HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-12 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdf
City of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the August 29, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
September 12, 2016
10:00 a.m.
Council Chamber, 1st Floor, City Hall
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN VENUE
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
September 12, 2016
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
September 13, 2016
Note: Public Hearing has been cancelled.
Council Workshop
September 12, 2016
Page 2 of 5
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Application for Council Reconsideration of Cancellation of AC Tree Care Business
Licence
Letter dated September 6, 2016 from Robert Fitz-James, AC Tree Care, requesting
Council reconsideration of the suspension of his business licence.
5.2 BC Housing Proposal for Housing and Shelter
• BC Housing and Fraser Health in attendance
Staff report dated September 12, 2016 recommending that a minimal barrier
housing model including a shelter and housing component as proposed by BC
Housing be brought forward for public consultation and that staff be directed to
develop a Terms of Reference for a Citizen Advisory Committee for the proposed
shelter and housing project.
5.3 Homelessness Communications Update
Verbal update by the Recreation Manager, Youth, Seniors & Neighbourhood
Services
Note: Item 5.4 was deferred from the August 29, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting
5.4 Review of Growth in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use
Designation
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 recommending that the Suburban Residential
and Estate Suburban Policy Options table provided be used as a method to
determine the approach for Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use
policies.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
Council Workshop
September 12, 2016
Page 3 of 5
6.1 Community Advisory Board, Homelessness Partnering Strategy – Request for
Proposals – Mayor’s Regional Summit on Homelessness
Letter dated August 23, 2016 from Michael Anhorn, Chair, Community Advisory
Board, Homelessness Partnering Strategy, informing the City of Maple Ridge that
the City’s response to a request for proposal was not recommended.
Recommendation: refer to staff to prepare a report on an alternate approach.
6.2 Upcoming Events
September 23, 2016
9:00 a.m.
Demo International 2016 VIP Event – Malcolm Knapp
Research Forest
Organizer: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations
September 25, 2016
10:00 a.m.
Annual Community Service Sunday – Holy Spirit Anglican
Church
Organizer: Holy Spirit Anglican Church
October 4, 2016
7:00 a.m.
ArtWorks for Development Forum – Chances
Organizer: Public Art Steering Committee, City of Maple Ridge
October 5, 2016
12:00 p.m.
Community Living Month BBQ – Greg Moore Youth Centre
Organizer: Life After School Transition Committee, City of
Maple Ridge
October 12, 2016 10 Year Anniversary – Baillie House
Organizer: Ridge Meadows Hospice Society & Fraser Health
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/
Council Workshop
September 12, 2016
Page 4 of 5
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
September 12, 2016
Page 5 of 5
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
August 29, 2016
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on August 29, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in
the Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for
the purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor K. Duncan K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor B. Masse Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor G Robson P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor C. Speirs C. Carter, Acting General Manager Public Works and
Development Services
ABSENT C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
Councillor C. Bell L. Darcus, Clerk’s Department
Councillor T. Shymkiw Other Staff as Required
D. Boag, Director of Parks and Facilities
D. Cramb, Senior Recreation Manager
B. Elliott, Manager of Community Planning
S. Murray, Planner 2
L. Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate
Planning
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following
5.6 Update on Purchase of Lougheed Highway Property
5.7 Update on Pitt Meadows Airport Society
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 2 of 7
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the July 25, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2016-388
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of July 25, 2016 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
R/2016-389
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Parks & Leisure Services Commission Meeting of
June 9, 2016 be received.
CARRIED
2.3 Business Arising from Committee Minutes – Nil
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4 MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Councillor Robson
Councillor Robson attended a Parks open house on the facilities program. He
met with commercial enterprises to discuss parking issues and will bring the
issue forward to staff. Councillor Robson and Councillor Masse attended an
introductory meeting with the Alouette River Management Society. Councillor
Robson advised that he will be absent from meetings in October.
Councillor Masse
Councillor Masse attended a meeting of a sub-committee of the Social Policy
Advisory Committee to establish the community forums for the discussion of
homelessness issues.
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs did work on Demo International, a logging equipment expo,
to celebrate the logging heritage in the community. He and his family took a
tour of the City of Armstrong including the museum, an archive and an art
gallery.
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 3 of 7
Councillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan attended the grand opening of the Centra Lawyers law firm,
numerous Celebrate Pride events, particularly a candle light vigil hosted by the
Vancouver Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the launch of Pianos on the Street,
and the unveiling of Play Ball. She also attended a meeting of the Strong Kids
Team and advised on appointments to the Active Transportation Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Read
Mayor Read attended a TransLink Meeting for the Mayors’ Council of Regional
Transportation, met with developers in the community, dealt with media
around the property purchase on Lougheed Highway and spoke with Susan
Carr to receive an update on the Strong Kids Team. Mayor Read attended a
meeting with staff pertaining to after school care.
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Paul Fast, HCMA Architects
Presentation on the Maple Ridge Civic & Cultural Facility
Mr. Fast gave a power point presentation that provided an overview of the
following proposed facilities:
• Multi-Use Wellness Facility
• Ice Arena & Albion Sports Fields Site
• Silver Valley Neighbourhood Amenities
• Hammond Community Hall and Park
• Ridge Canoe & Kayak Club
Note: Item 5.4 was dealt with prior to Item 5.2
5.2 Rental Housing Options Scoping Report – Part 1 Regulatory and Infill
Measures
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 recommending that staff be directed to
prepare a discussion paper and amending bylaw pertaining to the detached
garden suites program, the secondary suites program, duplexes in single
family zones and a policy to support rental units above commercial.
The Acting General Manager Public Works and Development Services
provided an overview of the staff report. The Planner provided clarification on
the secondary suite program.
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 4 of 7
R/2016-390
It was moved and seconded
1. That staff be directed 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.
CARRIED
5.3 Review of Growth in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use
Designation
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 recommending that the Suburban
Residential and Estate Suburban Policy Options table provided be used as a
method to determine the approach for Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban land use policies.
