HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-17 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA November 17, 2020 1:30 p.m. Virtual Online Meeting including Council Chambers Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. The meeting is Jive streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. For virtual public participation during Community Forum please register by going to www.mapleridge.ca/640/Council-Meeting and clicking on the meeting date 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of November 3, 2020 3. DELEGATIONS/ STAFF PRESENTATIONS (10 minutes each) 4. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: • Owners and/or Agents of development applications on this agenda may be permitted to speak to their item with a time limit of 10 minutes. • The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda where further debate and voting will take place, upon Council decision to forward them to that venue. 1101 2020-228-RZ, 25629 Bosonworth Avenue, RS-2 to RS-3 Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7672-2020 to rezone from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedule C of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
Committee of the Whole Agenda November 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5 1102 2020-296-RZ, 10420, 10456 240 Street and 24027 104 Avenue, RS-2 to RM-1 Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7683-2020 to rezone from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit a future townhouse development of approximately 66 units be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D, E, and F of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. 1103 2020-369-RZ, 124 78 223 Street, RS-3 to RS-1b Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7864-2020 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to permit the future subdivision of two single family residential lots be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedule B of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application. 1104 2020-327-RZ, Removal of the Owner Occupancy Requirement for Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 to remove the owner occupancy requirement for secondary suites and detached garden suites be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing, that Business Licensing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 to implement a Good Neighbour Agreement for property owners renting two or more rental units on the property be given first, second and third reading and that enforcement of the owner occupancy requirement continue to be held in abeyance until the Zoning Bylaw and Business Licensing and Regulation Bylaw amendments are adopted. 1105 2019-064-RZ, 11045 Cameron Court, RS-2 to RS-id Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7551-2019 to rezone from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential to permit the future subdivision of approximately 6 lots be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing and that the developer be required to pay the City an amount equal to 5% of the market value of the land in lieu of parkland dedication.
Committee of the Whole Agenda November 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5 1106 2018-105-DVP, 24145 and 24185 110 Avenue, Development Variance Permit Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2018-105-DVP to reduce the minimum required lot widths for the RS-id sized lots within the development. 5. ENGINEERING SERVICES 1131 Award of Contract-lTT-EN20-49, Sanitary Sewer Upgrades on 123 Avenue and 227 Street Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Contract ITT-EN20-49: Sanitary Sewer Upgrades on 123 Avenue and 227 Street be awarded to Redline Excavating Ltd., that a contingency to address potential variations in field conditions be approved and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1132 Award of Contract RFP-EN20-29: Engineering Design Services for Two (2) Multi-Use Pathways and One (1) Intersection Improvement Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Contract RFP-EN20-29: Engineering Design Services for Two (2) Multi-Use Pathways and One (1) Intersection improvement be awarded to McElhanney Ltd., that a contingency for unanticipated additional works be approved and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1133 Abernethy Way Extension Study (240 Street to 256 Street Study Update) Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that the McElhanney September 2020 Technical Memo, Abernethy Way Extension Study 240 Street to256 Street Study Update be endorsed and that the alignment of Abernethy Way Extension from 240 Street to 256 Street as identified in Appendix A be selected as the preferred route. 1134 Snow and Ice Control Policy No. 9.08 Update Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that Snow and Ice Control Policy No. 9.08 be adopted as amended.
Committee of the Whole Agenda November 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5 6. CORPORATE SERVICES 1151 Fire Dispatch and Operations Centre After Hours Emergency Callout Services Contract Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending that the contract for Fire Dispatch and Operations Centre After Hours Emergency Callout Services be awarded to the City of Surrey and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1152 2021 Council Meeting Schedule Staff report dated November 17, 2020 recommending the adoption of the 2021 Council Meeting schedule. 7. PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE 8. ADMINISTRATION 9. ADJOURNMENT 10. COMMUNITY FORUM
--( Committee of the Whole Agenda November 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5 _,,---COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to speak with Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing bylaws that have not yet reached conclusion. There is a 2 minute time limit per speaker with a second opportunity provided if no one else is waiting to speak, and a total of 15 minutes is provided for the Community Forum. Respectful statements and/or questions must be directed through the Chair and not to individual members of Council. During the COVID-19 health emergency it is important to ensure that our democratic processes continue to function and that the work of the City remains transparent for all citizens. We are doing business a bit differently during this time as we balance the health and safety of citizens and staff with our democratic processes. While City Hall is now open to the public, Council meetings are being held virtually and only necessary staff are present. In-person attendance by the public at Council meetings is not available and we encourage the public to watch the video recording of the meeting via live stream or any time after the meeting via http://media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase. Using Zoom, input from the public during Community Forum is being facilitated via email to clerks@mapleridge.ca and/or via the raised hand function through the Zoom meeting. For virtual public participation during Community Forum please register in advance by at clicking on the date of the meeting at https://www.mapleridge.ca/640/Council-Meetings. When the meeting reaches the Community Forum portion, please raise your virtual hand to indicate you would like to speak. For detailed information on how to register for the meeting of interest, please refer to https://www.mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/24663/Launch-Virtual-Meeting If you have a question or comment that you would normally ask as part of Community Forum, you can email clerks@mapleridge.ca before 1:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting and your questions or comments will be shared with Council. If you miss this deadline staff will respond to you in writing as soon as possible. As noted, during the COVID-19 health emergency, we will be using new virtual tools to ensure that citizens' voices are being heard as part of our meetings. We thank citizens for their support as we try innovative approaches to keep us all connected even as we separate to stop the spread of COVID-19. For more information contact: Clerk's Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorcouncilandcaol@mapleridge.ca APPROVED BY: DATE: ~. \2,21Y1D PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: DATE: Nov, l;J./~oa.o ' ' ' -
City of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES November 3, 2020 The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting held on November 3, 2020 at 1:35 p.m. virtually and in Council Chambers of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Elected Officials Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor K. Duncan Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef Appointed Staff A. Horsman, Chief Administrative Officer C. Carter, General Manager Planning & Development Services C. Crabtree, General Manager Corporate Services S. Nichols, Corporate Officer D. Pollock, General Manager Engineering Services D. Pope, Acting General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Other Staff as Required C. Goddard, Director of Planning M. McMullen, Manager of Development and Environmental Services Note: These Minutes are posted on the City website at mapleridge.ca/AgendaCenter/ Video of the meeting is posted at media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase Note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Councillor Yousef choose to participate electronically. Note: Councillor Duncan was not in attendance at the start of the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of October 20, 2020 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the October 20, 2020 Committee of the Whole Meeting be adopted. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS -Nil 2.1
Committee of the Whole Minutes November 3, 2020 Page 2 of 3 4. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 2019-244-RZ, 12155 Edge Street, RM-2 Staff report dated November 3, 2020 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7567-2019 to zone to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) to permit a five storey, 209 market rental unit apartment building be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. The Director of Planning provided a summary presentation and staff answered Council questions. Note: Councillor Duncan joined the meeting at 1:44 p.m. It was moved and seconded That the staff report dated November 3, 2020 titled "Second Reading, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7567-2019, 12155 Edge Street" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of November 10, 2020. CARRIED 1102 2018-325-RZ, 12581 243 Street, RS-3 to RS-2 Staff report dated November 3, 2020 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7 495-2018 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to permit a future Subdivision of two lots be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. The Manager of Development and Environmental Services provided a summary presentation and staff answered Council questions. It was moved and seconded That the staff report dated November 3, 2020 titled "Second Reading, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7 495-2018, 12581 2343 Street" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of November 10, 2020. CARRIED Council!or Duncan -OPPOSED 5. ENGINEERING SERVICES -Nil 6. CORPORATE SERVICES -Nil
Committee of the Whole Minutes November 3, 2020 Page 3 of 3 7. PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE -Nil 8. ADMINISTRATION -Nil 9. ADJOURNMENT -1:55 p.m. Mayor M. Morden, Chair Presiding Member of the Committee
1 .~ iihiPIIUMII British Columbia ~---·-----mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 2020-228-RZ FROM: SUBJECT: Chief Administrative Officer First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7672-2020; 25629 Bosonworth Avenue EXECUTIVE SUM MARY: MEETING: Co W An application has been received to rezone the panhandle portion of subject property, located at 25629 Bosonworth Avenue, from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). This will permit the panhandle portion of the lot to be subdivided off and consolidated with the adjacent land to the north located at 25638 112 Avenue that is historically zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). This fulfills a requirement of the no-build restrictive covenant associated with the original rezoning of the subject property (2012-102-RZ) that the panhandle portion of the lot be consolidated with the lands to the north and the trees along the panhadle be maintained as a permanant natural buffer. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. Community Amenity Contributions (CAC) have been collected with the original application. No CAC is chargeable for this rezoning application. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7672-2020 be given first reading; and 2. That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: 2020-228-RZ Paul Hayes Lot 5 Section 13 Township 12 NWD Plan EPP7531 Suburban Residential Suburban Residential RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) 1101 Page 1 of 4 !
Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Remnant Lot Area Panhandle Portion Area: Access: Servicing requirement: b) Site Characteristics: Vacant RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Agricultural (not in the ALR) Residential A-2 (Upland Agricultural) Suburban Residential Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Agricultural (in the ALR) Residential RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Suburban Residential Vacant Residential 0.57 HA (1.41 acre) 0.4 HA (1.0 acres) 0.17 HA (0.42 acre) Bosonworth Avenue Urban Standard The property slopes downward from Bosonworth Avenue. The portion of the site is being regraded to accommodate the proposed single residential dwelling. There will be mature trees preserved in the panhandle portion and at the eastern edge of the lot area being rezoned, supplemented with plantings, as part of landscape buffers in accordance with restrictive covenants registered in conjunction with the original rezoning (2012-102-RZ). c) Project Description: This application fulfills a requirement of a restrictive covenant associated with the original rezoning (2012-102-RZ). The panhandle portion of the subject lot is to be rezoned from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to match the zoning of the adjacent property at 25638 112 Avenue to the north (see Appendices C and D). This would allow the panhandle to be subdivided off and consolidated with the property to the north. This northern property is intended to be subdivided into two (2) lots under the RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone. At this time, the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and further reports will be required prior to second reading. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The subject site is currently designated Suburban Residential. Changes to the designation are not required to accommodate this application. In conjunction with the consolidating the panhandle with 2020-228-RZ Page 2 of 4
the adjacent land, the panhandle may need to be redesigned to Agricultural to match the designation of adjacent lot. A separate OCP amendment application would be submitted. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the panhandle portion of the property located at 25629 Bosonworth Avenue, from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). After the panha'ndle is subdivided off the subject lot, the resulting new RS-2 parcel will comply with the minimum lot area requirement of 0.40 hectares. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development Permits: Development Permit No. 2012-102-DP for Natural Features and Watercourse Protection has been issued in accordance with Council's Delegation Bylaw in conjunction with the original rezoning (2012-102-DP). No further permit application is required to accommodate this rezoning application. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is not required for this application. e) Interdepartmental Implications: There has been a previous referral with the requirements being addressed by the applicant as part of the original application (2012-102-DP). Because some time has passed since the original application was reviewed, a new referral will be undertaken in the unlikely event that new requirements apply. This referral will take place after first reading, with comments and input being sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Building Department; e) Parks, Recreation and Culture Department; f) School District; g) Utility companies; and h) Canada Post. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing and site access requirements have not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between first and second reading. f) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed, the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 as amended: 1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C); The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. 2020-228-RZ Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION: The proposed layout has not been reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations governing subdivision applications. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and must be approved by the Approving Officer. The development proposal is in compliance with the OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. "Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski" Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski Planner "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7672-2020 Appendix D -Proposed Site Plan 2020-228-RZ Page 4 of 4
1~ ·---! l APPENDIX Al '1' .,. .. ' / ~ ' I ' -.'-__ / , J , ·--! J ~ 'Ji j I ~ • 13 I 112 AVE. i:! 11360 ~--__ _... ~ ~ ---------------------....... __ .._ ·---~' ~ --~ ~ i :;-'--~ ---a. \\ g ~ 1€! I ;, ~ "' .. l I I \ / , -' I Y,;,o -........ t-' I "' ~ \ ,.,,_ N I ~ t ~/T PROPERTY \ ~ · 1 I "' XX I A ~ I XX X )( )( )(' ')( Vxx )(~ Vx~ ''l<x>o(\?' t-' "' ~ ~ VYJAXJAXJA~ ,,, 20~13:osJ-DP )' ,: t. )oX~x"x.x )()()(X><X><XX X 'g xxY ~vx })())( xxx YY)()( X 'X,1, AX -YYY)( ,s: ,,,;x~1~0JG X X ffi '>( XX X ,Y X xx-,; x x" :> ~: ~ "2016-229-DP,; x" ,<' x)fX~~X x '" X X X X X :201_~~J29-RZ:> "> 7 Y,, t-' "2015:-2.2vg~vP' . "' . ,: DY Cl. " I 5 )( )( I "' ti) }< )( I ~ ; I \~ ij 11224 !07'7' )( ? ))( J 25 .~ VV' " BOSONWORTH A,,, _J "' ......... I ----. I 1 \ ~ I i ~ i I j ~ ~ I' ~ ~ m I:: I Ii ~ ; I m "' ; ~ 11142 ! /v I ~ ~ / Legend 25629 BOSONWORTH AVENUE -Stream PLANNING DEPARTMENT ---Ditch Centreline - -Indefinite Creek N -Lake or Reservoir ~ Active Applications (RZ/SD/DPNP) Scale: 1 :3,000 FILE: 2020-228-RZ DATE: Jul 29, 2020 BY: PC l -t l. ' ' -' ' -r. --r ---r --,.-_-c-..:: r -_;;;-~ !1 ti
i--: (/) (!) LO N ------r -- --I I I I I I - - --_J (') 0 <o LO C'\j >---- --~ / r-a::, C'\j 0-' 0) /~ ' LO LO I C'\j C'\j ' ' ' ' - - --- --I --I I I ~ LO 0) L LO ~ N Scale: 1 :1,500 APPENDIX A'-I I I I I I I I I ~ ----I I I I I I I I f _:: I I 11 I I RS-2 to RS-3 I -----1------~ ._ ._ I 1----,, " .., .. I I / ''' " I I I I I' " I 'I I I I " J SUBJECT PROPERTY I " I I " , I , ---' ' I ' I ' I ~ -;:::.....-,, " " " J ,,,, I I Remains1 RS-2 I I I I r-... LO 0) I --C'\j C'\j (0 <o (0 LO LO LO I C'\j C'\j C'\j BOSONWORTH AVE. I 0 C'\j (') C'\j I (0 (0 LO ' LO I C'\j I C'\j I I -I I' I ' I '' I I p I, 1 ' /I ' , , I I I 25629 BOSONWORTH FILE: 2020-228-RZ DA TE: Nov 5, 2020 BY:DT ' ' ' -. -I " !-~:: I ,~ i r. I I r I i
Scale: 1 :2,500 APPENDIX 8 25629 BOSONWORTH AVENUE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ·~ --"!:!i.t¢~··~ ••• FILE: 2020-228-RZ DATE: Oct 29, 2020 mapleridge.ca BY: PC l l ' ,_-
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. No 7672-2020 APPENDIXC A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7672-2020." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: A portion of Lot 5 Section 13 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan EPP7531 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1848 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER , 20 , 20 , 20 ,20 ,20 CORPORATE OFFICER
~r·------_-----~ 1· "'t -----------1 • I ~ I I I 11 I I I p 11459 I I L ____ j______ P 17459 5 12 -~-1 EPP 75231 I 7 P8336 Rem6 P 8336 EP 17454 \ \ I 11267 I ' "' ~ I "' O> g "' "' <o <o <o "' "' "' ~ "' "' I "' EPP 48393 A ----'-----,_ _____________ _:_:_11.J BOSONWORTH AVE. P1~21_ j" _ _ "'_ ---~-=--I I.O t--.,
I 0) I.O l{) I lQ SL60 r. SL59 " SL58 i • SL57 ----~P~78~SL34:----l ----------------: I I SL50 "'SL49 "SL48 i SL47 I IO I'... i ~ ~ ~ I ~ EPP 38727 7741 GODWIBlil~IW 41 15738 I 0 "' <o "' "' ill I I "' "' "' "' "' "' "' 0 "' 142 EPP1 740 I SL$1 s143 SL44 8::1 SL46 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING 7672-2020 1848 2 Bylaw No. Map No. From: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) To: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 3 6 N SCALE 1 :2,500
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN OF
LOT 1 PLAN EPP75231 AND LOT 5 PLAN EPP75231
SECTION 13 TOWNSHIP 12 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT
SCALE 1 : 1000
ALL DISTANCES AA£ IN MEJRES AND DECIMALS
THEREOF UNl£5S OTHERWISE INDICATED.
