The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-02-06 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge 1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2.ADOPTION OF MINUTES – N/A 3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4.MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS 5.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Rental Housing Program: Rental Options for New Development Staff report dated February 6, 2018 recommending that staff bring forward reports outlining a Density Bonus approach and a Community Amenity Contribution approach as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program, COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA February 6, 2018 6:00 p.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. REMINDERS February 6, 2018 Audit & Finance Committee Meeting 5:00 p.m. Council Workshop February 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 5.2 Review of Regulations for Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites: Public Consultation Outcomes Staff report dated February 6, 2018 recommending that staff proceed with work on amending the Zoning Bylaw as related to secondary suites and detached garden suites as discussed in Section 5.0. 5.3 Follow up on a meeting held with School District No. 42 • School District No. 42 Recycling Services • Daycare Services 6. CORRESPONDENCE 6.1 Metro Vancouver Letter dated January 26, 2018 from Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer, requesting Council’s approval of adoption of Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Service Amending Bylaw No.1255, 2017. 6.2 Upcoming Events February 7, 2018 9:00 am Housing First 101 Information Session – Holiday Inn Express, 4405 Central Blvd, Burnaby, BC Organizer: Metro Vancouver and Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness February 17, 2018 7:00 pm Drag Show – Pitt Meadows Heritage Hall, 12460 Harris Road, Pitt Meadows, BC Organizer: Alouette Addictions February 24, 2018 6:00 pm South Asian Cultural Society Gala – Activity Centre, Ridge Meadows Seniors Society, 12150 224th Street, Maple Ridge, BC Organizer: South Asian Cultural Society Council Workshop February 6, 2018 Page 3 of 3 7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL Links to member associations: • Union of British Columbia Municipalities (“UBCM”) Newsletter The Compass o http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/resources/past-issues-compass/2016- archive.html • Lower Mainland Local Government Association (“LMLGA”) o http://www.lmlga.ca/ • Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) o https://www.fcm.ca/ 8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 9. ADJOURNMENT Checked by: ___________ Date: _________________ 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 6, 2018 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Rental Housing Program: Rental Options for New Development EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Existing City policy encourages the voluntary provision of rental housing, through which 604 secured rental units have been proposed through recent commercial, market condominium or purpose-built rental projects. These rental housing units would represent approximately 23% of the total number of dwelling units being proposed through new development. Building from this success to-date, and in pursuit of Council direction to identify options to encourage greater rental housing opportunities in the City, staff and a consultant have prepared an overview of additional options available to the City related to rental housing. CitySpaces Consulting, the consultant involved with the development of the City’s Housing Action Plan, was re-engaged to provide an overview of municipal best practice regarding rental policy and regulatory options from around the Metro and Fraser Valley regions (Appendix A). While many municipalities rely on policy and some utilise zoning tools, municipalities such as the Cities of North Vancouver, Richmond and New Westminster have developed programs that make clear their respective interests in securing rental units and/or cash in-lieu contributions through new development. Additionally, in the City of Chilliwack, a non-profit Housing Hub represents an example of a non-governmental approach towards addressing the rental housing needs in their community. The policy and regulatory options presented in this report and its attachment are being presented to inform Council’s deliberation on how to address the matter of securing rental units at the time of development. In doing so, staff is recommending two options that would augment the City’s existing voluntary approach, both of which would necessitate follow up reports be brought forward to outline the necessary policy and/or regulatory amendments, if approved. Alternatively, Council may prefer to establish a new Community Amenity Contribution (CAC), by increasing the existing CAC contribution rates, which would be targeted towards affordable, rental and special needs housing. RECOMMENDATION: 1)That, as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program, staff bring forward reports outlining: a)A Density Bonus approach that would optionally require, in exchange for bonus density, the provision of secured rental units, secured affordable rental units, and/or a cash -in-lieu contribution; b)A Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) approach that would maintain existing CAC contribution rates, but allocate 20% of all CAC funds received towards affordable housing. 5.1 2 BACKGROUND: On September 14, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Implementation Framework. The HAP Implementation Framework builds from the key strategies recommended in the Housing Action Plan. Strategy Four of the HAP is to Create New Rental Housing Opportunities. On August 29, 2016, during a follow-up Workshop discussion related to the prioritisation of the list of available regulatory and infill measures to facilitate the development of greater rental opportunities in the City, Council directed staff to prepare a detailed report and amending bylaw package for the following actions: 1. Review and expand the Secondary Suites Program; 2. Review and expand the Detached Garden Suites Program; 3. Permit duplexes in Single Family zones without rezoning, on minimum, lot sizes of 557 m2 in the town Centre and 750 m2 within the Urban Area Boundary; and 4. Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial. On October 24, 2016, Council directed staff to prepare reports on the following incentives for rental housing: 1. Fast Tracking Applications 2. Reduce/Waive Development Cost Charges 3. Reduce/Waive Rezoning, Development Permit and Building Permit Fees 4. Payment of Fees for Legal Documents 5. Detached Garden Suites Pilot Project On September 19, 2017, Council directed staff to initiate a community engagement process to gain feedback on a number of possible options to expand the City’s Secondary Suites program as part of the City’s effort to encourage greater rental opportunities in the City, and to report back the results for next step directions. On October 3, 2017, in a further effort to foster more rental housing, Council endorsed a community engagement process to review possible opportunities to expand the City’s exiting Detached Garden Suite program and to report back outcomes for further direction. On December 12, following a discussion related to Community Amenity Contribution and affordab le housing, Council expressed interest in receiving a report outlining options to facilitate the development of rental housing in the Maple Ridge. DISCUSSION: Based on Council’s direction stemming from their August 29, 2016 workshop meeting, staff’s original focus was the creation of rental housing opportunities above commercial uses. Council has subsequently been addressing this specific interest as individual applications come forth, each on a case by case basis. To date, Council has required residential units above some commercial developments, including Silver Valley Road and 232 Avenue, and 240 Street and 112 Avenue; however, Council has waived this requirement for other commercial developments, including the medical building/Doctors office on Lougheed Highway, just east of 216 Street, and the two commercial developments located at 11951 240 Street (Tim Hortons) and 11939 240 Street. 3 In addition, through ongoing Council conversations, the interest in rental housing has broadened beyond commercial developments to include other forms of development, notably multi-family residential projects. Council specifically raised questions about pursing cash in-lieu of the direct provision of rental units through the evaluation of the rezoning at 22638 119 Avenue and 22633 Selkirk Avenue. Given the evolution of the conversation on rental housing, and in response to Council’s 2016 and more recent December 2017 discussions that expressed an interest in examining opportunities to gain more rental housing stock, staff widened the focus of their original assessment. Staff also sought additional insights from a consultant, CitySpaces Consulting, given their familiarity with the City’s and other municipal Housing Action Plans. This report and the attached consu ltant research brief examines the City’s existing practices to encourage rental housing through development in light of best practices identified from across the Metro and Fraser Valley regions. The report further outlines for Council a number of possible options and considerations for facilitating the delivery of rental housing through both development, be it rental over commercial or market rental through residential projects. This staff report is the third report coming forward in response to Council’s interest in creating more rental opportunities in the City, and relates to the parallel discussion held by Council regarding the use of Community Amenity Contributions to address housing affordability, in part. Separate and future reports are anticipated in early 2018, including an assessment of the possible financial incentive opportunities that may be considered towards incentivising the development of rental housing in the City. The overall intent of this and the reports to come will be to help establish the framework for a potential Rental Housing Program in Maple Ridge. a) Existing Rental Housing Policies From a review of our surrounding communities in the Metro and Fraser Valley regions, and from the research undertaken by the consultant, municipalities generally appear to favour policy and zoning measures to influence the delivery of affordable housing. Typical measures include:  Official Community Plan and Area Plan policies encouraging the provision of housing choice;  Permitting secondary suites or detached suites (a.k.a. garden suites) in single family zones;  Density bonus provisions for affordable housing;  The permitting of infill housing forms (e.g. triplex, fourplex, smaller lots, etc.) in certain single family zones;  The requirement and use of Housing Agreements to secure affordable housing. While the City utilises many of the above tools, our approach is fundamentally policy based (as opposed to reliant on zoning) and is voluntary. Through the City’s Official Community Plan, rental housing is encouraged:  Policy 3 – 31: Maple Ridge supports the provision of rental accommodation and encourages the construction of rental units that vary in size and number of bedrooms.  Policy 3 – 32: Maple Ridge supports the provision of affordable, rental and special needs housing throughout the City. Where appropriate, the provision of affordable, rental, and special needs housing will be a component of area plans. 4 Consistent with the above direction, the City’s Housing Action Plan establishes as a key strategy the creation of new rental housing opportunities. As a short term action item, the endorsed 2015 implementation plan suggests the widening of the City’s residential-over-commercial zoning regulations to include more zones, zones that apply to areas of density transition, as well as the potential use of density bonuses, and other incentives to foster greater rental housing in the City. b) Rental Market Snapshot According to CMHC’s 2016 Rental Market Report, the regional rental market remained tight in 2016. Strong demand for rental units in the Metro Region outpaced new additions to the supply. Such pressures caused vacancy rates to decrease while rents continued to rise in 2016. Across the region, the overall vacancy rate declined to 0.7 per cent from 0.8 per cent in 2015. In the Ridge Meadows sub-region, a more significant decline was observed with vacancy rates falling from 1.6 in 2015 to 0.5 in 2016. In terms of rents, regionally rents increased by about 6%, resulting in an average of about $1,200. For our more local sub-region, average rents were seen to be about $864. Breaking this data down further by structure type, the CMHC average rent data for Maple Ridge largely focused on private apartment units. In the Ridge Meadows sub-region, there were 1,566 apartment units with the average rents being about $837 in 2016. For comparison purposes, staff examined how local rents might have changed over the past year by undertaking an assessment of rental listings in Maple Ridge for the period of October 1st to the 31st, 2017. From the assessment, staff identified that the average rents for an apartment in Maple Ridge as of October 2017 were roughly $1,100. As with the CMHC 2016 data, there were few 3+ bedroom apartment rental listings. c) Rental Units in Stream Looking forward, staff also examined the future supply of new rental units that are anticipated through our development process. As of October 2017, there are currently 604 rental units being proposed through current development applications across the City, with the majority proposed in the Town Centre. By comparison, for the same moment in time there were currently about 2,060 units/lots (non- rental) being proposed across the City. With that, it appears that about 23% of all units currently being proposed could be rental, pending final reading. Looking more closely at the 604 rental units that are currently proposed through new development:  66% (397) of the rental units are derived from 3 proposed purpose-built rental buildings;  34% (207) of the rental units are secured market rental units that are either proposed above commercial uses in various projects throughout the City or form part of a larger market condo project;  70% (424) of all of the proposed rental units are intended to be in the Town Centre, with the remaining projects intended for the Port Haney, Silver Valley, or Albion neighbourhoods. d) Municipal Comparison and Rental Housing Options Specific to rental housing, the attached CitySpaces Consulting report (Appendix A) takes a closer look at a number of surrounding and wider Metro municipalities, highlighting the best practices undertaken towards encouraging and/or requiring the provision of rental units through new development. From the research, three possible options have emerged for addressing the delivery of rental housing in the City: 5 1. Retain the Existing Status Quo: Going forward, this option would see the City maintain is current use of policy to encourage the voluntary inclusion of rental housing as a part of either a commercial or residential development proposal. This option alone is not recommended, but such policies could be augmented as discussed below, in order to expand the City’s ability to deliver rental housing. 2. Require Rental Housing through a Density Bonus: Consistent with the approaches undertaken by the Cities of North Vancouver and Richmond, this option would see City policy and zoning be amended to outline a set of density bonus regulations that would optionally require the provision of rental housing at the time of development, only if the developer chose to pursue the available bonused density. That is, density bonus programs are optional in nature, and as illustrated below, such amenity zoning would set out both a fixed base level of density available outright to all development and an optional maximum permissible density that could be achieved should the applicant wish to provide rental housing as an amenity contribution. Figure 1: Illustration of Base Density (Light Blue) and Bonus Density (Dark Blue) as part of a Density Bonus Program From the Consultant’s report, such bonus density rental requirements could be tiered depending on the type of rental unit prioritised by the City. For example, for market condominiums or low-end of market projects (as defined in the Consultant’s report), policy/zoning could require that 10% of the total proposed number of units be secured as rental, in exchange for the bonus density. Similarly, should non-market units be prioritised, the secured rental requirement could be lowered to 5% of the total propose d number of rental units, in light of the increased cost to provide such units. Such a density bonus approach could exist in parallel with the City’s existing policies that encourage the voluntary inclusion of rental housing as part of a proposed development. Further, and consistent with Council’s October 24, 2016 direction, any rental requirements premised under a density bonus framework could include additional incentives that may further encourage the provision of rental units. As noted in the October 2016 Council discussion, such incentives may include: the covering of legal fees involved in registering Housing Agreements; reducing rezoning, development permit and/or building permit fees; fast tracking applications; and/or reducing development cost charges. From their research, the Consultant has proposed that should Council opt for this direction, that similar to the City of New Westminster such incentives be offered to help facilitate both increased levels of 6 affordability and the long-term preservation of such rental units, with a focus on secured terms of at least 60 years (or life of building whichever is greater). As outlined in the two municipal examples of the City of North Vancouver and City of Richmond, such a density bonus approach could be further detailed by also outlining requirements that of the secured rental units provided, that a number also be tailored towards families by ensuring that a certain percentage of such units are three-bedrooms. Should Council opt for this approach, management of any directly provided rental options would require further direction (see below section Management of Rental Housing). However, it is worth noting that under such an approach, cash-in-lieu of the direct provision of rental units could still be a choice for future applicants. As in the case of the City of Richmond, a cash in-lieu contribution may be provided where the small size of a residential project makes the provision of rental units unfeasible, or where the project is a commercial development. Based on the above, staff recommends preparing a report to further explore this option, including identifying any implications to existing land economics and the City’s zoning bylaw. 3. Require an Affordable Housing Community Amenity Contribution The City currently requires the provision of a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) at the time of any rezoning, which may be applied at Council’s discretion towards the delivery of future affordable, rental and special needs housing under the City’s CAC Legislative Policy 6.31. To provide greater clarity, this approach would necessitate that the existing CAC policy be amended to identify the preferred allocation of all CAC funds received that should be directed specifically towards the creation of affordable housing in the community. As Council may recall from its recent December 12, 2017 CAC discussion, such an approach could take two forms: i) Council could opt to allocate at least 20% - or as Council may otherwise direct – of all City-Wide CACs collected directly towards the creation of new affordable housing; or ii) Council could increase current CAC contribution rates, which would effectively create a new affordable housing CAC, over and above the CAC rates required across the City. This approach could be in-lieu of any encouragement or requirement to provide rental units. As noted in the December 2017 Council discussion, staff acknowledges that the City’s Development Liaison Committee did not support an increase to our CAC contribution rates, suggesting that it was too soon as the CAC program was only introduced in 2016. With that, and in reflection of Council’s recent discussion, staff recommends preparing amendments to Council’s Policy 6.31 to outline that a minimum of 20% of all City-Wide CAC’s collected be directly reserved for investments in affordable housing. In addition to the policy amendments, staff from the Planning and Finance Departments is also recommending that an amendment bylaw to the City’s existing Reserve Fund be prepared for Council’s approval. Key to this cash contribution discussion is the valuation of such cash contributions in comparison with directly provided rental/affordable housing units. A more detailed discussion on this latter point is provided below. 7 e) Management of Rental Housing As outlined in more detail in the attached CitySpaces report, the experience s from Richmond and Chilliwack’s Housing Hub concept demonstrates that the non-profit sector is increasingly willing to partner with the development community to administer and monitor rental units once created. As also evidenced by the Richmond example, the City can play a role in facilitating such arrangements through the establishment of a list of possible non-profit housing societies interested in managing market and/or non-market rental housing components proposed through development. A recent delegation by the YWCA indicated an interest in participating in such a program. f) Direct Provision of Rental Units vs. Cash In-lieu Throughout 2017, during the review and consideration of various development applications, Council has debated the merit of seeking the direct provision of rental units vs. accepting cash in-lieu as part of either a mixed-use commercial or larger residential condo project. From the consultant report, it is noted that some municipalities like North Vancouver and Richmond require the direct provision of secured rental units while New Westminster considers a voluntary cash in-lieu alternative to the direct provision of rental units. The evaluation of either seeking a direct provision of rental units and/or accepting a cash in-lieu alternative depends greatly on the valuation of either the units provided or the cash contribution rate. For clarity, the term “value” was examined by staff, in working with Rollo + Associates, through three separate analyses: the construction value required to build one rental unit; the revenue value expected from one rental units; and the sales value of one rental unit. Combined, these assessments identified that the typical value of a market condo in Maple Ridge is about $250,000 - $300,000. Such an achieved value under the direct provision approach would conceivably be challenging to replicate under a strictly cash in-lieu option, especially if a development proposal had the potential to contribute multiple rental units. However, it may be more equitable to conceive the value of a cash in-lieu contribution as not being 100% equivalent to that of a unit gained through the direct provision approach. Rather, a cash in-lieu option may be more likely to generate 20-25% of the estimated value of a rental unit, which may be reflective of the typical partnership arrangements (i.e. with other levels of governments, developers, non-profit groups, etc.) that are often entered into to build a purpose-built affordable housing/rental project. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Noting the success of the City’s existing policies that encourage the voluntary delivery of rental units through development, staff has put forth two recommendations that could augment our policy base, towards directing density bonus incentives along with a specific percentage of CAC amenity funding to help foster greater rental housing opportunities in the City. Acknowledging that CAC’s are a requirement of any rezoning, staff note that the proposed density bonus approach would be optional. With that, staff raises for Council an alternative approach to recommendation 1(b) above that would establish a clear requirement for development to address the matter of rental housing: 1. b) That, in lieu of the direct provision of rental units at the time of development, staff be directed to report back on an appropriate increase to the existing Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) rates in order to create a new Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing CAC. CONCLUSION: Rental housing is a key policy interest, as set out in the Official Community Plan and the City’s Housing Action Plan. Building from the success the City has had to -date in encouraging the voluntary provision of rental housing through new development; the attached CitySpaces Consulting report identifies a number of possible approaches to further advance rental housing opportunities in Maple 8 Ridge. From this work, and past discussions with Council and development industry representatives, this report recommends two options to augment our existing voluntary policy approach; namely, the development of new zoning that offers bonus density in exchange for the provision of secured rental housing; and the use of the City’s existing CAC program to clarify and direct that 20% of all contribution rates received be allocated towards future affordable housing. Alternatively, Council may prefer to increase the existing CAC contribution rates, effectively creating a new CAC over and above the current CAC rates required across the City, to be applied towards Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing. “Original signed by Brent Elliott” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Brent Elliott, MCIP, RPP, Manager of Community Planning “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng. General Manager, Public Works and Development Services “Original signed by Frank Quinn” for _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: CitySpaces Consulting, Research Brief - Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements, Jan. 31, 2018. RESEARCH BRIEF Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018  Photo: Lotus Johnson, Flickr Creative Commons APPENDIX A Table of Contents Introduction 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ Regional Context 2 ............................................................................................................................................... Regional Housing Pressures 2 ...................................................................................................................................... Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy 3 ...................................................................................... Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4 ................................................................................................................... Comparable Municipalities 7 .............................................................................................................................. City of North Vancouver 7 ............................................................................................................................................. City of Richmond 9 ........................................................................................................................................................ City of New Westminster 12 ......................................................................................................................................... Communities in the Fraser Valley 14 ........................................................................................................................... Summary of Comparable Municipalities 16 ............................................................................................................... Key Considerations for the City of Maple Ridge 18......................................................................................... RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 Introduction The City of Maple Ridge prepared its second Housing Action Plan in 2014. The Plan outlines priority issues including the need for market rental housing, recognizing that the existing rental housing stock in Maple Ridge is aging and the demand for rental housing is increasing. The Plan’s Strategy #4 to Create New Rental Housing Opportunities suggests that the City could secure market rental housing through providing incentives, including in new mixed-use commercial development projects with rental units above commercial ﬂoors. The City has made progress since adopting the Housing Action Plan, including securing rental housing units: •As of October 2017, there were 669 proposed rental units across the entire City of Maple Ridge. The majority of which (489 or 73%) are located within the Town Centre, and the other (180 or 27%) are located outside the Town Centre. •As of October 2017, there were 2,060 market condominiums proposed for the entire City of Maple Ridge. Combined with rental units, there are a total of 2,729 multi-family units being proposed for the City. The market response to develop more rental housing units is directly responding to the housing need in Maple Ridge, as well as the overarching rental housing policy established by the City through its Housing Action Plan. Still, the policy is broad in its description and does not outline a minimum requirement for rental units within new residential development projects. While it allows for development ﬂexibility, the absence of a minimum requirement can result in missed opportunities to secure rental housing, including rental housing that is more affordable to low and moderate income earners. In addition, since the endorsed Housing Action Plan in 2015, there have been considerable changes to the market and, on the whole, there are more pressures and demand for rental housing, including market rental and affordable rental units. This is being observed throughout the Metro Vancouver region, as described in the regional context section of this report, which is affecting the availability and affordability of the rental housing supply in Maple Ridge. In August 2016, City staff were directed to explore the opportunities to include rental housing units over commercial spaces. This research brief examines the broader perspective of securing rental units through all forms of development, speciﬁcally how a select number of other municipalities in the region are securing rental housing units in new development projects, with considerations for potential application in the City of Maple Ridge. This research is an initial ﬁrst step and it is anticipated that follow-up research will be undertaken following Council’s direction on next steps. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 1 Regional Context Regional Housing Pressures The 2016 census reported the Metro Vancouver region as having a population of over 2.4 million people, a 6.5% increase since the 2011 census . Metro Vancouver’s member 1 municipalities that have experienced the most signiﬁcant population growth increases are outside Metro Vancouver’s core, including Maple Ridge (+8.2%), Surrey (+10.6%) and the Township of Langley (+12.6%)1. The population increases for these municipalities can be attributed to many factors, including migration from other areas of the province, the country, internationally as well as intra-regional migration. The increased population growth for communities like Maple Ridge generates pressure on the local housing stock, including homeownership, market rental and non-market housing tenures. The median resale housing price in the region for a detached dwelling is $1.4 million . With fewer 2 households able to enter the homeownership market, the rental housing supply experiences added pressure. The region’s overall vacancy rate is 0.7%, with the average rent for all unit types at $1,223 . The most signiﬁcant increase in rental 3 households is within the age cohort between 25 and 291, who are spending more time in school and postponing “family formation” given the high cost of housing and living. The supply and demand dynamics of the region have placed upward pressures on the cost of rent in the region. The real estate market has responded to the surge of rental housing demand, and starts for purpose-built rental units in the region have reached record highs3. While there is movement to create new rental units throughout the region, the region is dredging out of a rental housing supply deﬁcit from the lack of rental housing construction in the past three decades. And, while new market rental units are targeting moderate income earning households in the region, the average rents for these new units remain largely unaffordable for low-income households and vulnerable populations. Over 43% Statistics Canada, 2016 Census1 Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, December 2016 Market Highlight Report2 CMHC Market Rental Report, 20163 RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 2 ‣Market rental: Means market rental units delivered by the private market with rents determined at fair market value. This includes purpose-built rental housing as well as rental housing delivered through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, rental condominium units, or other investor-owned houses/units. ‣Low-end market rental: Means rental units provided at slightly lower rental rates than the average market rental prices. Typically, low end market rental is provided at 10% below CMHC average market rents for the area and households are not eligible for subsidized non-market housing. ‣Non-market rental: Means affordable housing that is owned or subsidized by government, a non- proﬁt society, or a housing co- of renters in the Metro Vancouver region pay greater than 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs1,. 4 Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy In response to the regional growth pressures and housing affordability issues, and to advance its’ complete community goals of Metro 2040 Strategy, Metro Vancouver prepared an update to its’ Regional Affordable Housing Strategy in 2016. A strong focus of the strategy was on encouraging and facilitating the development of rental housing throughout the region, outlining speciﬁc actions for the region as well as other jurisdictions, including member municipalities. Speciﬁc strategies include: •Expand the supply of rental housing, including new purpose-built market rental housing. •Facilitate new rental housing supply that is affordable for very low and low income households, as well as facilitate non-profit and co-operative housing providers to create new mixed-income housing through redevelopment or other means. •Increase the rental housing supply along the Frequent Transit Network (FTN), including to plan for transit station areas, stop areas and corridors to include rental housing affordable for a range of income levels; as well as encourage mixed-income rental housing near the FTN. The Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy outlines speciﬁc considerations for municipalities to implement the above strategies through local plans, policies and programs, as follows: Table 1: Regional Affordable Housing Strategy - Excerpts for Municipal Considerations 2.f. Offer incentives and using tools that will help make development of new purpose-built market rental housing nancially viable (i.e. parking reductions, fee waivers, increased density, and fast- tracking) as needed. 3.n. Offer incentives to non-proﬁts and cooperatives for proposed new mixed income housing (i.e. parking reductions, fee waivers, increased density, and fast-tracking) to assist in making these housing options ﬁnancially viable. 2.g. Offer incentives and using tools to preserve and sustain existing purpose-built market rental housing (i.e. reduced parking, increased density for inﬁll development, transfer of density, one for one replacement policies, standards of maintenance bylaws) as needed. 3.o. Clearly state expectations and policies for development of new non-proﬁt rental and co- operative housing. Andy Yan, 20174 RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 3 Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation The Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC) is a non-proﬁt organization that provides affordable housing for low and moderate income households. The MVHC owns and operates 50 sites with market and 2.h. Facilitate non-proﬁt housing organizations to purchase existing rental buildings for conversation to non-proﬁt operation. 3.p. Ensure a portion of amenity contributions or payments in lieu are allocated for housing affordable to low and moderate income households. 2.i. Supporting efforts to reduce rental operating costs by improving energy performance of purpose-built rental buildings through the use of energy efﬁciency incentives offered by Fortis and BC Hydro, such as energy advisors, energy audits, demonstration projects, etc. 3. q. Allocate housing reserve fund monies to affordable housing projects based on clearly articulated and communicated policies. 2.j. Establish bedroom mix objectives to accommodate families in new condominiums and purpose built rental housing. 3. r. Work with non-proﬁt co-operative housing providers to address issues related to expiring operating agreements, including renegotiating or renewing municipal land leases, if applicable, with suitable provisions for affordable housing, facilitating redevelopment at higher density, and/or other measures, as appropriate. 2.k. Provide clear expectations and policies for increasing and retaining the purpose-built market rental housing supply. 4. g. Establish transit-oriented inclusionary housing targets for purpose built rental and for housing affordable to very low to low income households within 800 metres of new or existing rapid transit stations and 400 metres of frequent bus corridors that are anticipated to accommodate enhanced residential growth. 2.l. Require tenant relocation plans as a condition of approving the redevelopment of existing rental housing. 4.h. Provide incentives for new purpose-built rental housing and mixed-income housing located in transit-oriented locations to enable these developments to achieve ﬁnancial viability, as warranted. 2.m. Ensure that developers notify tenants impacted by redevelopment of their rights under the Residential Tenancy Act. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 4 subsidized rental housing for more than 10,000 people in the region, including the Fraserwood Apartment building located at 22450 121st Avenue in Maple Ridge . 5 The Regional Affordable Housing Strategy outlines speciﬁc actions for the MVHC to address regional housing issues. Speciﬁcally: •Work with municipal partners to identify suitable MVHC sites for redevelopment at higher density to increase the supply of mixed-income non-proﬁt rental housing, providing that adequate municipal incentives and / or other funding is available. •Explore the sale of surplus or under-utilized MVHC sites with proceeds reinvested into other sites that offer greater opportunity to supply more affordable housing units. •Explore with municipalities opportunities on municipal sites for expanding the supply of mixed-income non-proﬁt rental housing. •Consider management of affordable rental units obtained by municipalities through inclusionary housing policies, provided the units can be managed by MVHC on a cost-effective basis. •Create a tenancy management package providing MVHC estimated fees for services to manage, on a cost recovery basis, various aspects of affordable housing units obtained through municipal policies. •Explore making available for relocating tenants of redeveloping non-proﬁt and purpose-built market rental projects rental housing from within MVHC’s existing portfolio of market rental units. The MVHC has continued to move forward on acquiring more units within their portfolio since the adoption of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, through a combination of new-build projects, redevelopment of existing sites, and acquiring units generated through municipal policies such as inclusionary zoning. One notable MVHC housing redevelopment currently underway is the Heather Place Redevelopment in Vancouver. This redevelopment will replace the existing 86-unit townhouse complex with 230 purpose-built rental apartments consisting of one, two and three bedroom units. As part of the terms established at rezoning, the MVHC and the City of Vancouver entered into a Housing Agreement in the form of a Building Use Covenant that requires 23% of future tenants to have rent-geared-to-income (RGI) under the MVHC’s existing program, while an additional 11.5% will be rented at rates where the maximum occupancy charges are affordable to households with an income at or below BC Housing’s Housing Income Limits (HILs). Essentially, the future rents of 34.5% of Heather Place tenants will be calculated at 30% of their gross income, HILs, or less. Affordable Rental Housing Guide, Metro Vancouver, 20165 RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 5 Actively engaged in building their portfolio, there are opportunities for MVHC to work with municipalities, like Maple Ridge, to invest, develop, redevelop, or acquire units through private market development projects and public sector partnerships. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 6 Comparable Municipalities A select number of member municipalities have updated their Housing Action Plans since the adoption of the Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy in order to align their local actions with broader regional initiatives, including requiring rental housing units in new development projects. Others have developed stand-alone policies to encourage and facilitate more rental housing units in their communities, many tied directly to a density bonus policy. The following section summarizes these actions. City of North Vancouver The City of North Vancouver prepared their first Housing Action Plan in 2016. While the City has implemented housing policy for decades, this was their first comprehensive review and plan that compiled all City housing policies in one cohesive document, and one that aligns with the City’s recently adopted Official Community Plan. Below is a summary of select housing actions from their plan to secure rental housing units. DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City of North Vancouver defines affordable housing as rental housing that is affordable to low to moderate income households, where households pay 30% or less of their gross income towards housing costs. Within this broad definition is “mid-market rental units” - commonly referred to as “low-end market rental units”, are units provided at slightly lower rental rates than the average market rental prices in North Vancouver and “non-market rental units”, units occupied by households with incomes below the Housing Income Limits (HILs) defined by BC Housing. Table 2: City of North Vancouver Definition of Affordable Housing MID-MARKET RENTAL UNITS Unit Type Maximum Household Income Limit for Eligible Applicants Average Rent (2015)Mid-Market Rents Bachelor $31,400 $876 $788 1 bdrm $37,000 $1,024 $921 2 bdrm $46,000 $1,279 $1,151 3 bdrm $57,000 $1,586 $1,427 RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 7 The definition of affordable housing outlined in Table 2 are calculated as follows: •The maximum mid-market rents are based on 10% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for the City of North Vancouver, by unit type. •The maximum household income limits for mid-market rents are determined by calculating what 30% of gross household income would be for the mid-market rents (rents determined by CMHC). CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To incentivize new mid-market rental units, the City utilizes its density bonus tool for new development projects, where the City requires built mid-market rental units in exchange for additional density (1.0 floor space ratio density bonus) for new projects. Specifically: •All new 100% purpose-built market rental development projects seeking the density bonus incentive are required to provide a minimum of 10% of units as mid-market rental units. All mid-market rental units generated through private development must be secured up to a period of 10 years. •In addition, 30% of increment/bonus amount of density is required to be provided as non-market rental housing, secured in perpetuity. •Cash-in-lieu contributions are accepted only in unique circumstances, and at the discretion of the City, in order to assure timely mitigation of additional density in a neighbourhood, when deemed appropriate. The City of North Vancouver also introduced a new family-friendly housing policy in order to increase the number of multi-unit housing projects that meets the needs of families, given the current multi-unit stock has limited units with enough bedrooms to accommodate all members of a family household and given that fewer families are able to purchase larger units such as single-detached homes. The family-friendly housing policy requires: •A minimum of 10% of units to be three or more bedrooms for all new multi-unit residential development projects, including both purpose-built rental housing projects and condo/stratified projects. In support of the family-friendly housing policy, the City is also looking to update their sustainable development guidelines to incorporate design considerations that meets the needs of families, such as ground-oriented units, multi-generational outdoor amenity spaces, and child and youth friendly spaces. In addition to the above policy, the City may consider bonus density transfer to another site in order to maintain an existing rental building. For this condition to apply, a recipient site for the density transfer must be determined in advance, and at the City’s discretion, with a demonstrated business plan to upgrade/repair the existing rental building. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 8 SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED The City of North Vancouver planning department provided insight and lessons learned on their mechanisms to secure rental units. The planning department indicated that the first units of the 10% mid-market units secured for 10 years are currently under construction. They recognized that their incentives have been working in securing the units in recent developments, however they have not yet had to provide administration for these units. The City also recognized that there will be a learning curve when these rental units are operational and require administrative oversight. The planning department also indicated that, because of increased demand for rental housing, Council has recently directed staff to research the feasibility of increasing the percentage of required mid-market rental units in a development from 10% to 20%. Council has also requested whether these units could be secured for a longer period than 10 years. The planning department recognizes that there is a balance to find with incentivizing mid-market rental units and also providing more non-market units in the City. One unique challenge experienced by the planning department is related to their family friendly housing policy. They have found that feedback has been overall positive, however some family friendly units are being rented to downsizing retirees. To further incentivize family use of family friendly units, the planning department is considering opportunities to integrate family-friendly design features into future units to ensure they are matched to the target population of families. This process has not yet started. City of Richmond The City of Richmond initiated an update to their 2007 Affordable Housing Strategy, now their Housing Action Plan, in 2016. The City undertook community consultation and policy research in 2016-2017, and are currently drafting the Housing Action Plan, anticipated to be adopted in early 2018. Below is a summary of the supported policy directions related to securing rental housing units. DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City of Richmond broadly defines affordable housing as rental housing that is affordable to low and moderate income earners. The City has two affordable housing categories: low-end market rental (LEMR) units, and non-market rental units. Both of these categories are defined by maximum total household income (to determine household eligibility for units generated in these categories), and total maximum monthly rent by unit type. These definitions apply to units secured through new development projects, described further under the City’s mechanisms to require rental units in new projects. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 9 Table 3: City of Richmond Definition of Affordable Housing The above definitions of affordable housing are calculated as follows: •For LEMR units secured through development, income thresholds are based on 10% below BC Housing’s Housing Income Limits (“HILs”), and maximum rents based on 10% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for Richmond. •For non-market rental projects supported by the City, income thresholds are based on 25% below BC Housing HILs, and maximum rents are based on 25% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for Richmond. Given the challenges to make non-profit / deeply subsidized housing projects viable, the City considers flexibility to allow for a range of rent structures in cases where projects are proposed to be 100% affordable rental (which can include low-end market rental and non-market rental units). CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The City of Richmond utilizes an inclusionary housing approach to secure rental housing units in new development projects, where a density bonus is required in exchange for “built” low-end market rental units secured through a housing agreement registered on title. Since 2007 when the original City’s Affordable Housing Strategy was adopted, the City had secured 423 LEMR units through development, of which 131 units have been built. •At that time, developers were required to contribute 5% of the total residential floor area for development projects over 80 units as LEMR units in exchange for density bonus. LEMR UNITS NON-MARKET RENTAL UNITS Unit Type Maximum Total Household Income (“Threshold”) for Eligible Applications Maximum Monthly Rent Maximum Total Household Income (“Threshold”) for Eligible Applications Maximum Monthly Rent Bachelor $36,650 or less $759 $28,875 or less $632 1 bdrm $38,250 or less $923 $31,875 or less $769 2 bdrm $46,800 or less $1,166 $39,000 or less $972 3 bdrm $58,050 or less $1,436 $48,375 or less $1,197 RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 10 •Also at that time, developers of projects with less than 80 units were required to make a cash-in-lieu contribution. As part of the updated Housing Action Plan, the City re-evaluated their policy for percentage requirement and cash-in-lieu contributions. An economic analysis was undertaken to test the financial viability of increasing the built requirement, as well as the viability of decreasing the project size threshold from 80 units to smaller 30 to 60 units. As a result of this analysis, the City is supporting the following policy directions in their anticipated Housing Action Plan update: •Increase the minimum developer contribution of built units from 5% to 10% total residential floor area, applied to new multi-unit projects that are 60 units or larger (reduced from 80 units or larger). •Cash-in-lieu contributions (generated through single-detached, townhouse, and multi-unit residential rezoning projects) are applied to new development projects that are less than 60 units. Funds generated through the cash-in-lieu policy are directed to the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Fund and used to support affordable housing projects in partnership with the non-profit sector and senior levels of government. •As part of the updated Housing Action Plan, the City is raising the cash-in-lieu contribution rates to better match the built-unit contribution towards supporting future affordable housing projects. The proposed rate increases were informed by an economic analysis, which found that the City of Richmond’s floor area contribution rate was higher than the equivalent cash-in-lieu contribution rates in terms of overall value of affordable housing units produced. To create a more equitable approach, the cash-in-lieu contribution rates are proposed to be increased to match the “built” value, as illustrated in Table 4. Table 4: City of Richmond Cash-in-Lieu Contribution Rates In addition, the City is proposing a new policy to generate more family-friendly rental units in new residential development projects. The family-friendly housing policy will require: Housing Type Current Cash-in-Lieu Contribution Rates ($ / square foot) Proposed Cash-in-Lieu Contribution Rates ($ / square foot) Single-detached $2 $4 Townhouse $4 $8.50 Multi-unit Apartment $6 $10 (wood frame construction) $14 (concrete construction) RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 11 •A minimum of 15% two-bedroom units and 5% three-bedroom units for all LEMR units secured in new development projects. Overtime, the City will monitor the policy and unit absorption and consider applying the same required percentage of family-friendly units in all new market rental development projects. The City has also established minimum LEMR unit sizes and are considering waiving development cost charges if LEMR units are purchased by a non-profit housing society. The City has also made a commitment to facilitate potential partnerships between developers and non-profit housing societies in the pre-application and rezoning stages of development projects to address the management and administration of LEMR units generated through private market development projects. The City, through its Housing Action Plan implementation, will be issuing a RFP to create a pre-approved list of non-profit housing providers that can be informed about and potentially partner on development opportunities to manage LEMR units. SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED The City of Richmond’s planning department provided insights and lessons learned on their mechanisms to secure rental units. The planning department indicated that they recently implemented a policy change from 5% of total residential floor area for projects of 80 units or more to 10% of total residential floor area for projects of 60 units or more. While 423 LEMR units were secured under the previous requirements, a couple of new applications have been submitted under the new requirements but none have reached the housing agreement stage yet. The planning department had also made changes to requirements based on operational challenges for the low- end of market units. To make it easier for operators, the City is encouraging low-end of market units to be clustered in a development, rather than equally distributed across a project. This change is based on Council direction to limit City involvement in management of the units and incentivize non-profit operators to become involved. The planning department is also looking for ways to facilitate relationships between the non-profit sector and developers, including creating a pre-qualified list of non-profit operators. The hope is to involve non- profits in the development process early on to ensure success with non-profit friendly design and operations. City of New Westminster The City of New Westminster prepared an Affordable Housing Strategy in 2010, which was an update to their original 1998 housing strategy. A key goal of this plan was to preserve and enhance the City’s rental housing supply, and particularly housing for low and moderate income households. The following summarizes how the City of New Westminster defines housing affordability, and an overview of their secured market rental housing policy. DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City has a broad definition of affordable housing in their community, as described in their 2010 Affordable Housing Strategy: RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 12 •“Affordable housing is homeownership and rental housing for low and moderate income households that does not cost a household more than 30% of its gross income (before-tax)”. CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The City of New Westminster has implemented actions within their Affordable Housing Strategy since its adoption, including a policy for secured market rental housing originally prepared in 2013. The policy utilizes ﬁnancial incentives and bylaw regulations in order to retain and renew the existing rental housing supply and to encourage the creation of new rental housing units. •The City of New Westminster’s Secured Market Rental Housing Policy is designed to reduce the financial gap between rental housing development and market ownership development towards making purpose-built rental housing projects more likely to be viable. Within this context, the City of New Westminster has three types of secured market rental housing categories: (i) long-term; (ii) medium term; and, (iii) short-term. The City provides the most incentives for the long-term secured rental housing projects, and less incentives/less certainty for medium and short-term projects. •Long-term secured market rental housing projects: purpose-built rental housing units secured for 60 years or the life of the building, whichever is greater. Incentive tools include density bonus, reduction in building permit fees (50%), concurrent rezoning and development permit application process, and City payments for legal fees to prepare housing agreement and covenant documents. Parking reduction incentives are provided for sites located within 400m of skytrain stations, along the Frequent Transit Network or the downtown, and payment in-lieu of parking for further relaxations on sites within 400m to transit. •Medium-term secured market rental housing projects: are also purpose-built rental housing units, secured for 30 to 59 years. For this category, the City may offer most of the same incentives as the long-term secured market rental housing projects (reduction in building permit fees, concurrent rezoning and development permit process, and payment of legal fees). Outright parking reductions are not offered for this category, however parking variances may be considered. The City uses their discretion to grant incentives, depending on the model and program proposed. •Short-term secured market rental housing projects: are also purpose-built rental housing projects, secured for a minimum of 10 years. The City only offers an incentive to pay for legal fees to prepare and register housing agreements and covenant documents. Outright parking reductions are not offered for this category, however parking variances may be considered. In New Westminster, there is no required percentage of units to be secured as market rental. The program is voluntary for private developers if they wish to pursue the incentives. In some cases, the City may receive applications that have a rental market component (not 100% purpose-built) which, at the City’s discretion, may offer incentives for a component/portion of the project (i.e. 50% purpose-built may be offered half the density RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 13 bonus increase compared to 100% purpose-built rental projects). The City considers these on a case by case basis and within the neighbourhood, location and scale context. The New Westminster secured market rental policy and incentives are only geared towards market rental units, and does not include low-end market rental units or non-market rental units. However, the City, through its complementary Affordable Housing Strategy actions, encourages the inclusion of low-end market rental and non- market units in these projects, but is not a requirement. The City also does not offer cash-in-lieu as a substitute for built units, only payment-in-lieu for parking spaces. In addition, the City of New Westminster was the first municipality in Metro Vancouver to introduce a family- friendly housing requirement for all new multi-unit development projects, in 2015. The family-friendly housing policy requires: •For new multi-unit purpose-built rental projects, a minimum of 25% two and three bedroom units, and of those 25% a minimum of 5% three or more bedroom units. •For new multi-unit ownership/condominium projects, a minimum of 30% two and three bedroom units, and of those 30% a minimum of 10% three or more bedroom units. SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED The City of New Westminster’s planning department shared insights and lessons learned on their mechanisms to secure rental units. The planning department noted that they have received comments from developers that the bonus density and the parking reductions have been significant factors in encouraging rental development. As of January 2018, 330 secured market rental units have been completed through the policy. In addition, another 784 secured market rental units are under construction and 298 secured market rental units are currently going through the development approvals process. The policy has been especially effective at encouraging new market rental units in the downtown area. The planning department recognized that there is also need to balance market rental with non-market rental housing. The city is currently undertaking research related to other initiatives that could create more affordable rental housing. Communities in the Fraser Valley The City of Abbotsford, the City of Chiliwack and the District of Mission all have Affordable Housing Strategies, prepared in 2011, 2008 and 2010, respectively. The City of Abbotsford deﬁnes affordable housing within their Affordable Housing Strategy: •“Affordable housing is when housing costs (rent or mortgage and property taxes, plus heating and electricity costs) do not exceed 30% of gross household income”. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 14 The City of Chilliwack deﬁnes affordable housing within their Affordable Housing Strategy: •“Affordable housing is defined as housing that should not cost more than 30% of a household’s gross income regardless of whether they are living in market or non-market housing”. The District of Mission deﬁnes affordable housing as: •“Housing that is appropriate to household needs and whose cost, without compromising basic survival needs, is within reach of household incomes”. All three of these municipal strategies identify inclusionary zoning as a key action to leverage development opportunities to deliver affordable housing units in exchange for increased density; however, they are all in various stages of implementation. The City of Abbotsford is currently exploring the implementation of their inclusionary zoning, including undertaking land economic analysis to inform the City’s ability to secure voluntary built and cash contributions for affordable housing projects. The District of Mission currently has policy to secure affordable housing units in new development projects, but do not prioritize unit types, and do not specify term or cash-in-lieu options. •Another idea for consideration is supporting a non-profit driven approach to affordable housing initiatives. An initiative that is in early formation in Chilliwack, for example, is a “Housing Hub”. This is a non-profit led initiative, the purpose of which is to connect residents to existing rental housing in the private market, and to support the retention of housing. The idea of the Hub is to recognize resources that already exists in the community and connect people to the housing or services they need. For example, the Hub intends to cultivate a number of landlords or existing private market rental units and match them with potential tenants. The Hub concept is still in early stages and has not yet fully developed a structure, operation model, or approach to tenant selection. •At this time, the Housing Hub does not have direct City funding, but was started through a federal grant for a Housing Development Coordinator position. The application for funding was made by the City, Fraser Health, and the Paciﬁc Community Resources Society. •A brief interview with the City of Chilliwack planning department noted that the City intends to provide in- kind support to the Housing Development Coordinator position, such as providing a workspace at municipal hall. There are no speciﬁc bylaws, policies, or City funds tied to this position or initiative. The Hub will also require more funding from multiple levels of government to operate. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 15 ‣While a typical municipal approach focuses on generating and administering new affordable rental units through development projects, the Housing Hub initiative is non- proﬁt led and focuses on utilizing existing rental units in the private market. •While a municipal approach focuses on new affordable rental units through development projects, the Housing Hub initiative is non-proﬁt led and focuses on existing rental units in the private market. As indicated in the Chilliwack Homelessness Action Plan (2016), the City views its role as primarily an advocate for increased housing options and funding through other levels of government and local partnership collaborations such as the Chilliwack Healthier Community network. Summary of Comparable Municipalities Below is a high-level summary of policies to secure residential units in new development projects in other communities, and compared to the City of Maple Ridge Table 5: Summary of Comparable Municipalities City of North Vancouver City of Richmond City of New Westminster City of Maple Ridge Deﬁnition of affordable housing Households pay no more than 30% of gross income on housing costs; and in relation to average CMHC rents Based on BC Housing HILs calculations, and average CMHC rents Households pay no more than 30% of gross income on housing costs Housing that is adequate in standard and does not cost so much that individuals and families have trouble paying for other necessities such as food, health and transportation on an ongoing basis Approach Required Required Voluntary Voluntary Zoning or Policy Policy and Zoning Policy and Zoning Policy Policy Types of units secured Mid-market rental units (same as low-end market rental units) and non-market units Low end market rental units and non-market units Market rental units Market rental units RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 16 Term Min 10 years for mid-market units In perpetuity for non-market units In perpetuity 60 years or life of building; or 39-50 years, with less incentives; or 10 years, with minimal incentives None / currently determined on a case-by-case basis Cash-in-lieu option Council discretion for mid-market units None for non- market units For projects less than 60 units None None/ currently determined on a case-by-case basis Required family- friendly housing units Min 10% three or more bdrms for new multi-unit projects, both purpose-built rental and condos 30% of increment/ bonus amount is required for non- market units Min 15% two- bdrm units and 5% three-bdrm units for LEMR units secured in new developments Min 25% two and three bdrm and min 5% three or more bdrms for purpose- built rental projects Min 30% two and three bdrm and min 10% three or more bdrms for ownership/ condominium projects None RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 17 Key Considerations for the City of Maple Ridge Research from comparable municipalities indicate that there are a range of options to secure rental units through new residential development projects or as part of a commercial development, often tailored to the community context. Based on this research, preliminary considerations for the City of Maple Ridge are outlined as follows: #1 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Market Rental Units •For the purpose of secured market rental units, consider deﬁning market rental housing as purpose-built market rental units delivered by the private market. This does not include units delivered through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, market rental condominium units, or other investor- owned houses/units. •In all new multi-unit development projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 10% of units be secured as market rental. •For secured market rental units, consider determining rent ranges by the market or the average CMHC average market rents for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”), without subsidy. •Consider incentives for projects that meet or exceed the minimum levels of secured market rental housing units as outlined in policy and/or zoning. These incentives should also be allocated according the the City’s overall rental housing program, with the highest and best incentives oriented towards the most affordable forms of rental housing and by length of the secured term. Some examples include: fast-tracking applications, reduce/waive development cost charges, reduce/waive rezoning fees, reduce/waive development permit fees, reduce/waive building permit fees, and payment of fees for legal documents. With the exception of fast-tracking applications, consider applying these incentives only to the portion of the building dedicated to the secured market rental units. Table 6: Proposed Terms and Incentives for Secured Market Rental Housing Units Long-term (secured 60 years or life of building - whichever is greater) Medium-term (secured 30 to 59 years) Short-term (secured minimum of 10 years) Fast-tracking applications ✓ Reduce / waive development cost charges ✓ RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 18 •Recognizing that the City of Maple Ridge has a range of new rental housing projects in terms of size and scale, considering providing options for smaller development projects that may be ﬁnancially challenged to incorporate built units. As such, consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built market rental units for projects with fewer than 30 units, or at the discretion of the City, including all single- detached, townhouse and multi-unit residential rezoning projects as well as commercial projects. •Consider undertaking a ﬁnancial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment between the cash-in-lieu contribution rate and the value of the built units. Establishing an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated. •Consider monitoring absorption rates and adjust policy if/when required over time. #2 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Low-End Market Rental Units •Should the City consider securing low-end market rental units, consider deﬁning low-end market rental housing as purpose-built market rental units delivered by the private market (not including units delivered through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, rental condominium units, or other investor- owned houses/units), rented at slightly below (10% below) CMHC average market rents for Maple Ridge. •In 100% purpose-built rental projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 10% of units be secured as low-end market rental units, registered on title for the duration of that term. •Consider calculating low-end market rental units as maximum rents based on 10% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”). 6 Reduce / waive rezoning fees ✓ Reduce / waive development permit fees ✓ ✓ Reduce / waive building permit fees ✓ ✓ Payment of fees for legal documents ✓ ✓ ✓ Table 7 calculations based on CMHC Rental Market Report, 2016. Calculations for LEMR units secured through private sector development 6 would need to be updated annually as CMHC market reports are issued. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 19 Table 7: Recommended Maximum Rents and Household Income for Securing Low-End Market Rental Units in Maple Ridge •Consider providing additional incentives for all projects that secure 10% of units as low-end market rental which should include, at minimum, the same incentives provided for projects with secured market rental housing plus additional incentives to make low-end of market rental more viable. •Consider directly correlating the level of incentives by the length of the secured term, registered on title for the duration of that term. There is opportunity to consider additional incentives, upon review and direction from Council. •Consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built low-end market units for projects that generate less than 5 low-end market rental units, or at the discretion of the City. Consider undertaking a ﬁnancial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment to the value of the built units. Establishing an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated. •The minimum requirements to secure low-end market rental units outlined above are conservative, and it is recommended that they be monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of Maple Ridge desire higher requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive ﬁnancial analysis and test sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable. Comprehensive ﬁnancial analysis were undertaken by the City of North Vancouver (for density bonus in exchange for mid-market units), City of Richmond (for density bonus in exchange for low-end market rental units and non-market units, by location and construction methods), and by the City of New Westminster LEMR UNITS - Secured through private sector development Unit Type CMHC Average Market Rents (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows)6 LEMR Unit Rent (10% below) Maximum Eligible Household Income Bachelor $624 $562 $22,480 1 bdrm $762 $686 $27,432 2 bdrm $953 $858 $34,308 3 bdrm $1,070 $963 $38,520 4 bdrm --- RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 20 (for the family-friendly housing requirement). At minimum, the City should monitor absorption rates and adjust policy if/when required over time. #3 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Non-Market Rental Units •For the purpose of secured non-market market rental units, the City may consider deﬁning non-market rental housing as units owned or subsidized by government, a non-proﬁt society, or a housing co- operative. Non-market housing units can be generated from purpose-built private market development projects (not including units delivered through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, rental condominium units, or other investor-owned houses/units), rented at below (25% below) CMHC average market rents for Maple Ridge. •In 100% purpose-built rental projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 5% of units to be secured as non-market rental units, registered on title for the duration of that term. •Consider calculating non-market rental units as maximum rents based on 25% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”). 7 Table 8: Recommended Maximum Rents and Household Income for Securing Non-Market Rental Units in Maple Ridge NON-MARKET UNITS - Secured through private sector development Unit Type CMHC Average Market Rents (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows)7 LEMR Unit Rent (25% below) Maximum Eligible Household Income Bachelor $624 $468 $18,720 1 bdrm $762 $572 $22,860 2 bdrm $953 $715 $28,590 3 bdrm $1,070 $814 $32,550 4 bdrm --- Table 8 calculations based on CMHC Rental Market Report, 2016. Calculations for LEMR units secured through private sector development 7 would need to be updated annually as CMHC market reports are issued. RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 21 •Consider providing further incentives for all projects that secure 5% of units as non-market rental which should include, at minimum, the same incentives provided for projects with secured market rental housing and low-end market rental housing plus additional incentives to make non-market rental more viable. •Consider directly correlating the level of incentives by the length of the secured term, registered on title for the duration of that term. There is opportunity to consider additional incentives, upon review and direction from Council. •Consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built non-market units for projects that generate less than 5 non-market rental units, or at the discretion of the City. Consider undertaking a ﬁnancial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment to built units. Establishing an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated. •The minimum requirements to secure non-market rental units outlined above are conservative, and it is recommended that they be monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of Maple Ridge desire higher requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive ﬁnancial analysis and test sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable. As noted above, comprehensive ﬁnancial analysis were undertaken by the City of North Vancouver, City of Richmond, and by the City of New Westminster. At minimum, the City may wish to monitor absorption rates and adjust policy if/when required over time. #4 - Family-friendly Housing Policy •As the City evolves its discussion on rental housing policy and/or zoning, consider requiring a minimum number of family-friendly housing units in all new multi-unit development projects, with an option to also extend towards both market condominium and purpose-built market rental units. This policy could facilitate the creation of more housing choices for low and moderate income family households in Maple Ridge. Table 9: Recommended Minimum Requirements for Family-Friendly Units in New Multi-unit Development Projects •The minimum requirements to require family-friendly units outlined above are conservative, and should be monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of Maple Ridge desire higher requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive ﬁnancial analysis and test sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable. Comprehensive ﬁnancial analysis New Multi-unit Market Condominium Projects New Multi-unit Market Rental Projects 3+ bedroom units Minimum 5%Minimum 5% RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 22 were undertaken by the City of New Westminster (for the family-friendly housing requirement) to identify their requirement. At minimum, the City should monitor absorption rates and adjust policy if/when required over time. #5 - Facilitate Partnerships between Developers and the Non-Proﬁt Housing Sector •For secured low-end market rental units and secured non-market rental units, the City may wish to consider strategies to identify organizations to administer and monitor the units secured through new development projects. Typically, non-proﬁt housing societies acquire these secured units in partnership, such as the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, and are ideally introduced to the project concept in early stages of the development process. •It is recommended that the City research and outline strategies to facilitate partnerships between the non- proﬁt housing sector and private developers to ensure appropriate and sustainable management of secured low-end market rental units and secured non-market rental units. •For secured market rental units, these units are typically managed by the private sector either by the developer or by a property management company engaged by the developer. Non-proﬁt housing societies typically do not manage market rental units secured through private market development projects, unless there is a low-end market rental or non-market rental component. However, more non- proﬁt housing societies are becoming increasingly open to acquiring market rental units as part of their portfolio, especially housing societies that have tenants who are no longer eligible for their subsidized units (i.e. tenant household income has improved/increased). Having market rental units as part of a non- proﬁt housing society’s portfolio provides the housing society with ﬂexibility to relocate tenants if needed. There are a limited number of housing societies whose mandates support this approach. •It is recommended that the City research and outline strategies to engage with non-proﬁt housing societies that have a market rental housing component within their mandate, and facilitate partnerships between these select non-proﬁt housing societies and private developers to administer secured market rental units in cases where the developer does not intend or have the ability to manage the secured market rental units.  RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 23   585 – 1111 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC V6E 2J3 | 604.687.2281 101-848 Courtney Street, Victoria BC V8W 1C4 | 250.383.0304 www.cityspaces.ca -1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 6, 2018 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2017-360-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Review of Regulations for Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites: Public Consultation Outcomes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A review of the Zoning Bylaw regulations for Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites (DGSs) commenced upon Council’s endorsement of two scoping reports at the September 19, 2017 and October 3, 2017 workshops, respectively. Both reports outlined a public consultation process to obtain community feedback on potential options for expanding the City’s Secondary Suite and DGS regulations in implementing the Housing Action Plan and to encourage more rental housing options within Maple Ridge. DGS regulations were adopted in 2008 and since that time 40 DGS units have either been constructed or are currently underway. The DGS scoping report included the intention to hold stakeholder workshops that would bring together individuals with experience and knowledge in development of DGSs to help inform the larger process. A DGS stakeholder workshop was held on November 16, 2017 with DGS property owners and industry professionals that focussed on exploring ideas and potential regulatory and design options. The DGS stakeholder workshop was followed by a public open house on Accessory Dwelling Units on November 25, 2017, which covered potential expansion of regulations for both Secondary Suites and DGSs. This report provides an overview of the outcomes of the public consultation to-date. From the comments received, clear support was voiced for many of the proposed expansion options, for both the Secondary Suite and DGS programs. This report also brings forward the recommendation to proceed forward with the preparation of amending bylaws for those directions supported by the community. On items where community support was lacking, the report also presents a set of next step options, which will involve future reports back to Council. 5.2 - 2 - RECOMMENDATIONS: That staff be directed to proceed with the following work, as discussed in Section 5.0 of this report titled “Rental Housing Program Review of Regulations for Detached Garden Suites and Secondary Suites”, dated February 6, 2018: 1. Prepare Zoning Bylaw amendments to: a. Allow a Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot; b. Allow a DGS size to be a minimum of 20.3m2 (219 ft2); and c. Allow a DGS size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less. 2. Undertake further research and report back to Council on: a. Allowing a Secondary Suite in all single-family residential zones; b. Allow a Secondary Suite within a Duplex unit (RT-1 zone); c. Allowing a DGS in all single-family residential zones; d. Allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot; e. Allowing 2-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones; f. Allowing Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure; g. Allowing Tiny Homes as a temporary DGS structure; and h. Removing owner-occupancy requirement for Secondary Suites and DGS. 3. Undertake interdepartmental/stakeholder processes to: a. Review the building permit application process; and b. Develop an approach for creating pre-approved DGS building permit plans. 1.0 BACKGROUND: Review and possible expansion of the existing Secondary Suite and DGS program follows direction from the August 29, 2016 workshop. Specifically, Council directed staff to: Prepare a detailed report and amending bylaw package for the following: a. Review and expand the Detached Garden Suites Program; b. Review and expand the Secondary Suites Program; c. Permit duplexes in Single Family zones without rezoning on minimum lot sizes of 557m2 in the Town Centre, and 750m2 within the Urban Area Boundary; and d. Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial. On September 19, 2017 a report was presented at Council workshop on a “Secondary Suite Update and Next Steps” and the following resolution was passed: That the “Proposed Community Engagement Program” section of the report titled “Rental Housing Program: Secondary Suite Update and Next Steps”, dated September 19, 2017, be endorsed. - 3 - At the October 3, 2017 Council workshop, a report was presented on the “Detached Garden Suite Update and Next Steps”. That the “Proposed Community Engagement Program” section of the report titled “Rental Housing Program: Detached Garden Suite Update and Next Steps”, dated October 3, 2017 be endorsed. Both reports outlined a public consultation process to explore potential program expansion options with the community including a stakeholder workshop tailored towards the DGS program, an open house focused on both programs, and community survey. Public consultation commenced with a DGS stakeholder workshop on November 16, 2017 followed by an open house on both Secondary Suite and DGS regulations on November 25, 2017. 2.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS In an effort to fully explore the barriers to DGS uptake in Maple Ridge and to discuss how the program may be expanded, a stakeholder workshop was held prior to the public open house. The aim of the workshop was to engage in discussion amongst the participants and the open house was intended to provide information, share possible DGS program expansion ideas and encourage feedback from the community. The preparation and format of each event is discussed below. 2.1 Detached Garden Suites Stakeholder Workshop Event A stakeholder workshop was held on November 16, 2017, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at City Hall with invitations sent to 40 property owners of DGSs and 28 industry professionals including builders, designers, developers, realtors, and financial institution representatives. The workshop was intended to engage discussion and hear about the experiences, perspectives, and ideas of participants. Specifically, the format was aimed at:  Identifying challenges/barriers to the current DGS program;  Receiving input on potentially expanding existing regulations;  Identifying potential design improvements; and  Testing assumptions discussed in the October 3, 2017 Scoping Report to Council. A primer on DGSs (Appendix A) was sent to those who responded to the invitation. The DGS workshop was attended by 16 people made up of the following backgrounds:  2 DGS owners  5 Designer/Architects  2 Realtors  7 Builder/Developers The invitations sent to the 40 DGS owners and industry professionals also included an invitation to the public open house event detailed below. - 4 - 2.2 Public Open House Event A public open house was held on November 25, 2017 for both the Secondary Suites and DGS programs. This event, titled “Accessory Dwelling Unit Review”, was held in the Fraser Room of the Maple Ridge Public Library between 1:00 and 4:00 p.m. Several methods were employed for advertising the event, which included:  Newspaper advertisements in the November 15, 17, 22, and 24th editions;  Webpage information (with banner and link located on homepage);  Facebook and Twitter;  Postcards with event information and details were made available at City Hall Reception, Planning Counter, Economic Development, Leisure Centre, The ACT, and the Maple Ridge Library;  A representative from Small Housing BC spent time on Friday, November 24th handing out over 100 information postcards to pedestrians within the downtown core. The 40 DGS property owners were invited to send in photos and their DGS story that included why they chose to construct a DGS, who is occupying them, and what their experience has been (this was included in DGS workshop invite letter). The DGS profile/photo deadline for submission was November 10, 2017. For incentive, the DGS profile/photo invitation advertised a prize draw. Excerpts from the stories received, along with photos, were included on one of the information panels (discussed in Section 2.2.1 below) at the open house. A total of 65 people signed-in as participants at the open house event. 2.2.1 Information Panels The focus of this initial round of public engagement was on presenting several options to the community for feedback on potentially expanding the Secondary Suites and DGS programs. Fifteen information panels (Appendix B) were prepared and displayed at the open house event that provided information on population growth, demographics, rental and vacancy rates, and housing trends, as well as the community benefits of accessory dwelling units in predominantly single-family neighbourhoods with community concerns identified to date. Several ideas for potential expansion of the Secondary Suite and DGS programs were also presented on the information panels. Staff were available to help guide participants through the panels, hear concerns, and answer questions. A representative from Small Housing BC also attended the open house to listen to the discussion amongst participants and staff. 2.2.2 Interactive Opportunities In order to help engage the participants and stimulate thoughts and discussion at the open house, participants were given post-it dots (as many as they needed) and encouraged to stick dots next to the ideas on the information panels that they liked. Larger post -it notes for writing comments were provided and participants were encouraged to share their thoughts and post them on the panels. - 5 - A second opportunity for interactive participation was provided to explore resident’s thoughts about DGS size, shape and understand how they might affect neighbourhood character. A table was set-up to appear as a small neighbourhood, using an aerial photo printed in large format, with 3-D models of single-family houses, and DGSs models of various sizes including one and two storeys (see images below). Participants were encouraged to move the models where they liked and imagine how the various shapes and sizes of DGSs would appear within a single-family neighbourhood. A staff person was made available at this table to answer questions and help engage discussion. Two photos of the exercise are shown below – all photos are attached as Appendix I. 2.2.3 Open House Questionnaire A questionnaire (attached as Appendix C) was made available for participants to complete at the open house, with an option to complete a paper copy or electronically on laptops set-up for the event. Additionally, the questionnaire was posted on the City’s website on November 27th and the deadline for submission (of either paper or electronic version) was December 16, 2017. 