R/2016-391
It was moved and seconded
That the staff report dated August 29, 2016 titled “Review of Growth in the
Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use Designation” be
deferred to the September 12, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting.
CARRIED
Note: Item 5.4 dealt with after item 5.1
5.4 Proposed Exclusion Application of the Former Pelton’s Lands by the Aquilini
Investment Group
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 providing a history of decisions made by
the Agricultural Land Commission on the Pelton Lands, an update on recent
community feedback and three options in dealing with a proposed Agricultural
Land Reserve exclusion application by Aquilini Investment Group.
The Acting General Manager Public Works and Development Services
provided an overview of the staff report.
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 5 of 7
R/2016-392
It was moved and seconded
That pursuant with current practice regarding the processing of ALR Exclusion
applications, that Aquilini Investment Group be advised to lead their own
consultation program and provide the results of that program to the City as a
component of their application submission; and further
That City staff be directed to attach the consultation information received to
the staff report that would be submitted for Council consideration.
CARRIED
5.5 Business & Financial Planning Guidelines 2017-2021
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 recommending that Appendix 1:
Guidelines be approved.
R/2016-393
It was moved and seconded
That the Appendix 1: Guidelines attached to the August 29, 2016 report
entitled “Business and Financial Planning Guidelines 2017-2021” be
approved.
CARRIED
5.6 Update on Purchase of Lougheed Highway Property
The General Manager Community Development, Parks and Recreation
reviewed the public process to take place with respect to the potential
development of the property at 21375 Lougheed Highway. She advised that a
rezoning process for the property will be required which will include a
Development Information Meeting hosted by BC Housing and the City of
Maple Ridge, consideration of first and second readings of the Zoning Bylaw,
a Public Hearing relating to the Rezoning and Proposed Use, consideration of
third reading of the Zoning Bylaw and consideration of final reading of the
zoning bylaw. She also advised that should the rezoning proposal not be
approved, other uses for the land will be considered.
5.7 Update on Pitt Meadows Airport Society
The Chief Administrative Officer provided an update on the circumstances
around the Pitt Meadows Airport Society Board of Directors, advising that
resignations by the existing Board have been rescinded and that Board
members have agreed to stay to the end of December 2016. He commented
on the press release issued by the City of Pitt Meadows and advised that a
new governance model should be established by the end of the year with a
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 6 of 7
recommendation of four appointments each from the City of Maple Ridge and
the City of Pitt Meadows to be followed by three appointments made by the
new Board of Directors.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
6.1 Strata Council of Reflections on The River at 22327 River Road
Email dated July 12, 2016 from Barb Lamont inviting Mayor and Council to
meet with the Strata Council of the Reflections on The River condo
development.
Mayor Read provided a background on the invitation.
R/2016-394
It was moved and seconded
That the Strata Council of the Reflections on The River at 22327 River
Road be invited to attend a Council meeting as a delegation.
CARRIED
6.2 Upcoming Events
September 9, 2016
1:00 p.m.
4th Annual Golf Tournament for Epilepsy, Mission Golf and
Country Club
Organizer: The Center for Epilepsy and Seizure Education in
British Columbia – Invitation issued by Mayor Randy Hawes,
Mission, BC
September 10, 2016
9:30 a.m. Registration
11:00 a.m. Walk starts
Parkinson Society SuperWalk, Spirit Square, Pitt Meadows
Organizer: Parkinson Society British Columbia
September 17, 2016
6:00 p.m.
Pub Night & Silent Auction Fundraiser, Maple Ridge Equi-Sport
Centre’s Ranch Pub and Grill
Organizer: Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Community Services
and the Ridge Meadows Youth Diversion Program
September 27, 2016
7:30 a.m.
Marathon Relay of Hope, Greystone Manor, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Greystone Manor
September 16, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Flame of Hope Gold Tournament, Meadow Gardens Golf Club,
Pitt Meadows
Organizer: Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows Chamber of
Commerce
October 5, 2016
TBD
Breast Cancer Awareness Tea, Greystone Manor, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Greystone Manor
October 17 to 19, 2016
Creative City Summit, City of Surrey, BC
Organizer: Creative City Network of Canada
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 7 of 7
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
9. ADJOURNMENT – 12:34 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
5.1
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: September 12, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: BC Housing Proposal for Housing and Shelter
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 29, 2016 BC Housing offered to invest approximately $15 million plus operating costs to
build and operate a shelter and housing project to contribute to a long-term solution for people who
are homeless in Maple Ridge. In addition, staff have had discussions with Fraser Health staff who
have indicated a commitment to provide health and treatment services to meet the needs of the
individuals who would reside in this facility.
BC Housing required that the City provide the land in order to acquire this service. On July 4, 2016
Council passed a motion directing staff to negotiate for property on Lougheed Highway which was
recently purchased by the City to meet this need.
The next step in this process will be to engage the public in a dialogue on homelessness and to
gather feedback on the proposed housing project. Following that, Council will make a decision on
whether or not to rezone the property for the proposed use. If Council approves rezoning, the project
will be allowed to proceed.
Prior to public engagement, the City needs to confirm the facility use description that will be brought
forward to the public as part of this process. BC Housing has recommended a housing model that
has minimal barriers to encourage accessibility in a facility that includes a shelter and a transitional
supportive housing component. In addition, Fraser Health Authority would provide health services.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a minimal barrier housing model that includes a shelter and a housing component as proposed
by BC Housing be brought forward for public consultation.
That staff be directed to develop a draft Terms of Reference for a Citizen Advisory Committee for the
shelter and housing project proposed by BC Housing for Council’s consideration.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context
In July 2016, Council asked to meet with BC Housing in August regarding the operating model for
the shelter and housing project proposed by BC Housing. Unfortunately due to summer
schedules this meeting was not able to take place. To support Council’s request, staff met with
BC Housing staff on September 6, 2016 to arrange an opportunity for Council to have a dialogue
with BC Housing on this project. At that meeting BC Housing described their recommended
model, which is outlined in this report.
5.2
2
BC Housing staff will attend the September 12, 2016 Council Meeting where this report will be
discussed to answer questions that Council may have.