1050 25.0 N :, l ,, "® I ,n~ ,. I ,, __/
112 AVENUE Plan 8336 and
Plan 73350 50.0 I
D I Ref.Plan 4689
77:J)O
':J9".J,,,.,, I 68.95 -,-r o~'o.,-
WADE & ASSOCIATES LAND SURVrnNG LTD.
12
Plan 17459
SEC/4 J'P/2
5
Plan 17459 j
1
<>I
<o ::i "' l
BC LAND SURVEYORS 11 PREPARED FOR: PAUL HAYES MISSION & MAPLE RIDGE PHONE: (604) 826-9561 OR 463-4753
FILE: H2945-15L08
x.'i'.)/
'<.~~/
/
1
7
Plan 8336 "' ::i 0.801 ha ~
~
r----, i .
i
i I i._ ____ j
2
76.76
Pian EPP7523t
r·-·-·-·-·,
i i i Ref.Plan i i EPP75232 i
i._ ____ j
2 1.572 ha
D()
r·-t-~~~~~~~~~~~~->c-~~~~~~~~~~~~
I i ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·t·-·
Pian 8336 Ex.Plan EPP752J4 .
11J.4Z
r·-·-·-·-·-, ·"· ...... . . I
15,JB··, ·, ·, 1 Ref.Plan 1 . 1 EPP75232 1 / I I /'·, '·, I
( ' ·--1 I 11 i... _____ j l..
I .......... /
3 4
Planl EPP75231
SEC/3 J'P/2
. ·,. r,.
I '· 1 '· ( 'i
'·, I 'v---'~ !~
<o Io...-Rem. 5 i 8:i~
§ O • .W ha 0::::
.j
Jl.45
BOSONWORTH AVENUE
Rem.6
Plan 8336
Pcl.'A'
Ex.Plan 17454
0
c=J
32
Plan 67649
tj
~ (/)
if ~
85 3 a':
5
Plan 8336
10
Plan 2567J
11
)>
""C
""C rr, z
CJ x
CJ
DATE OF DRAWING: OCTOBER 30, 2020
1·~·-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 2020-296-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C o W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7683-2020; 10420, 10456 240 Street and 24027 104 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties, located at 10420 and 10456 240 Street, and 24027 104 Avenue, from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to permit a future townhouse development and parkland. As per Council Policy 6.31, a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) of $4,100 per townhouse dwelling unit is applicable to the subject properties. At this stage, preliminary plans contemplate approximately 66 townhouse units. This would generate CACs of $270,600.00. Since this first reading report is based on preliminary plans, the total CAC figure will also be adjusted. It is noted that a number of technical reports are required for this project to advance to second reading, and it is quite likely that the boundaries of the developable land may change and unit yields may be reduced as a result. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7683-2020 be given first reading; and 2. That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D, E, F and of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the additional information noted in this report dated November 17, 2020. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: 2020-296-RZ Kunwar Bir Singh Lot 6 Section 10 Township 12 NWD Plan 10921; Lot 7 Except Part Subdivided by Plan 227 43, Section 10 Township 12 NWD Plan 14 750; and Lot "A" Section 10 Township 12 NWD Plan P22743 Medium Density Residential, Conservation Medium Density Residential, Conservation 1102 Page 1 of 6
Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: b) Site Characteristics: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Residential RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Conservation, Medium Density Residential Residential RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential [under rezoning application to RM-1 (2017-510-RZ)] Medium Density Residential Residential and School P-1 (Park and School), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Institutional, Medium Density Residential Vacant RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Urban Residential, Conservation Residential Residential and Park 1.373 ha. (3.39 acres) 104Avenue Urban Standard The site consists of three parcels of land to be consolidated as part of the development application process. The land is highest in the southeast portion of the subject site and gradually slopes down towards the west and northwest. There are a number of tree clusters on the site and a drainage ditch running along 240 Street. The northwest portion of the site is close to Spencer Creek. c) Project Description: The application is for a townhouse development located at 10420 and 10456 240 Street and 24027 104 Avenue (See Appendices A and B). Because the lands to the north will not be able to gain access across Spencer Creek from 240 Street, a statutory right of way will be required through this site to allow access from 104 Avenue. The exact specifications of this driveway will need to accommodate emergency and service vehicles. There is also an adjacent lot fronting 104 Avenue that will need access through this property because it is not part of the current proposal. Given that some details are required to better determine the layout and exact townhouse yield, at this time the rezoning application has been assessed to determine only its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and to provide a land use assessment only. A northern portion of the site is proposed to be dedicated for parkland, encompassing the areas designated in the OCP for Conservation and an additional area identified as being environmentally sensitive. While offering to dedicate all the environmentally sensitive lands, an OCP amendment for the Conservation designation boundary is not needed. The setbacks and drive aisle locations, particularly in the northern part of the site, will need to be verified once environment assessment, 2020-296-RZ Page 2 of 6
geotechnical and arborist reports are finalized. There may be opportunities to incorporate and preserve some of the tree clusters in open spaces for use by future residents, as well as introducing a corner design or gateway element at 104 Avenue, into the Albion Area, similar to the project underway to the south. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once the elements indicated below are clarified by the applicant and full application packages have been received. This more detailed analysis and further reports will be required prior to second reading. Elements to be reviewed by the City include: • Determining all environmentally sensitive areas and fully examining watercourses and drainage; • The arborist clarifying the potential retention of trees in finalizing the townhouse siting plan; • Preparing coordinated lot grading plans, storm water management plans and landscaping plans, including the treatment at the corner of 240 Street and 104 Avenue; • Coordination of the location and standards for a shared driveway and access route through the subject site to adjacent lands to the north and east; and • Preparation of a geotechnical report. The assessment of these elements will further assist in identifying the developable portion of the site, density, unit yield, and Bylaw particulars. At this time, the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the OCP and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and further reports will be required prior to second reading. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is located within the Albion Area Plan and is currently designated Medium Density Residential. The proposed zone is permitted by Area Plan Zoning Matrix. The density associated with the approximately 66-unit unit project being proposed is within the density range permitted in the Area Plan. Area Plan Policy 10-10 concerning efficient sequencing of development has been achieved; provided more detailed information is provided before second reading to demonstrate how access to the lands to the north will function and that the adjacent lot fronting lot on 104 Avenue can be developed independently. At this stage, the proposed park dedication in the northern part of the site achieves protecting watercourses (Policy 10-14) and protecting natural vegetation (Policy 10-15), Additional details will be required with respect to Policies 10-12 and 10-13 for tree retention opportunities, provision of amenities and geotechnical setbacks. In developing the detailed design, Area Plan Policy 10-16 requires adherence to form and character guidelines in Section 8 of the OCP, such as: providing street fronting character to townhouse facing 240 Street and 104 Avenue; creating a sense of place through the layout of buildings and open spaces; and giving attention to the landscaping and built form at the southwest corner of the site to read as a gateway into the Albion neighbourhood. 2020-296-RZ Page 3 of 6
Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the properties located at 10456 and 10420 240 Street, and 24027 104 Avenue, from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) (see Appendix C) to permit a townhouse development. The conceptual subdivision plan identifies the portion of the site curently identified for possible development, road widening and parkland dedication (see Appendix D). Assessment of these elements identified earlier in this report is likely to impact proposed developable portion of the site and the Bylaw particulars. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. The extent to which the density bonus Area Plan Policy 10-5 will be utilized is not known at this time. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the OCP, a Multi-Family Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the OCP, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Advisory Design Panel: A Multi-Family Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to Second Reading. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to second reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. e) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, immediately after first reading, the elements identified earlier in this report are to be resolved with the applicant. With a full submission being made, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies including the ones listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Building Department; e) Parks, Recreation and Culture Department; f) School District; g) Utility companies; h) Fisheries & Oceans Canada; i) Ministry of Environment; and j) Canada Post. 2020-296-RZ Page 4 of 6
The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. The shared driveway and access through the subject site being proposed to lands to the north and the east, requires that the specifications be determined and suitable legal instruments be registered. A stormwater management covenant with maintenance requirements is required and is to be coordinated with the development permit landscaping plans. Being a prominent corner at the entrance into Albion, suitable form and character is to be reflected in the corner buildings and landscaping. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing and site access requirements have not been undertaken. Staff anticipates that this evaluation will take place between first and second reading. f) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 as amended: 1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C); 2. A Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D); 3. A Development Variance Permit (Schedule E); 4. A Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule F); and 5. A Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: With the dedication of environmentally sensitive areas as parkland and the proposed townhouse form, the development proposal is in general compliance with the OCP and Albion Area Plan. Once the environmental and geotechnical setbacks are determined, the developable portion of the site, density and unit yield may be confirmed. 2020-296-RZ Page 5 of 6
Sufficient rationale to move forward has been provided; therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading, subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. "Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski" Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski Planner "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7683-2020 Appendix D -Proposed Site Plan 2020-296-RZ Page 6 of 6
I ~ I ~ I I 0 I ~ I "' I I I I I I I I I I I I 10416 10410 10406 ,__10_39_0 _ ____, i 10380 N Scale: 1 :2,500 I I ' I f I I I 10525 I ----10456 I-' "' 0 ~ I f 10420 I I I ,,--...... / _..,,,. " ~ ~ <o c:, " ~ APPENDIX A _,___, ____ _ 104AVE 104AVE. Legend -Stream 10389 ---Ditch Centreline - -Indefinite Creek -River Centreline .. Lake or Reservoir ·-----------c:, <o <o ig c:, ~ ~ . I ' 10386 • __ .l_-t II---..L__.L_ ____ .1--------;, I 10366 10358 10355 10352 10349 10346 10343 10340 10337 10332 10331 10328 10325 10322 10319 I-' "' ~ ~ 10420/56 240 STREET & 24027 104 AVENUE PID'S: 009-247-513, 009-437-070 & 010-040-722 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ------·-· FILE: 2020-296-RZ DATE: Sep 15, 2020 maple ridge.ca BY:PC
N Scale: 1 :2,500 APPENDIX 8 10420/56 240 STREET & 24027 104 AVENUE PID'S: 009-247-513, 009-437-070 & 010-040-722 FILE: 2020-296-RZ DATE: Sep 15, 2020 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY:PC