3.0 OUTCOMES OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION The community response for the ideas presented at the DGS stakeholder workshop and the Secondary Suite and DGS public open house was mainly positive in terms of support for expanding the regulations for both of these programs. - 6 - 3.1 Detached Garden Suites Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes The workshop opened with participants introducing themselves and then each stating what they believe are the benefits to DGSs. Combined, participants identified several benefits, including:  Affordability;  May be sized to fit need;  Better land use/densification;  Intergenerational living;  Increased property values;  Aging in place;  Reconnecting neighbourhoods; and  Potential to explore green building techniques and use reclaimed materials. Staff gave a brief presentation (Appendix D) with background information and participants were then asked to identify what they see as the top three barriers to DGS uptake in Maple Ridge. The barriers identified include the following:  Online information and process clarity for owner/builders is not sufficient and suggest a written guide/manual and/or staff liaison;  Permitted size of 400-970 sq. ft. is too limiting, as most property owners want larger units;  Two-storey height restriction;  Construction costs for DGS (@ $250-$350/sq. ft.) makes renovating or buying a new house a more attractive alternative;  Cost of a foundation is high;  Cost of servicing can be high depending on topography and existing service capacity;  Layout and design of new subdivisions involves smaller lots and larger homes, leaving little room for a DGS;  Laneway access often not available in Maple Ridge;  Providing sufficient space for DGS on-site parking;  Return on investment not as high as new development in other cities;  Limits preventing stratification prevent options to help offset high construction costs;  Would not be permitted in Fraser River escarpment area; and  Current setback requirements are restrictive. - 7 - 3.1.1 Process and Design Outcomes from Break-Out Group Discussions After the initial larger group discussions, participants were split into two smaller break-out groups for a DGS process discussion and a DGS design discussion. Each group was given 20 minutes to engage on one topic and then were switched to the other topic. The process discussion was facilitated by Maple Ridge staff and the design discussion was led by representatives from Small Housing BC. The design discussion also included a brief presentation attached as Appendix E. For the process discussion, participants in both groups expressed support for expanding the DGS regulations. Both groups identified allowing a DGS and Secondary Suite on one lot as one of the most important ideas discussed for regulatory expansion. In the design options discussion, finding opportunities to make DGS construction more affordable and allowing design and construction flexibility were predominant themes within both groups. The detailed outcomes of the group discussions are attached as Appendix F. 3.2 Feedback From the Open House Event Section 2.2.2 above outlines the interactive opportunities for those attending the open house event. Open house participants were handed several sticky dots when signing-in at the entrance to the event and were asked to stick them to whatever questions or statements they liked on the information panels (photos attached as Appendix G). The ideas that received the highest number of sticky dots (more than 15) include:  Accelerate DGS approval process;  Allow two-storey DGS units in more areas of the City;  Allow larger DGS unit sizes;  Permit a DGS and Secondary Suite on one lot;  Allow Tiny Homes as DGSs;  Reduce side and rear yard setbacks for DGS;  Require privacy and screening requirements for DGS;  Allow manufactured homes as DGS. Additionally, two boards were made available for participants to generally share their thoughts on accessory dwelling units (see photos in Appendix G). Comments were also received on sticky notes in response to questions or ideas presented on the information panels. All comments received on the open house information panels are attached as Appendix H. From the 3D DGS model exercise, a total of 15 neighbourhood layouts were proposed by participants (photos attached as Appendix I). Several comments were received from participants, including:  Interest in greater flexibility in siting regulations;  Permit two-storey DGSs;  Provide consideration for 2 DGSs on large (rural) lots and/or on corner lots. - 8 - In discussions with various people attending the open house, many expressed a desire to construct a DGS and were attending the event to provide feedback on expanding the current regulations. Some attendees felt that the current regulations do not meet their needs and have resisted moving forward on a DGS project. Additional comments were heard regarding the costs associated with DGS construction and the desire to see some ideas or innovations to help reduce the overall project budget. Other attendees said they had either started or completed the DGS process and found navigation of the building permit approval process challenging and felt there is a lack of clarity in various respects, making it difficult to accurately estimate a project timeline and costs. 3.3 Open House Questionnaire Outcomes The open house event generated a total of 193 questionnaires from the community. From the questionnaires received, over 95% of respondents stated that they live in Maple Ridge. Most of the potential options presented in the questionnaire were supported by more than 50% of respondents. The questions asked and a summary of the responses are discussed in Section 3.3.1 below. 3.3.1 Summary of Open House Questionnaire Responses The discussion below offers a summarized overview of the questionnaire results with some analysis on the outcomes. The complete questionnaire results, including all comments received are attached as Appendix J. 1. Experience with Secondary Suites and DGSs Questionnaire respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their experience with Secondary Suites and DGSs. Table 1 below outlines the questions asked for both of these housing forms and the number of responses received for each. Table 1: Experience with Secondary Suites and DGSs Secondary Suite Detached Garden Suite Owner? 42 5 Resident within? 64 4 Neighbour? 116 31 None of the Above? 41 145 Other 4 8 Not surprisingly, many more respondents have had experience with Secondary Suites, as an owner, resident, or neighbor, than with DGSs. - 9 - 2. Secondary Suites and DGS Regulations Questionnaire respondents were asked two questions about potential regulatory options that would apply to both Secondary Suites and DGSs. The questions are as follows: 1. Do you support allowing both a Secondary Suite and DGS on one lot? 2. With regard to the owner occupancy requirement, do you support: o Removing the requirement? o Requiring a property manager be hired to oversee an absentee owner property? o Other? A total of 183 responses were received regarding the idea of allowing both a Secondary Suite and DGS on one lot. Of this total 107 (58.45%) are supportive of this idea with 76 (41.53%) opposed. For written comments, a total of 21 were received on this question. Concern was expressed from 12 respondents on whether these infill sites would be able to provide sufficient parking. Additionally, five comments received were concerned with crowding, increased density and congested neighbourhood streets. For the second question above, a total of 184 responses were received. Respondents were asked if they support removing the existing owner-occupancy requirement with the majority 117 (63.58%) indicating they are opposed to this idea. A total of 67 (36.41%) indicated support. With regard to requiring a property manager in situations where owners do not live on site, the majority 105 (57.06%) indicated support for this idea with 79 respondents (42.93%) opposed. It is likely that the reason the majority of respondents don’t support removing the owner occupancy requirement, but do support the requirement for a property manager is because: a) Respondents were encouraged to “check all that apply”; and b) The property manager would be an important second best option for some of those opposed to removing the owner occupancy requirement. A total of 93 comments were received for the second question above. Several comments received expressed that property owners living on a site with a rental unit are more likely to be proactive in managing any issues that arise (more so than property managers). A couple of comments received offered a different rationale for their opposition to removing the owner occupancy requirement as it could also fuel the speculative market. 3. Types of Secondary Suites and Recouping Financial Outlay In this third section of the questionnaire there were three questions with regard to exploring options for creating more Secondary Suite units by looking at expanding the housing forms where they are not currently permitted, but may be considered. Respondents were asked the following: 1. Do you support allowing Secondary Suits in all single-family residential zones? 2. Do you support allowing one Secondary Suite within a Duplex? 3. Do you support allowing a Secondary Suite as a lock-off suite within a: o Townhouse/Rowhouse Unit? o Apartment Unit? - 10 - Out of a total 181 responses received for the first question above, 119 (65.74%) support allowing Secondary Suites in all residential zones, with 62 (34.25%) not in support. A total of 18 comments were received for this question. While the majority of respondents support this idea, it was the respondents who are opposed who provided most of the comments received for this question and parking issues continue to be the main concern. The second question above, regarding allowing a Secondary Suite within a duplex, is supported by the majority of respondents with 94 (53.40%) out of total 176 in support of this idea. Those opposed to this idea totaled 82 (46.59%). A total of 17 comments were received on this question. Similar to the question one above, while the majority of respondents support this idea, comments received were mostly from those opposed. For the third question above, regarding a lock-off suite within a townhouse and/or an apartment unit, 182 responses were received. Respondents in support of allowing a Secondary Suite with in a townhouse totaled 70 (38.46%) with 112 (61.53%) opposed. Those in favour of a Secondary Suite within an apartment unit totaled 27 (14.83%) and those opposed to the idea totaled 155 (85.16%). 4. Options for Expanding DGS Regulations Six questions were asked of respondents in exploring options to increase DGS units within Maple Ridge. The questions are as follows: 1. Do you support allowing DGS in all single-family zones? 2. Do you support allowing on DGS on a lot with a Duplex? 3. Do you support allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot with regard to side and rear yard setbacks to work within unique site topographies and irregular shaped lots? 4. Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be less than 37m2 (400 ft2) in gross floor area? 5. Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) in gross floor area? 6. Do you support allowing two-storey units and units above a garage in all zones where DGS are permitted? Table 2 below provides a summary of the results from all six questions above. Table 2: Options for Expanding DGS Regulations – Questionnaire Responses Questions Yes No Total In all SF Zones? 103 (59.88%) 69 (40.11%) 172 on a Duplex lot? 80 (46.78%) 91 (53.21%) 171 Siting Flexibility? 119 (70.41%) 50 (29.58%) 169 Smaller Units? 96 (56.80%) 73 (43.19%) 169 Larger Units? 101 (60.11%) 67 (39.88%) 168 Two-Storey Units? 110 (65.47%) 58 (34.52%) 168 - 11 - All of the above options received more than 55% support from respondents, except for one. The option to allow a DGS on a lot with a duplex received 46.78% support (80/171 responses) and 53.21% opposed from 91 responses. As with previous questions, more comments were received from respondents who are opposed to this idea. The general rationale for those opposed to the above ideas included parking concerns, too much density, and negative impacts on neighbours. 5. Streamline DGS Development Process A total of 171 respondents answered the question about the City providing pre -approved DGS building permit plans and the majority (121 respondents, 70.76%) indicated their support, with 50 (29.23%) opposed to this idea. 6. DGS Alternative Building Forms and Construction Methods Four questions were asked of respondents regarding alternative building forms and construction methods for DGSs to help increase choice, promote affordability and possibly help reduce costs. The questions are as follows: 1. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure? 2. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a temporary structure? 3. Do you support allowing Manufactured Homes as a DGS form? 4. Do you support allowing retro-fitted Container Units to be used as a DGS? Table 3 below provides a summary of the results from all six questions above. Table 3: DGS Alternative Building Forms – Questionnaire Results Question Yes No Total Tiny Homes - Permanent 95 (56.54%) 73 (43.45%) 168 Tiny Homes - Temporary 100 (59.52%) 68 (40.47%) 168 Manufactured Homes 101 (59.76%) 68 (40.23%) 169 Container Units 69 (41.56%) 97 (58.43%) 166 More than 55% of respondents support allowing permanent and temporary tiny homes and manufactured homes, but the majority are not in support of allowing container units. Once again, the comments received for the above questions were only from respondents opposed the above ideas. For respondents who are opposed to allowing container units as a form of DGS, the comments received largely pertain to fit with neighbourhood character and the exterior aesthetics of the building form. - 12 - 7. Retaining existing parking regulations for both Secondary Suites and DGSs Two questions were asked regarding the retention of existing parking regulations for both Secondary Suites and DGSs: 1. Do you support the 1 spot requirement for a Secondary Suite? 2. Do you support the 1 spot requirement for a DGS? The outcome for the above parking questions were similar in that the majority of respondents strongly supported retaining each. Table 4 showing the results of the questions is presented below. Table 4: Retaining Existing Parking Regulations – Questionnaire Results Question Yes No Total 1 Spot for SS 127 (74.70%) 43 (25.29%) 170 1 Spot for DGS 122 (73.05%) 45 (26.94%) 167 8. General Comments The final invitation for respondents to provide feedback was in the general comments section where a total of 69 comments were received and offer greater insight into the range of views among questionnaire respondents. In addition, two emails were received with comments pertaining to the DGS topics presented at the open house. The general questionnaire comments received and the emailed comments received are included in the complete results attached as Appendix J. 3.2.1 Conclusion of Open House Questionnaire Outcomes It is clear from the results of the stakeholder workshop, open house events, and the responses received from the community that there is support for expanding both the Secondary Suites regulations and the DGS regulations within the Zoning Bylaw. For most questions asked about potential options, there was greater than 50% support from respondents. However, five questions received less than 50% support for the ideas presented and these are:  Removing owner occupancy requirement – 36.41% support; 63.58% opposed;  Allowing a lock-off Secondary Suite within a townhouse unit – 38.46% support; 61.53% opposed;  Allowing a lock-off Secondary Suite within an apartment unit - 14.83% support; 85.16% opposed;  Allowing one DGS on a lot with a duplex – 46.78% support; 53.21% opposed;  Allowing retrofitted container units to be used as a DGS – 41.56% support; 58.43% opposed. - 13 - Many comments received in the questionnaire indicate concerns regarding livability, neighbourhood character, and safety. Several specific comments were also received on concerns with parking issues, density, privacy and noise. 5.0 NEXT STEPS 5.1 Draft Secondary Suite and DGS Zoning Bylaw Amendments The proposed community engagement programs outlined in the respective Council reports on update and next steps for Secondary Suites (September 19, 2017) and DGSs (October 3, 2017) envisioned additional reports and discussions with the community and Council. However, the community feedback received to-date provides a clear message of support for expanding the Secondary Suite and DGS programs. Additionally, staff have heard from several residents who have explained that they have a strong desire to construct a DGS, but the current regulations are not flexible enough to meet their needs. Various personal scenarios were shared with staff for DGS construction to allow:  Property owners to downsize from principal residence to DGS;  Family member(s) to move into either principal residence or DGS;  Property owners to generate rental income from a DGS unit. However, while some of the options supported by the community, such as permitted unit size, are fairly straightforward, others will need further research and consideration prior to drafting proposed regulatory amendments. A discussion of recommendations for next steps are discussed in the sub- sections below. 5.1.1 Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments Based on the input received to date, it is proposed that Council direct staff to move forward with drafting the following amendments to the Secondary Suite and DGS Zoning Bylaw regulations: 1. Allow a Secondary Suite & DGS on the same lot, where both are already individually permitted, in compliance with current zone and lot size regulations; a. Note that the maximum 40% lot coverage would still apply; 2. Allow a DGS to be less than 37m2 (400 ft2) to a minimum of 20.3m2 (219 ft2); 3. Allow a DGS to be a maximum of 140m2 (1500 ft2) or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less; a. Note that the maximum 40% lot coverage would still apply. Note that parking requirements are proposed to remain as is for the above options (1 stall for each accessory residential unit, plus 2 stalls for the primary residence – all on-site). It is also worth noting the community questionnaire indicated support for allowing manufactured homes and this form is currently permitted through the building permit process – as such, no amendments are proposed for this option. Community support was indicated for all of the above options through the outcomes of the community questionnaire and these are recommended for inclusion in the Zoning Bylaw. - 14 - It is anticipated that draft Zoning Bylaw amendments would be brought to Council for First Reading by mid-Spring 2018 5.1.2 Proposed Options for Further Research It is further proposed that Council direct staff to research the best approach for inc luding the following options in the Zoning Bylaw: 1. Allow Secondary Suites in all single-family residential zones; a. Determine if all zones are feasible and if so, should any limitations be applied? 2. Allow one Secondary Suite within a duplex unit (allow in RT-1 zone); a. This option will need further investigation with respect to BC Building Code requirements and determining the best approach for allowing in existing and new duplex housing forms; 3. Allow DGS in all single-family residential zones; a. Determine if all zones are feasible and if so, should any limitations be applied? 4. Allow flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot; a. Identify criteria for ensuring neighbour privacy, safety, and DGS livability; 5. Allow 2-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones; a. Privacy considerations for neighbours will need to be considered with building location, orientation, and screening; 6. Allow Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure; a. Not permitted under current building code standards and will need to address building permit approval barriers; 7. Allow Tiny Homes as a temporary structure; a. Not permitted under current building code standards and will need to address building permit approval barriers. Community support was indicated for the above options 1 through 7, from the outcomes of the community questionnaire. For option 8 below, removing the owner-occupancy requirement, community support was not indicated. However, it is recommended to research removal of the owner-occupancy requirement to determine if there might be alternative approaches to help alleviate existing and future issues with absentee property owners. 8. Owner-occupancy requirement for Secondary Suites & DGS; a. Although not supported by the majority of questionnaire respondents, further research into requirements for this option may help to address the growing number of illegal suites on sites with absentee owners with a regulation that: i. Provides absentee owners with an incentive to register rental suites; ii. Requires a property manager to oversee absentee owner properties with a viable option for neighbours to have complaints addressed; iii. Includes more stringent penalties, such as fines or decommissioning of suite(s), for those that don’t comply with requirements. In a previous workshop discussion, Council indicated support for allowing a property to have absentee owners if a family member is living within a suite on the site. If Council remains committed - 15 - to this approach, a resolution would set a clear direction for the Bylaws Department when they are called to enforce on these situations. It is anticipated that the outcomes of further study for the above will be brought to Council later this year. 5.1.3 Options Not Recommended It is proposed that the following options not be part of any Zoning Bylaw amendments at this time, unless otherwise directed by Council, as the community questionnaire has indicated a lack of support: 1. Allowing a lock-off suite within a townhouse unit; 2. Allowing a lock-off suite within an apartment unit; 3. Allowing one DGS on a lot with a duplex; 4. Allowing retrofitted container units to be used as a DGS. It should be noted that developers may wish to explore these options as a component of rezoning and Council could consider each proposal on its own merits. 5.1.4 Alternative An “Alternative Decision Matrix” has been prepared (and attached as Appendix K) in the event that Council’s preference is to discuss and consider each option separately. The Alternative Decision Matrix identifies the: 1. Options recommended for drafting regulatory amendments; 2. Options recommended for further study; and 3. Options that are not recommended at this time. 5.2 Assistance through the Building Permit Process Through the public consultation process, staff received comments from property owners who had either completed the building permit process for a DGS or were part way through. Many of these property owners expressed their intent to construct the DGS as a primarily do-it-yourself project choosing to take on as much of the project work as they can themselves. To assist inexperienced builders through the permitting process, staff will be exploring opportunities for an enhanced “hand holder” to step them through various aspects of the process. As such, it is proposed that an interdepartmental review process be undertaken and any proposed bylaw or policy additions or changes be brought forward in a report to Council in late Spring 2018. - 16 - 5.3 DGS Pre-Approved Designs The October 3, 2017 DGS process scoping report outlined a potential option to create pre-approved “off-the-shelf” building plan templates to help provide efficiencies in time and cost for property owners through the building permit approval process. The question posed in the open house questionnaire regarding pre-approved DGS building permit plans received majority support (70.76% of respondents). The intent of this potential option is to help save time and money for DGS property owners. Research for the best approach to creating designs and implementing this idea is still underway with Small Housing BC. It has been determined that pre-approved designs are one option that will help support increased uptake in DGS construction, but may work best when considered within a suite of other time and cost saving options. As such, it is proposed that the DGS pre-approved design option be researched further with the outcomes and recommendations brought forward in a report to Council in late Spring 2018. 6.0 INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS While collaboration has already commenced with the Building Department during the initial phase of the process, it is anticipated their involvement will increase with the above next steps. Additionally, the next steps will also include collaboration with the Engineering Department, Bylaws Department, Fire Department, and Communications Department. 7.0 CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the Accessory Dwelling Unit public consultation show that expanding the Secondary Suite and DGS programs is supported by the majority of people who were engaged through this process. Several recommendations for next steps are discussed in this report, including drafting four of the options supported by the community into a Zoning Bylaw amendment to be brought to Council for First Reading. Through the public process staff heard from many property owners who are interested in proceeding with DGS development, but are waiting for increased flexibility in the regulations. Other options that are supported by the community will require further research to determine the best regulatory approach and it is recommended this work be undertaken. The report also discusses options not supported by the community and all but one of these are not recommended for further investigation. - 17 - While the regulatory amendments are being drafted and further research on options is underway, work will continue in identifying a process for reviewing the DGS building permit application process and researching the best approach for pre-approved DGS designs. This information will be brought to Council for feedback and further direction. “Original signed by Lisa Zosiak” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Lisa Zosiak, MRM, MCIP, RPP Planner “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter M.PL., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA. P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by Frank Quinn” for _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A: Stakeholder Workshop Detached Garden Suites Primer Appendix B: Open House Information Panels Appendix C: Open House Questionnaire/Survey Appendix D: DGS Stakeholder Workshop Powerpoint Presentation Appendix E: DGS Stakeholder Workshop Design Discussion Presentation Appendix F: DGS Stakeholder Workshop Group Discussion Outcomes Appendix G: Open House Information Panels Photos with Sticky Dots Appendix H: Comments Written/Received on Open House Information Panels Appendix I: Photos of Open House 3-D Models Exercise Appendix J: Complete Results and Comments from Open House Questionnaire Appendix K: Alternative Decision Matrix Detached Garden Suites The City of Maple Ridge is launching a community consultation process to review its existing Detached Garden Suites (DGS) program with the intent to improve opportunities to create more DGSs in Maple Ridge. This review is intended to help encourage greater diversity of housing forms, tenure, and affordability, while identifying more options for home owners who may want to construct a DGS on their property. %HQHÀWVWRD'*6 DGSs are becoming more commonplace in the Lower Mainland, as various municipalities encourage this type RILQÀOOGHYHORSPHQW$VDQDFFHVVRU\KRXVLQJXQLW'*6VEULQJVHYHUDOEHQHÀWVWRSURSHUW\RZQHUVUHQWHUV and the larger community. •$'*6LQFUHDVHVSURSHUW\YDOXHDQGDVD rental unit, generates additional income for property owners; • Enables property owners to provide affordable housing for family members, such as grown children or aging parents; • Provides an age-in-place option for property owners to downsize from a principal dwelling to a DGS; • Provides increased options for renters who prefer ground-oriented units; and •$OORZVIRUDVHQVLWLYHIRUPRILQÀOOZLWKLQ single-family neighbourhoods by retaining the low density form and character. ,QFUHDVLQJ$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ2SWLRQV 7KH0DSOH5LGJH+RXVLQJ$FWLRQ3ODQUHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKH&LW\H[SDQGLWVH[LVWLQJJDUGHQVXLWHVSURJUDP Possible expansion options include: • Explore siting requirements and building size; • Consider new housing forms, including Tiny Homes; • Create pre-approved building plan templates to help increase uptake; • Consider allowing a secondary suite and a DGS on one lot; • Consider permitting larger unit size; • Consider allowing suites above garages in more single-family residential zones; and • Consider eliminating the owner occupancy requirement. DETACHED GARDEN SUITES | NOVEMBER 2017 | 1 Let’s Talk Housing! $ERYH³'*68QLWVLQ6LQJOH)DPLO\1HLJKERXUKRRG Let’s Talk Housing! APPENDIX A Our Community 3RSXODWLRQ 0DSOH5LGJHLVH[SHFWHGWRIDFHVLJQLÀFDQWSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKH next several years which will include changes in our demographics and housing needs. Between 2011 and 2016, the population of Maple Ridge had grown by more than 6,000 people to a total of 82,256 (Statistics Canada, 2017). By 2031, the projected population for Maple Ridge is estimated to be 108,900 people. That means the municipality will need to accommodate over 26,000 more people in just about 15 years. +RXVLQJ Looking at our community’s existing housing stock, the 2016 Census tells us that single-family housing makes up 55.6% of the total. Single- family housing has been relatively affordable within Maple Ridge, compared with other Lower Mainland municipalities. However, as housing prices continue to climb regionally, single-family housing in Maple Ridge is becoming less affordable. $FFRUGLQJWR&DQDGD0RUWJDJHDQG+RXVLQJ&RUSRUDWLRQ·V&0+& 2016 Rental Market Report, the regional rental market remained tight in 2016. Strong demand for rental units in the Metro Region outpaced new additions to the supply. These pressures caused vacancy rates to GHFUHDVHZKLOHUHQWVFRQWLQXHGWRULVHLQ$FURVVWKHUHJLRQWKH overall vacancy rate declined to 0.7% from 0.8% in 2015. In the Ridge 0HDGRZVDUHDDPRUHVLJQLÀFDQWGHFOLQHLQYDFDQF\UDWHVRFFXUUHG falling to about 0.5% in 2016. Regionally, rents increased by about 6%, resulting in an average regional UHQWRIDERXW)RUWKH5LGJH0HDGRZVDUHDDYHUDJHUHQWVZHUH VHHQWREHDERXWLQ$VRI2FWREHUDYHUDJHUHQWVIRU an apartment in Maple Ridge was roughly $1,100, with 1 bedroom units renting for just under $1,000 a month and 2 bedroom units renting for about $1,295 a month. DETACHED GARDEN SUITES | NOVEMBER 2017 | 2 Let’s Talk Housing! Background Information :KDWGRRXUSROLFLHVVD\" 6HYHUDOSROLFLHVLQWKH2IÀFLDO&RPPXQLW\3ODQ2&3HQFRXUDJHDGLYHUVH UDQJHRIKRXVLQJRSWLRQVIRU0DSOH5LGJHUHVLGHQWV7KH2&3UHFRJQL]HV that secondary suites and detached garden suites can provide affordable KRXVLQJDQGUHQWDORSSRUWXQLWLHVLQWKHFRPPXQLW\7KH2&3DOVR encourages housing that is responsive to changing community issues and needs. 7KH&LW\·V+RXVLQJ$FWLRQ3ODQHVWDEOLVKHVNH\VWUDWHJLHVWKDWHQFRXUDJH the creation of a mix of housing forms and new rental housing opportunities. In implementing the Plan, the City has set out a number of short term action items, including expanding the City’s Detached Garden Suite program. :KDWDUHRXU'*6UHJXODWLRQVWRGD\" The regulations for the DGS program are contained within the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, summarized below: •2QO\RQH'*6SHUPLWWHGSHUORW •1RWSHUPLWWHGRQDORWZLWKDVHFRQGDU\VXLWH • Must be located in rear yard; • Must be owner occupied; • Must be one storey where there is no lane access; • May be two storeys for properties that back onto a laneway or certain rural, suburban or agricultural lots; • May be between 37m 2 and 90m2LQÁRRUDUHD •0XVWSURYLGHSULYDWHRXWGRRUVSDFHHTXLYDOHQWWRRIWKHÁRRU area of the DGS; • Rear lot line setbacks range from 2.4 metres to 7.5 metres, depending on lot size; and • Side setbacks are between 1.5 metres and 3.0 metres. Let’s Talk Housing! DETACHED GARDEN SUITES | NOVEMBER 2017 | 3 Municipal Comparison Many other municipalities throughout the Lower Mainland have their own set of UHJXODWLRQV$FRQGHQVHGVXPPDU\RIWKHUHJXODWLRQVZLWKLQQHDUE\PXQLFLSDOLWLHVLVSUHVHQWHGEHORZ /RRNLQJIRUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQ" Regular project updates are available online at www.mapleridge.ca/343 by email lzosiak@mapleridge.ca or phone 604.467.7383 DETACHED GARDEN SUITES | NOVEMBER 2017 | 4 Let’s Talk Housing! LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 1 Join us for a conversation and dialogue on how to improve accessory housing options within our community. Light refreshments are provided. OPEN HOUSE Upstairs in the Fraser Room APPENDIX B LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 2 WELCOME To the City of Maple Ridge Accessory Dwelling Unit Review Open House Thank you for attending this Open House. At today’s event you can: y Learn more: There are 12 boards and we encourage you to review them all to learn more about accessory housing options in Maple Ridge. y Explore ideas: Several stations are set up for you to interact with different approaches to growth and accessory housing options for Maple Ridge. y Ask questions: City Staff and members of Small Housing BC are here today to answer any questions you may have. y Fill out a survey! Paper and online surveys are available today. They are also available online at www.mapleridge.ca. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 3 Accessory Dwelling Unit Review WHY ARE WE HERE? The City of Maple Ridge is exploring ideas that could, if approved, expand our Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) programs. This review is intended to encourage a greater diversity of housing forms to help improve housing choice within our community. Through this review, the City aims to facilitate more affordable home ownership and more rental housing opportunities within the City. Today, we are are looking for your input on potential new opportunities for secondary suites and detached garden suites. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? To encourage more secondary suites and detached garden suites in our community, a number of new directions are being explored: Secondary Suites • Allowing a secondary suite and a DGS on the same lot; •Allowing a secondary suite within a duplex; • Allowing a secondary suite in a multi-family unit; and • Re-considering the owner occupancy requirement. Detached Garden Suites • Allowing suites above garages in more single-family residential zones; •Allowing smaller and larger unit sizes; • Allowing alternative construction methods; and • Re-considering the owner occupancy requirement. PROPOSED TIMELINE Our conversation on housing is taking place through November to early December and Council will determine the next steps based on your feedback. Research & Issue ,GHQWLÀFDWLRQ Industry & Home Owner Outreach Discuss with Wider Community Report back to Council WE ARE HERE WHAT IS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT? An Accessory Dwelling Unit (or ADU) includes secondary suites and detached garden suites (also known as carriage, coach or laneway houses) in residential areas. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 4 Our Community Our People • Maple Ridge has experienced rapid growth over the last 30 years. Since 2011, our population has increased by 8.2%. • Compared to our regional neighbours,we have a higher proportion of youth and families, making us a family-oriented community. TODAY The size and make-up of our population directly influences the housing needs in our community. Here is what our community looks like today, according to the numbers: 2XU+RXVLQJ3URÀOH • Looking at our housing stock, Maple Ridge has: •Plenty of single family dwellings •Growing number of multi-family units •Slow up-take on accessory dwelling units • The City anticipates a growing need for more housing choices, par ticularly rental options. Our Rent & Vacancy Rates • The regional rental market remained tight in 2016. • Strong demand for rental units outpaced new additions to the supply. • These pressures caused vacancy rates to decrease while rents continued to rise in 2016. Ridge Meadows Metro Vancouver 1.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 2015 2016Average 1 Bedroom Rental $762Ridge Meadows $1,159 Metro Vancouver Average 2 Bedroom Rental $953Ridge Meadows $1,450Metro Vancouver Average 3 Bedroom Rental $1,191Ridge Meadows $1,631Metro Vancouver Rents Increased 6% 2015-2016 Population Profile 2016 Vacancy RatesResidential Units2016 Rents LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 5 Our Community A rapidly growing population • The City of Maple Ridge’s population is projected to reach 118,000 by 2041. That’s another 36,000 people in 25 years. • The number of seniors is anticipated to increase significantly in the coming decades. • A more diverse population highlights the importance of having more housing options to meet a greater range of needs. • More housing options such as Secondary Suites & DGSs allow for aging in place and multi- generational families. TOMORROW Maple Ridge is expected to face significant population growth over the next several years which will include further changes to our demographic and housing needs. Housing Trends • Historically, single family homes have been the dominant housing type in Maple Ridge. However housing affordability challenges are fostering growing interest in townhouses and apartments and this trend is expected to increase over the next few decades. • With this trend becoming commonplace across the Lower Mainland, many cities are looking to find ways to create more diverse housing options, including: • Seniors-friendly housing including single-level apartments and ground-oriented units; • Three-bedroom units for growing families; and • Studio units for single adults. • Another area of change is the increased demand for more rental opportunities, given the rising cost of home ownership in the Region. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 6 Let’s Talk Housing HOUSING IS IMPORTANT The home we live in can influence many aspects of our lives, and the community around us. The City of Maple Ridge recognizes the importance of improving housing choice for all current and future households throughout our community. The importance of housing choice to meet the needs of a diversifying community is underscored in our Official Community Plan. Encouraging sensitive infill in existing neighbourhoods through secondary suites and detached garden suites create a broader mix of housing options, revitalizes older neighbourhoods, and enhances local streescapes. Through such housing types, more affordable homeownership may be facilitated, the supply of rental market housing in the City may increase, and seniors and families may have more opportunities to age in place. Through its Housing Action Plan, the City has identified actions to examine and possibly expand its secondary suite and DGS programs in order to further support the creation of greater housing choice and rental opportunities in Maple Ridge. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The City supports the creation of more secondary suites and detached garden suites throughout our community. Some of the associated benefits from these accessory dwelling units to local residents include: • Supporting neighbourhood character; •Contributing to greater housing diversity; • Increasing ground-oriented rental stock; • Providing additional income to owners; • Supporting ageing-in-place; • Encouraging multi-generational living; and • Making efficient use of existing infrastructure. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 7 Secondary Suites Since 1999, the City has allowed secondary suites in some single-family residential zones - one of the first municipalities to do so in the Lower Mainland. A key intent of the original program was to provide affordable rental housing options throughout the City. Today, there are about 400 secondary suites in the City with another 200 in progress. WHAT WE’VE HEARD The City last conducted a review of the Secondary Suite program in 2012/2013. Through the conversations that took place at that time, residents expressed support for secondary suites as a means of providing household mortgage assistance, facilitating aging in place, and providing affordable rental housing options. Through that review, residents also expressed concern with on- street parking shortgages and the process and costs associated with constructing, approving and licencing a secondary suite. Interest was also expressed about the owner-occupancy requirement. Since the last review, while secondary suites are becoming more common in our neighbourhoods, the number of complaints about secondary suites has been steadily decreasing. In conversations held in preparation for this current review, we also heard about the increasing costs of home ownership, decreasing rental supply and a general community interest in seeing more affordable housing provided in Maple Ridge. GOING FORWARD The City is re-examining our Secondary Suite program to encourage the provision of more housing choices, greater rental opportunities and increased affordable housing throughout our community. To that end, the City is looking at ways to have landowners invest in creating more units in the City by: 1. Finding opportunities to accommodate different types of secondary suites in different parts of our City; and 2. Reducing the time it takes to pay back the financial outlay required to develop an accessory dwelling unit. The proposed ideas are outlined on the following board for your consideration and feedback. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 8 Secondary Suites PROPOSED IDEAS Secondary Suites plus Detached Garden Suites The City is considering allowing both secondary suites and detached garden suites on the same lot. From a construction cost perspective, permitting both type of units may remove the cost advantage of one form over another by reducing the time it takes to pay back the financial outlay to develop accessory dwelling units while creating more rental units in the City. Example: The Cities of North Vancouver, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, and Vancouver permit secondary suites with detached garden suites. In the case of the City of North Vancouver, a secondary suite and a detached garden suite is permitted on the same lot provided the lot is 362.3 sq. m. (3,900 sq ft) or larger. Secondary Suites in Duplexes The City is exploring permitting one ‘accessory dwelling unit’ per side in a side-by-side duplex. This would provide a secondary unit to the principal unit on each side. Example: The City of North Vancouver permits secondary suites in a side-by-side duplex provided that a BC Building Code compliant firewall between the two dwelling unit is constructed. Secondary Suites in Multi-Family Developments The City is exploring allowing one ‘accessory dwelling unit’ in townhouse and apartment dwelling units. The secondary suite could be required to contain a separate kitchen area, at least one bathroom, and a separate entrance door that locks-off the secondary unit from the principal unit. Example: Currently, the Cities of Burnaby, North Vancouver and Richmond permit secondary suites in multi-family developments with similar regulations. Re-consider Owner Occupancy The City is considering lifting the owner-occupancy requirement for property owners with secondary suites. More flexible requirements of using a property manager or the sharing of contact information are alternative options to ensure property maintenance of the property and the neighbourhood character is maintained. Share your thoughts! Are there other options you would like to see that could expand the Secondary Suite program? Place a sticky note below with your ideas! Share your thoughts ! What are your preferr e d options to expand the secondary suite program? Place a sticky dot ne a r t h e o n e s you like! LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 9 Detached Garden Suites WHAT WE’VE HEARD Whether it is to provide affordable housing for family members or create opportunities to generate additional income, DGSs are sought after for a variety of reasons by our residents. As resident interest and the needs of our community change, local home owners have expressed interest in reconsidering the process and types of buildings involved with the City’s DGS program, while remaining mindful of the surrounding neighbourhood. CONSTRUCTING A DGS IN MAPLE RIDGE: Since 2008, 40 DGS units have been built or are under construction in Maple Ridge. Based on comments from DGS owners and builders, some of the potential reasons contributing to the low uptake of DGSs within the City may include: • Access & Servicing - few laneways exist in Maple Ridge making it more difficult to meet access and servicing requirements. • Regulations - size, siting, and height requirements can be limiting on certain lots. • Construction costs - rising construction costs can reduce the return on investment seen by property owners. • Land values - until relatively recently land prices in Maple Ridge may not have supported the cost of constructing a DGS. GOING FORWARD Working to address these issues, the City is pursuing a two-pronged approach to support greater DGS construction in Maple Ridge. Conversations today are about hearing your thoughts on some potential ways to expand our DGS program: 1. Looking at ways to enhance the useability of available information such as zoning regulations as well as ways to accelerate processing times and costs for DGS construction. 2. Exploring the types and sizes of buildings as well as different construction options, such as modular, that could be appropriate for a DGS in Maple Ridge. The proposed ideas are outlined on the following boards for your consideration and feedback. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 10 Detached Garden Suites MY DGS STORY One of the early steps involved in the accessory dwelling unit review was to reach out to existing residents to hear about their experiences owning a DGS. Two owners agreed to share their story with you today. A Deciding Factor “My husband and I purchased a home in West Maple Ridge in 2014. This home came with an existing tenanted garden suite.This was a deciding factor in our decision to purchase the home. The rental income from the suite helps substantially with our mortgage payments. In return, our tenants of four years have their own home, without anyone living above them, for a reasonable rent. We appreciate the security of having people we trust living in our backyard. They are an extra set of eyes on our home and property and they have a vested interest since it is their home as well.” A Garage Conversion “We purchased a 2 acre property back in 2009 and on it was only an unfinished cinder block garage. We thought it would be a great idea to convert this garage into a 968 sq. ft. DGS, firstly to have a place to live in while we built our home and secondly, to become an income helper once we moved into our primary residence. Since [2012] we have had 3 tenants. All have been single, honest, hard-working, quiet, respectful people. They are people who dislike condo life, who don’t want to live in someone’s basement, who want some space away from the city, some privacy, some land to garden in, or grass to cut. We honestly do not notice the DGS is there, even though it is right in our backyard. In a rural neighborhood like ours, it’s just like we have a closer neighbor. At the end of the day, our DGS is a great asset and income helper.” LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 11 Detached Garden Suites PROPOSED IDEAS Enhance useability The City is exploring ways to improve the useability of available information, such as zoning regulations and other building-related information. Possible options could include tailored checklists or guides, clearer zoning regulations, etc. ,QWHJUDWHPRUHUHJXODWRU\ÁH[LELOLW\ The City is exploring ways to improve requirements involved in building a DGS. Possible options include: • Allowing DGSs on smaller single family lots Currently, DGS’s are allowed where the lot area is greater than 557 sq. m. (5,995 sq. ft.). The City is considering allowing DGSs on urban lots with a minimum lot area of 371 sq. m. (3,993 sq. ft.). • Allowing DGSs with a Duplex DGSs are only permitted on single family residential lots. The City is considering allowing DGSs on two-family residential lots (e.g. Duplex). • Permitting a DGS and Secondary Suite on the same lot From a construction cost perspective, permitting both type of units may remove the cost advantage of a secondary suite over a DGS, reducing the time it takes to pay back the financial outlay needed to develop accessory dwelling units while creating more rental units in the City. • Reducing side and rear setbacks Our DGS setbacks are more restrictive compared to our regional neighbours. The City is considering allowing more flexibility in the siting requirements for a DGS in order to allow for differing slopes and other site conditions found across our City. • Requiring privacy & screening requirements Currently, private outdoor space must be provided for the DGS. The City is looking at requiring privacy and screening requirements (which may involve more landscaping) between a DGS and neighbouring properties. Share yo u r t h o u g h t s ! What are y o u r p r e f e r r e d options t o e x p a n d t h e DGS pro g r a m ? Place a s ti c k y d o t n e a r t h e o n e s you like! LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 12 Detached Garden Suites PROPOSED IDEAS Re-consider Owner Occupancy The City is considering lifting the owner-occupancy requirement for property owners with secondary suites. More flexible requirements of using a property manager or the sharing of contact information are alternative options to ensure property maintenance of the property and the neighbourhood character is maintained. Alternative building forms The size and height of a building are important towards ensuring DGSs fit respectfully within each neighbourhood. Some options that could expand the range of building forms allowed as a DGS include: • Allowing smaller unit sizes Currently, DGSs may not be smaller than 37 sq. m. (398 sq. ft.). The costs of constructing a DGS may be challenging the delivery of some smaller housing forms. Related to this is the issue of accommodating Tiny Homes in the City. • Allowing Tiny Homes as a DGS These are often custom built units on a mobile foundation. There could be a temporary form of housing or placed on a permanent foundation. • Allowing larger units sizes DGSs may not be greater than 90 sq. m. (968 sq. ft.). Larger unit sizes up to 140 sq. m. (1,500 sq. ft.) may offer more liveable space which may increase DGS interest and uptake, but possibly at an increased cost. • Allowing two-storey units in more areas of the City Only lots with laneway access or that are larger than 0.4 hectares (1 acre) may build a DGS above a garage. Opportunities for two- storey units are more common elsewhere in the region. Share your th o u g h t s ! What are your p r e f e r r e d options to ex p a n d t h e DGS program ? Place a sticky d o t n e a r t h e o n e s you like! LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 13 Detached Garden Suites PROPOSED IDEAS Accelerate the development process The City is also exploring ways to further streamline the approval process for DGSs with off-the-shelf pre- approved DGS building plans. Such plans could be pre-reviewed by the City’s Licences, Permits & Bylaws Department and could be made available to interested homeowners for a small fee. The time savings combined with the convenience of not having to prepare (and pay) for a set of customized plans could offer residents a unique incentive to constructing a DGS in Maple Ridge. Alternative construction methods to improve costs Construction methods present another opportunity to increase housing choice and potentially reduce the time it takes to complete a DGS. Possible alternative construction methods include: • Manufactured Homes These are created off-site in standardized sections then shipped and installed on-site. These units come in a variety of shapes and sizes that can be combined to suit resident needs and budgets. • Container Units Retrofitted shipping containers are used to create housing units. Stackable and moveable, they present many advantages as an alternative construction method. One of the benefits of pre-fabricated homes is that they are generally constructed off-site and shipped upon completion. Construction is not affected by the weather so the time it takes to build a pre-fabricated home is reduced. Due to standardization, the construction cost per unit can also be lower. Share your thoughts! Are there other options you would like to see that could expand the DGS program? Place a sticky note below with your ideas! Share your th o u g h t s ! What are your p r e f e r r e d options to ex p a n d t h e DGS program ? Place a sticky d o t n e a r t h e o n e s you like! LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 14 Parking Management An important part of the housing conversation is managing parking. Parking requirements need to be sensitive to neighbourhood character but also our community’s needs. WHAT ARE OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS? • Secondary Suites The City requires 1 dedicated off-street parking spot for a secondary suite. • Detached Garden Suites The City requires 1 dedicated off-street parking spot for a DGS. HOW DO WE COMPARE? • Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites Requiring 1 dedicated parking spot per accessory dwelling unit is standard across all our regional neighbours. In addition, a few communities in the Lower Mainland are more prescriptive of how parking should be managed: • Example: In Delta, the owner of a home with a secondary suite must visibly post a sign within the secondary suite to identify where the required parking space for the occupant is located on the property. As well, the parking space must be given a location that does not obstruct street access for any other vehicle parked on that lot. • Example: In Port Coquitlam, a coach house must have at least one accessible parking space (not tandem), located either in a garage or a parking pad. If the parking space is in a garage, a connecting door from the garage to the coach house is not permitted. As well, any parking space on a pad must be screened with landscaping or fencing. PROPOSED IDEAS The City is not proposing to change the number of parking spots required for a secondary suite or detached garden suite. Should a secondary suite and DGS be allowed on the same lot, two parking spots are proposed in addition to the parking requirements for the principal dwelling unit. Examples of Parking Management in Vancouver page 24 LWH How-To Guide 29(59,(: 3/$11,1* ,//8675$7,9( (;$03/(6 $33(1',; DESIGN XQLWVL]H 7KHPD[LPXPIORRUDUHDRIDODQHZD\KRXVH LVGHWHUPLQHGE\PXOWLSO\LQJWKHORWDUHDE\ 7KLVUHVXOWVLQPD[LPXPXQLWVL]HVRI DSSUR[LPDWHO\PIWRQVWDQGDUG¶ [¶ORWVDQGPIWRQ¶[¶ ORWV7KHPD[LPXPVL]HRIDODQHZD\KRXVHLV IWUHJDUGOHVVRIORWVL]H 7KHVHIORRUDUHDOLPLWVLQFOXGHXSSHUDQG JURXQGIORRUOLYLQJVSDFHDVZHOODVHQFORVHG SDUNLQJZKHUHLWLVSURYLGHG$IW H[FOXVLRQIRUVWRUDJHLVDYDLODEOHIRUDOO ODQHZD\KRXVHV7KHVWRUDJHVSDFHFDQ EHSURYLGHGLQWKHIRUPRIFORVHWVRUDVD VHSDUDWHVWRUDJHURRPHJIRUELNHVJDUGHQ WRROV 7KHIORRUDUHDRIDODQHZD\KRXVHPXVWEH DPLQLPXPRIPIWZLWKDSRVVLEOH UHOD[DWLRQGRZQWRPIW 6WDLUVXQGHUKHLJKWVSDFHDUHDVEHORZVORSHG FHLOLQJV DQG RSHQWREHORZ VSDFH DUH QRW FRXQWHGDVIORRUDUHD VL]H KHLJKW page 44 LWH How-To Guide 29(59,(: 3/$11,1* '(6,*1 $33(1',; ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES &RQFHSW$ ,QWHULRUYLHZ VWRUH\XQLW IW IW EHGURRPV H[WHULRUSDUN LQJVSDFH IWZLGHORW PATIO ¶ 7KHVHSODQVDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHH[DPSOHVRQO\7KH\DUHLQWHQGHGWREHGLDJUDPVRISRVVLEOHFRQILJXUDWLRQVDQGPD\QRWEHIXOO\U VROYHGDVILQDOSODQV2WKHUFRQILJXUDWLRQVDUHDOVRSRVVLEO page 45 LWH How-To Guide 29(59,(: 3/$11,1* '(6,*1 $33(1',; ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES &RQFHSW% ,QWHULRUYLHZ VWRUH\XQLW IW IW EHGURRPV H[WHULRUSDUNLQJ VSDFHJDUDJH IWZLGHORW PATIO ¶ 7KHVHSODQVDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHH[DPSOHVRQO\7KH\DUHLQWHQGHGWREHGLDJUDPVRISRVVLEOHFRQILJXUDWLRQVDQGPD\QRWEHIXOO\U VROYHGDVILQDOSODQV2WKHUFRQILJXUDWLRQVDUHDOVRSRVVLEO page 46 LWH How-To Guide 29(59,(: 3/$11,1* '(6,*1 $33(1',; ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES %$/&21< &RQFHSW$ ,QWHULRUYLHZ òVWRUH\XQLW IW IW EHGURRPV H[WHULRUSDUNLQJ VSDFH IWZLGHORW 3$7,2 JURXQGIORRU XSSHUIORRU ¶ 7KHVHSODQVDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHH[DPSOHVRQO\7KH\DUHLQWHQGHGWREHGLDJUDPVRISRVVLEOHFRQILJXUDWLRQVDQGPD\QRWEHIXOO\U VROYHGDVILQDOSODQV2WKHUFRQILJXUDWLRQVDUHDOVRSRVVLEO page 47 LWH How-To Guide 29(59,(: 3/$11,1* '(6,*1 $33(1',; ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES &RQFHSW% ,QWHULRUYLHZ òVWRUH\XQLW IW IW EHGURRPV H[WHULRUSDUNLQJ VSDFHJDUDJH IWZLGHORW 3$7,2 JURXQGIORRU XSSHUIORRU ¶ ¶ 7KHVHSODQVDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHH[DPSOHVRQO\7KH\DUHLQWHQGHGWREHGLDJUDPVRISRVVLEOHFRQILJXUDWLRQVDQGPD\QRWEHIXOO\U VROYHGDVILQDOSODQV2WKHUFRQILJXUDWLRQVDUHDOVRSRVVLEO LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 15 THANK YOU For taking the time to learn more about expanding accessory housing options in Maple Ridge. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! Please take the opportunity to provide your thoughts and comments through our survey available today or online at: WWW.MAPLERIDGE.CA Survey closes December 16, 2017 QUESTIONS ABOUT BYLAWS? (604) 467-7305 licencesandbylaws@mapleridge.ca QUESTIONS ABOUT ZONING? (604) 467-7341 planning@mapleridge.ca QUESTIONS ABOUT BUILDING CODE? (604) 467-7311 buildingenquiries@mapleridge.ca Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire on Accessory Dwelling Units. Maple Ridge is reviewing its Accessory Dwelling Unit programs, which includes both Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites. The intent of the review is to identify potential options for expanding regulations for both the Secondary Suite regulations and Detached Garden Suite regulations in an effort to ensure adequate provision of affordable rental housing options. Both forms of these Accessory Dwelling Units allow for sensitive infill within single-family residential areas to accommodate changing needs within the community. This approach is an alternative to other forms of re-development, such as townhomes and apartments, thereby helping to retain low density form and character. Your input is valuable to us and will help in exploring future options for the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit programs. This survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please note that no identifying details will be asked in this questionnaire and all respondents will remain anonymous. A glossary of terms is presented below to help you in sharing your feedback. GLOSSARY: Accessory Dwelling Unit: A habitable dwelling unit added to, created within, or detached from a primary residential dwelling and contained on the same lot. Container Units: Are retrofitted shipping containers used to create housing units. Stackable and moveable, they present many advantages as an alternative construction method. Detached Garden Suite (DGS): Is a self-contained dwelling unit that is detached from the primary residential dwelling, but located on the same lot. Lock-Off Suite: A secondary dwelling unit within a townhouse, rowhouse, or apartment unit that has a lock-off from the primary residential unit, along with a separate entry. Manufactured Homes: Are created off-site in standardized sections then shipped and installed on- site. Secondary Suite: Is a self-contained dwelling unit that is located within the primary residential dwelling. An example is a suite constructed in the basement of a single-family house. Tiny Homes: Are often custom built units on a mobile foundation. Wheels can be removed when placed on a permanent foundation. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 1 APPENDIX C LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 2 A. INTRODUCTION: 1. Are you a Maple Ridge resident? Yes No 2. With regard to Secondary Suites, are you or have you ever been a (check all that apply): Secondary Suite owner? Resident within a Secondary Suite? Neighbour to a property with a Secondary Suite (i.e. residing on same street)? None of the above? Other? ___________ 3. With regard to Detached Garden Suites (DGSs), are you or have you ever been a (check all that apply): DGS owner? Resident within a DGS? Neighbour to a property with a DGS (i.e. residing on same street)? None of the above? Other? _________ B. SECONDARY SUITES & DETACHED GARDEN SUITES The City supports the creation of more Secondary Suites and DGSs to help provide affordable and rental housing throughout our community. Through the questions below, we are requesting your feedback on potential options for both the Secondary Suites regulations and the DGS regulations. Space is also provided for any comments you may have. 4. Do you support allowing both a Secondary Suite and DGS on one lot? Yes No Comments: _________________________________________________________ 5. With regard to the owner occupancy requirement, do you support (check all that apply): a. Removing the requirement for a property owner to reside on the property in the principal unit, Secondary Suite, or DGS? Yes No Comments: ___________________________________________________________ b. Requiring a property manager be hired to oversee all on-site dwelling units if the property owner is not living on the site? Yes No Comments: ____________________________________________________________ c. Other? __________________________________________________________ C. SECONDARY SUITES Through the review of existing Secondary Suite regulations, we are exploring options for creating more units by potentially accommodating different types of secondary suites in new areas of the City and by potentially reducing the time it takes to recoup the financial outlay for construction. Please indicate whether or not you support the following options and feel free to provide any comments you may have. 6. Do you support allowing Secondary Suites in all single-family residential zones? Yes No Comments: __________________________________________________________ 7. Do you support allowing one Secondary Suite within a Duplex? Yes No Comments: ___________________________________________________________ 8. Do you support allowing a Secondary Suite as a lock-off suite within a: a. Townhouse/Rowhouse unit? Yes No Comments: ___________________________________________________________ b. Apartment unit? Yes No Comments: __________________________________________________________ D. DETACHED GARDEN SUITES Through the review of our DGSs regulations, we are exploring ways to support an increase in DGS construction by potentially expanding options within the Zoning Bylaw. Please indicate whether or not you support the following options and feel free to provide any comments you may have. 9. Do you support allowing DGSs in all single-family residential zones? Yes No Comments: _________________________________________________________ 10. Do you support allowing one DGS on a lot with a Duplex? Yes No Comments: __________________________________________________________ LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 3 11. Do you support allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot with regard to rear and side yard setbacks to enable a greater ability to work with unique site topographies and irregular shaped lots? Yes No Comments: __________________________________________________________ 12. Smaller units: Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be less than 37m2 (400 ft2) in gross floor area? Yes No Comments: __________________________________________________________ 13. Larger units: Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) in gross floor area? Yes No Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 14. Do you support allowing two-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones? Yes No Comments: ___________________________________________________________ E. ACCELERATE DGS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The City is also exploring ways to help streamline the approval process for DGSs with off-the-shelf pre-approved DGS building plans. Such plans could be pre-reviewed by the City’s Licences, Permits & Bylaws Department and made available to interested homeowners for a small fee. 15. Please indicate whether or not you support pre-approved DGS building permit plans and feel free to provide any comments you may have. Yes No Comments: ___________________________________________________ F. DGS ALTERNATIVE BUILDING FORMS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS Different building forms and construction methods present another opportunity to increase housing choice, promote affordability and potentially reduce construction related costs. Possible alternative building forms and construction methods include: Tiny Homes, Manufactured Homes and Container Units. LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 4 Please indicate whether or not you support these alternative DGS building forms and construction methods and provide any comments you may have. Information on each form is provided in the Glossary on the front page of this questionnaire. 16. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure? Yes No Comments: _________________________________________________________ 17. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a temporary structure? Yes No Comments: _________________________________________________________ 18. Do you support allowing Manufactured Homes as a DGS form? Yes No Comments: _________________________________________________________ 19. Do you support allowing retro-fitted Container Units to be used as a DGS? Yes No Comments: __________________________________________________________ G. PARKING: Talking about housing raises questions about parking. Parking requirements need to be sensitive to neighbourhood character but also our community’s needs. Please respond to the parking related questions below and provide any comments you may have. Currently, the requirement for dedicated off-street parking for a Secondary Suite in Maple Ridge is 1 spot, which is standard when compared with other regional municipalities. 20. Do you support the 1 spot parking requirement for a Secondary Suite? Yes No Comments: _____________________________________ Currently, the requirement for dedicated off-street parking for a DGS in Maple Ridge is 1 spot, which is standard when compared with other regional municipalities. 21. Do you support the 1 spot parking requirement for a DGS? Yes No Comments: _____________________________________ LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 5 Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please provide any additional comments you may have. ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Survey completion deadline is December 16, 2017 at 4:00 pm You may drop off completed surveys at Maple Ridge City Hall, 11995 Haney Place. If you have any questions or comments, please contact: Lisa Zosiak 604-467-7383 lzosiak@mapleridge.ca LET’S TALK HOUSING | NOVEMBER 2017 | 6 1/25/2018 1 Detached Garden Suite Program Review Stakeholder Workshop November 16, 2017 Welcome & Introductions DGS Review •Maple Ridge is reviewing existing DGS regulations; •Collaborative partnership to explore alternative housing forms; •Intent to increase interest in DGS through program expansion. Workshop Goals •Hear your experiences, perspectives, and ideas; •Identify challenges/barriers to current DGS program; •Receive your input on: •Options for expanding existing regulations; •Design improvements; •Test assumptions. DGS Benefits •Increased property value; •Potential rental income; •Housing for family members; •Age-in-place option; •Ground-oriented rental option; •Sensitive infill development. DGS to Date •Program in effect since 2008; •40 Detached Garden Suites constructed to date; •Low uptake may be due to following: •Lack of awareness of DGS program; •Few laneways in Maple Ridge may create access challenges; •Size, siting, massing, building requirements too limiting; •Low local land values – DGS costs still relatively high. APPENDIX D 1/25/2018 2 DGS Challenges What are the Challenges? Identify the top 3 barriers you see to uptake in DGSs. •Use 1 post-it-note for each; •10 minutes Challenges – Report Out What are the Challenges? •Tell us the most important challenge you identified. •Post all 3 challenges on “DGS Challenges” posterboard. Coffee Break 10 Minutes Expanding DGS Process •Siting requirements and building size; •Allowing secondary suite and DGS on one lot; •Permitting larger unit size; •Consider eliminating owner occupancy requirement; •Other? •Potential regulatory options to explore: Expanding DGS Design •Potential design options to explore: •Allowing suites above garages in various SF zones; •Other? •New housing forms, including Tiny Homes; •Pre-approved building plan templates; Process Discussion Group Session •Dogwood Room •Discuss each potential option and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each; •Identify group’s top 3 options. 1/25/2018 3 Design Discussion Group Session •Blaney Room •Discuss each potential option and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each; •Identify group’s top 3 options. Group Reports •Each group report on outcomes; •Did we miss anything? •What should be top process and design priorities? Closing Thank you for your participation Questions? 1/25/2018 1 Cost and Return Market analysis – using CMHC rental numbers show about a 10% - 12% return on investment on average on homes over 800 sq ft. Actual rental rates we suspect are higher which would raise the ROI Cost versus Size We found threshold of cost varied little with size of infill Fixed costs such as: -Servicing costs -Municipal fees -Other Soft costs dictate a base line cost for homes Variation in project costs have more to do with level of finish over size APPENDIX E 1/25/2018 2 Missing data? •Impact to main home value? •Cap rate •How broader presence of this housing type will affect market •Rental •Re sale Looking ahead What tool would be needed to facilitate smaller affordable infill homes? Where could we find efficiencies in design and other soft costs? How do we better understand market demand? How to communicate this demand to industry? Process and Design Outcomes from Break-Out Group Discussions 1.Process Options Discussion: To help guide discussion, a poster board of with potential options to expand the regulatory process was presented and each group was asked to discuss the strengths and weaknesses and identify their respective top three options. The questions and responses from each group are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Process Options Discussion Outcomes Potential Options Group 1 Responses Group 2 Responses 1.DGS and SS permitted on one lot ●Want distance and privacy requirements between house and DGS. ●Could provide more affordable housing options to help with family challenges (inter-generational living/contemporary family living arrangements) ●Want flexibility and common sense in future regulations. ●Improve City Hall’s DGS approval process. ●Parking is considered a manageable challenge. ●Provides an investment opportunity. ●May create parking issues. 2. Allowing on SF lots less than 557m2 ●Outright approval to allow DGSs everywhere – allow in all zones. ●Massing and privacy in consideration of neighbours. ●Allow on small lots. ●Allow in front yard – aesthetics important here. 3. Allowing in RT-1 (duplex) zone ●To improve curb appeal ●Require that one of the 3 or 4 possible units affordable housing. 4. Allowing reduced side and rear setbacks ●Consider accessibility, fire access, less space – may present construction/access challenges. ●DGS has the same feel as a shed with height, setbacks, building code. ●Pre-approved plans will just require an additional site plan approval from the City. ●Creative solution needed for high foundation costs. ●Setbacks needed for Tiny Homes. ●Allow Tiny Home on a parking pad. 5. Eliminating requirement for property owner to reside in principal unit for DGS ●If retained, regulations will be circumvented. ●But want someone accountable! (i.e. property manager). ●Opens up opportunity for investment. ●Concern with impact this will have on market/affordability (i.e. speculation). ●Rental agreements may be needed. ●May open up “renovictions”. ●Non-profit housing provider option vs. owner occupancy. ●Too many possible workarounds. 6. Other options ●Position-specific duties at City Hall to guide people through process (i.e. DGS liaison). ●Neighbourhood fit – want minimal impact to neighbours. ●Increase # of housing units in industrial/employment lands. ●Is there a way to include home based business/commercial opportunities? ●Support increase in unit size and allow 1.5 floors will help increase design options. ●Zoning Bylaw requirements need clarity. ●Full expense cost for a 2nd home is high (re: servicing) mobile home option with hook-up system instead? ●Siting in side yard permitted for Tiny Homes? ●Look at Kelowna example for transit zone benefits, which rewards DGS property owners. APPENDIX F Group 1: Top 3 Options identified by consensus:  Allow DGS and SS on one lot;  Eliminate owner-occupancy;  DGS liaison staff person in City Hall. Group 2: Top 3 Options identified by consensus:  Allow DGS and SS on one lot;  Allow on small SF lots;  Reduce setbacks. 2. Design Options Discussion: In order to gauge insight into how different forms of DGS and their costs might influence decision- making, a short powerpoint presentation as well as some preliminary economic modelling data (see attached). This section of the workshop was led by representatives from Small Housing BC. The input received from each group is combined and presented in Table 2 below: Table 2: Design Options Discussion Outcomes Item Challenge Opportunity All built forms ● Not all properties in Maple Ridge have laneways ● High cost of foundations ● Sprinkler costs, restrictive bylaws ● Limit size to keep units affordable ● Place DGS in front yards ● Zero lot lines; 2 houses on the same lot sharing services (to reduce servicing costs) ● Explore foundation alternatives: pads, footings, biscuits, concrete anchors ● Choose from various exteriors Framed ADU ● Too prescriptive, cookie cutter ● Overbuilt Modular ● Installation ● Overhead power lines ● Known costs ● Less time to built, and minor disruption to neighbourhood Container ● Road allowances; blocking streets ● Know from onset what final product will look like Garage conversion ● Barrier, education ● Rear loaded, parking issues ● Can expand into new subdivision ● Can build parking into unit Tiny house ● Electricity upgrade ● Wheels, servicing, codes ● Access to backyard, placement issues ● Resalable asset, should home be knocked down or owners sell ● Impermanent, moveable ● Part of greater system including food security, community building ● Compost toilets wouldn’t require tie-in into the sewer system Size ● Current min and max size restrictions ● Potential to build multiple units on one lot, based on size of lot ● Build larger units, more in demand (up to 1500 sq. feet) ● Build smaller units, good for students Multi-storey ● Height restrictions ● Build DGS with basement units, for more space or storage; not necessarily as a secondary suite within the DGS ● Interest in units 150-1500 sq. feet ● Stacking containers, for multiple units on one lot ● Create crawl space for more storage Pre-approved designs ● Designs owned by the designer could be charged at high rates ● Designs with several variations and colour schemes, to accommodate taste and lots ● City owns designs, to maintain affordability ● Engage with manufacturing and industry around development of designs ● Build stronger relationships between City and designers ● Modular units, set design criteria Other ● Lack of city support for those wanting to build a DGS ● More engagement with the public ● Have a city liaison specific to the DGS program to increase uptake and awareness Appendix G: Information Board Panel Photos Comments Written/Received on Open House Information Panels Q: Are there other options you would like to see that could expand the Secondary Suite program? Comment: Would the city be interested in funding shared amenities for residents in smaller sized homes? (tool library, workshop area, etc.) It might be helpful to: 1.Facilitate the process of creating a secondary suite; 2.Facilitate the process to legalize existing suites; Of course while upholding some standards. You wish to increase population but you won’t increase support amenities such as big box stores, which means more vehicles on the road. We require more employment in the community not just an affordable place to sleep. Owner should occupy or certified management. Q: Requiring privacy and screening requirements for DGS? Comments: Allow new construction of DGS to match existing homes in areas that are close to flood plain. Having to build a DGS with current rules regarding flood plains doesn’t work. Homes on acreage should not be restricted to building a DGS behind the existing home. Take each situation independently. Q: Reconsider Owner Occupancy? Comment: No, because some owners who don’t live in the communities neighbourhood have little or no reason to comply or behave in the best interest of tenants. APPENDIX H Q: What are your preferred options to expand the DGS program? Comment:  Fast track development and permitting of DGS and Tiny Homes;  Height and size restrictions on DGS’s should be based on size of lot/acreage and proximity to other residences. Larger properties can accomode larger DGS suites that compliment existing home.  As long as adequate parking is taken into consideration for instance somewhere to safely park, wash and care for your car as well as plug in block heater in event of cooling winter temps from current typically mild winters. Comments Received from “What Do Accessory Dwelling Units Means to You” Panels:  My home is… “single family home”  My home is… “single-family RS-1”  Secondary Suites offer… “another roof for someone who needs it/helps housing crisis”  My DGS … “will let my parents move onto our property to be closer to their grandkids”  I wish my home… “were in a true single family neighbourhood no DGS or secondary suites”  DGSs offer… “another [illegible] for someone who needs it”  My DGS lets me… “Lets me be closer to family”  My secondary suite lets me… “mortgage helper and provides rental space”  DGSs offer… “privacy and affordable housing”  My DGS leters me… “less privacy for neighbours”  Secondary Suites offer… “parking congestion”  My DGS lets me… “help my family get started”  DGSs offer… “The ability to own a home in my home town. Our alternative is moving away from our work and family.”  My DGS lets met… “be closer to my family”  DGSs offer… “Mortgage helper”  My DGS lets me… “Building a new home for my daughter & husband that they otherwise couldn’t afford”  My Secondary Suite lets me… “Provide a living space for an aging parent where they are close so we can care for them” Sticky Note Comments Received from “Design Your Own DGS”  Consider 2 mains homes on corner lots or larger lots.  Consider DGS in front. Especially on larger lots. Tie to lot size.  Consider Tiny Homes.  What about more than 1 DGS on large lots?  Tie size to size of main home. Under-built could have bigger DGS.  DGS duplex shared wall of zero lot line.  Junction points run along back with multi-outputs.  Allow 2-storey DGS so you can have above a garage. Multi-purpose properties. Appendix I: Photos of Open House 3-D Models Exercise 1 Open House Questionnaire - Results Open House Date: November 25, 2017 Questionnaire Deadline: December 16, 2017 A. INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS: 1.Are you a Maple Ridge resident? Response Percentage Count Yes 96.37% 186 No 3.62% 7 Total Responses 100% 193 2.With regard to Secondary Suites, are you or have you ever been a (check all that apply): a.Secondary Suite owner? b.Resident within a Secondary Suite? c.Neighbour to a property with a Secondary Suite (i.e. residing on same street)? d.None of the above? e.Other? Percentage Count Owner? 15.73% 42 Resident within? 23.97% 64 Neighbour? 43.44% 116 None of the Above? 15.35% 41 Other 1.49% 4 Total Responses 100% 267 Comments Received: We live in a dupex. TRU suite owner It was a residential home turned into "the Rainbow House" for troubled youth. friend has secondary suite in her house. APPENDIX J 2 3. With regard to Detached Garden Suites (DGSs), are you or have you ever been a (check all that apply): a. DGS owner? b. Resident within a DGS? c. Neighbour to a property with a DGS (i.e. residing on same street or backing onto neighbouring property)? d. None of the above? e. Other? Percentage Count Owner? 2.59% 5 Resident within? 2.07% 4 Neighbour? 16.06% 31 None of the Above? 75.12% 145 Other 4.14% 8 Total Responses 100% 193 Comments Received:  Friend has one  My parents own a legal DGS.  In the process of building a DGS  Designed DGS  Next door neighbour to a home that had a DGS  Assisted clients wanting to do secondary & garden suites.  Sons family lives in DGS  I would like to build a DGS B. SECONDARY SUITES & DETACHED GARDEN SUITES 1. Do you support allowing both a Secondary Suite and DGS on one lot? Response Percentage Count Yes 58.45% 107 No 41.53% 76 Total Responses 100% 183 Comments Received:  Parking restraints  Not enough parking spaces  I think it should be one or the other.  One or the other  Too crowded for city lots, not enough parking.  This will create density that our current infrastructure isn't designed to support. Renters don't have a stake in our neighbourhoods and already cause issues.  for rental? would increase desnity too much for a single family residential neighborhood to handle  Parking issues  Too many issues over parking in many locations in Maple Ridge. Maybe allow this on 1 acre lots with mandatory on-site parking only. 3 One or the other but not both. Most lots can't offer enough parking space. It's too crowded. There isn't even parking , room in schools, roadways are not equipped to deal with increased traffic. What happened to single family homes????? bot would be ok if on acerage with sufficient parking off street I'm not when it comes to the 90% of the current homeless will be continuing their drug habits in these units. Area dependent. If in a congested area, allowing both will cause issues. One a secondary suite is supported if primary owner resides in the residence. congested neighbourhood streets if more tenants and visitors use them for parking, problems that might be created if they are permitted along side of absent landlords, possible changes to the appearance of neighbourhoods if trailers or other types of structures are permitte d. One or the other. Parking i residential is sometimes like travelling down on lane streets Way too much limited parking as it is. Parking will be a problem even if the requirements for parking are included. they will park on the road because it is convenient. You should be allowing secondary suites in R-3 Zoning before this. 2.With regard to the owner occupancy requirement, do you support (check all that apply): a.removing the requirement for a property owner to reside on the property in the principal unit, Secondary Suite, or DGS? Response Percentage Count Yes 36.41% 67 No 63.58% 117 Total Responses 100% 184 b.requiring a property manager be hired to oversee all on-site dwelling units if the property owner is not living on the site? Response Percentage Count Yes 42.93% 79 No 57.06% 105 Total Responses 100% 184 c.Other? _________________________________ “Other” Comments Received: Owner Occupancy req'd I do believe that opening this up to non-Owner Occupied Units may cause a spike in speculative purchases and this may impact the Community as a whole. The other issues is what happens if the Owner moves or sells the House, does the new Owner have to decommission the Unit if they are not living on the Property? owner/property manager I think that the owner needs to reside on the property. Enforce existing laws and bylaws I do not support the primary owner not living on site owner must live on property Unsure at this time. No owner should have to live somewhere on the property if renting out multiple spaces on the site 4  The property owner should live in one of the suites. We do not need anymore slumlords in Maple Ridge.  absent owners are more likely to ignore complaints from neighbours  dont support this at all  Should remain owner occupied by one of the suites as to eliminate potential problems  prop owner must reachable by city for complaints  Property owner must live on site.  Owner should reside on property  Owner must live onsite  Owner must reside on property  Require owner occupancy in either the main house, or in the suite or dgs  Owner should reside on property  Neither, I don't support secondary dwellings  Owner should reside there  Owner must live on site.  They should live on site  none owner must be on sight  Owner has to live on property  Property owner should reside on the property  Don't support any of these suites/abodes  property owner residing on the property of secondary suites and DGSs  require property owner to live onsite  No  The owner should live on the property.  Not sure, depends where owner lives, Vancouver or China?  Require owner to reside on the property  Neither  Property owner should live on property. They will be responsible for their tenents.  Leave current requirement Additional Comments Received:  I think it would be positive as it would increase supply and therefore help out with the affordability issue.  Owner occupancy ensures neighbours have someone to address concerns, and property issues.  I have a large number of comments. I will email them in instead.  There should be a time frame set to allow time for a property manager to be hired in case of unexpected moves by the owners (for example owner relocated to a care facility). My owners take month long vacations to Hawaii every year, some live in their summer properties for months at a time Extended stays abroad should be considered in the time frame.  with training/certification an owner who lives off site may be property manager  Parking must be sufficient off-street and enforced plus resolution of neighbourhood issues whether it be noise, unsightly premises or parking must be swift with teeth.  An owner should live there and if not then a Licensed property manager should oversee the suite and verify ownership/ owner living on property  I don't think the owner needs to live on site. I also don't think a manager is necessary.  There is a low income multi unit property that was taken over by a new owner 3 years ago. Since this time it has become delapadated and has been taken over by drug dealers. The owner does not care because he does not live there so no rules are set for these people. I no longer feel safe walking to the store with my daughter as there are people coming and going high on drugs. There are people coming and going all hours of the night. I have had to pay to install security cameras and new sensor lights as the drug addicts coming and going from this house were coming into my yard and breaking into vehicles. I feel if the owner was required to live on site these issues would not happen.  My concerns revolve around the already bad parking availability in some communities as well as the numerous illegal suites that seem to be allowed. As it is the streets are full of parked vehicles and passing those vehicles while an oncoming vehicle tries to find a place 5 to pull over is ridiculous and unsafe. So, unless these "LEGAL" suites have mandatory parking available 'off street' for secondary suites or garden suites...and is enforced....then a permit should be denied. Our streets are becoming more dangerous, and our communities overrun with parking issues. The time is near where the street parking on 240th will be removed, and all of those vehicles will have nowhere to go ... yet secondary suites remain without parking or enforcement. The same can be said for all of the 'illegal' suites which remain and the numbers are growing. I think that the city "allowing" more is a joke considering they can't keep all of the illegals under control...yet those that are legal pay the costs associated with having a secondary suite. How is this fair? It is up to the city to enforce the bylaws.  Being a Secondary suite renter for many years, it is much better to have the owner living in the premises. This prevents the tenants from disputes of any kind, noise, parking, shared spaces and utility costs. The tenant meets the owners and knows who they will be sharing their home with (Yes as renters, where we live is OUR HOME). Often times landlords or Property Managers not living on the property are looking only for the money and no consideration given to the lifestyles of both tenants. For example, one of the tenants smokes on the property and the other doesn't like it, or one tenant smokes pot. Parties,loud noise, children etc. and shared facilities can all lead to disputes and problems when proper consideration is not given by both parties. Absentee landlords in my experience of over 40 years of renting are more concerned with the income and little else, sometimes having several small suites in one house, and none of them very nice. There needs to be enforcement of the rules and requirements for suites, as well as rent restrictions, the cost of rents in Maple Ridge have reached unlivable amounts.  Owners should absolutely have to live on the same property and manage their tenants.  Owner should have to reside on the property in order to rent out a secondary suite or DGS.  I think it is important for the property have someone overseeing the dwelling if there isn't the original owners living on the property. This will definitley ensure that the property is being looked after by the renters  As long as the owners are ensuring the home and property are being maintained there is ne need that they physically live there  As a home owner we want to provided a clean rental opportunity and affordable housing in our community to more than one family! But we are unable to do that at the moment and the bottom floor goes unoccupied. With the increase in homeless people on the street it makes no sense that a perfectly good home goes unused!!  Investors that do not live i M.R. are already buying houses in M.R. and renting them to two families in the same property. The bylaw will be difficult. To be enforced. And owners can easily "make up" a dummy property manager.  What will be the height and width restriction if passed and , especially in Hammond, the addition should fi into the character of the neighbourhood.  No, too formal/expensive/directive? but...some kind of over-seeing w/b needed, to protect both residents and owners, (AND neighbours. Rent control  There should be restrictions in place to ensure speculators are excluded from this. Possibly, rent controls or mandatory rent controls.  as long as owner manages  I believe is the owner is a absent from the area they need local representation to ensure all problems are handled in a timely fashion  The owner must also live on the same premises.  Allowing owners to be non-resident will just lead to a proliferation of commercial buy -to-rent properties, which will cause escalation in house prices and reduction in affordability.  With the smaller lots today, there is barely enough parking for the primary home let alone additional homes on the lot. Most garages are turned into storage facilities leaving vehicles to park in the driveway if there is even one. In addition, the primary owners should need to live on the property to ensure good tenant behavior is enforced or you leave neighbours to deal with the issues caused by negligent owners.  Property manger is not enough some are totally useless  It depends on the type of tenants. If they are responsible, law abiding citizens who are not drug addicts in active addiction or participating in criminal activities perhaps a property manager may not be necessary. The safety and security of the neighbourh ood should come first  I live around quite a few homes that do not have owner living in it and these houses have 6 two suites in them. I have had drug dealers living in them, people who party 24 hours a day and all of these houses have yards that are not maintained. The parking has been a huge problem too. I do not agree that an owner does not have to live in the home to have secondary suites or garden homes.  Owner on site will keep the appearance and behavior of the property in a fashion that is suitable to the good of the neighborhood. No drug manufacturing or distribution , no storage of unwanted and unsightly objects and materials. Pride of ownership.  Unless monitored has the potential to become run down and a hub of illegal activities.  I Think having suites or dgs are a great idea. My only advice is that landlords/property managers do monthly or every 2 month checks to make sure all is well  I feel the owner of any property that has any type of "other" dwelling must be a resident in said property. I have lived next door to a dwelling with basement suites and in most cases the renters have been evicted...noise, nuisance etc. Property managers do not react quickly and efficiently enough to deal with problems occurring within these types of properties with no owner occupancy. It's an exercise in patient management and very stressful.  If you permit landlords to be absent, mechanisms should be available for the city to act and bill against the property when justified.  Would very much prefer if owner lives on site.  The owner must be living in the residence and stringent rules should apply ie. No government grants for homeless or temporary housing. These types of people need different housing than in single family residential neighborhoods.  The ower should be required to live on the property.  It's unfair to other neighbours if the landlord is absent, as an owner of the property is needed to be present to maintain a certain level of expectations to keep the property up and be in control of the tenants and their use of said property. They need to be available if problems arise on said property.  I believe that if there is to be a secondary suite, that the property owner must reside on site. This keeps the property owner appraised of the tenants activities (ex grow ops) and also helps with the appearance being kept up. (ex grass mowed, yard clean).  as long as the property is managed by a Property Manager  I dont think the owner should have to live on the property but, be responsible for it. This includes upkeep and maintenance. It should be the same as if you were to rent a house.  How are you going to police it?  Having the owner staying in unit make someone responsible for tenant  If properly regulated or certified management to deal with bylaw issues.  