Some key points presented by BC Housing at the September 6th meeting with staff were:
• That the needs that are aiming to be met are both housing and health issues which require a
fully accessible model with minimal barriers. This will increase access to services with the
goal being to assist people into recovery and independent living.
• That the project include both a shelter and a transitional supportive housing component.
• That the initial approach be to maintain two shelter operations as each of the current
operations (the temporary shelter and the Salvation Army shelter) serve a distinct population
and both are full. Both operations can be monitored and modified as needs change. For
example, a new housing facility can be constructed in such a way that shelter space can be
adapted to become supportive housing in the future. In addition, Salvation Army Services
can also be modified as needs change.
On September 8, 2016, in preparation for this discussion, Council toured the shelter and
transitional supportive housing project that serves Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Coquitlam,
which is a similar model to the project proposed for Maple Ridge. Representatives from key
service agencies such as Fraser Health and BC Housing attended to answer any questions as did
Raincity which is the operator of that facility, and members from the Citizen Advisory Committee
who input to the development and operation of the Tri-Cities facility.
Following this interaction, staff are recommending that the City of Maple Ridge advance the
development of a Citizen Advisory Committee to be established as early as possible for the
Maple Ridge process. The role of the CAC would be to provide guidance to the development of
this project if it is approved to proceed. In addition, the CAC would be responsible for identifying
recommended solutions and next steps in the event that the proposed project is not approved to
proceed.
The Development Application and Public Engagement:
Following a discussion on the operating model, BC Housing will submit a development
application to the City. This application will be brought forward to a number of Council meetings
that the public is welcome to attend. In the early part of this process BC Housing and the City will
host a Development Information Meeting to present project details to the public. After the
project details have been publicized, Council will hold a Public Hearing to gather citizens’
feedback. A decision on whether or not to approve this development application will be made by
Council at the end of this process.
Another opportunity for the public to be engaged in a discussion on homelessness and
associated issues will be hosted by a task-group formed by the Maple Ridge Social Policy
Advisory Committee via a series of workshops that will provide people with the opportunity to
learn and engage in a dialogue on this topic. The dates, topics and speakers will be announced
once the details have been finalized.
b) Desired Outcome:
That Council direction be provided regarding the purpose and type of use that will be presented
during the community consultation process for the project proposed by BC Housing.
3
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
All citizens will be provided with the opportunity to be engaged in a robust community
consultation regarding the proposed housing facility.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Various departments including RCMP, Bylaws and Permits, Fire, Planning and Social Planning
would be involved in the developmental process.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The financial implication for this proposal to the City relates to land acquisition. BC Housing has
committed to funding the capital cost to construct the housing facility as well as the ongoing
operating costs.
Policy Implications:
The recommended model is in alignment with the Housing Action Plan.
CONCLUSIONS:
The recommendations in this report reflect BC Housing’s proposed model for Maple Ridge based on
their expertise in this service delivery area, which is a facility that has minimal barriers to encourage
accessibility and a facility that includes a shelter and transitional supportive housing component.
Fraser Health Authority would oversee the provision of health services. The purpose of this
recommendation is to confirm alignment between the City of Maple Ridge and BC Housing on the
model that will be presented during public consultation on this project.
In addition, staff have recommended the establishment of a Citizen Advisory Committee to provide
guidance to the development of this project if it is approved and to identify alternative solutions if the
proposal does not proceed.
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Prepared by: Kelly Swift, General Manager
Community Development, Parks & Recreation Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:ks
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Review of Growth in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use Designation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the May 24, 2016 Council Meeting, staff was directed to prepare a report on development in the
Suburban Residential land use designation. This was precipitated by a rezoning application that
would result in the creation of 0.4 ha (1 acre) lots. Additionally in 2014, a similar scenario was
contemplated for the Estate Suburban land use designation.
The Purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current development and growth patterns,
and to contemplate how and where growth should take place in the Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban areas.
Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential are similar with the expectation that Estate
Suburban Residential land use designation is located within the Fraser Sewer Area and as such can
be serviced by municipal sewer. Suburban Residential can only be serviced through on-site septic
disposal methods.
Previously in 2009, this issue was explored in a report that outlined the current policies and servicing
framework that guided suburban development in Maple Ridge. The report also provided
development projections for these land use designation areas. At the writing of the 2009 report,
servicing was a major consideration for development in these designation areas. Since this 2009,
water servicing has been extended throughout many of these areas and is no longer a major barrier
to development.
When considering the overall growth of the City, development in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban areas has been modest with just over 300 new lots being created since 2009.
This Report provides an update to the overall development projections, a summary of the policies
influencing development, specifically the Official Community Plan (OCP), Zoning Bylaw, and the
recently adopted Commercial Industrial Strategy that identifies future employment lands.
Finally, the report will offer a series of options for directing growth in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designations.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Table “Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Policy Options” in the Report “Review of
Growth in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use Designation” dated August 29,
2016 be used as a method to determine, by resolution, the approach for Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use policies.
5.4
2
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
As noted above, Council directed that a report be prepared regarding the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designations in the Official Community Plan, as a result of the discussions
relating to recent rezoning applications. This direction was a result of concerns raised regarding the
effects of 0.4 ha (1 acre) subdivisions outside the Urban Area Boundary.
Overall the Estate Suburban Designation accounts for 2% of the total land base in the City.
Furthermore, the Suburban Residential land use designation accounts for 7% of the land in the City.
This is a modest amount of land in the overall scheme of development and growth in the City. And
yet, it provides significantly to the rural-like character of the City.
Historical Growth Pattern
Generally, the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use designation areas are located
outside the Urban Area Boundary. However, in many cases the lands are located adjacent to this
boundary. The Agricultural Land Reserve also borders many of areas lands. The OCP provides
guidance that density and the majority of growth should be directed to areas within the Urban Area
Boundary. This is evidenced through redevelopment and infill that has been taking place in the City.