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7683-2020 APPENDIXC A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7683-2020." 2. Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as: Lot 6 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 10921; Lot 7 Except Part Subdivided by Plan 227 43, Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 14 750; and Lot "A" Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan P22743 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1851 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER ,20 ,20 , 20 , 20 ,20 CORPORATE OFFICER
10406 3 N _j 10390 (!) n. 0 2 (!) 0:: '1' 0 10380 LL t;;: 1 u _J 10370 co Cf) _j n. 0 0:: 0 LL 5 (/) / (EPS 2387) / EPP 45287 I. --. ""1'---i_J [., PARK EPP 45286 Rem. Pel. A BCP 8155 / I I "" "\)\) / di/ / 'o;;, / I / / / I I J ( I ) / I I '-I I \ \ 0 :g "' 0, 0, ~4 "' "' PARK BCP45800 I I I / I (EPS 763) 4 10525 10389 f--' Cf)
0 ... N / RW66539 .,. / §I t 11 ;1 /// ...,I I I I J~, 1 10456 P 10921 6 P 22743 A 10420 "' "' 0 ~ P 14750 Rem 7 ., "' 0 .. "' Rem. Pel.A P 14750 8 0 "' 0 ~ A B Rem D B P 21 69 NWP7139 P 13554 10386 A P 13554 10366 - ---10358 9 .i8J.!!3~ ~ -- --EPP 59458 ... 10352 8 17 10349 CD M 10346 7 16 10343 n. u en 10340 61,; 15 10337 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 7683-2020 1851 RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) EPP 80804 :g I ., LO ;:> 0 .. I~ ~ "' cr, I~ L I n. EPP 59457 w (EPS 5443) ~-=;;._ .. -BCP 8 ' LMP418 104AVE. (EPS 4930) A EPP49494 6 N P2 SCALE 1 :2,500 r-i i !. r· i-i ~ i cc 1-= !·::: i~ I~ I~ L-il i =-: ! __ (
..... ----~-----.,-~···=~--APPENDIX D ------I . . "'b-,...~ "("'e,..J~~-N / CJD~ \.,.\17~~. -r~e:A-~ Q,,o f},,Q.-, '1-P\Co ... tZ ~ . Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. 3862W14Ave Vancouver. BC V6R 2W9 604·817-4695
TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7864-2020; 124 78 223 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 2020-369-RZ MEETING: C o W An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 124 78 223 Street, from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), to permit a future subdivision of two (2) single family residential lots. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. As per Council Policy 6.31, which was updated December 12, 2017, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program, at a rate of $5,100 per lot. However, because the application is proposing for less than three (3) lots, the original lot is exempt. Therefore, an estimated CAC amount of only $5,100.00 would be required. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7864-2020 be given first reading; and 2. That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedule B of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: 2020-369-RZ Pavan Rakhra Anne M Kump Lot 36, District Lot 400, New Westminster District Plan 31494 Urban Residential Urban Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) 1103 Page 1 of 4
Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: b) Site Characteristics: Single Family Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Urban Residential Single Family Residential RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Urban Residential Single Family Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Urban Residential Single Family Residential RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Urban Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 0.11 HA (0.28 acres) 223 Street Urban Standard The subject property is 0.11 ha (0.28 acres) in area and is bounded by single family residential lots on all sides (see Appendices A and B). The subject property is relatively flat with minor grade changes running east-west across the northern portion of 12478 223 Street. There are trees and vegetation located on the southwest and southcentral portions of the subject property. There is an existing house on the site that will require removal as a condition of final reading. c) Project D.escription: The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to permit future subdivision into two (2) single family residential lots (See Appendix C). Proposed Lot 1 will be 569.2m2 and proposed Lot 2 will be 568.8m2; both will be accessed from 223 Street. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and further reports will be required prior to second reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. 2020-369-RZ Page 2 of 4
d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The OCP designates the subject property as Urban Residential, and development of the property is subject to the Neighbourhood Residential Infill Policies 3.19 and 3.21 of the OCP. These policies require that development be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, with particular attention given to site design, setbacks and lot configuration with the existing pattern of development in the area. Specifically, Policy 3.19 provides for subdivision in established neighbourhoods providing that the lot area and width is not less than 80% of the lot area and width prescribed under the predominate zone in the neighbourhood. The adjacent properties located north, south and west are zoned RS-1b with a minimum lot size of 557.om2 and RS-1 with a minimum lot size of 668.0m2. These zoned properties are similar in lot size with the subdivision being proposed. After reviewing the lot dimensions of the proposed subdivision, it's been concluded that the proposal meets Policy 3.19 and compliments adjacent lot sizes. The application to rezone the property to the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential zone is compliant with the OCP infill policies and is, therefore, supportable. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 12478 223 Street from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to permit subdivision into two (2) single family residential lots (see Appendix D). The minimum lot size for the current RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone is 8,000.0m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone is 557.0m2. The maximum building height within the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone is 9.5 metres within the proposed new Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 which would allow for the construction of a 3.5 storey house. Given the sensitivities with the heights of infill development, staff will require that the building height be limited to 8.0 metres (2.5 storeys). This limitation will compliment existing housing, which is predominately 1 or 2 storeys in height, on the adjacent properties. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is not required for this application as the proposal is creating less than five (5) dwelling units and there is no change in use as per Council Policy 6.20. e) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Building Department; e) Parks, Recreation and Culture Department; f) School District; and g) Canada Post. 2020-369-RZ Page 3 of 4
The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing and site access requirements have not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between first and second reading. f) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 as amended: 1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B); and 2. A Subdivision Application. The above list is intended to be indicative only; other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: The proposed layout has not been reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations governing subdivision applications. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and must be approved by the Approving Officer. The development proposal is in compliance with the OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. "Original signed by Tyson Baker" Prepared by: Tyson Baker, B.PI. Planning Technician "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7684-2020 Appendix D -Proposed Subdivision Plan 2020-369-RZ Page 4 of 4
-------r I APPENDIX A I ;, I I I -l 12573 I I R ~ 'I-a:, ~ ~ ~ I--1579 0, 0, ~ -~ "' ~ "' ~ "' "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 12567 V j 12 561 12561 12556 12561 12550 ( ~ ~ 12551 12550 12555 ~ 12553 12540 6'{9 ~ I 112543 12544 12549 r.2s,? ~ ( -7 12530 COLEMORE ' 12541 12538 12545 12515 PL~ _)) 12520 12530 12533 12511 I 12537 12527 12520 12525 12510 12509 (, i,..: (J) 12512 12513 "' 12512 12519 "' f~ "' 112::JU;! c g IO 12515 ~ ~ 12504 12511 ~ 12507 12505 12495 125 AVE. .,., 12501 I 12487 , 12479 12471 12463 12455 12447 12439 12431 12423 12411 ..... ij lg ~ ~ (\I C\j(\j ~ ~~ N Scale: 1 :2,000 12494 . 12497 12486 12478 12487 2019-~(!9;SD~ 12470 [" '( )( X. ,. 2019-4:~ .xxx)(x 2019_.;.4_Q.9~VP i,..: 12462 (J) <') "' "' 12454 12461 12446 12451 12438 • I I 12430 12441 12429 12422 12414 R! (\I 12417 12404 ~ 124AVE. I ~ I I ~ I I I I I~ 12370 Legend -Stream R ~ (\I ~ ~ ---Ditch Centreline - -Indefinite Creek -River Centreline ~ ~ 12478 12466 12460 12450 12444 12424 ~ ~ ~ Active Applications (RZ/SD/DPNP) I 12497 ~UBJECT PROPERTY I~ / ~ ~ 12485 v 12484 "' ..... .... "' ~~ 12477 I 12472 JI 12467 t-' I 12462 (J) w I 0::: 12457 0 ~ ,::E 12450 w ...J I 18 •' 12445 I I 12438 12433 Ii 12430 12422 ~ I i2 ~ "' ~ 12421 ~ 2 ~ "' ~ ~ ~ ' '" /~! 124 78 223 STREET PIO: 005-510-716 FILE: 2020-369-RZ DATE: Oct 22, 2020 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12483 12475 12465 ~ 12455 ( 12445 I 12435 12425 12415 12405 IO t:: 0, ~ ~ ~ ~ BY:PC [ ' , __ , __ , __ ,_ ' ' ,--' ' I I : !-!=~ r-~ I
Scale: 1 :2,000 -,---.-. ·-. --~. APPENDIX 8 124 78 223 STREET PIO: 005-510-716 FILE: 2020-369-RZ DATE: Oct 22, 2020 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY:PC
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7684-2020 APPENDIXC A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7684-2020." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 36 District Lot 400 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 31494 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1852 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map ''A'1 attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER ,20 ,20 ,20 ,20 , 20 CORPORATE OFFICER
"' 126AVE. 0 "' ... ,.._ "' "' "' "' "' 7~ "' "' 16"' 17"' 5 I tJ jt---s I P 70 76 8 12556 (") ' 0 \ r---4 ' 2551 9 12550 2 3' )2543 _; 10 12544 3 .,I 11 12538 ; 4 --'2 \ 12 12530 5 12537 13 6 12520 I 1 , t-::=----1--1 -I , ~ 70376 f-' 14 en "' 12512 "' 12502 N 15 (l_ 7 8 "' "' 12578 126AVE. "' "' "' "' 18'"' -1 12561 12550 12555 2 12540 12549 3 12530 12545 4 12520 12533 5 6 12525 12510 12509 P 70 22 12519 5 2 3 4 Q "' ~ 0 "' "' "' C') N 0 0 0 ~ "' "'5 ~ 12512 w 12504 0 <D (") (l_ SK 8957 co <D Ii) N (l_ 6 5 12567 P 87455 t -1 Rem"A" 12561 RW 87 456 7 / \ I 12553 4 12541 3 *PP120 12527 2 12513 / EP 70737 -12515 I P 71514 EP 30750 12511 -~-~--'--'-'12'-'5-'-0711/ RW 65977--_ I ,,,I 2 12505 "' "' "' "' "' "' 22146 11 12495 12487 18 /9 r---~1--~-~~ 8 ;,; 12479 a. w I st .,... 12471 7 (l_ 12463 6 12455 5 12447 4 12439 3 12431 2 12423 A 0 0 <D12411 (l_ "-2 "' ....I "' "' --- -P 71514 12494 12 13 12486 14 12478 15 12470 16 12462 17 12454 18 12446 19 12438 20 12430 21 12422 22 LMP 12414 23 12404 LMP 6728 35 34 39 40 33 32 3 12497 12487 12471 12461 12451 12441 12429 2101 2 12417 "' "' N 125AVE. 15 0 9 "' "' "' "' 14 36 12477 12478 A 12466 B 12460 5 11 12450 12445 4 10 12444 12433 12424 st 1----~---< ;z Rem~ 7 oio ~ "',.._ (l_ c=; ~ "'"' "'"' LMP 6917 f-' en w et: 0 :;; w ...J 0 CJ P 20644 12496 24 23 12484 22 12472 st 21 <D 0 12462 N 20 12450 19 12438 18 12430 I I 1{501 ~ ~ f1 I i;:; 12491 2 ~ is"'/ J-/-tr---(1_~1~2~48-5--i o.. '\'VI ( 43-3 ~ I RW'2~2~1--T--~~ P 74108 v 1 LMS 631 / A g;,lf !!J;: if]/ I, {~&11 I 1---i...-~~'--lo UJ ,_. \gi 1---------< tr7 'I:, r co f--------'-'--l~ 2 12415 fu 1 12405 17 12422 "' ~ 16 If fu "'<1~-1 ~ 1, P7108 [;:; "'N I::: 3 Rerj(l ~ ~ 4 "'a. "' a. I I W EP 74109 LMP 17058 LMP 18470 LMP 17357 I LMP 19806 LMP 6712 124AVE. LMP 6711 LMP 6738 LMP 8710 \ "' ~ I ~ "'"' "' 0 ~ a, <o <o ,.._ ..,. 0 "'"' "' "' "' °' r---0 "' "'"' "' "' "' "'\ ~ / r---"' "'"' 1 "' 2"' N "' "'"' . 1 Re; a. (J) P8 0 0:: I 0:: <D I N co "' "' 0 0 "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' Rem-. Rem4 5 P 19826 Rem.A 3 (l_ 12370 (P 26005) D 4 PARK MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: MAPLE RIDGE 7684-2020 1852 RS-3 (One Family Urban Residential) RS-1b (One Family (Medium Density) Residential) "' "' ,.._ "' "' a, ~ BC~50518 a '""\ I "' "1 Rem3 C: A a J "1 BCP 50510 a. 0 EPS 1073) m 12570 12560 12550 12544 20 ~ "' 0 0 " ... "' "' "' "' 0 0 ... "' 1"' 24 2 Q ... "' "' P?? 2460 1 12458 2 73 12396 2 P 1895 P3 12386 6 N British Columbia SCALE 1 :2,500 1 I ! r
Cl[)
Benchmark Noles:
Elevations Are Geodetic
Referred lo Monumenl:84H9970
Monument £/evation: 18.96/m
located Al: Centre of the intersection of
124 Avenue and Hillside Slreel.
Verica/ Oalum: CI/D28GV!?D2018
Lot di'mensions are based on pion 30974 and
may change with a current legal survey
~.,_4'
1'
~,,,'}
f ...