I don't support this  The property MUST be managed and overseen on a regular basis to keep the neighbourhood safe for all residents. This includes regular inside, to the door and onsite checks of the property.  reside? Permanent or part time.  Owner must live at residence.  (Re: property management) Only if the owner is not a resident of Canada & paying taxes.  Owner is legally responsible for the property regardless.  (Re: property management) No. Unless property is not be kept up.  (Re: removing property owner residing on site requirement) No. Instant getto no one to see the place is maintained.  (Re: property manager) Even this will only be enforcen occasionally  Flexibility in retirement planning. As owner with experience, I can manage it myself.  I'm undecided if a property manager should be mandatory. A property manager costs. Some landlords are good caretakers of their property. Why pay for a service that is unnecessary. The added cost would be added on to the rent.  Life is unpredictable. If the owner has to move due to work or other reasons. They should not be stuck with having to rent either only the main dwelling or the secondary. Neither should they be forced to hire a property manager as they may have family or friends will ing to manage the property for them. The government's job is not to micro manage its resident's lives rather to facilitate clean, affordable housing to increase the living standard in general. 7 C. SECONDARY SUITES 1. Do you support allowing Secondary Suites in all single-family residential zones? Response Percentage Count Yes 65.74% 119 No 34.25% 62 Total Responses 100% 181 Comments Received:  Some zones are lacking parking space  Only makes housing prices soar even more and there is not enough parking plus I will lose my current rental so the owner can split it into two suites for more money  Should be restricions on how dense area is, parking restrictions land/building size...eg) 143st house 2100sqft on 2500sqft lot is too dense to support a sec. suite, where as a 2400sqft house on 8800sqft house on 123 can support more parking/tenants.  Not in all residential zones, there just isn't enough room on the properties and tenants are often restricted from any outside areas, and are being forced to stay within their suites. There needs to be access to outside spaces for tenants which is not currently being provided. Too many eisting issues that need to be addressed before creating any more suites.  The home should be big enough to allow for the suite and for parking. For instance Albion is very tight  Parking/lot size variants  needs a minimum lots size as high density areas already are congested just with personal vehicle unable to park  New residential areas do not have enough parking for secondary suites, because you have allQowed the streets to be constructed too narrow and the lot sizes are too small. Maybe they should only be allowed in zones with lot sizes over 570m2 or over 60 feet wide to ensure that on-steeet parking is possible or that there is space for mandatory off-street parking.  Absolutely NOT, we purchased in a single-family residence neighbour hood, and did our due dikigence to be sure this area is not full of secondary suites!,,,,  Additional strain on infrastructure, street parking congestion  Only the ones that can provide off road parking  Depends on size of property and parking available  Infrastructure isn't set up to accommodate parking for cars in all single-family residential zones.  lock-off/secondary heating  We purchased our home because we liked the neighbourhood  I did buy a single-family house to live in a medium density neighbourhood.  When you purchace a home in a single family zone expecting that quiet lifestyle then it all changes to a compact style of life with an overflow of cars parked everyware and people just setting up rentals for profit  parking issues unavoidable in some areas 8 2. Do you support allowing one Secondary Suite within a Duplex? Response Percentage Count Yes 53.40% 94 No 46.59% 82 Total Responses 100% 176 Comments Received:  I think this is taking multiple steps in the process, moving too fast. Lets get the single family managed first before we jump into the duplex world.  not clear on question if its a duplex with another suite? 3 residences then no  Only if the owner lives on site  These are generally rental units already  As there already multi family units already on the property  duplexes may be too small  Absolutely not. Parking issues and noise for other half of duplex  No. A duplex already has 2 units. Adding more creates parking issues  See above  Duplex are not in my experience big enough for this  Logistics of this seem daunting not to mention enough parking wouldn’t be too likely. If you allow it, please ensure you hook in a mechanism that ensures sufficient parking in all cases no exceptions  Not fair to the adjacent unit and they will have no say if their neighbor puts in a secondary suite  A duplex should be 2 families, one for each side.  My concern is there may not be sufficient infrastructure to support the added usage of utilities sewage etc.  parking an issue  See above comment  i believe parking would be a huge issue 3. Do you support allowing a Secondary Suite as a lock-off suite within a: a. Townhouse/Rowhouse unit? Response Percentage Count Yes 38.46% 70 No 61.53% 112 Total Responses 100% 182 b. Apartment unit? Response Percentage Count Yes 14.83% 27 No 85.16% 155 Total Responses 100% 182 Comments Received for Question 3:  as above  No I do not support this  Yes! of course! If someone is willing to rent it, then make as many secondary residences as possible!  No  no  NO - NOT DESIGNED TO ALLOW FOR THIS USE!!! 9  No. As with a townhouse a condo is meant for single occupancy. I think the potential for major problems between tenants is huge if allowed to be used for multiple families  to the capacity of the parking available  No. No. No.  No  No  No. Apartments are small enough already!  Nether. Please rephrase answer choices  Do not support  no  no  NO  Don't support  (No) same as above  See 8  Already med-density  Apartment owners should have the same flexibility as single family home owners to have a mortgage helper if they require one. D. DETACHED GARDEN SUITES 1. Do you support allowing DGSs in all single-family residential zones? Response Percentage Count Yes 59.88% 103 No 40.11% 69 Total Responses 100% 172 Comments Received:  Balance and parking constraints  Only on properties large enough to support parking  Restricted to lot size and available services & parking  Not for lots smaller than 60 by 120 as these smaller lots are unable to accomodate another dwelling  Not in all, only on properties of a certain size should be allowed, the city lots are too small to support a DGS.  neighbourhood infrastructure must be considered first!!!  Yes, except in small lot zones.  depends on size of property  must be larger lots  only on prperties 1/2 acre or more in size which have parking space for 4+ vehicles on the property.  1 acre lots or larger may be acceptable.  Only where there is sufficient space for such a structure, and sufficient space for parking and no garbage or clutter  areas or rows of houses built new with garden suites only as this gives the surrrounding neighbors the opportunity to live in a garden suite complex if they wish and not have it forced upon them.  Most zones yes. The small lots like in Albion should not as there a re issues already with parking and this would serve to eliminate existing parking as well as increase demand for parking.  Restrict the DGS To only allow on a lot size of 5 acres or larger  See above for reasoning.  It would create too dense a housing situation if it was allowed on lots less than 10,000 sqf. Parking must also be provided on-site and the suite must not take the place of a garage  Only where vehicle access will not be hampered.  Only when there is adequate land and parking.  not all, only those that have parking space to accommodate 10  Lots should be greater than 6,000 sq ft.  Parking - utilities (connection & use)  See comment in question #6  Depends on size of property/available parking 2. Do you support allowing one DGS on a lot with a Duplex? Response Percentage Count Yes 46.78% 80 No 53.21% 91 Total Responses 100% 171 Comments Received:  already a condensed area  I think this is stepping too far too quickly. Let's get the single lot item working properly first.  too many tenants/ cars/ noise/ issues  I would support as many as you could fit in somebodies yard! We need more housing!!  I think this might not be appealing to the eye  Too many people already living on the site, not enough parking.  neighbourhood infrastructure must be considered first!!!  That's too many residents and resources being taxed from one lot  Why is this even a question?  Duplexes have no yards - get real  Absolutely not. The duplex is akready a multi-residence.  too much density with no controls  See comment in question #6  too many residents at one site and too many vehicles 3. Do you support allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot with regard to rear and side yard setbacks to enable a greater ability to work with unique site topographies and irregular shaped lots? Response Percentage Count Yes 70.41% 119 No 29.58% 50 Total Responses 100% 169 Comments Received:  neighbourhood infrastructure must be considered first!!!  Must be as far from lot boundaries as is physically possible. Not as far away from the main house as the owner wants it to be.  No. Maintain or increase current set-backs yo protect neighbours. Adding a DGS already puts more people in 5he next yard, so please do not allow it to be even close to us by cutting the set-backs!  Parking  No DGS in RS-1 11 4. Smaller units: Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be less than 37m2 (400 ft2) in gross floor area? Response Percentage Count Yes 56.80% 96 No 43.19% 73 Total Responses 100% 169 Comments Received:  if it is nessasary to make it fit regulations  That is a very small unit and it seems too restrictive to work with realistically.  Absolutely NO, too small, and unless the rent reflects the etrenely small size, not a good value for any tenant.  I'm concerned that these tiny homes are not safe and post a hazard to us all.  why? what would this unit be? a room and a closet?  Not sure  like a dog house? absolutely not  Property taxes  No DGS in RS-1  Not a livable space 5. Larger units: Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) in gross floor area? Response Percentage Count Yes 60.11% 101 No 39.88% 67 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received:  Principal residence size should drive DGS size to maintain balance  that s the size of many houses, or bigger than many as well  units this large should require legal subdivision of the lot  Anythin* this big must only be allowed on a subdivided lot that is large enough for a complete house.  1500 is too large. Some house are not that big  max 1000 sq ft  Utility fee break down  No DGS in RS-1  DGS units should be no more than 90 m2  1000-1200 max 12 6. Do you support allowing two-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones? Response Percentage Count Yes 65.47% 110 No 34.52% 58 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received:  Only support units above garages  Should depend on lot size should be substantial, to the point of subdividable size.  In many cases the view/landscape can be degraded to a detrimental level. that would have a negative effect on the city.  no two story units  These should only be allowed in by subdivision of large existing single family lots or larger.  only units above a garage. not two storey units of living space  Infrastructure to support all this  No DGS in RS-1 E. ACCELERATE DGS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 1. Please indicate whether or not you support pre-approved DGS building permit plans and feel free to provide any comments you may have. Response Percentage Count Yes 70.76% 121 No 29.23% 50 Total Responses 100% 171 Comments Received:  Sorry everyone should have to go through the same due process.  only support DGS for it's current definition (i.e.: for private use)  It should be made difficult, time consuming and costly, do deter people from applying.  Street parking congestion. Strain on infrastructure  To ensure the unit is going to be used for its intended purpose staff should be reviewing applications to ensure they meet their intended purpose.  This is just an excuse for the city to establish mobile homes for drug addicts anywhere they want without public hearing  Too many different circumstances need to be addressed when a DGS would be approved. An off the shelf pre-approval would be irresponsible move by the city.  No. I don't support DGS at all.  Agree on accelerated process but concerned about cookie cutter appearance. To many maybe an eyesore.  Access to these units 13 F. DGS ALTERNATIVE BUILDING FORMS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS Please indicate whether or not you support these alternative DGS building forms and construction methods and provide any comments you may have. 1. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure? Response Percentage Count Yes 56.54% 95 No 43.45% 73 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received:  these appear to be a fad , mostly they are unlivable  I think that the Tiny Home is a passing fad that will eventually disappear. As an aging person, I know that I wouldn't want to live in one.  unsightly, too low housing like  Let's start with Garden Suites first!  Do not support owners building tiny houses as rental properties.  by definition, a tiny home is a TEMPORARY STRUCTURE. Want a Tiny Home community? Re-zone and develop more areas as trailer parks. I would support that  Tiny homes must be defined better, (size?, services connections water, elect, gas, sewer, etc  If you want an RV, buy an RV  Not enough room. Also what do they do with human waste.? The city is already overcrowded!  Would be open to abusing the system by putting trailers on lot  No I don't support this on an already existing residential lot. 2. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a temporary structure? Response Percentage Count Yes 59.52% 100 No 40.47% 68 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received:  no need for temporary, this is housing and should be semi permanent  Not ready for tiny homes yet!  Except where the Tiny home is occupied by the owner of the property  depends where they are set up. not sure about temporary  a 5th wheel can be used for purpose  Don't want the neighborhood I paid for turned into a trailer park.  Would allow trailers to be parked everywhere  Nothing temporary should be allowed. Proper planning and construction only for any type of building, even if it's for the homeless, mentally ill or drug addicts. 14 3. Do you support allowing Manufactured Homes as a DGS form? Response Percentage Count Yes 59.76% 101 No 40.23% 68 Total Responses 100% 169 Comments Received:  the building should complement existing stucture on property , modular homes seldom do this  unsighlty  We want to make sure our city stays looking good...not messy ever!  all need permanent foundations  This makes it too easy and cheap to have a secondary suite.  one house of any sort per lot unless in a rural area. 4. Do you support allowing retro-fitted Container Units to be used as a DGS? Response Percentage Count Yes 41.56% 69 No 58.43% 97 Total Responses 100% 166 Comments Received:  Black box syndrome  how terrible this idea is  No not ready for container units yet! We could use them for pools tho!  these are for shipping.  Aesthetically, it is difficult to convert a container into a aesthetically pleasing building structure.  They would not look nice in any neighbourhood  Ugly  Except in rural 5 acre lots or industrial zones areas.  do not agree as your wanting drug addicts to occupy these and only persons attempting to get clean should be offered these. Your telling our young people that it's ok to use!  Possibly but they would have to be designed to fit in residential context. A high standardneeds to be employed if this were an option  Worst, rackiest idea ever! Absolutely does not belong in our singke -family residential areas. Buil a new suburb inside an industrial park for these ugly things!  unless the city approves placing container units on residential lots for secure storage by residents  No.  Absolutely not,  Never! Talk about devaluing a neighborhood quickly!  They are unsightly, I feel that they will bring property values down..  Absolutely not  This should never be allowed on anyone's property. To build a building in an industrial or downtown Maple ridge (which it would be an eyesore) are the only places for a container as a residence.  way to small to allow 1 person to comfortably live.  Access to placement 15 G. PARKING: 1. Currently, the requirement for dedicated off-street parking for a Secondary Suite in Maple Ridge is 1 spot, which is standard when compared with other regional municipalities. Do you support the 1 spot parking requirement for a Secondary Suite? Response Percentage Count Yes 74.70% 127 No 25.29% 43 Total Responses 100% 170 Comments Received:  I support concerns around parking, but I believe tenants should be allowed to park off-site if it is more convenient and space permits.  should be two spots  depends on whether there is access to transit  We need suites. If there isn't off street parking available, then owner should be forced to give up a space on their driveway or in their garage or their lawn gets converted to parking space. I also think that garages should be counted as 1-2 parking spaces as necessary (If they are not already)  2 spots should be the minimum.I have been beside a rental with 3 cars for the renters. 4 cars for the main owners.They do not use the garage for parking . Everyone is on the street and blocking parking for guest and service people.  Most homes have two vehicles. This is a problem everywhere. There are cars all over the place  Should be none  2 spots on site - not dependant on street parking.  2 for one bedroom and up  Should be 2 since families are living in secondary suites now.  Should be 2  2 spots should be required per suite  Impossible to enforce!  It should be more. Currently all the suites are taking every available spot of street parking. It's extremely frustrating not to be able to park in front of your own home!!!  2 spots should be the requirement as well as requiring the spots to be free egre ss rather than back to back. Another solution would be to require the residents of secondary suites to park on -site rather than on street.  Must be 2  at least 1. 2 on bigger properties  I support off road parking only  One parking spot for each adult residing in suite  See page 6  Where does the second car park likely the s. suite will be a couple with two cars. Even if the requirement for one spot is made they will likely park on the street as it is convenient. Many streets in M.R. now have this requiremen but when the residents park now many streets are reduced to one lane when they park on both sides.  residences need to have ample parking in driveways for all residences and increase in suites and garden suites will cause major problems with so many vehicles on the streets  This will vary from each location. If the house has a large front which can accommodate two cars without disrupting the traffic flow or blocking neighbouring property then 2 spots should be given consideration. 16 2. Currently, the requirement for dedicated off-street parking for a DGS in Maple Ridge is 1 spot, which is standard when compared with other regional municipalities. Do you support the 1 spot parking requirement for a DGS? Response Percentage Count Yes 73.05% 122 No 26.94% 45 Total Responses 100% 167 Comments Received:  I support concerns around parking, but I believe tenants should be allowed to park off-site if it is more convenient and space permits.  A DGS has more options for parking as it more likely requires a larger lot size. Flexibility should be made for DGS as a larger property will in some cases allow for alternative parking to street parking.  should be two spots  proximity to transit should be considered  We need suites. If there isn't off street parking available, then owner should be forced to give up a space on their driveway or in their garage or their lawn gets converted to parking space. I also think that garages should be counted as 1-2 parking spaces as necessary (If they are not already)  minimum 2  Most homes have two or more vehicles which poses a problem  Should be none  2 spots of street  2 should be required  Should be 2  should be 2 parking spots per unit  I don't support a DG so no need to park.  See above  Need more!  2 spots should be the requirement as well as requiring the spots to be free egress rather than back to back. Another solution would be to require the residents of secondary suites to park on -site rather than on street  Must be 2  at least one. 2 on larger properties  don't support DGS  One parking spot for each adult residing in DGS  See page 6  The requirement should be no overnight parking on the street & parking only in front of their residence so the neighbours do not have to deal with others parking problems  as above  This will vary from each location. If the DGS is at the back and there is a back Lane and the DGS has a large front which can accommodate two cars without disrupting the traffic flow or blocking neighbouring property then 2 spots should be given consideration. 17 Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please provide any additional comments you may have.  I support changing the rules to accomodate more secondary housing residences in new developments and loosening the rules on older developments. I beleive that the lot size restrictions should be lowered for secondary suites, as the supply is shifting more towards larger houses on smaller lots, and often these houses have more than enough space to accomodate a secondary suite in the basement. As mentioned throughout, I live near a neighbourhood that is zoned R-2 and believe that all R-2 lots should be allowed secondary suites.  Current demographic changes have 1 in 3 young adults 20-30 living at home with parents. Aging in place of seniors could be supported by tenants, as 1 0f 3 senior home owners live on their own. Fraser Health has identified significant cost savings by having seniors age in place. Secondary suite requirments are far too restrictive. Many houmes built over the last 10 years have garden walkouts, to rear yard. Maple Ridge does not allow rear garden entrances, which is counter to the accesibility advantages of a rear garden entrance. Mountainous lot presentations present an excellent seperate entrance feature.  main focus on lot size and building size , larger lots should be able to construct larger dgs  My Families interest in a DGS is due to the lack of affordable housing to first time home owners in Maple Ridge. The current regulations prevent us from building a larger structure despite our proposal being on an acre lot. If the City of Maple Ridge truly intends on making positive change for it's citizen flexibi lity needs to be put into place to allow for more square footage when its available and creating a larger maximum in this regard.  With the trend to live smaller, many larger but occasionally used amenities (tools and workshops, guest room, garden space) have to be sacrificed for livable space, but allowing and creating such amenities like a shared tool library or craft or workshop would be of benefit to the future population.  I appreciate your efforts to make corrections to accommodate the changing housing market. Densification needs to occur. Your challenge is to accommodate and make changes that the majority can live with. This is also a cultural change in that everyone wants to have their home on a property with room to play and live. This has and continues to change. I would like to see a role introduced that provides advice for home owners as we attempt to navigate and decide what is best for us without having to contract the services of a professional to determin e what we can and cannot do. I think it is also wise to attempt to define the need with the reasoning for these changes. For example, "Aging in Place". The aging homeowner wants one or more of their children to be in place and live on the property and manage the parents needs as they age. Another example would be the "Mortgage Helper". Some structure should be developed for this approach. Otherwise you end up with multiple, very small living spaces on one property. One of my children viewed a basement suite that was a 6 foot high crawl spac e. This should not be allowed. That brings up another issue, most of these processes, buildings and suites are complaint driven. All too often the changes have already been done. Now you, the municipality, has the challenge of reversing and correcting these "problems", for lack of a better word. I didn't see any items related to the development and build process. Perhaps this comes later? I am referring to some of the requirements such as separate electrical, water, sewer and gas connections. Is there going to be information on this at some point? If this is a family situation, single connections and metering might be fine, but if this becomes purely a rental situation with managers in the mix, separate connections and metering would and should be the norm. But this again adds cost to the final outcome. This issue would also affect the property tax amounts. The family with an aging in place strategy would same money on many levels, where the strictly rental situation would not and could be taxed differently. Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute. I am also open to further conversation. fraser@bccranesafety.ca  Let's do this!  Parking is a nightmare for suites. Rules for RS3 land are unfair.  Get ahead of the coming changes and have your Planners have answers (not unsubstantiated no's constantly) for tax paying owners who want to do what is in YOUR OCP 18  I think I've made it fairly clear, but we're experiencing a housing crisis. Estimates are that the GVRD increases in size by 50% in the next 15-20 years. We need as much available housing as possible. I would hope that Maple Ridge makes this as easy as possibly for people to do, because otherwise people will just do it illegally, we lose a huge amount of our Young population and homelessness increases significantly!!  I think many of the limitations for legal suites are too tough for most home owners to abide by; but because they can hardly pay their mortgage for a variety of reasons, they put in illegal suites anyway. My parents had no problem abiding by all the rules because they bought a one acre parcel of land, you can make anything work if you have a nice, almost square acre. The majority of people though that can afford a single family residence are buying a "BC box" or maybe one of the newer 3 story homes that are being built where zoning doesn't allow suites or your home doesn't have enough parking. I think loosening the restrictions and allowing more legal secondary suites/DGS's would make these secondary homes safer because they would need to be built to code instead of being put together by the home owner and some friends. I don't know anyone personally who actually wants to break the law and do things the "illegal" way, but can't otherwi se afford life in the Lower Mainland without a rental income so they put a suite in anyways.  I think a lot of the lot size limits and parking restrictions/ requirements we have are good. The big rule that needs to change is owner needs to occupy residence with rental unit. Without this rule it gives investors a safer and more financially viable option to buy rental units  Maple ridge needs to work on building better infrastructure and increasing businesses. We do not have the infrastructure to support a higher density population.  Please keep me updated!  I do not want my neighbors with garden homes or mini homes in the back or side yards. People already own so many toys that they cannot park in garages , and they fill their driveway with RV's. So all parking ends up on the street. Put in a bylaw that RV's need to go in a special parking lot. Stop people from paving their front yards for parking. When that happens no one can park on that part of the street because they now block them in. Have only legal suits, owners must live on site, and 2 spots provided for parking. Up the city fees for anyone with a rental. Have inspections to make sure owners are complying with the laws.  I would like to see the DGS allowed in addition to the residential suites on acreages and on ALR land as well.  There needs to be some type of enforcement, maybe a requirement to be listed as a rental property, and meeting basic guidelines like parking. Some of these suites are like mere cages, little light, and no ou tside access at all. A limit on what they can charge for rent, $1500.00 for a 700 square foot suite is ridiculous and so far out of reach of many. Would also like to see some consideration to Seniors on limited incomes, and for youth just starting out. The current rents are forcing people into homelessness. I am on a disability pension, and if I had to leave my current rental, there is Nothing within my price range anymore and I would be another Senior forced into homelessness. These needs surely need to be addressed before bringing in even more people to our already over populated communities. Another consideration needs to be infrastructure, where are these peoples kids going to go to school, find a Doctor, these needs are not being met now, so to allow bringing in more people doesn't make much sense until we get these basic needs met for our existing population. Yes, housing is expensive, and people need to supplement their incomes to afford the overpriced homes, but some want the tenant to pay m ost, or in some cases all the expenses involved in home ownership, with little consideration for the tenant, I have been told many times that because I choose to rent, I have to live a less than ideal home life, which should not be the case. Just because people rent doesn't mean they are not entitled to the same considerations as home owners, When renting, we are renting our HOME, and that shouldn't mean we are second class citizens. we are entitled to have a bright home not a dungeon, a yard or outdoor space to sit in and enjoy, parking near our home, perhaps have a pet if we choose. Right now in BC we are being told how we must live our lives if we are tenants, we are being restricted on so many levels, and often forced to live in environments many peo ple, including landlords would never consider living in as their home.  I do not support extra fees for services on properties with secondary suites or ADU. If fees for services are to be variable, they should be related to the total number of residents on a property. In theory, you could have one owner resident and one renter on a property while next door the single family dwelling has a family of 10! Who does use more services?  