The Official Community Plan provides direction and guidance on where development should take
place in the city and the densities that can be achieved in different areas. When identifying the type
of development and the proper location for it, the following items are contemplated:
Majority of growth will take place in the Urban Area Boundary this includes housing and
jobs
Highest levels of density will be directed to the Town Centre area, and along Major
Corridors close to transit
Growth will also be directed to commercial community nodes and neighbourhoods with
in Area Plan areas
Development patterns should continue to reflect the character and vision of the
community
Servicing and infrastructure should be efficient and sustainable while meeting the
required needs of a growing community.
Development in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban designations is primarily in the form
of subdivision of large lots into 0.4 ha (1 acre) parcels. This is a pattern that has historically taken
place in Maple Ridge. At the time the OCP was reviewed, community members expressed their desire
to continue to provide a wide range of subdivision options, including 0.4 ha (1 acre) and 0.8 ha (2
acre) lots. The range of lot sizes and housing forms allows people to choose urban settings with little
yard space, large rural properties, or alternately a more suburban setting that allows for yards,
greenspace and access to natural settings. This is part of what many residents believed expressed
the character of Maple Ridge.
2009 Analysis of Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use Designation
A report was prepared in 2009 that undertook an analysis of the Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban land use designation. The report presented today, is an updated version of the original
2009 report. Since the writing of the 2009 report, the Estate Suburban area has modestly increased
in the number of lots (30 new lots) and the land base has largely remained the same. The Suburban
Residential land use designation has seen an increase of approximately 300 lots.
3
This is an average of 37 new lots per year over the last seven years. Since 2009, 1,633 single family
units have been constructed in Maple Ridge. New construction in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designation areas account for 20% of these new single family units.
Furthermore, 3,322 dwelling units (multi-family, townhouse and single family) have been constructed
since 2009. Construction in these two land use designations account for less than 10% of all new
dwelling units constructed between 2009-2015 in the City. Therefore, the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designation areas have not been large growth areas for the City.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Generally speaking, the Official Community Plan provides for 3 levels of residential growth within the
community: Urban (lands within the Urban Area Boundary); Suburban and Estate Suburban (on
community water); and Rural (on private services). Section 2.2 Land Use Designations of the Plan
defines the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential land use designations and
identifies that the only distinction between the two land use designations is that Estate Suburban
Residential properties are within the GVS&DD Fraser Sewer Area. The definitions are as follows:
Suburban Residential - The Suburban Residential designation permits single detached or
duplex housing in areas located outside of the Urban Area Boundary that has water service
but which are not connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system.
Estate Suburban Residential - The Estate Suburban Residential designation permits single
detached or duplex housing in areas outside the Urban Area Boundary. The properties are
within the Fraser Sewer Area or on property where sewer services have already been
connected.
The Official Community Plan also prescribes the zones that can be used in the Suburban Residential
and Estate Suburban Residential Land Use designations as follows:
Table 1
Excerpt from Official Community Plan, Appendix C Zoning
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
ZONES Lot Size
Suburban Residential Designation
RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
0.4 ha (1 acre) with community
water
RG-2 Suburban Residential
Strata
0.4 ha (1 acre) with community
water and private sanitary sewer
system
Estate Suburban Residential Designation RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
0.4 ha (1 acre) with
community water
*properties are located in the Fraser
Sewer Area and have the ability to
connect to the regional sewer system.
o Number of Parcels and Area
Currently, there are 1750 parcels designated Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban
Residential in Maple Ridge, and total 1103 hectares (2725 acres) in area. These properties are
predominately located in the central and eastern portions of the City, with the bulk of these
4
properties situated north of Dewdney Trunk Road. The breakdown by land use designation is as
follows:
Table 2
Land Use Designation, Area and Parcels
Land Use Designation Area Number of Existing Parcels*
Suburban Residential 860 ha 967
Estate Suburban 243 ha 783
TOTAL 1103 ha (2725 acres) 1750
*This is the number of existing parcels (developed and undeveloped). The overall area and number do not take into
account site constraints such as steep slopes, streamside protection areas, etc. that limits the overall development
potential for a parcel.
The Suburban Residential land use designation has the larger land base and accounts for a
greater amount of development potential when compared to the Estate Suburban land use
designation area. In the development projection section of the report, the overall number of
parcels is reduced to reflect lots with development potential to provide a more accurate account
of future development in these land use designation areas.
o Parcel Size
The majority of lots (71%) in the Estate Suburban land use designation are less than 0.8 ha (2 acres)
and therefore do not have the ability to further subdivide into 0.4 hectares (1 acre) lots. The balance
of parcels (29%) are greater than 0.8 ha and may have some ability to subdivide to a smaller lot size.
The chart below indicates that 71% of existing parcels in the Suburban Residential designation are
greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres), and may have the ability to subdivide into smaller lots (0.4 ha with a
connection to the community water system). Approximately, 29% of existing parcels are less than
0.8 ha (2 acres) in the Suburban Residential designation and do not have the ability to subdivide.
It is important to note that these figures are gross numbers and do not include watercourse
setbacks, geotechnical restrictions, or other limiting factors that would impact the overall
developable area. These figures do not account for lot consolidation or land assemblies.
Table 3
Lot Size by Land Use Designation
Designation 0 < 0.4ha
(0 < 1 ac)
0.4 < .8ha
(1 < 2 ac)
.8 < 2.0ha
(2 < 5 ac)
2.0 < 4.0ha
(5< 10ac)
> 4.0 ha
(> 10ac)
Total
Suburban
Residential
31 ha
(4 %)
217 ha (25
%)
225 ha
(26 %)
217ha
(25 %)
170 ha
(20 %)
860 ha
(100%)
Estate
Suburban
Residential
59 ha
(24 %)
112 ha
(46 %)
40 ha
(16 %)
20 ha
(8 %)
12 ha
(5 %)
243 ha
(100%)
Total 90 ha 329 ha 265 ha 237 ha 182 ha 1103 ha
No Subdivision Potential Subdivision Potential
In consideration of the tables above, Estate Suburban has limited subdivision potential. While
Suburban Residential has greater subdivision potential. Since 2009, many of the larger parcels have
been subdivided. Based on anaylsis of parcel size in the Suburban Residenital land use designation,
approximately 387 ha (956 acres) of land remains that could be developed (0.8 ha lots). While this
figure appears to provide a large land base for subdivision opportunities, the amount of developable
land will be reduced as limiting factors are discussed in the section below, Subdivision
Considerations.