" 1 (/J
"' "' ~ l
i,.,"1'" 1,•· •
'rt»to~fD Sv~~\vJs._101'1 '\)t..AN'
l
I I I
I I
I
I I I
I I I
(>~\ :
' I
I
g
:..! v'' t,t, t t l1r;~t1 .f _,_.. "~ '
~,._"1'
-~ ,1> s.oo ~I ---~·------""'1------r:===-;-r a.oo ~b-~
.,_<f>=l ~~\ ~ l!---4 l ~ I ""'' " ,'I-~ l ,.,P J .;\· I x b• ., Proposed Lot: 1 r ,..,, ~'·;r.;Slf '6'i.1m1 :
' . ' : &:i,/ifg ,,~., ~... J 6.00~!f' 5.00 :ijL------~;:-;B --x------;,-u,-;--~ ~
5.()0 ~;'· ---------------------1~ 4~' .;I ,, I
~, X :
:n ,II-<{;> ..,,t-'" !'\ ~' .:/ '1
,,~~-{ Proposed Lot 2:
!'" t ! 5648"'2 \ "' ! i' 1 •
I
I I ~ i:
I I
I
I !.• £
I .¥ :i.1-! ,,lo~,,~L-------.1t.-~:i:~-:-----1
~ lM,odll,/o/nhg~bl -'"'°' ""~ 'i\·x
37
SCALE 1 : 250
~b-<{;l
l'
~J.,11 l
15
14
13
Current Zoning: RST
Proposed Zoning: RST-b
@ Terra Pacific
land Surve~ng ltd
22J71St.AmcAn:nue,UoplcRld10,BC Phooo: 601-i&l-250~ r,r. 60l-l6l-4~1
C/ienl:
JIN YU
Projec/:
12478 223 Street,
Maple Ridge, BC
Drawing Tille:
Topographic Survey
Plan of Lot 36
District Lot 400 Group
New Westminster District
Plan 30974
Cerl/rjNCotToc/ TM,18/hOarOfOclobu,2020
Legend•
@ Sl,n,oyl:onlnJM'oo1N11•nl
~ ;;;"~;::,,°"'' or fnlrrlnta Illa crr,.,,,d)
121 Col<hBosh
~-DJl<h(S""1a)
fdgeOfhpha/1
{II f'irallytfr<>nl
1-G\Jrlln
0 In-a tampSIG11dcrd 0 1./anhola 9 Po..,,,.Po/o 4 Pa-Po/ol\1/hUghl
P<l Wal,
@ ••
$ Ca• ~ ,~
El .Amcllon8ox
Scale: 1:250
Date: Dct 18/h, 2020
File: MR20-611 TOPO
Of
1 )>
""C
""C m z
0
X
0
~·-TO: FROM: mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 2020-327-RZ MEETING: C o W SUBJECT: Removal of the Owner Occupancy Requirement for Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites First and Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020; and First, Second and Third Reading Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the July 14, 2020 Council Workshop, staff presented an approach to expand housing choice and encourage more rental units, while also implementing mechanisms for ensuring accountability on the part of property owners. During this meeting, staff also proposed the permanent removal of the owner occupancy requirement for secondary suites and detached garden suites. The owner occupancy requirement has not been in force since Council passed a resolution for abeyance on May 7, 2019, which Council subsequently renewed at the June 25, 2019 and the July 14, 2020 Council Workshops. Staff also proposed, as an accountability mechanism, a Good Neighbour Agreement that would become a condition of a business licence for properties with two or more rental units. From the July 14, 2020 meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Bylaw amendment, to remove the owner occupancy requirement for secondary suites and detached garden suites and to also prepare Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw amendments, to require the Good Neighbour Agreement as a condition of a Business Licence for rental uni!s. It is anticipated that the removal of owner occupancy requirement will have a positive impact on the number of registered suites in Maple Ridge. Additionally, implementation of the proposed Good Neighbour Agreement and changes to the Business Licence Bylaw will enable the City to suspend or cancel a rental Business Licence if the Licensee or the tenant have continually disregarded City Bylaws. Maple Ridge's Housing Action Plan describes housing options has a continuum and suggests that residents should have the opportunity to move across the housing continuum and find housing that is most appropriate and best suited to their needs and circumstances. The creation of rental housing is recognized as assisting in the establishment of housing along the continuum. Tenants in affordable housing or transitional house may move into market rental units, thus opening up space along non-market end of the continuum. The purpose of this report is to bring forward the two separate amending bylaws that will: 1) Remove the owner occupancy requirement for secondary suites and detached garden suites from the Zoning Bylaw 3510 -1985 (Appendix A); and 2) Implement a Good Neighbour Agreement, as a condition of the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011, for property owners who will require a Business Licence if they are renting two or more rental units on the property (Appendix B). 1104 Doc # 2604209 Page 1 of 7
RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 2. That Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 be given first, second and third reading and be held for final reading until Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 is brought forward for final reading; 3. That the owner occupancy requirement covenant for secondary suites and detached garden suites may be discharged from Certificate of Title once Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 and Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 are adopted; 4. That enforcement of the owner occupancy requirement continue to be held in abeyance until Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 and Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 are adopted; and 5. That Policy 6.14 "Secondary Suites" and Policy 6.15 "Secondary Suites Guidelines for Exclusion" be repealed. 1.0 BACKGROUND: a) History The review of current regulations for secondary suites and detached garden suites has been underway since Council directed staff to explore opportunities to expand housing choice and encourage more rental units, while also implementing mechanisms for ensuring accountability on the part of property owners. At the September 17, 2019 Council Workshop, Council expressed. interest in removing the owner occupancy requirement and creating a Good Neighbour Agreement that could be designed to increase the level of accountability for property owners with rental units who do not reside on the same property. As discussed in the September 17, 2019 report, a Good Neighbour Agreement would be created as a condition of obtaining a Business Licence for property owners with two or more rental units. Most recently, at the July 14, 2020 Council Workshop, the process and impacts of removing the owner occupancy requirement for secondary suites and detached garden suites and implementing the accountability mechanism of a Good Neighbour Agreement was presented. At this meeting, Council passed the following resolution: That staff be directed to prepare amendments to the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw to require the Good Neighbour Agreement as a condition of a Business Licence for rental units; and That staff be directed to prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to remove the owner occupancy requirement for secondary suites and detached garden suites; and further Doc# 2604209 Page 2 of 7
That enforcement of the owner occupancy requirement continue to be held in abeyance until the Zoning Bylaw and Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw amendments are adopted by Council. During the July 14th meeting, staff also noted that the Good Neighbour Agreement template would be presented at the same time as the amending bylaws for Council's review, but would not form part of the bylaw amendment. b) Current Zoning Bylaw Regulations Under current Zoning Bylaw requirements, property owners with a secondary suite or a detached garden suite must reside on the site, either within the principal dwelling unit or the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Final occupancy of a secondary suite or detached garden suite is not approved until Restrictive Covenants are registered on the property title confirming that the property owner will reside on the site and provide one onsite parking space for the occupant(s). Restrictive Covenants are a regulatory tool (provided through the Local Government Act) that runs with the land and remains on title if the property is sold and it then applies to all subsequent owners. c) Policy Housekeeping Staff is recommending that Policy 6.14 and 6.15 be repealed as these two Council policy's, which were approved twenty years ago when the secondary suites program was initially permitted through the Zoning Bylaw, are outdated with respect to current Maple Ridge policies and programs. The conditions within Policy 6.14 are duplicated within the existing Zoning Bylaw 3515-1985 and are also within the anticipated Zoning Bylaw 7600-2019. Additionally, should Council adopt Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020, which removes the owner occupancy requirement within the Zoning Bylaw, this Policy will contradict the Zoning Bylaw. Policy 6.15 provides criteria for applications from property owners to amend the Zoning Bylaw to prohibit secondary suites within a neighbourhood. When the secondary suite program began, Council wanted neighbourhoods to have the ability to be identified in the Zoning Bylaw as areas where secondary suites are not permitted. To date, no neighbourhoods have prohibited secondary suites within the Zoning Bylaw and, as mentioned above, it is an outdated approach as it contradicts Maple Ridge housing policies and the Housing Action Plan. 2.0 DISCUSSION: The removal of the owner occupancy requirement is likely to have a positive impact on the number of registered suites in Maple Ridge and the mechanism of a Good Neighbour Agreement will enable the City to suspend or cancel a rental Business Licence if the Licensee or the tenant have continually disregarded City Bylaws. The existing owner occupancy requirement has not been enforced since a Council resolution was passed, on May 7, 2019, to hold the owner occupancy requirement in abeyance. Council renewed this abeyance resolution at the June 25, 2019 and July 14, 2020 Council Workshops. With Council direction, received July 14, 2020, to proceed with bylaw amendments for an accountability mechanism for rental units and removal of the City's owner occupancy requirement, it is timely to bring the standing abeyance resolution to a conclusion. Continuing to not enforce sections of the bylaw could become problematic and cause frustration among residents. If a complaint is submitted, it could be seen that those who are non-compliant with the bylaw are facing no consequences and Doc# 2604209 Page 3 of 7
cause frustration among those who are compliant with the bylaw. Also, the lack of enforcement on this part of the bylaw can cause confusion around secondary suite and detached garden suite requirements. 2.1 Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 The Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 in Appendix A removes the owner occupancy regulatory requirement that has been in effect since 1999 for secondary suites and 2008 for detached garden suites. The removal of the owner occupancy requirement will help facilitate an increase in registered secondary suites within the City as well as create clarity around secondary suite and detached garden suite requirements. If Council pursues the removal of the owner occupancy requirement, abeyance of enforcement will continue until after Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7600-2019 receives final reading. Covenants requiring that the registered owner must reside on the lot when there is either a secondary suite or detached garden suite will be discharged from title. These covenants will be removed at the owners request as consent from the property owner is required to discharge a covenant on title. 2.2 Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 The Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 in Appendix B introduces a Good Neighbour Agreement as a condition of a Business Licence for properties that have two or more rental units on a property. The Amending Bylaw adds other regulations for the Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor that mirror the conditions within the Good Neighbour Agreement in order to increase clarity. The bylaw also clarifies the existing role of the "Property Manager" and creates a new definition for "Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor" that correlates with the language used in the Good Neighbour Agreement template. The amending bylaw definition amendments are proposed as follows: "Property Manager" means a person or business hired to manage the day to day operations of a commercial property for a fee. "Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor" means a person that rents or /eases or-offers to rent or /ease two or more Dwelling Units to other persons. The business licence fee for rental units will not change from the existing $110 and will continue to be charged upon first receiving a licence and annually for renewal. However, a one-time Application Review fee of $500 is proposed to be added to the fee schedule. It is proposed that this application fee will be waived for one year after adoption of the amending bylaw in order to incentivize property owners to come forward and register their secondary suites and receive a business licence before the one year grace period is up. After year one, the $500 application fee will help offset staff resource costs for inspecting the properties for licencing and life safety (i.e. smoke detectors) purposes. Requiring a Business Licence and a Good Neighbour Agreement is intended to increase the property owner's level of accountability, as it enables the City to suspend or cancel the Business Licence associated with the property. No public hearing is required if Council proceeds with amending the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw, but public notice of the amendments to the Business Licence Bylaw will be advertised through the City's usual communication channels, such as the City's website and social and print media. It is proposed that the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw receive first, second, and third reading at the next Council meeting and then be held until after the Doc # 2604209 Page 4 of 7
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 receives third reading. Then both bylaws would proceed to the next Council meeting for consideration of final reading. 2.3 The Good Neighbour Agreement The intent of the proposed Good Neighbour Agreement template in Appendix C is to set out reasonable responsibilities for the Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor (property owner) and the rental unit tenants that promote being a 'good neighbour'. This Agreement sets out the City's expectations for the Licensee and the tenant(s) and states that the Licensee is responsible for ensuring that tenants are abiding by the Agreement. The Good Neighbour Agreement template does not form part of the bylaw amendments, but is attached to this report (Appendix C) for Council's review and comment. Once the Good Neighbour Agreement template is finalized, property owners who are renting out two or more dwelling units on a property will be required to read and execute the document in order to obtain a business licence, enabling rental of their units. Additionally, the Good Neighbour Agreement template will be available for the public to access on the City's Business and Licensing webpage. 2.4 Enforcement The Good Neighbour Agreement, which is proposed as a condition of the Business Licence, enables the City to suspend or cancel the Business Licence associated with the property if the property owner or tenants are non-compliant with City Bylaws. When a Business Licence is suspended, the rental units are no longer be permitted by the City, which gives the landlord reasonable cause to give a one month eviction notice. However, until the Business Licence is cancelled, the City does not request eviction. Prior to cancelling a Business Licence and requesting eviction, the City would work with the Licensee to come into compliance with City bylaws. 2.5 BCBC Changes to Expand Options for Secondary Suites At the July 14, 2020 Council Workshop meeting, staff provided an overview of the BC Building Code (BCBC) changes that took effect December 12, 2019. These changes aim to offer a greater range of design solutions that will encourage more property owners to construct secondary suites in new and existing buildings and to register an existing secondary suite. The BCBC now allows for the construction of secondary suites in duplexes and row housing, which is a large departure from previous codes. However, the most notable change is removal of the size restriction. The City of Maple Ridge's Zoning Bylaw currently states that a secondary suite shall have a minimum floor area of 37 m2 and a maximum floor area of 90 m2, not to exceed 40% of the total floor area of the building. The Province has also included 'Alternate Compliance Methods for Alterations to Existing Buildings to Add a Secondary Suite' and has left open the ability for local governments to develop their own criteria for approval of existing unregulated secondary suites. A report regarding the BCBC changes and the alternative compliance methods will be presented to Council in the first quarter of 2021. Doc # 2604209 Page 5 of 7
