sustainability starting in 2014. The dedicated property tax funding set aside starting in 2008 has increased from $419,417 to $2.6 million in 2013 and is projected to increase to $4.7 million by 2018. With the inclusion of other funding sources, total funding dedicated in infrastructure will increase to $6.29 million in 2018. _______”Original signed by Catherine Nolan”_______ Prepared by: Catherine Nolan CPA, CGA Manager of Accounting _______”Original signed by Paul Gill”______________ Approved by: Paul Gill, CGA GM, Corporate & Financial Services _______”Original signed by Paul Gill for Jim Rule”____ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer 7 of 7 From: claude.gravelle.a1@parl.gc.ca Sent: February-06-14 10:16 AM Subject: National Dementia Strategy: Municipal Resolution and C-356 Dear Mayor and Councillors, As elected officials, you will know both professionally and personally the monumental healthcare crisis posed by Alzheimer’s and related dementia diseases facing Canada. It is a non-partisan disease requiring non-partisan solutions at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. The figures tell us we must act now – over ¾ million Canadians affected, to double to 1.4 million in a generation; a cost of $33 billion to skyrocket to $293 billion by 2040. I was with my siblings an overwhelmed caregiver dealing with my mom’s Alzheimer’s. That is why I drafted this legislation. I am sending the attached English and French municipal resolution hoping you will pass it, forwarding notification and copies (postage free) to my office and to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Health Minister Rona Ambrose. Already, over 100 municipalities in Ontario have passed the resolution. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at this email address. Claude Gravelle MP Nickel Belt 5.1 A Resolution in Support of a National Dementia Strategy Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are progressive, degenerative diseases of the brain that cause thinking and memory to become seriously impaired; Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias most often occur in people over the age of 65 but can strike adults at any age; and Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias affect more than 500,000 Canadians currently and that this figure is projected to reach 1.1 million within a generation; and Whereas Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias also takes their toll on hundreds of thousands of families and care partners; and Whereas an estimated further three million Canadians face the burden and challenges of providing care for those suffering with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias; and Whereas there is no known cause or cure for this devastating illness; and Whereas the cost related to the health care system is in the billions and only going to increase, at a time when our health care system is already facing enormous financial challenges; and Whereas Canada, unlike many countries, does not have a national dementia strategy; and Whereas there is an urgent need to plan and raise awareness and understanding about Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for the sake of improving the quality of life of the people it touches; and Whereas MP Claude Gravelle Nickel Belt has introduced Bill C-356, An Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia, as he works for broad, all party and non partisan support for an issue that touches us all. His legislation calls for a national plan that includes the development of strategies in primary health care, in health promotion and prevention of illness, in community development, in building community capacity and care partner engagement, investments in research and other (advisory board, objectives, investment in research, and caregivers and more) Now therefore, the District of Maple Ridge calls on all levels of government and the Federation of Municipalities to adopt a national dementia strategy, and urges all citizens of our communities to become more aware and engaged concerning the far-reaching effects of this devastating disease.