5
SUBDIVISION CONSIDERATIONS
Potential Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential Development
In preparing this report, an assessment was undertaken of lands designated Suburban and Estate
Suburban Residential in the Official Community Plan. This assessment is intended to provide scope,
and to generate discussion on the subject. However, detailed information on parcel limitations such
as steep slopes, watercourses, parcel geometry, and access were not factored into the calculation
and could affect the veracity of the numbers. Therefore development calculations were based on a
percentage (50-75%) of the parcel size to account for possible limiting factors. The estimate also
assumes that community water is available or is feasible for all RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential lots. Additionally, the total number of parcels and area may differ from those identified
in Table 2 as the report focuses on the predominate zones and/or larger parcels in both land use
designations (areas where development is complete have been eliminated from the calculations).
Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985
The majority of properties in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential land use
designations are zoned RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential (42%), RS-3 One Family Rural
Residential (24%), and A-2 Upland Agriculture (16%). Other zones include CS-3 Recreation
Commercial, M-2 General Industrial, A-1 Small Holding Agriculture, RS-1d One Family Urban (Half
Acre), RS-1 One Family Urban Residential and RG-2 Suburban Residential Strata, many of which,
predate comprehensive land use planning within the community (i.e. OCP), and reflect the historic
use of the property. For the purpose of this report, information is focused on the RS-3 One Family
Rural Residential and RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential zones since they are the most
prevalent or represent large land holdings.
Based on Official Community Plan policies and Zoning Regulations (see on Table 1), properties zoned
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential and A-2 Upland Agriculture in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designations have the potential to be rezoned to RS-2 One Family
Suburban Residential. This would allow for a lot size of 0.4 ha (1 acre).
However, many of these properties can avoid rezoning to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential as
they can subdivide under the existing RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zone. The following chart
identifies the Zoning Bylaw regulations pertaining to lot size and width for these two zones:
Table 4
Zoning Bylaw Requirements
Zone Description Minimum Parcel Size hectares (acres) Min.
Width m
RS-3 One Family Suburban
Residential*
0.8 ha (2 acres) with community water*
2.0 ha (5 acres) without community water*
60 m
60 m
RS-2 One Family Rural Residential 0.4 ha (1 acre) 36 m
* Please note the difference in permissible lot size based on water availability in the RS-3 zone
Infrastructure Requirements
Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993 regulates the subdivision and development of land
within the community, and prescribes the servicing standards for development according to each
6
zone. A summary of the Bylaw as it pertains to the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential and RS-2 One
Family Suburban Residential zones follows:
Table 5
Subdivision Servicing Requirements- Suburban Residential
Zone Description Water
Distribution
System
Private
Water
Sanitary
Sewer
On-site
Sewage
Disposal
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
0.8 ha lot
2.0 ha lot
Not
available
RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
Not
available
As shown in the table above, connecting to the sanitary sewer system is not permissible in the
Suburban Residential land use designation. Any new lot created must be serviced with an individual
on-site sewage disposal system. In the past this has been a limiting factor for some subdivision
proposals. However, there have been a couple of instances whereby sewage disposal in a strata
subdivision was provided by a privately owned and operated system. Generally, this approach has
not been supported by the City. If the system should fail in the future, often the City is requested to
intervene and help address any health and safety issues at a significant cost.
It should be noted, that a connection to the community water system is required for subdivisions that
would result in parcels 0.4 ha (1 acre) in size.
Table 6
Subdivision Servicing Requirements – Estate Suburban
Zone Description Water
Distribution
System
Private
Water
Sanitary
Sewer
On-site
Sewage
Disposal
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
0.8 ha lot
2.0 ha lot
RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
* If available, properties in the Fraser Sewer Area may connect to municipal sewer
The table above demonstrates that the Estate Suburban land use designation allows for connection
to the regional sewer system. This is a significant difference from Suburban Residential properties
that have on-site septic systems. Subdivision in the Estate Suburban land use designation is not
limited by the capacity of a property (soil conditions) to provide on-site sewage disposal or the
potential environmental impacts.
It should be noted, that a connection to the community water system is required for subdivisions
that would result in parcels 0.4 ha (1 acre) in size.
o Water
Based on the Subdivision Servicing requirements, the link between land use and servicing is clear.
In the absence of community water, subdivision in the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zone is
7
limited to 2.0 ha lots, and subdivision in the RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential zone would not
be permitted.
In the late 1990’s the municipal water supply was extended to the Rothsay Garibaldi area in
response to health related concerns with the on-site private water systems. Water has previously
been provided to the Whispering Falls area. The Kanaka Business Park and the Grant Hill Estates are
also on municipal water.
The City’s Drinking Water Master Plan identifies that a reliable, safe, maintainable supply system is
optimized when interconnected or “looped”. This is also a key factor in emergency response.
The Servicing and OCP Designation Map attached to this report identifies the extent of water
availability in relation to the Suburban and Estate Suburban Residential designations. The system
has expanded significantly throughout the area. The majority of properties are within a distance that
is feasible for a water connection. Therefore, unless the City creates a policy that prevents future
connections in this area, properties will continue to connect to the water system in support of some
form of subdivision.
o Sewer
Generally, properties located outside of the Urban Area Boundary are not connected, or permitted to
connect to the regional sewer system. In the suburban Residential land use designation, properties
have on-site septic systems with the expectation of properties zoned RG-2 Suburban Residential
Strata (the Bosonworth subdivision) which has a privately operated sanitary sewer system.
Subdivision is only supportable in the Suburban Residential land use designation if it can be proven
that the parcel is suitable for the installation of an on-site system in accordance with regional and
provincial sewage disposal regulations.