2.5 Education and Awareness The timely changes of the BCBC and the alternative compliance methods will provide a platform to launch a public awareness campaign. This campaign will be focused on education and not proactive enforcement. Education pieces will revolve around frequently asked questions and information intended to encourage property owners who are on the fence about legalizing their secondary suite to take the next step. The campaign will also provide information to property owners looking to add a secondary suite or detached garden suite to their current home. As an incentive, the $500 Application Review Fee will be waived for the first year after bylaw adoption. The awareness campaign will be circulated through the city's usual communication channels, including the City's webpage, social media and information brochures that will be mailed to property owners of secondary suites and detached garden suites. Staff can also proactively reach out to property owners that have been identified as having unregistered secondary suites. Should Council move the two amending bylaws forward, the awareness campaign would launch shortly after adoption. 3.0 NEXT STEPS Should Council direct, the bylaw amending process would proceed as follows: Bylaw Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7674-2020 Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 cow Forwarded to Regular Council Forwarded to Regular Council Public Hearing Regular Council Public Hearing No Action Note that it is recommended in this report that enforcement of the owner occupancy requirement continue to be held in abeyance until the Zoning Bylaw and Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw amendments are .. adopted by Council. Also, it is intended that the property owner Licensees will not be required to enter into a Good Neighbour Agreement until the Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 is adopted and in effect. 4.0 INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The removal of the owner occupancy requirement and addition of a Good Neighbour Agreement as a condition of a business licence for property owners continues to be an inter-departmental undertaking between Planning, Bylaw & Licensing Services, and Building and will proceed through implementation of regulatory changes in 2021. CONCLUSION: This report presents two amending bylaws to: 1) Remove the owner occupancy requirement for secondary suites and detached garden suites from the Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985; and 2) Implement a Good Neighbour Agreement, as a condition of the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011, for property owners who will require a Business Licence if they are renting two or more rental units on the property. Doc # 2604209 Page 6 of 7
The removal of the owner occupancy requirement is likely to have a positive impact on the number of registered suites in Maple Ridge and the mechanism of the Good Neighbour Agreement will enable the City to suspend or cancel a rental Business Licence if the Licensee or the tenant have continually disregarded City Bylaws. "Original signed by Krista Gowan" Prepared by: Krista Gowan, HBA, MA Planner 1 "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Michelle Orsetti" Reviewed by: Michelle Orsetti Director of Bylaw & Licensing Services "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning and Development "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendix is attached hereto: Appendix A -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 767 4-2020 Appendix B -Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020 Appendix C -Good Neighbour Agreement template Appendix D -Policy 6.14 Secondary Suites Appendix E -Policy 6.15 Secondary Suites Guidelines for Exclusion Doc # 2604209 Page 7 of 7
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 767 4-2020 APPENDIX A A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7674-2020". 2. That PART 4 Section 402 (8) (e) be deleted and the section renumbered accordingly. 3. That PART 4 Section 402 (11) (e) be deleted and the section renumbered accordingly. 4. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED the day of PRESIDING MEMBER , 20 ,20 , 20 ,20 CORPORATE OFFICER
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7675-2020 APPENDIX 8 A Bylaw to amend the text of the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "Business Licencing and Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 7675-2020". 2. That in PART 5 DEFINITIONS the definition of "PROPERTY MANAGER" is amended by deleting the definition entirely and replacing with: "Property Manager" means a person or business hired to manage the day to day operations of a commercial property for a fee. 3. That PART 5 DEFINITIONS is amended by inserting the following between "Post Box Rental Agency" and "Second Hand Dealer": "Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor" means a person that rents or leases or offers to rent or lease two or more Dwelling Units to other persons. 4. That PART 6 GENERAL LICENCE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.1:2 (a) is amended by deleting (a) and replacing with: (a) a Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor that rents or leases or offers to rent or lease no more than one Unit in the City; or 5. That PART 7 SPECIFIC REGULATIONS is amended by inserting the following between "Post Box Rental Agency" and "Second Hand Dealer" in correct numerical order: 7 .23 Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor -Single Detached 7.23.1 The Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor of a property with a single detached residential use shall be the registered owner of the rental property. 7.23.2 Every Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor of a property with a single detached residential use shall:
(a) Promptly respond to and address any complaints received by the City or the police in respect to their rental units; (b) Hold a separate licence for each property that it operates; (c) Maintain rental units in accordance with City Bylaws related to property standards; and (d) Enter into a good neighbour agreement with the City as a condition of receiving a new business license or amending an existing business license. 6. That SCHEDULE A LICENCE FEES, SECTION 39 RENTAL UNITS is amended by removing (a) entirely and inserting the text below in sequential order: (a) Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor -Single Detached $110.00 minimum fee (if renting more than 1 Unit, notwithstanding that the units are located on separate Premises) (b) Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor -Single Detached $500.00 Application Review (this fee will be waived for one year from the adoption date of Bylaw No. 7675-2020) (c) Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor -Multi-Family (if renting more than 1 Unit, notwithstanding that the units are located on separate Premises) -$40.00 per Unit *Certified Crime Free Multi-Housing 75% Reduction $110.00 minimum fee 7. Maple Ridge Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED the day of PRESIDING MEMBER ,20 ,20 ,20 ,20 CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIXC CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE RENTAL UNIT GOOD NEIGHBOUR AGREEMENT Regarding Property ________________________ ("Rental Property") [Address] WHEREAS--------------------(the "Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor"): [Print First & Last Name] 1. Recognizes that the Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor has a civic responsibility to address the conduct of their tenants. 2. Recognizes that the Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor has a responsibility within the community and agrees to work with the City and its departments to resolve all concerns. 3. Recognizes their responsibility to reasonably prevent their tenants from conducting any noise, sound or activity which disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood or of persons in the vicinity as per Maple Ridge Noise Bylaw No. 5122-1994 and Nuisance Bylaw No. 7596-2019. 4. Recognizes that City Bylaws require that certain standards of maintenance apply to their property used for rental units, including but not limited to, the Maple Ridge Unsightly Premises -Bylaw 6533-2007, the Maple Ridge Rental Premises Standard of Maintenance -Bylaw 6550-2008, and the Zoning Bylaw-7600-2019. 5. Recognizes that the use of the rental units as a Bed and Breakfast, a short-term rental, or vacation or tourist lodging is prohibited. 6. Recognizes that one (1) on-site parking space must be provided for any secondary suite or detached garden suite on the property and used by the tenant occupying the secondary or detached garden suite. 6.1 Any vehicles parking on the street should be considerate of the neighbourhood and should not disrupt traffic flow or obstruct boulevards, driveways or neighbours' property. 7. Recognizes that non-compliance with the City Bylaws or criminal activity may be brought to the attention of the Director of Bylaw and Licensing Services or City Council, and may trigger a licence suspension and/or revocation hearing. 8. Recognizes that should the Business Licence be suspended or cancelled and any incidents pertaining to the operation of rental units continues to occur and remain unresolved, the City may exercise its power to pursue additional enforcement action including increasing fines and/or legal injunctive action. 9. Recognizes that the Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor must share a copy of this Good Neighbour Agreement to all tenants who rent the units associated with the Business Licence. 10. Recognizes that the Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor must renew their Business Licence prior to the beginning of each licensing period and shall notify the Bylaws & (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial) (initial)
Licensing Department in writing with any changes to the Business, including but not limited to, termination, location, or ownership. AND WHEREAS the City of Maple Ridge (the "City") wishes to: 11 Commend the Licensee for their recognition of their civic responsibilities, and commitment to fostering a good working relationship with the City and the Licensee's rental property neighbours. 12 Demonstrate its commitment to early resolution of disputes with the Licensee in relation to this Agreement whenever possible. NOW THEREFORE in conjunction with and in consideration of obtaining, continuing to hold, or renewing a rental unit licence and agrees with the City to comply with the conditions set out in the Maple Ridge Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw 6815-2011. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement in the City of Maple Ridge, Province of British Columbia, this day of , 20_. The business Licensee by its authorized signatory (Residential Dwelling Unit Lessor) X. -------------(Print Name) X. -------------(signature) On Behalf of the City of Maple Ridge by its Bylaw Compliance Officer X. -------------(Print Name) X. -------------(signature) 2
MAPLE IHOGE 6!1ln1I-["JILl'n['IIJt 1 lJ.rep ba.:<irc!. r.r Ii:" i,1~L rw TITLE: POLICY NO. APPROVAL DATE: POLICY STATEMENT: DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE SECONDARY SUITES 6.14 February 15, 2000 A secondary suite will be permitted in a house subject to the following conditions: APPENDIX D 1. the registered owner of the property must reside in either the main part of the house or the secondary suite as his/her principal place of residence and must sign and register a Housing Agreement; 2. one secondary suite per lot is permitted; 3. the floor area of the suite must be a minimum of 37 m2 to a maximum of 90 m2; 4. the suite must be located within the house; 5. one off-street parking space must be provided for the suite; 6. a secondary suite will not be permitted where there is a Temporary Residential Use or Boarding Use in the house; 7. the suite must comply with the B.C. Building Code requirements for secondary suites; 8. the house cannot be strata titled; 9. properties not on municipal sewer must have Health Unit approval; 10. properties not on municipal water must prove adequate water potability; 11. fees must be paid for water, sewer, and recycling, where relevant; 12. a suite will not be permitted if the property is identified on Schedule "E" to the Zoning Bylaw. Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures. People who decide to remove a suite from their house will have three months to disconnect the stove in the suite. PURPOSE: The Secondary Suites Policy provides a framework for the regulation of secondary suites to ensure that neighbourhood, safety and financial concerns are addressed in the best interests of the community. DEFINITIONS: · Secondary suites are defined in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw. They are generally defined as a second dwelling unit with a kitchen and bathroom located in a house. Page 1 of 1 Policy 6.14 L,
~--APPENDIX E MAPLE 'R!OGE i 6111n.• ['1IU'nh.t ' DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TITLE: iJ.r.:ip J;t.;,r=-Gr1'l I'-'• 1;,l'-r, POLICY NO. APPROVAL DATE: SECONDARY SUITES -GUIDELINES FOR EXCLUSION 6.15 February 23, 1999 POLICY STATEMENT: Council will give consideration to all Zone Amending Bylaw applications to have secondary suites prohibited within neighbourhoods, however preference will be given to applications where the following criteria are demonstrated: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the signature of all property owners is provided on the application form; the applicants have submitted a statement regarding how the area proposed for the exclusion forms a logical neighbourhood boundary; whenever possible, the neighbourhood boundaries are based upon natural or physical boundaries, watercourses, collector or arterial roads; the defined neighbourhood has the appearance of a cluster, as opposed to a linear strip; the proposed exclusion would not result in secondary suites being permitted on one side of a street, and not on the other within the neighbourhood; the proposed exclusion would not result in the "leap-frogging" of zoning within the neighbourhood; and the Zone Amending Bylaw application has the support of the majority of property owners within the neighbourhood. PURPOSE: The Secondary Suites Policy provides a framework for the regulation of secondary suites to ensure that neighbourhood, safety and financial concerns are addressed in the best interests of the community. However, it is recognized that certain neighbourhoods may wish to be identified in the Zoning Bylaw as areas where secondary suites are not permitted. DEFINITIONS: Secondary suites are defined in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw. They are generally defined as an accessory self-contained dwelling unit with a kitchen and bathroom, located in the principal building. Page 1 of 1 Policy 6.15 ,. 1--_
1~••• mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7551-2019; 11045 Cameron Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 2019-064-RZ MEETING: C o W An application has been received to rezone the subject property located at 11045 Cameron Court (Appendix A and B) from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential), with a density bonus, to permit a future subdivision of approximately six (6) lots. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No 7551-2019 on May 14, 2019. The proposed RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) zone utilizing the Density Bonus will allow the development of RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) sized single family lots of 557m2• The proposed RS-id zone and Density Bonus complies with the policies of the Official Community Plan (OCP). In order to achieve the Density Bonus provision and have RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone sized lots a Density Bonus contribution of approximately $18,600 will be required. Pursuant to Council Policy, this application is subject to the City-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program at a rate of $5,100.00 per single family lot, for an estimated amount of $30,600. There is not sufficient suitable land for park dedication on the subject site and it is recommended that Council require the developer to to pay to the City an amount that equals fiver percent (5%) of the market value of the land required for parkland purposes, as determined by an independent appraisal. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7551-2019 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 2) That, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer pay to the City an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an independent appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with Section 510 of the Local Government Act; and 3) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i) Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; 1105 2019-064-RZ Page 1 of 7
ii) Road dedication on Cameron Court as required; iii) Design and construction of a sanitary sewer pump station, which requires the acquisition of land to facilitate the sanitary pump station at the sole cost of the applicant to the City's satisfaction; iv) Submission of a site grading and storm water management plan to the City's satisfaction; v) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report, which addresses the suitability of the subject property for the proposed development; vi) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (wetlands) on the subject property; vii) Registration of a Statutory Right-of-Way plan and agreement for infrastructure; viii) Registration of a Reciprocal Cross Access Easement Agreement; ix) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Tree Protection and Storm-water Management; x) Registration of a no-build Restrictive Covenant restricting the building areas on some lots to facilitate the optimum subdivision design incorporating the lands to the north addressed as 11060 Cameron Court; xi) Removal of existing buildings; xii) In addition to the site profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject property; and if so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated site; xiii) That a voluntary contribution, in the amount of $30,600 ($5,100 per lot X 6 lots) be provided in keeping with the Council Policy with regard to Community Amenity Contributions; and xiv) Payment of the Density Bonus provision of the RS-1d (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential), in the amount $18,600.00 ($3,100 per lot X 6 lots). DISCUSSION: 1) Background Context: Applicant: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: 2019-064-RZ WSP Canada Inc., Dexter Hirabe Lot 32, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 66748 Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Page 2 of 7
Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: 2) Project Description: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) Single-Family Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Low Density Residential Single-Family Residential RS-2(0ne Family Suburban Residential Low Density Residential Single-Family Residential RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Low Density Residential Single-Family Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Low Density Residential and Conservation Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 0.400 HA. (1 acre) Cameron Court Urban Standard The applicant has requested to rezone the subject property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential), with a Density Bonus. The RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) zone specifies the base density a minimum net lot area of 2,000m2, minimum lot width of 30m, and a minimum lot depth of 40m. A Density Bonus is an option in the RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential zone and shall be applied as follows: a. An Amenity Contribution of $3,100 per lot will be required in any subdivision containing one or more lots with an area of less than 2,ooom2. b. The maximum density permitted through the Density Bonus option is: i. minimum net lot area of 557m2; ii. minimum lot width of 14m; iii. minimum lot depth of 27m. c. Zoning requirements consistent with the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone will apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS-id zone. The proposal consists of 6 (six) lots amounting to a Density Bonus Contribution of approximately $30,600. As per Council direction, this application will also be subject to the City-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program which will require a contribution of $5,100.00 per lot. (Appendix E) 2019-064-RZ Page 3 of 7
The proposed subdivision design of the subject property will eventually require portions of those lands located directly north addressed as 11060 Cameron Court Avenue to be consolidated with the subject property in order to create lots that currently cannot be created as they would not meet minimum parcel size, lot width or depth. Until the lands to the south develop, a restrictive covenant will be required to protect portions of the lands under application from being built upon in order to secure the design of the ultimate subdivision concept of the subject property as well as 11060 Cameron Court. (Appendix E) This rezoning application is one of several along the 110th Avenue corridor all of which require the installation of a sanitary sewer pump station. The details and final location of the sanitary sewer pump station has not been finalized with Engineering Department. Morningstar Homes is negotiation with all the applicants in the area to land the pump station in a strategic location. This must be done and completed before any application can proceed to final reading. 3) Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: The subject property is located within the Albion Area Plan and is currently designated Low Density Residential. The Low Density Residential designation corresponds with single detached residential development at a lot density urban standard with lot sizes at 2ooom2 (half acre). Higher densities many be supportable in compliance with the Density Bonus Program regulations prescribed in the Zoning Bylaw and Albion Area Plan. Albion Plan Policy 10.2.2 is intended to meet the needs of the community and respond to changes in housing form and demand over time by enabling an additional means of providing neighbourhood amenities. The Albion Area Plan Community Amenity Program provides the opportunity for a Density Bonus within a number of zones identified with the Albion Zoning Matrix. Within these zones, 'bonus' density may be achieved through an Amenity Contribution toward community amenities that will be located within the boundaries of the Plan Area. The application is in compliance with the Density Bonus option in the Low Density Residential designation in the Albion Area Plan. The applicant intends to apply the Density Bonus option to this project, as discussed above in the Project Description. ii) Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 11045 Cameron Court from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) with a Desnity Bonus, to permit future subdivision of six(6) RS-1b One Family Urban (Medium Density) sized single family lots. The application of the Density Bonus, which is specific to the Albion Area Plan, will permit the application to reduce the single-family lot size from RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential base density of 2,000m2 to 557m2 as discussed above. 2019-064-RZ Page 4 of 7
iii) Proposed Variances: The applicant has not applied for any variances to facilitate the proposed subdivision layout. Any variances that maybe required to the RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) zone will be subject of a future Council report. With the Density Bonus provision of the to RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) zone, the RS-1b One Family Urban (Medium Density) zone siting requirements apply. iv) Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for: • All areas designated Conservation on Schedule "B" or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule "B", or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan; • All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 percent; • All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Schedule "C" to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. v) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held at Albion Elementary School Gym on November 28, 2019. There were 17 people in attendance. A summary of the main comments and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant as shown below in italics: • "The future road extension of Cameron Court to meet 112th Street will pass through rough terrain and will not be able to maintain the 30m setback from top of bank on Dunlop Creek." Developer's Response "During the preliminary planning approval process, the importance of this future roadway was highlighted by staff as a necessary linkage to provide access to potential future subdivisions planned for the north. The developer was directed by staff to include provisions for this potential future roadway, however as currently contemplated the proposed subdivision does not violate the City's SPEA [Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area] bylaw. Should the roadway be deemed unnecessary, the allocated area can be developed into a single family lot. • Want the City require you to complete the road and upgrade services between lots 4 and 5 to your north property line? Currently you are showing services ending on Road A. A w/m [watermain] loops in addition to the one from 112th Ave will be required on the old guide plan. " Developer's Response "The roadway will be dedicated up to the development boundary, pavement is proposed to terminate -20m to the south to facilitate the construction of future tie in grades given the terrain logistics of building the future roadway. This also allows for greater flexibility if plans for the future north road are eliminated, allowing potential re-development as a lot. The 2019-064-RZ Page 5 of 7
watermain loop is proposed to be constructed to the north boundary within the proposed roadway and will continue north within a right of way contained within the development boundaries. The storm outlets are planned to drain to the north as per the staff's request to provide water recharge to the ditch to the north-west while maintaining the setbacks for the creek. Sanitary servicing will be provided for the lots with a lift station planned for the surrounding developments, this lift station is to be located in a right of way south east of the development." vi) Parkland Requirement: As there are more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will be required to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 510 of the Local Government Act prior to subdivision approval. For this project, there is no suitable land for park dedication on the subject property and it is therefore recommended that Council require the developer to to pay to the City an amount that equals the market value of five percent (5%) of the land required for parkland purposes. The amount payable to the City in lieu of park dedication must be derived by an independent appraisal at the developer's expense. Council consideration of the cash-in-lieu amount will be the subject of a future Council report. 4) Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: Sanitary Sewer: In order for the proposed development to be serviced by sanitary sewer a pump station is required at the sole cost of the applicant. The location of the required sanitary sewer pump station has not been agreed upon by this applicant or another nearby applicant capable of providing the pump station. The location of the pump station needs to be approved and accepted by the City before adoption of Zone Amending Bylaw 7 409-2017; and security from the applicant will be required for the full cost of the sanitary sewer pump station as it not yet been constructed. Storm-water Drainage: There is no existing storm drainage system fronting the property. A storm sewer main would need to be installed upon the site as a condition of rezoning. The preliminary drawings show the drainage system outfall to the nearby Kanaka Creek system. This would require a design and sign off from a Qualified Environmental Professional. The drainage proposal would need to be referred to the City's environmental staff as well as the appropriate agencies. It is expected that an outfall of this nature would also require permission from the Province. A storm-water management plan needs to be provided with respect to the proposed development and should include all contributing factors such as adjacent lots, road runoff etc. This will also need to be accompanied by storm sewer design and catchment analysis. The discharge to the creek will need to be controlled via a source control facility such as a flow control manhole. Water: The existing 150mm watermain does not meet the minimum size of 200mm. In addition it does not provide sufficient fire flow and is exceeding the maximum length for a dead end watermain. The existing 150mm watermain would need to be upgraded to a minimum 250mm main from 240 Street provided that this is sufficient in delivering the required 60-120 L/s required for single family 2019-064-RZ Page 6 of 7
residential development. The developers engineer will need to demonstrate that this is achievable. The watermain could also be looped to the existing system on 112 Avenue. Any water servicing option would require assessment of the existing City water distribution system. Forests. Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development -Approval The proposed storm water outfall to Kanaka creek may require approval from the Province and other government agencies as applicable. Geotechnical: The geotechnical report must be reviewed by the engineer of record with respect to the final civil design. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7551-2019, and that application 2019-064-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. It is further recommended that Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer to pay to the City an amount that equals (five percent) 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an independent appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication. "Original signed by Wendy Cooper" Prepared by: Wendy Cooper, M.Sc., MCIP,RPP Planner "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, B~, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7551-2019 Appendix D -Site Plan 2019-064-RZ Page 7 of 7
=· = N Scale: 1 :2,500 ~ ---~~--:;-~ -APPENDIX A 11045 ~ ~~.~~~~~ Vvwww><t-----""' ~ -~·"1'"a'·-"1·"a2"-'s-o ~ 2018-.182-RZ "' ~ ~ Legend 110AVE. ~ Active Applications (RZ/SD/DPNP) O 7'.A.A.A.A.A..AII 11045 CAMERON COURT PIO 002-139-715 FILE: 2019-064-SD DATE: Feb 20, 2020 BY: PC ' f.J r l· I-I
~-Scale: 1 :2,500 APPENDIX B 11045 CAMERON COURT PIO 002-139-715 FILE: 2019-064-SD DATE: Feb 20, 2020 BY:PC I I I
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7551-2019 APPENDIXC A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7551-2019." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 32, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 667 48 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1797 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is are hereby rezoned to RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A11 attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 14th day of May, 2019. READ a second time the PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER day of day of day of , 20 , 20 , 20 ,20 CORPORATE OFFICER
6 Rem 1 P 7759 .... I I <o "' "' .... ~ I .... I .... "' I I,._ I I~ I <D Is I Cl'. P 61001 EP 30021 I ~I I ~I I 3 A a.. ~I I I I I I I I I / RW66747 / / --_/ A EPP88989 P 7408 P 408 5 4 3 11045 33 O> " 11011 ~ ~ ~ -------' -~~----=----'------'-'-----' 41 P 70647 P 62092 110AVE. 4 2 P6 852 P 61001 Rem 1 ! P 66748 34 11040 5 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: 7551-2019 1797 RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) 26 6 To: RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia P 61001 2 P 55 35 27 P 13199 7 P5 D N SCALE 1 :2,500
I I I 1,~ I I APPENDIXD Subject Property ------.--,. ' ,--i I I I I-~ ----1 I I I I I 32 11$.78 3 667ml N CONCEPT PLAN '
~·-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 2018-105-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Co W SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 24145 and 24185 110 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application (2018-105-DVP) has been received in conjunction with a subdivision application for 18 single family lots. The requested variance is: • To reduce the minimum required lot width for RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential zone sized lots from 15m (49.2 ft.) to 14.7 4m (48.38 ft.) for proposed Lot 2; 14.00m (45.93 ft.) for proposed Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 through 18; and 14.34m (47.04 ft.) for proposed Lot 8. Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2018-105-RZ on November 24, 2020. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2018-105-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2018-105-DVP respecting property located at 24145 and 24185 110 Avenue. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Applicant: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: 2018-105-VP Morningstar Homes Ltd. Lot 28 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 43223; Lot 29 Section 10 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 43223; Low Density Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential) with a Density Bonus through the Albion Community Amenity Program to achieve RS-ib(One Family Urban(Medium Density) Residential). 1106 Page 1 of 3
Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: b) Project Description: Single Family RS-ib (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with a Density Bonus through the Albion Community Amenity Program to achieve R-1 (Residential District) zone. Low/Medium Density Residential Vacant Land RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Low Density Residential and Conservation Rural Residential Use RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Low Density Residential and Conservation Rural Residential Use RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Low Density Residential and Conservation Rural Residential Single Family Residential 1.62 Hectares (3.99 acres) 110th Avenue Urban Standard The proposed subdivision is to create 18 RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential lots utilizing the Albion Density Bonus. The density bonus applies the zoning requirements consistent with the RS-ib One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential zone which will apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS-id zone. c) Variance Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the. approval process. 1. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Schedule D, Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions: To reduce the minimum required lot width for RS-id (One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential zone sized lots from 15m (49.2 ft.) to 14.7 4m (48.38 ft.) for proposed Lot 2; 14.00m (45.93 ft.) for proposed Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 through 18; and 14.34m (47.04 ft.) for proposed Lot 8. The proposed variance can be supported as the proposed lots requesting variances have lot areas that exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of 557m2. The lots will also be of a greater depth and exceed the minimum lot area. 2. Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. 2018-105-VP Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION: The proposed variances are supported because the proposed lots requiring variances have lot areas that exceed the prescribed minimum lot area requirement of 557m2 and the lots will be deeper than the minimum lot depth. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2018-105-DVP. "Original signed by Wendy Cooper" Prepared by: Wendy Cooper, M.Sc., MCIP,RPP Planner "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -Draft Subdivision Plan 2018-105-VP Page 3 of 3