I worked on a small project in East Vancouver. Large lot with lane access. The build was 2 duplex and a detached garage for 4 cars with suite above. Interesting. Similar ptoject on Bewicke in North Vancouver. Block zoning to duplex and one single family on each lot. Design scheme pre set difgerent builders. Interesting use of the land and the block and neighbor hood look great. 19  stop off loading the perceived "housing crisis" in Vancouver on to private single family land owners.  Please, the rules must change regarding the landlord be living in the house and cannot contain a secondary suite. Certain personal situations come up and make that rule unjust and it's shameful if a perfectly good suite need to be decommissioned because the home owner does not live onsite. I realize that the City is trying to change certain bylaws, but at the moment if this bylaw does not pass, it will not align with City's Housing Action Plan! As a home owner we want to provided a clean rental opportunity and affordable housing in our community to more than one family! But we are unable to do that at the moment and the bottom floor goes unoccupied. With the increase in homeless people on the street it makes no sense that a perfectly good home goes unused!!  The proposals outlined by the City here are only palliative and they only help in those cases in which the City central area will increase the population density. However, there is a lack f community building efforts. Building connections among citizens living the central areas (core and surroundings) is extremely important so citizens can share resources (public and private) freely and smoothly. The City should not extend in size, (or should be contained as much as possible) so not to make transportation, traffic, pollution worse than they are now.  1 water line requirement for DGS - same as townhouse, currently require 2 lines which is not required for a 90 sq m structure. Ability to install a second driveway on acreage lots for a DGS. Waive tree cutting permit for acreages if tree removal is 20% or less of propertie's trees. (Cost me $425 i n permit to remove 9 trees of the dozens on the property....rediculous money grab)  I have many comments. But I've spoken with Brent Elliot - and expressed our experience in trying to add a DGS to our property. We will look to speak to him further asap.  We are thinking of a DGS but want to act fast as prices keep increasing. We would like a decision on this asap! Thank you!  - I would support basements in DGS - more than 1 tiny house per lot (with parking - each separate suite, regardless of type, should have a parking stall.  In older homes it is much more financially doable to have a legal in-law suite rather than ripping out drywall to put in fire rated drywall. Restrictions are less onerus. By having inlaws, kids, parents living with us it would free up more spots in condos etc. No #'s or legal in-law suites on your board in Fraser Room. Best option would be legal in-law suite and garden suite.  - as long as a tiny house, DGS, container, does not have a major negative effect on the nieghborhood - allowing larger driveways is a possitive  I would like to know if a detached garden suite will be allowed on ALC acreage on the main farm parcel and will not affect the amount of farm worker structures allowed on the property.  I do not support ANY extension to secondary suites until Maple Ridge deals with ALL of the illegal suites. This mustn’t be done by simply allowing them to continue. They must be closed down until the correct permits and surcharges are in place and must not be allowed in streets where parking is a problem, such as those streets like Bryant Drive where the frontages are too narrow for anyone to park in front of a house.  In the current economic client, I'm in favor of garden suite type homes. There were no question in regards to "family" units and I would hope more preference would be given to additional dwellings on a lot for family purposes. For instance, I'm on land governed by the ALC and we are allowed one non-permanent structure under 900 sq/ft (or there about) for immediate family only. Which also brings me to my next suggestion which is to better utilize the larger acreage properties that are not being actively farmed to provide additional housing in the form of garden suites. On my 4 acres I could easily fit a small 800 sq/ft gard en suite with ample parking and little impact to the viability of farming on the land but the ALC will not allow it. In fact, very little of the acreages around me are actively farmed and the ALC should be brought into the conversation in some capacity as it's a lost opportunity with very little impact on neighbours and the community at large.  This city is becoming a dump. Drug addicts everywhere and if you think supplying them container homes is going to clean up the city you are so wrong. No one shoukd be given a free home unless they are getting clean. I live near a half way house that obviously no one checks on. Drug deals and stolen property coming and going. Once you offer this option to the drug addicts - hundreds more will be coming. Wake up!  container housing is a good idea if utilized in a specific, "container housing" community, not in among "regular" housing communities 20  Great initiative. Look forward to seeing this progress.  We specifically bought in an an area if single-family detached homes, and feel it is unfair of the city to cram in higher density now. If we had wanted to live in a higher density area, or surrounded by suites, duplexes, or trailers, we would not have bought here. Please do not shove this change through and force it upon us.  Maple ridge cannot handle more people by pushing them in close together. This is know to cause social issues. The city should look towards improving road transportation , schools for the children and more shopping and social faculty’s for people living away from the core. The city needs to have the police enforce the law to deal with the rampant crime the city needs to take care of its tax paying citizens and small busineses.  This city has become a bedroom community and people commute to their jobs elsewhere most couples by necessity need 2 cars so there needs to be more off street parking for suites and dgs etc. Although I don't think the city should be developing more housing, we need more jobs for the people who already live here and pay taxes as well as all the public services such a schools, transit (it's a joke) are going to be maxed out. As usual we are doing things willy nelly.  Make sure the owners of these properties pay fair share of water and sewer taxes. Do not burden taxpayers any more than needed.  Stricter by-laws to the ensure sustainable growth in Maple Ridge.  I truly believe in having secondary suites and garden units. We need more housing. Just not 2 story dwellings or placed on a small lot. Also parking should be a minimum of 1 off street with 2 if there is room on property to make more parking  Instead of a questionaire, what about a public hearing where those concerned can voice directly to Council instead of having issues already agreed upon and inviting citizens to comment  Please don't put put container homes full of drug addicts in my neighbourhood. They need treatment and support.  Build the above on a contained property that would solve everything and keep neighborhoods the way they are  I hope that this survey will be put to good use and allow for Maple Ridge residence to build an in law suite or something for family members along with mortgage or rental but will at no time be used to "loop hole" a temporary or permanent structure (without proper consultation with the area residence) for the protesters at Anita Place or other mentally ill/drug addicted people. Proper solutions and proper facilities need to be built and in Maple Ridge, we have more beds per capita than surrounding areas. I think more treatment facilities need to be built and area need to rezoned for this with a large plan for the future so residential does not continue to sprawl across our city and leaving no areas for commercial building that will need to go in to support the homeless, drug addicts and mentally ill. Council needs to look at acquiring land in large areas that can support this and not have to take it out of residential areas as this doesn't fit. Thanks  I envision congested neighbourhood streets if more tenants and visitors use them for parking, problems that might be created if they are permitted along side of absent landlords, possible changes to the appearance of neighbourhoods if trailers or other types of structures are permitted. It will entirely change t he landscape of the city, and not in a good way.  The cost and process of creating a secondary suite or a DGS are both high and long. Hundreds of home owners hesitate to approach the city to apply. This contributes to the housing problem - not enough rental units. Those existing non conforming or DIY suites are hazardous. Most of them are not even close to the code requirements. Therefore I propose the following: 1. Registration of the home owners who want to build/have a secondary suite or a DGS by the city. 2. Once the number of secondary suites/DGS to built is known then the city can put a tender for the construction of these units. 3. The companies who are interested can participate and give their proposals. 4. The best proposals are selected, then homeowners will be informed. 5. The construction companies can start. This way the city will have control on the quality and conformity of construction. The homeowners will pay less for the construction and will be able to build faster as the city is involved from the start. Furthermore, This will help have a positive impact on the housing crisis.  Why can't we have another module home park set up. Quick simple and easy. 21  There are secondary suites never inspected in our neighbourhood. Houses not owner occupied or not living in Canada. (Tenants are noisy police have been called). People do not want to pay more taxes so suites are not declared. Pitting haves those that do not have suites against those that have. The space the tenant is using is not principle residence should be taxed by city + inspected like business lissence needed plus capital gains (Federal gov't) charged when sold. City fire + police need to know if a tenant is living downstairs. You should not have a suite that is not safe + pass it off as a mortgage helper. If you can't afford a house rethink needs + wants. Culdusacs not good choice for tenants no ???? Maple Ridge does not have lanes like other cities (Vancouver, PoCo, Coq. Burn.). Build more apartments, Duplex's + Townhouses. Need more shopping if Road pricing comes into effect. Housing is still cheaper here.  - All units should be accessable. We need more ground orientated single level homes for seniors or persons with mobility issues. - Loading on schools and roads is a concern - Number of unrelated persons - could turn into boarding homes - possible issues with Bylaws/RCMP - Are we circumventing the zoning process to a degree and putting some folks who have complied by rezoning going to be disenfranchised/disadvantaged  I feel a property can only support ONE additional structure. There should not be an option to have multiple structures on the same property unless it is acreage.  Parking is the biggest and most contentious issue with secondary suites of any kind. Recent publicity saw a demand from renters in a secondary suite to be able to park on the street outside of their unit. I believe that neighbours who are homeowners have that right, over and above rental suites. I live in a high -rental area, along with other single family dwellings, and parking outside of my own home becomes a problem. I wonder if the system similar to Whistler's would work here? We have a lot of bare land - could some of those spots become a sort of "overflow parking" area for residents of secondary suites and garden homes?  More info needs to be provided for an acre or more especially in regards to the DGS or secondary suites. Would like to be able to build DGS in front yard as current home front yard faces river, we consider our driveway, garage in our back yard. Property size an +/- acre  You wish to increase population without the infastructure to support it i.e. shopping malls, emergency responders etc. That increases vehicle traffic on our over used roadways  There should be some zoning neighbourhoods that do not allow for ADUs or secondary suites - would even pay higher property taxes for this benefit! Thanks.  Proposed DGS not allowed due to it being in front of main residence. The front of the house actually faces the river in this instance.  We are very pleased that this review is taking place. We are hoping to begin building a DGS in the near future and are anxious for this process to complete. We have acreage property and would love to see the restrictions lifted on square footage and height.  DP & BP processes should be simplified. Permits can be issued based on declaration or verification by a registered professional that plans meet the development bylaw and the building code provisions (same day service). Any disputes can be resolved by a third party arbitration - registered professional.  Woold like to DGS/modular/tiny home in front of house (acreage). More room at front than back. Thank you MR looking after us!  Parking needs to be reviewed per site. If there is adequate parking in the area on street the required stall shouldn't be required.  RS-2 zones need flexibility to add structures to accomodate family.  You purchase your home to live in the lifestyle you chose. Then all of sudden the area is a condenced life style with all the problems of crowded life style and neighbour disputes. If they want this type of dwelling why not us a portion of City owned land such as the acreage on 232 north of Dewdney & place 50 or 60 of these dwellings there & the City rent them out. Leave the rest the way it is.  We defintely need to make it easier for people to be able to afford housing and also help out family members by providing more reasonable housing. 22  Parking and noise are majore problem when a single family dwelling is rezoned to multi housing. Should council permit the proposed, please ensure enough staff are available to enforce the proposed regulations, parking and noise contro. We live in an area where a number of secondary suites exist.  No modular or container homes.  I think it is time for maple ridge to catch up with the metro vancouver standard. The core of the problem and community opposition to suites is parking. If we solve that problem by requiring and enforcing parking on lots, its not an issue. I don't think hard working families that are willing to rent out a part of their home should be disallowed to do so because of a basic parking issue. Density is not the issue as we are seeing more and more town homes and condos going up in maple ridge and there is never problems with parking there. That is because parking is accounted for and worked into the plans. Thanks for providing this survey. I hope that the bylaws on suites are modernized.  Parking is the core issue. Dont ban suites or DGU because of it. Solve the parking issue by making sure people have a spot on their lot and are actually using it. People fill their double car garages with stuff and don't use them for parking, forcing vehicles onto the street.  Secondary suites and DGS's are a great idea.  This is a great initiative and should be implemented as early in 2018 -- 1st quarter!  I would like to see exploration of having more garden suites on larger properties – not just one. With the cost of properties/housing – it is truly impossible for younger people to buy homes. A family could share the property a—all different ages and the property could remain – INTACT – in the family for the generations. It maintains the green space and keeps the integrity of the neighbourhood. 1 Regulatory Flexibility The largest disappointment that I have experienced from potential clients/builders is the maximum size limit of 90 m2 (968 sq. ft.) A number of people I have spoken to that were considering utilizing the Detached Garden Suite bylaw generally found it defeated their intention of assisting aging parents or their children. For the parents moving down to a small (1200 - 1400 sq. ft. or children moving up to 1200 - 1400 sq. ft.) There are several areas within the bylaw that effect its utilization, if the increased size is considered. In the RS-2, RS3 and Agricultural zones many of the following points may not apply Bylaw sections: (11)b - There are some neighbourhoods where a Garden Suite could be built over an accessory building particularly where the neighbouring properties have a 2 level home. or may wish to consider up to 15% site coverage not to exceed allowable overall site coverage. 0. Does the 25% Gross Floor Area, outdoor space requirement include a combination of dedicated yard space as well as decks, patios etc.? If not is should be considered. 9 Height will need to change if (b) is considered as well the 6.0 meter restriction may want to match the zone or 7.5 meters should this be considered roof and building face articulation maybe desirable At one time, the Garden Suite or in-law suite could not exceed 40% of the existing homes size. Should this still exist it may continue to pose a problem and may need to be reviewed if the size for the Garden Suite is increased as recommended. In my past experience we had to add onto the existing home to allow the new suite to be 968 Sq. Ft. 2 Points to the Oct 3 2017 Workshop Report - Page 2 - Bullet points at bottom agree with them, however all units should be built to the "SaferHomes Standards" which the City still supports this program as far as I know. - Page 3 - utilizing a manufactured home maybe an issue since sprinkler systems are required and these home builders have a concern about pipe joint stability during transport. Please check with Stephen "Building Department" regarding this point. - Page 4 - Regulatory flexibility may be an additional tool that could be utilized especially when dealing with some of the older neighbourhoods where larger lots exist (8000 sq. ft.) or better. This may allow some 2 storey units where neighbouring homes maybe 2 storey. There maybe opportunities for neighbours to collaborate and do a shared access (cross access agreement) to allow 1 driveway to serve 2 Garden Suites. Page 5 (b) - Alternative Construction methods may have some value, however one size does not always fit all and there should be a concern about the cookie cutter model and the design characteristics within existing neighbourhoods. Hammond has some excellent opportunities to utilize the Garden Suite Bylaw but form and character will play an important role in that and other areas. Page 7 (c) - I do not believe a standard/stock plan or 1 or 2 models should be used as previously discussed, perhaps a single dedicated person in each department would be more appropriate, as well as a checklist and guide to the process. Be realistic about time lines with proponents. Page 7 (d) - May be useful to allow these options, but it should be an individuals choice, but must fit the neighbourhood. Page 7 (e) - A pilot project maybe a great project, but once again should include SaferHome Standards, solar capability, as well as other contemporary sustainability concepts/ Perhaps the unit could be built off site similar to homes built several years ago through the high schools. There may even be some skills training funding available from the Province or Junior Apprenticeship plan. Note: The program 3 referred to had smaller homes built that could be transported easily, so they fit into several categories of housing types from the discussion paper. Finally - My personal belief is that the landowner should occupy 1 of the units. If this is removed it would not be fair or equitable to other proponents that have to go through a lengthy rezoning process for a duplex, which in essence this is, without the extensive process and substantially less cost. 1 I wanted to follow up with you about the Detached Garden Suites program as I hadn't heard anything since the Open House on the 25th. I also wanted to say thank you for inviting me, and by extension Niben, out to the prior event closed session. If you are having another closed session I would be pleased to attend as there are a number of things that I would like to give feedback on and analyze. As a side note, I review Zoning everyday so the chance to affect Zoning for the better is almost too alluring. I will of course understand if there are different stakeholders you would like to engage for a more varied discourse and feedback. Follow Up Questions & Comments I had wanted to know a bit more about what the City was trying to achieve as there were some very varied opinions at the last meeting and I am not sure they addressed the community and lifestyles the City wanted to foster within its' boundaries. So I wanted to better understand what the City is looking for?  If it is a more diverse DGS program that would have a higher participation rate among the Citizenry due to the breadth of options allowed o For example if you want to have multiple options so Citizens can choose their own solution then opening up the Zoning to support a variety of Build Forms (Tiny House, Prefab, Pre-Designed, Modular, etc.) is a better op  This would also allow Citizens to choose what options are best for them, and their budget  Relaxations of the Zoning requirements for DGS options will allow more diversity, including the option for Secondary Suites in addition to DGS  If it is instead to find the most cost effective building solutions o For example  from a budgetary perspective, Tiny Houses and Pre-Designed Modular (without Foundations and using composting or other green solutions) would probably be the cheapest option,  however it wouldn't be the most cost effective as it has a very high cost per sq.ft. of livable space and they probably would not suit the majority of lifestyle scenarios as many Owners have unique needs and are looking for solutions targeted to those needs o Another way at looking at cost effectiveness is the option of providing Pre- Designed and approved Plans (which I know you are already considering sending) o Relaxations of the Zoning requirements for DGS options  Another factor is understanding what your Citizenry needs o If it is a place for Young Adult Children (in their late teens to early twenties) to move into then they will need smaller, cost effective Units, which can include  Tiny Homes,  Modular/Pre-Fab/Container  Custom Framed 2  DIY designs that any Home Owner can build o If it is a place for their now Grown Children to move into to raise their own families then they will need larger places with multiple Bedrooms & Washrooms, still probably cost effective but size is going to be more important o If it is for Parent's to Age-In-Place then usually I am hearing that they want  a large Dining Room to have the family over for Dinners a few times a year  once again a good size Living Room for the family to be sit in before or after  a Master Bedroom of reasonable size with en-suite Bathroom  a Guest Bedroom that can also be used as a Den (or an extra Den depending on how much time they like to spend there) and  at least 1 extra Bathroom.  Sometimes we get requests for small Workshops.  the finish levels on these are usually higher as well  the square footage for these is usually quite a bit higher o If the option is for additional economic options for Citizens and additional rental income is one of the selected solutions then the issue is completely dependent on the ROI for the Owner  they can get more money for a larger Unit but it is a case of diminishing returns as the extra space does not cost as much but you get less rent for the extra  an exception to this is housing for Students, where multiple Bedrooms can be rented for a higher rate but this can potentially have other issues due to parking, noise and sub-letting  However, this may not be an issue as you may not have a large Student Housing issue  although Stratification is an option I believe it may result in speculative sales and the related issues  Finally, if one of the objectives is to create affordable housing in the City o Please keep in mind that if the intent is affordable housing then opening DGS up to speculative land purchases will most likely remove affordability  I mentioned in one of the breakaway sessions that opening up the option for DGS Units in non-owner (or at least family) occupied properties would open up to massive speculation in the market.  This will also lead to a number of properties being flipped and the Rents for those DGS Units being increased with each successive new owner. o Keeping all new DGS Units labelled as Affordable Housing only and setting up definitions and limitations based on local demographics o Now, it also depends on what the market will bear but I tend to find that if limits are not set then people will push as much as possible o Policing of regulations will also be an issue of course o As an aside, something I had wanted to mention at the session but couldn't find a good opening, if additional affordable housing is an objective, then allowing the option for Tiny Homes to be located on Vacant Lots, say 6-8, or more, per Lot, and allowing the Owners to rent out the land would be another good option 3  These could be called Tiny Home Parks  Although this would be maintained like a nice Strata Complex this could easily be managed like mini Trailer Parks, where a Rental Fee is paid as well as Maintenance Fees to maintain the Landscaping and Services  These could be very attractive and very cost effective solutions  These may not require an Architect to design as the Tiny Homes would be parked on the lots and would hook up to the services but would not necessarily need to be permanently attached to foundations  I met with a gentleman at the Open House who started asking me questions about this particular type of project, which I answered a number of his questions, so I believe there may be some interest in this style of living Personal Contributions to the Process On that note I feel that I did not contribute enough, nor complete the thoughts I was trying to communicate, during the session. This may have come across as being short, too rushed or scattered as I tried to quickly describe much more in depth discussions in a few short sentences. For example:  when I said the projects have all been cancelled or changed, what I should have clarified is that instead of building Detached Buildings, we have been adding onto buildings so they can get more square footage for their family to live in, rather than build a separate building with less allowable square footage. o These were on a variety of different size Lots, some of them quite larger, at least 1300 sqm and 2 of them were much larger, but many were in the 371 sqm size as well o The point being that in all of the cases, the families did their own cost benefit analysis and the decision was that an Addition/Extension or a different House was the better choice for them. o This was in a variet y of Cities, ranging from North Vancouver to Abbotsford, and probably occurred in at least 40 projects this year alone, possibly more  Another example is when I was talking about relaxations to the Owner occupancy requirements, I mentioned that you should at least ensure that the Owners are Citizens of Maple Ridge, and I mentioned that my soon-to-be sister-in-law owns 3 Houses in Maple Ridge o I should have clarified that she is not a Citizen of Maple Ridge and owns these houses for their pure investment value. o I did mention that she would quickly build whatever were the most cost effective DGS solutions and then sell them, which is what most people will do. o But if the City's intent is not to cause a speculative buying frenzy, and keep land value down, then opening up DGS Units to all Owners, no matter the location of their personal residence, will increase that risk. 4 o On the other hand, if the City's concern is ensuring that there are enough Units for everyone who wants to live in the City then opening it up will create more Units, although not all of them will be rented by those that are speculating on the Units (a big problem we see in the Vancouver market).  Parking I want to expand on as well as it will be an issue o A suggestion we have (my partner and I) is to either require wider Driveways or a 2nd Garage at the front of the Property for the DGS to use. As a final note I do want to mention again that a diverse set options for lifestyles will mean that you will have a greater creativity in your community and potentially a more vibrant and active lifestyles among your citizens. I fully support pilot projects to explore a multitude of different scenarios, even if I can only consult on them as any of the projects exceeding 4 Units, with the possible exception of the Tiny Home Parks that would be rental base, would require an Architect. I know this has been a long email, and I thank you for taking the time to read it. Let me know your thoughts and I will see how I can tailor my responses to assist. Secondary Suite and Detached Garden Suite Regulatory Review Alternative Decision Matrix Item No. Options Recommended for Drafting Zoning Bylaw Amendments Amendment Proposed Yes No 5.1.1 (1) Allow a SS & DGS on same lot Add wording in General Regulations 5.1.1 (2) Allow DGS size to be less than 37m2 (400 ft2) but not less than 20.3m2 (219 ft2) Add wording in General Regulations 5.1.1 (3) Allow DGS size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) or to 15% of lot area, whichever is less Add wording in General Regulations Item No. Options Recommended for Further Research Proposed Yes No 5.1.2 (1) Allow SS in all single-family residential zones Determine if all zones are feasible and if so, should any limitations be applied? 5.1.1 (2) Allow a SS within a duplex unit Determine best approach under building code requirements for existing and new duplex housing forms 5.1.2 (3) Allow DGS in all single-family residential zones Determine if all zones are feasible and if so, should any limitations be applied? 5.1.2 (4) Allow flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot Identify criteria for ensuring neighbour privacy, safety, and DGS livability 5.1.2 (5) Allow 2-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones Identify criteria for ensuring neighbour privacy, safety, and DGS livability 5.1.2 (6) Allow Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure Ensure a regulatory review process is in place before adding to Zoning Bylaw 5.1.2 (7) Allow Tiny Homes as a temporary DGS structure Ensure a regulatory review process is in place before adding to Zoning Bylaw 5.1.2 (8) Removing owner-occupancy requirement for SS & DGS Research to determine best approach for absentee owner issues Item No. Options Not Recommended Rationale Agree to not pursue these options Research and Report to Council 5.1.3 (1) Allowing a lock-off suite within a townhouse unit Community support is not indicated for these options 5.1.3 (2) Allowing a lock-off suite within an apartment unit 5.1.3 (3) Allowing one DGS on a lot with a duplex 5.1.3 (4) Allowing retrofitted container units to be used as a DGS APPENDIX K