A second circumstance that allows for connection to the regional sewer system are properties
located outside the Urban Area Boundary are land in the Estate Suburban land use designation. The
Official Community Plan established the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation to
differentiate between properties that are already connected to the regional sewer system or are
included in the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area, and therefore may connect to sewer (when
available), from those properties that cannot connect to the sewer system. Based on Metro
Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan the extension of the sewer
system outside of the Fraser Sewer Area is not permitted, and the City’s Official Community Plan
policies reflect this.
Given that properties designated Estate Suburban Residential are connected to, or have the ability to
be connected to the regional sewer system, issues regarding impacts on the environment (i.e. creeks
and watercourses) resulting from potential failing private systems are not applicable. It is noted that
potential impacts on softer services (such as parks and schools) and rural character remain.
o Estate Suburban Development Potential
As noted earlier in the report there are 783 parcels, totaling 243 ha (600 acres) designated Estate
Suburban Residential. 345 of those parcels are currently zoned RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
(668 m2), and would not have any further subdivision potential unless consolidation or a land
assembly occurs.
8
Based on an assessment of parcel size in the Estate Suburban designation, it is estimated that in
the absence of community water, subdivision under current RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zone
is very restricted as the minimum lot size is 2.0 ha (5.0 acres), and may result in an additional 6 lots.
However, if community water is available, it is estimated that there could be a range of between 41
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential lots (0.8 ha) to 182 RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential (0.4
ha) lots. Recognizing that most properties have some form of development constraint, it is realistic
to assume that only 75 % of potential lot yield would be attainable, resulting in an estimate that
ranges from 30 (0.8 ha lots) to 136 lots (0.4 ha).
It is noted however, that properties in the Estate Suburban Residential designation have the
regulatory ability to connect to the regional sewer distribution system and would not necessarily be
developed using on-site systems.
The 75% calculation is based on an evaluation of limiting factors on development such as
environmental and conservation setbacks, road and lot layout patterns. In the Estate Suburban land
use designation, few properties are impacted by steep slopes, a major limiting factor for
development and the ability to connect to the sanitary sewer system makes subdivision more viable.
o Suburban Residential Development Potential
There are 967 parcels, totaling 860 ha (2,125 acres) in the Suburban Residential designation, the
majority of which are zoned RS-3 One Family Rural Residential (321 parcels and 410 ha) and RS-2
One Family Suburban Residential (435 parcels and 248 ha).
Based on the size and number of parcels in the Suburban Residential designation, it is estimated
that there could be an additional 85 RS-3 One Family Rural Residential lots (2.0 ha), utilizing on-site
water and septic. If municipal water is available, there is the potential for an additional 304, 0.8 ha
(2 acre) RS-3 One Family Rural Residential lots.
If all properties greater than 0.8 ha in size were to be rezoned to RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential, and municipal water was available, there is the potential for an additional 848 lots (0.4
ha/ 1 acre). It is noted that these additional lots in the Suburban Residential designation would not
be connected to the regional sewer system and would be developed utilizing on-site septic systems.
The figures above suggest that while there is significant amount of land and potential lot yield, there
are many influencing factors that limit the subdivision potential in the Suburban Residential land use
designation. As part of the analysis of development potential in the Suburban Residential land use
designation area, staff evaluated specific neighbourhoods where a high concentration of suburban
development has taken place. These include Rothsay Garibaldi, Whispering Falls, and Bosonworth.
They have largely been built out. In the Rothsay Garibaldi area,for the few remaining pockets of
developable area consideration should be given to allowing development to continue to full buildout
from a consistency perspective in addition to completing servicing (specifically water system looping)
throughout the area.
Additionally, lands that were identified as potential industrial lands were excluded (industrial
potential lands are discussed later in this report), and finally a 50% land area calculation was
applied to the remaining lands. Unlike the Estate Suburban properties, many of the remaining
Suburban Residential properties have limited subdivision potential due to steep slopes and
watercourse/environmental constraints. Properties that are easily developed have often already
been subdivided. Many of the existing parcels have some level of constraint that may limit
development potential.
9
Therefore, taking all of these factors into account, subdivision potential is likely reduced to
approximately 22 (2 ha) lots, or 152 (0.8 ha) lots, or 424 (0.4 ha) lots.
Adding an additional 424 lots, while not insignificant, in the overall growth scheme for the City this
accounts for approximately 2% of future planned growth. This is a small amount of the overall
potential growth in the City.
o Commercial Industrial Strategy
The Commercial Industrial Strategy was endorsed on August 25, 2014. It identified the need for
future employment lands in the City. As part of the Strategy, potential sites were identified as
possible employment locations. The lands adjacent to Kwantlen First Nation were identified by the
Strategy. Staff was directed to prepare a report on the feasibility of these lands as appropriate
location and site for employment use. Should these lands be redesignated from Suburban
Residential to Industrial approximately 192 ha would be removed from the Suburban Residential
land use designation.
To provide a comprehensive overview of the Suburban Residential land use designation is it
appropriate to consider: (1) the amount of residential development that can be achieved if these
lands were excluded; and (2) whether redesignating these lands at this time is advantageous rather
than in the future. The subject lands are identified on the attached map (Appendix C) for your
information.
The Strategy analyzed lands in the 256th Street area. At the time the Strategy was developed it was
thought that the distance to major arterials from 256th Street was a hindrance, and the area was
viewed as being a long term employment location (e.g. to be developed once other areas were at
capacity). However, market conditions have changed, and both Business Parks in the vicinity of
these lands are experiencing rapid growth. As a result of this pressure, staff has been considering
suburban land use in the area and is recommending that the Suburban Residential lands and
Institutional lands in the vicinity of 256th Street be designated Industrial (see Appendix C). This would
increase employment potential in the community by adding an additional 104 ha (256 acres) of
Suburban Residential and Institutional lands, while reducing the amount of Suburban Residential
land and reducing potential land use conflicts. Should Council support this recommendation to
designate these lands for industrial, staff will begin to prepare bylaws to designate these lands for
Industrial use. While not the subject of this report, in considering the Suburban Residential land use
designation in the vicinity of 256th Street, it is noted that there are vacant institutional properties in
the area that could also be designated Industrial.