--==:=-~~=--"--"----~~-----' APPENDIX A -1 \ -------.-'-' Legend 24145 & 24185 110 Ave ---Stream PLANNING DEPARTMENT - - -Indefinite Creek -River N ~·-·· maple ridge.ca Major Rivers & Lakes Scale: 1 :2,500 2018-105-DP DATE: Aug 17, 2018 BY: JV
--·-·----.:..=----=::::::.:-.:_ t N Scale: 1 :2,500 Legend -Stream - -Indefinite Creek -River -Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX 8 24145 & 24185 110 Ave PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2018-105-DP DATE: Aug 17, 2018 BY:JV ' I i I i I I I I I
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LOTS 28 AND 29, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 12, N. W.D. PLAN 43223. SCALE 1:500 Al! Distances are in Metres. The intended plot size of this p!on is 432mm in width by 560mm in height (C size) when plotted at a scale of 1: 500 CIVIC ADDRESSES: LOT 28 2414-5 110 AVENUE MAPLE RIDGE B.C. P.I.D.: 006-718-426 LOT 29 24185 110 AVENUE MAPLE RIDGE 8.C. PJ.Q.: 006-718-434 ~ I 17 PLAN EPP70566 I 18 PLAN EPP70566 ii I If----------,-,.,-,.,~,. WALKWAY 52·" 31.16 89'32'07" ~~ LOT 1 g~ 557.0 m2 90'06'46" (,'f,"'O· '<"• ., . -0 ' 31.66 ~r!: LOT 2 g± 573.4 m2 90'06
'46" 43.14 ~g LOT 3 g~ 603.4 m2 90'06'46" 43.06 ~g LOT 4 g± 602.2 m2 90'06'46" 42.97 -~ g LOT 5 g± 601.0 m2 90'06'46" 27 42.89 PLAN 43223 ~g LOT 6 Pi.A1V g± 599.8 m2 90'06'46" 42.80 )g LOT 7 g~ 726.7 m2 42.69 90'06'.«t PARK 2293.3 m2 39.36 89'32'10 ag· .~ .o .II:: \ WALKWAY ., o=0.21 15.00 -32' 110th AVENUE Onderwater Land Surveying Ltd. B.C. Land Surveyors #104 -6830 178 'A' Street Cloverdale, B.C. FILE: JMR1854-YS8a AUGUST 20, 2020 APPENDIXC 20 PLAN EPP70566 '"' 45 19 l~ PLAN 43601 PLAN EPP70568 _j t r . COvENANT PLAN 89'32'07" 46.64 ::l 89'32'07" 46.62 LOT 8 ;:!;:g 612.1 m2 :!§ 90'00'00" 40.59 LOT 9 g:g 568.3 m2 :!§ 90'00'00" 40.59 LOT 10 g :g 568.3 m2 ±~ 90'00'00" 40.59 LOT 11 g /;'l 568.3 m2 :! § 90'00'00" 40.59 LOT 12 g :g 568.3 m2 ±~ go·oo'oo" 40.59 LOT 13 g :g 568.3 m2 ±§ 30 go·oo'oo" PLAN 43223 4(1.59 LOT 14 g :g 568.3 m2 ±§ so·oo·oo· 40.59 LOT 15 g :g 568.3 m2 ±~ so·oo·oo· 40.59 LOT 16 g :g 568.3 m2 ±~ 90'00'00" 40.59 LOT 17 g ::g 568.3 m2 ±§ so·oo·oo· 40.59 LOT 18 g ;g 568.3 m2 ±§ 90'00'00" 298.0 m2
City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 11-5255-50-102 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Cow SUBJECT: Award of Contract ITT-EN20-49 Sanitary Sewer Upgrades on 123 Avenue and 227 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to award the Sanitary Sewer Upgrades on 123 Avenue and 227 Street construction contract to Redline Excavating Ltd. in the amount of $251,720.00 excluding taxes. The project supports Council's strategic objective of growth by increasing sanitary sewer capacity allowing for growth and densification downtown. Two segments of sanitary sewer main on 123 Avenue (228 Street to 227 Street) and on 227 Street at 124 Avenue are being upsized. These upgrades are part of the approved 2020 Financial Plan and the procurement process was consistent with the City's Purchasing Policy. The work generally consists of installation of 316m of 300mm gravity sewer, six new manholes and roadway restoration. The detailed design was completed by the City's Engineering Department. An Invitation to Tender for the project was issued on September 28, 2020 and closed on October 26, 2020. Fifteen bids were received and the lowest compliant bid was submitted by Redline Excavating Ltd. in the amount of $251,720.00 (excluding taxes). The total project cost is within the current funding envelope. RECOMMENDATION: That Contract ITT-EN20-49: Sanitary Sewer Upgrades on 123 Avenue and 227 Street, be awarded to Redline Excavating Ltd. in the amount of $251,720.00 excluding taxes; and That a contract contingency of $50,000.00 be approved to address potential variations in field conditions; and further That the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1131 Doc#2601696 Page 1 of 4 --: _--
DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The City's 2013 Sewer Master Plan (SMP) identified various upgrades in the sanitary sewer collection system based on OCP scenarios and Town Centre sewer modeling. In April 2019, the City retained WSP Canada Group Ltd. (WSP) to calibrate their sanitary hydraulic model for the Catchment -H area, between 232 Street and 227 Street, north of Dewdney Trunk Road. Their technical memorandum identified two segments of sanitary sewer main on 123 Avenue (228 Street to 227 Street) and on 227 Street at 124 Avenue as requiring upgrades to address modelled capacity issues. The sewer mains were installed in 1970. The upsized sewer mains will allow for growth and densification in the areas north of Dewdney Trunk Road from 227 Street to the west of 230 Street. The work associated with this construction contract generally consists of the replacement of 316m of 200mm gravity sewer mains with new 300mm pipe, six new manholes and roadway restoration. There are no service connections on either segment of the sewer mains. Tender Evaluation An Invitation to Tender was issued on September 28, 2020 and closed on October 26, 2020. Fifteen bids were received, listed below from lowest to highest price. The lowest tender price was submitted by Redline Excavating Ltd. in the amount of$ 251,720.00, excluding taxes. Redline Excavating Ltd. PW Trenchless Construction Inc. Complete Utility Contractors Brighouse Civil Contracting DMT Ltd. Mainland Civil Site Services Inc. RTR Terra Contracting Ltd. Targa Contracting (2013) Ltd. Drake Excavating (2016) Ltd. J. Cote & Son Excavating Ltd. BD Hall Constructors Corp. Jack Cewe Construction Ltd. BELContracting, a Division of BEL Pacific Excavating and Shoring Limited Partnership Sandpiper Contracting LLP Canadian Landscape and Civil Services Ltd. Hyland Excavating Ltd. Tender Price (excluding taxes) $251,720.00 $290,920.00 $340,166.50 $368,004.89 $372,682.00 $378,931.00 $386,839.50 $400,676.29 $414,999.96 $416,995.00 $418,742.70 $442,450.00 $444,940.00 $470,052.00 $473,624.54 The number of bids received and the range of prices indicate a competitive environment and a fair market value for the project. Staff completed reference checks on Redline Excavating Ltd. for similar work with other municipalities and found their references acceptable. The tendering process was compliant with the City's Purchasing Policy. It is recommended that the contract be awarded to Redline Excavating Ltd. in the amount of $251,720.00 (excluding taxes). Doc#2601696 Page 2 of 4
b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome is to provide reliable sanitary sewer collection service and sufficient capacity for all current and future residents in the area. c) Strategic Alignment: This project supports Council's Strategic Plan to manage municipal infrastructure to accommodate future developments and growth in accordance to the OCP. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Construction will commence after the project is awarded and attempts will be made to minimize the impact to everyday traffic, residents and businesses in the neighborhood. 123 Avenue and 227 Street are expected to remain open to traffic throughout construction. However, a 20m section of the sanitary sewer on 228 Street and 123 Avenue is to be installed in the middle of the road, and this may require a short-term road closure. There will be an approved traffic management plan and traffic control personnel will be provided as required. The general public will be informed of traffic changes and construction progress through the City's website and social media sources. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Engineering Department has worked with the Engineering Operations Department in developing this project. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: There are sufficient funds from LTC No. 020003 and LTC No. 017068 to complete this project. Projected Expenditures {Excluding Taxes): Construction Contract -Redline Excavating Ltd. Contract Contingency Total Projected Cost Project Funding Sources: 2018 Development Cost Charges (LTC No. 017068) 2018 Sanitary Capital Fund (LTC No. 017068) 2020 Sanitary Capital Fund (LTC No. 017068) 2020 Sanitary Capital Fund (LTC No. 020003) Total Funding Sources Doc#2601696 $ 251,720.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 301,720.00 $ 19,081.00 $ 10,919.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 400,000.00 Page3 of4
CONCLUSION: The tender price $251,720.00 (excluding taxes) by Redline Excavating Ltd. for Sanitary Sewer Upgrades on 227 Street and 123 Avenue is the lowest compliant tendered price. It is recommended that Council approve the award to Redline Excavating Ltd. It is also recommended that a contract contingency of $50,000.00 be approved to address unforeseen items, totalling $301,720.00 (excluding taxes). Reviewed by: Andrew Lackner Acting Manager of Design & Construction ~~ Financial: TrevtSrTh~ Concurrence: Director of Finance Concurren e: Josh ickleborough, PEng. Director of Engineering \\,JYot,L Approved by: David Pollock, PEng. Concurrence: Attachments: (A) Map Doc#2601696 General Man r Engineering Services Page 4 of 4
,--'. U) 1-------------';---L.L____--J~-\--+-+-+-+-r1-,--L-,,l--,-----J,-----l,----j s;J-N N N A N.T.S. SANITARY SEWER UPGRADES ON 123 AVENUE AND 227 STREET ITT-EN20-49 1-l-------l CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 2020 FILE/DWG No SK0454
~--TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Award of Contract RFP-EN20-29: MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 11-5255-40-218 MEETING: CoW Engineering Design Services for Two (2) Multi-Use Pathways and One (1) Intersection Improvement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to award the contract to design two Multi-Use Pathways (MUP) and one Intersection Improvement in Silver Valley to McElhanney Ltd. (McElhanney) in the amount of $149,552.00 (excluding taxes). One of the proposed MUP's will be located in proximity to 132 Avenue/Fern Crescent between 232 and 236 Street, the other on Balsam Street between Larch Avenue and 132 Avenue/Fern Crescent. The intersection improvements are proposed for the 236 Street and Fern Crescent intersection. Conduits for future fibre optic cable will also be installed. The existing 132 Avenue/Fern Crescent roadway is part of the Major Road Network (MRN), providing an important access route from 232 Street to Silver Valley east and Golden Ears Provincial Park. The road improvements will help ensure a safe and comfortable multi-modal corridor to meet the needs of the community while also improving the functionality, sightlines and overall safety of a major intersection on this section of road. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on June 25, 2020 and closed on July 27, 2020. A detailed review and evaluation of the 10 proposals received was undertaken. Upon approval, a Client/Consultant Agreement will be executed with McElhanney for the amount of $149,552.00 excluding taxes. This report also recommends that a $29,900.00 contingency be established for unanticipated additional works for a total of $179,452.00. The design cost is within the current funding envelope in the 2020 Financial Plan. Council approval is required to award the project to McElhanney Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: That Contract RFP-EN20-29: Engineering Design Services for Two (2) Multi-Use Pathways and One (1) Intersection Improvement, be awarded to McElhanney Ltd. in the amount of $149,552.00 excluding taxes; and That a contingency of $29,900.00 be approved for unanticipated additional works; and further That the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1132 Doc#2602450 Page 1of 4
DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The existing 132 Avenue/Fern Crescent roadway is part of the MRN, providing regional access to the Golden Ears Provincial Park boundary. The 132 Avenue/Fern Crescent roadway is also the only route to access the Silver Valley neighborhood east of 236 Street. The original project scope included widening or realigning Fern Crescent, but the City has now adjusted the project scope to address the intersection at 236 Street and Fern Crescent, along with the addition of pedestrian and cycling facilities along this corridor. Conduit for future fibre optic cables will also be installed with the MU P's and at the intersection. The design scope for this RFP consists of three major components; a MUP along 132 Avenue/Fern Crescent between 232 and 236 Street, a MUP along Balsam Street between 132 Avenue and Larch Avenue and intersection improvements/consolidation at Fern Crescent and 236 Street. This will require the engineering consulting and design services of a qualified firm to manage the required archaeological, environmental, geotechnical, public consultation and traffic studies to ensure all project design requirements are met. RFP Process and Evaluation The RFP was posted on the City of Maple Ridge, Civic Info and BC Bid websites on June 25, 2020 with a closing date of July 27, 2020. Submissions were received from 10 engineering consulting firms and were reviewed by an evaluation team. The proposals were evaluated based on project understanding, methodology, corporate experience, project team and price. This is consistent with the RFP process and in compliance with the Purchasing Policy. The 10 submissions are as follows: Proponent Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. Ecora Engineering & Resource Group Ltd. McElhanney Ltd. Morrison Hershfield Limited RAM Engineering Ltd. R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. SNC-Lavalin Inc. Vector Engineering Wedler Engineering LLP Submission $142,964.20 $123,884.00 $142,401.00 $149,552.00 $205,330.00 $ 96,010.00 $163,400.00 $126,473.00 $179,679.25 $138,662.82 After detailed analysis, the highest ranked proposal was received from McElhanney with a proposal fee of $149,522.00 excluding taxes. b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome is to provide safe multi-modal transportation facilities for residents and regional park users. Doc#2602450 Page 2 of 4
c) Strategic Alignment: This project supports Council's Strategic Plan to manage municipal infrastructure to accommodate future developments and growth in accordance with the OCP. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The City will work with McElhanney to determine the best design and construction solution, taking into account cost factors, property impacts, traffic impacts, environmental and archaeological impacts, constructability, schedule and phasing of work. The design process will include a public consultation process to obtain feedback from all stakeholders and to mitigate concerns. A communication plan will also be developed in support of the design and construction phases. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Planning, Engineering Operations, and Parks, Recreation & Culture Department will be consulted during the detailed design process to provide input into the design element and ensure interdepartmental coordination. Fibre optic conduit will be installed as part of the project scope. This was identified in consultation with the Information Technology Department. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: There is sufficient funds in LTC No. 06080 to complete the detailed design for two multi-use pathways and one intersection improvement. The budget will be reviewed and updated as the design is complete. Project ExQenditures (excluding taxes} McElhanney Ltd. Design Contract $ 149,522.00 Contract Contingency 29,900.00 Total Projected Cost $ 179,422.00 Project Funding Sources Development Cost Charges $ 1,155,434.00 Translink Grant Funding 609,000.00 Reserve Funds 32,788.00 Total Funding Sources $ 1,797,222.00 Expenditures to Date $ 29,949.37 Total Available Remaining Budget $ 1,767,272.63 Doc#2602450 Page3 of4
CONCLUSION: McElhanney Ltd. has submitted the highest rated proposal for the Engineering Design Services for RFP-EN20-29; Engineering Design Services for Two Multi-Use Pathways and One Intersection Improvement that provides the best value to the City of Maple Ridge. It is recommended that Council approve the Engineering Design Services award to McElhanney Ltd. in the amount of $149,552.00 excluding taxes. It is also recommended that a contract contingency of $29,900.00 be approved to address unanticipated additional works, totalling $179,452.00 (excluding taxes). Submitted~ ~d:0 Acting Manager of D gn & Construction Financial: Trevor ho pson, BBA, CPA, CGA Concurrence: Director of Finance Reviewed by: Approved by: Attachments: (A) Map Doc#2602450 I!: Mfuld. PEng ~~~f En~neering ~~J1£Ll David Pollock, PEng. G neral Ma ager Engineering Services Page 4 of 4 -[ I I I r I-r_ f r r I I i I i t-l?