Should these Suburban Residential lands be designated for Industrial use, approximately 192 ha
(474 acres) would be removed from the Suburban Residential land use designation. This reduces
the overall Suburban Residential from 860 ha to 667 ha in size. Thus limiting the available lands for
future suburban residential development.
Total Development Potential in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use
Designations
Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that in the absence of municipal water there is
limited subdivision potential in both the Estate Suburban and Suburban Residential land use
designations. In considering the servicing requirements it is clear that the availability of municipal
water in the Suburban Residential land use designation has a significant influence on development
potential. As noted in the report, the RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential Zone requires that the
10
lot be serviced by municipal water. In the absence of water, rezoning to RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential is not supportable. It is important to note since the writing of the original report in 2009,
the majority of areas now have access to water.
Below is a table that combines the number of potential lots that could be created under the RS-3
One Family Rural Residential and the RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential zones. Also included is
the projected development numbers should the future employment lands be designated Industrial
and removed from the Suburban Residential land use designation.
Table 7
Development Potential for Estate Suburban and Suburban Residential
Zone Minimum Lot Size Number of Potential New
Lots
Number of Potential
New Lots less
Proposed Industrial
Lands and completed
subdivisions
100 %
(Maximum
site potential)
50-75% of
development
potential
100 %
(Maximum
site
potential)
50-75% of
development
potential
RS-3 2 ha (5 acres) without
community water
91 46 50 26
RS-2 0.8 ha(2 acres)
without community
water
467 243 345 182
RS-2 0.4 ha (1 acre) with
community water
1261 725 1030 560
Should the Suburban Residential lands, as identified on Appendix C be redesignated to Industrial the
number of potential new residential lots would decrease. The lands adjacent to Kwantlen First
Nation are 88 ha (217 acres) and the lands in the vicinity of 256th Street is 104 ha (256 acres). If
both Suburban Residential land adjacent to Kwantlen First Nation and 256th Street area were
redesignated to Industrial this would remove 192 ha (474 acres) of land from the Suburban
Residential land use designation and would eliminate up to 61 RS-3 or 165 RS-2 future lots from the
inventory.
b) Desired Outcomes:
As discussed above, the ability to connect to the community water system is an influencing factor
under the current policy framework to permit subdivision in the Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban land use designations. Over the past several years, the community water system has been
expanded throughout many of these areas, making water easily available to a significant portion of
the undeveloped properties. However, the capacity of the existing system may limit the ability of
proposed new lots from connecting to the system.
The focus of this report was to provide an overview of the existing conditions and potential for further
subdivision in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use designations. For Council’s
consideration, several options are provided that would result in either limiting further subdivision in
these areas, redistributing development to an area, or allowing the current growth pattern to
continue.
11
The following table identifies a number of options for Council’s consider ation. It is intended to
provide direction to staff and to help guide next steps:
12
Options Comments Council Resolution
1. Estate Suburban:
The Estate Suburban Residential
designation permits single
detached or duplex housing in
areas outside the Urban Area
Boundary. The properties are
within the Fraser Sewer Area or on
property where sewer services
have already been connected.
a) Growth by way of subdivision
continues in the same pattern
with lots ranging from 0.8 ha
(2 acres) to 0.4 ha (1 acre)
Would allow for the looping
of the community water
system
Limited subdivision over the
last 7 years (average of 4
lots per year)
Maximum potential new lots
– 136
That one of the following resolutions be
selected:
1a) No resolution required; or,
b) Increase density by permitting
0.2 ha (1/2 acre) or 0.1 ha
(1/4 acre) lots. This can
include clustering of lots to
preserve site features
including environmentally
sensitive areas.
This could yield between 927 to
1,854 lots.
Smaller lot sizes could be
available to properties that
are connected to the sanitary
sewer system
Properties are connected to
servicing, reducing impacts
to the environment, system
efficiency, and increasing the
number of users contributing
to the financial sustainability
of the system
Permitting higher density
allows for clustering which
offers opportunities to
preserve environmentally
sensitive areas
Estate Suburban land use
areas are located in the
Regional Urban Containment
Boundary
1b) THAT staff be directed to prepare a
report on options for reducing the
minimum parcel size in the Estate
Suburban land use designation; or,
c) Decrease density by either
increasing the minimum
parcel size or redesignating
the area as Rural Residential
Reduces the number of lots
Potentially prevents water
system from finishing looping
and other servicing system
1c) THAT staff prepare and bring
forward a report on options for
increasing the minimum parcel size in
the Estate Suburban land use
13
Options Comments Council Resolution
efficiencies
Maintains existing character
designation.
2. Suburban Residential:
The Suburban Residential
designation permits single
detached or duplex housing in
areas located outside of the Urban
Area Boundary that has water
service but which are not
connected to the municipal
sanitary sewer system.
a) Development to continue in
the same pattern with lots
ranging from 0.8 ha (2 acres)
to 0.4 ha (1 acre)
Would allow for the looping
of the community water
system
Continues current growth
pattern
Provides for a variety of lots
sizes in the community
That one of the following resolutions be
selected:
2a) No resolution required; or,
b) Decrease density by
increasing the minimum
parcel size
Minimum parcel size could
be increased to 4 ha or
greater. This would limit
subdivision potential
Maintains the current
number of parcels
2b) THAT staff prepare and bring
forward a report and bylaws that would
increase the minimum parcel size in
the Suburban Residential land use
designation; or,
c) Redesignate large parcels to a
Suburban Residential Large
Lot land use designation that
would prevent further
subdivision
Minimum parcel size could
be increased to 4 ha or
greater. This would limit
subdivision potential
High level of transparency
Maintains the current
number of parcels
2c) THAT staff draft a bylaw
amendment for the Suburban
Residential Land Use designation and
staff report to create policies for a
large lot sub-category in the Suburban
Residential Land Use designation; or,
d) Designate a portion of larger
parcels to Suburban
Residential Large Lot land use
designation, however, lots in
the Whispering Falls, Rothsay
Garibaldi and Bosonworth
would complete existing
subdivision patterns
Would allow for the looping
of the community water
system
Allows current growth
pattern to complete in
specific neighbourhoods
Provides for a variety of lots
sizes in the community
2d) THAT staff draft a bylaw
amendment that would allow portions
of the Suburban Residential Land Use
designation, specifically Whispering
Falls, Rothsay Garibaldi and
Bosonworth areas to complete
subdivisions while maintaining the
remainder of land use designations in
14
Options Comments Council Resolution
parcels larger than 0.4 ha (1 acre).
3. Commercial Industrial Lands a) Designate lands in the 256
Street area for industrial use
as shown on Appendix C
Removes 104 ha (256 acres)
from Suburban Residential
Limits the number of new
lots by up to approx. 260
Increases land available for
employment use
This includes an Institutional
Parcel
That one of the following resolutions be
selected
3a) THAT Staff draft a bylaw
amendment to the Official Community
Plan to redesignate lands in the 256
Street vicinity to Industrial from
Suburban Residential and Institutional.
b) Designate lands adjacent to
Kwantlen First Nation from
Suburban Residential to
Idustrial as shown on
Appendix C
Removes 88 ha (217 acres)
from Suburban Residential
Limits the number of new
lots by up to 220 lots
Implements the Commercial
Industrial Strategy to provide
more land for employment
lands to meet future
demands
A previous resolution was
passed by Council to
examine the feasibility of
industrial use for these lands
No resolution required.
15
c) Policy Implications:
An OCP amendment may be required, should Council pass a resolution to change the land use
designation for properties with a 4.0 ha parcel size or larger; or alternatively, if staff is directed to
change the minimum parcel size in the Suburban Residential and/or Estate Suburban Residential
land use designation. As with any OCP amendment, Council must consider if early and on-going
consultation is required, in addition to the statutory requirement for a public hearing. If an OCP
amendment is required, the first reading report will be presented outlining a proposed consultation
strategy.
CONCLUSIONS:
This report provides an overview of the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use
designations in the City of Maple Ridge and highlights the accompanying zoning, subdivision and
servicing regulations relating to those land use designations. The calculations in this report
represent a scoping exercise that took a high level overview of individual site topography. But did not
evaluate lot geometry, access, or detailed site specific environmental features. The figures
presented in this report are simply intended to generate discussion.
One of the findings of the report identifies that the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation
has less development potential than the Suburban Residential land use designation. The limited
development potential in the Estate Suburban Residential designation illustrates that many of these
properties have previously been rezoned and/or subdivided under the RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential zone.
The report findings identify that the potential number of additional lots ranges from approximately
243 lots under current RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zoning (with water available), to 725
additional lots should lands be rezoned and/or subdivided under RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential. While this represents a small portion of the overall projected growth for the City, it is not
an insignificant number of new lots being created in these areas. However, 0.4 ha (1 acre) lot sizes
do provide for a range of lot and housing options for the community. Providing a range of housing
options was expressed by the community as an important characteristic of the community.
A number of options are presented for consideration, including increasing density in the Estate
Suburban land use designation, limiting future development in the Suburban Residential land use
designation, to finally, redesignate strategic lands to Industrial to meet future employment needs.
Following Council’s decision, staff will prepare any required bylaw amendments and associated
consultation.
16
Lastly, it is noted that in order to achieve the maximum number of additional lots (i.e. 1713) the
parent parcels must be subdivided into 0.4 ha lots (1 acre) and rezoned from RS-3 One Family Rural
Residential to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential. Should Council not support rezoning
applications to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential, the number of lots created may be
approximately 525, with lot sizes 0.8 ha (2 acres) or greater.
“Original signed by Lisa Grant”
Prepared by: Lisa Grant, M.Plan, MCIP, RPP,
Planner 2
“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 and Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A: Overiview Land Use Designation Map, Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban
Appendix B: Developable Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Areas
Appendix C: Potential Industrial Land Use
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Community Advisory Board
Homelessness Partnering Strategy
Metro Vancouver
Notice of 2016-2019 RFP Review Process Result
File Number: MV2016554
August 23, 2016
Shawn Matthewson
Social Planning Analyst
City of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, British Columbia, V2X 6A9
Via Email: smatthewson@mapleridge.ca
Dear Shawn Matthewson,
Re: Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS)
2016 -2019 Request for Proposals (RFP)
Proposal Name: Mayor's Regional Summit on Homelessness: Strengthening Regional and
Sub-Regional Approaches
Thank you for your proposal in response to the invitation to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy
Community Advisory Board (CAB), and the HPS Community Entity for Metro Vancouver (CE) Request
for Proposals issued May 25, 2016.
Under direction from the CAB, the CE is holding a two-stage process for the 2016-2019 HPS funding
opportunity. As a result of screening-in at the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) stage, you were
invited to respond to the Request for Proposals (RFP) stage.
Of the 50 invitations to submit proposals, 69 responses were received by the deadline. All responses
that screened-in at the RFP stage were provided to the CAB Reviewers. Each proposal was reviewed
and scored according to the criteria set by the CAB and posted on the RFP web pages. The review
process is staged: first, each Reviewer reads and scores their set of proposals independently; then all
Reviewers with the same set of proposals collectively review and score the proposals; and lastly, all
proposals were scored by all review teams to arrive at a final ranking.
Unfortunately, at the conclusion of the review process, your proposal was not recommended and
will not proceed further in the RFP process.
6.1
You are welcome to schedule a debrief session with the CE in October 2016, by contacting
hpsce-mv@metrovancouver.org .
Sincerely,
Michael Anhorn, Chair
Community Advisory Board
Homelessness Partnering Strategy
cc: Nora Gibson, Senior Development Officer, Homelessness Partnering Strategy, Service
Canada