N A N.T.S. Engineering Design Services for Two(2) Multi-Use Pathways and One(1) Intersection Improvement DATE: CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 2020 FILE/DWG No SK0455 , .. C .-
[./.----....,;;;;;;;.; . . . . . TO: FROM: mapleridge.ca His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer City of Maple Ridge MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 11-5255-40-208 MEETING: Cow SUBJECT: Abernethy Way Extension Study (240 Street to 256 Street Study Update) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Abernethy Way is an important east westtransportation corridor connecting the community. Extending Abernethy Way east of 240 Street to 256 Street is a long-term improvement that addresses an alternative arterial in the area and improves access to industrially zoned lands. In 2019, the City retained McElhanney Ltd. to undertake a study to review and analyse options for extending Abernethy east of 232 Street. The conceptual routing for the section from 232 Street to 240 Street was endorsed by Council in November 2019 and work is progressing on the conceptual design. In the Council discussion regarding the section from 240 Street to 256 Street, a further review of options was sought. As a result, McElhanney undertook further evaluation of the routing options and the September 2020 Technical Memo was completed. The memo is attached to this report, as Appendix B, and further refines and analyses the options using a Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) to recommend the preferred route of the Abernethy Way road network expansion to manage projected traffic volumes in the north east sector of Maple Ridge. The report recommendation builds on previous work completed through the 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan and consideration of the Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7299-2016, designating lands as industrial. The proposed alignments identified are subject to further review and detailed design. Funding for these projects will likely include cost share from Development Cost Charges (DCC), City's Capital Plan, and grant opportunities. RECOMMENDATION: That the McElhanney September 2020 Technical Memo, Abernethy Way Extension Study 240 Street to 256 Street Study Update be endorsed; and further That the alignment of Abernethy Way Extension from 240 Street to 256 Street as identified in Appendix A of the staff report be selected as the preferred route. 1133 Doc#2603630 Page 1of 4 i . I i i f. r ~ ~ I r I
DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Abernethy Way is an important east west transportation corridor connecting to Golden Ears Way/Golden Ears Bridge to the west, and 232 Street to the east. Abernethy Way provides an alternative for this portion of the City reducing congestion on other east west arterial roadways. The primary objectives of extending the Abernethy corridor east of 232 Street are to: • improve access to the industrial and employment lands in north east sector of Maple Ridge • provide an improved connection to a possible future extension of 240 Street north to access the Silver Valley area • improve both local and regional traffic flow (which includes access to the Golden Ears Provincial Park) • provide an alternative arterial in the road network and an alternative emergency route. Extending Abernethy Way to 240 Street and eventually to 256 Street is a long-term improvement option as an alternative route to Dewdney Trunk Road, which was identified in the City's 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan (STP). The conceptual route from 232 Street to 240 Street was endorsed by Council. However, Council sought further evaluation from 240 Street to 256 Street. McElhanney undertook further analysis and enhanced MAE on potential routes from 240 Street to 256 Street. Noting that extending Abernethy Way east of 240 Street is long-term, McElhanney recommended the construction of a new section of residential roadway on 124 Avenue between Ansell Street and 246 Street. This small section of 124 Avenue would provide a second road connection between 240 Street and 248 Street for emergency access. At the November 2019 Council Workshop, further review of options east of 240 Street were identified in discussion. The City subsequently engaged McElhanney to complete a further review titled "Technical Memo, Abernethy Way Extension Study, 240 Street to 256 Street Study Update," provided as Appendix B. This review recommends a phased approach for north east sector road network expansion based on growth and road performance, suggesting a phased approach for Abernethy Way and other aspects of the road network from 240 Street east. The Technical Memo provides an assessment of three shortlisted options for the extension of Abernethy Way east of 240 Street. The assessment utilized a MAE; where multiple criteria are evaluated relative to other options to determine the cumulative strengths and weaknesses of each proposed alignment. The 124 Avenue alignment was the preferred option based on this assessment. While all options do have an impact on the surrounding area, impacts for the 124 Avenue alignment were minimal relative to the two other shortlisted locations for review. It is important to note at this stage the proposed alignment could vary slightly in the future based on survey work, environmental impacts, property acquisition and other factors, however the general alignment utilizes the 124 Avenue alignment. To further refine the recommendation, the evaluation was conducted in two sections: one from 240 Street to 248 Street and the other from 248 Street to 256 Street. The proposed alignment for Abernethy Way from 240 Street to 256 Street is identified in Appendix A. Doc#2603630 Page 2 of 4
Public Engagement The 2019 McElhanney report included an Open House which was held in June 2019 and a survey response on the options identified in the report. The September 2020 Technical Memo did not include additional public consultation as the routing analysis was a refinement of options presented in the original 2019 McElhanney report (and Open House). The extension east of 240 Street is a long-term project and there would be appropriate additional consultation in the future. b) Desired Outcome: To confirm a preferred alignment for potential extension of Abernethy Way from 240 Street to 256 Street. c) Strategic Alignment: The Abernethy Way Extension Project supports Council's strategic priority of growth. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The proposed extension of Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 240 Street and ultimately to 256 Street will provide an alternative arterial in the road network for the north east sector of Maple Ridge. These improvements will help ease congestion in other areas of the City. Potential future extension of Abernethy Way along the preferred alignment would impact 10 properties. These impacts would include acquisition of land directly adjacent to existing road right-of-ways and larger acquisitions to accommodate the proposed alignment. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Engineering Department will continue to work with the Planning and Engineering Operations Departments in the planning and design of the expansion of the road network. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Projects identified are subject to further detailed review and design to refine cost estimates and will be included in the City's Capital Plan process in future years. Funding for these projects will likely include cost share from Development Cost Charges (DCC's), City's Capital Plan, regional and federal grant opportunities. g) Alternatives: The preferred route of Abernethy Way from 240 Street to 256 Street is based upon the technical analysis and a MAE. Other options for routing are possible. Doc#2603630 Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION: The original November 2019 McElhanney Abernethy Study and subsequent September 2020 Technical Memo provide an overview of options for the extension of Abernethy Way from 232 Street to 256 Street in the north east sector of Maple Ridge. The preferred route was identified through option analyses and a MAE. Improvements identified are phased to manage projected traffic volume increases as they occur with development of the area. This report recommends a conceptual route from 240 Street to 256 Street. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Concurrence: Attachments: Mark Halpin~ BA, PMP Manager of Transportation ::r of Engineering ~~M David Pollock, PEng. Gruna~~ Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer (A) Appendix A: Map of Proposed Alignment of Abernethy Way Extension from 240 St to 256 St (B) Appendix B: McElhanney September 2020 Technical Memo, Abernethy Way Extension Study 240 Street to 256 Street Study Update Doc#2603630 Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX A Proposed Alignment of Abernethy Way Extension from 240 Street to 256 Street Map 1-Abernethy Way Extension 240 Street to 248 Street Map 2 -Abernethy Way Extension 248 Street to 256 Street I. f·-' --,--[I ' -' -_ ' -1. c::.. ,-' ~ ' ~ ' -_ 1--::. ' ' r·_-c:: ,-_-:,: r -~ r-.::c.. ' --' C r .~ t -~ ' . ' ' '
APPENDIXB McElhanney September 2020 Technical Memo, Abernethy Way Extension Study 240 Street to 256 Street Study Update
Our File: 2111-03980-00 TECHNICAl MEMO To Mark Halpin, BA, PMP Manager of Transportation, City of Maple Ridge Re Abernethy Way Extension Study 240 Street to 256 Street Study Update 1. Introduction From Bernard Abelson, P.Eng., M.Eng., TOPS James Anderson, P.Eng. Date September 22, 2020 This memorandum serves as a supplement to McElhanney Limited's (McElhanney) report, Abernethy Way Extension Study, 232 Street to 256 Street, dated November 18, 2019. 2. Background In 2019, the City of Maple Ridge (the City) together with McElhanney completed the Abernethy Way Extension Study to evaluate alignment options to extend the Abernethy Way corridor from 232 Street to 256 Street. According to the City's 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan (STP), the Extension is planned to be delivered in phases as shown in Table 1. The Abernethy Way Extension Study examined Phases 3 and 4, while this memorandum focuses on Phase 4. i.e. a delivery timeframe of 20+ years. The corridor will serve as an additional access to the future planned industrial and residential developments in the north-eastern sector of the City and provide network redundancy for Dewdney Trunk Road. Table 1: 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan -Abernethy Way Extension Phasing Location (From -To) Scope 2014 Timeline 210St-224St Widen cross section from 2 to 5 years 41anes 2 224 St -232 St Widen cross section from 2 to 5 to 10 years 41anes 3 232 St-240 St Extend east to 240 St (as 2 or 10 to 20 years 4 lanes) 4 240 St-256 St Preserve option to extend 25+ years east to 256 St McElhanney Suite 2300 Central City Tower, 13450-102nd Avenue, Surrey BC Canada V3T 5X3 Tel. 604-596-0391 I Fax. 1-855-407-38951 www.mcelhanney.com Status Complete Modified Design Design Phase Under Review Page 1
Our File: 2111-03980-00 J August 21, 2020 The 2019 study assessed 13 corridor alignment options (shown in Figure 1), before shortlisting these to three (shown in Figure 2) for further evaluation. The STP delivery phases are also shown in Figure 2. Figure 1: 13 Alignment Options (2019 Study) Figure 2: Three Shorllisted Alignment Options (2019 Study) The three shortlisted options were compared relative to each other in a Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) process. The Dewdney Trunk Road option (Option 7) was identified as the preferred option, together with a new network link on 124 Avenue between Ansell Street and 246 Street. This option is shown in Figure 3. The new link establishes a continuous alternative connection and provides network redundancy for local use and in case of an emergency. The option included expanding Dewdney Trunk Road to 4-lanes from 240 Street to 252 Street. Technical Memo J Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 2
Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 Figure 3: Preferred Option for Abernethy Way Extension Phases 3 and 4 (2019 Study) At the November 26, 2019 Council Workshop, Council adopted Phase 3 of the Extension from 232 Street to 240 Street (as per the STP), which section was consistent for all three of the shortlisted alignment options. The section from 240 Street to 256 Street (Phase 4 as per the STP) was however recommended for further evaluation based on the following: • The ability of the local road connection on 124 Avenue to adequately provide the required network redundancy and to properly meet requirements of potential emergencies such as wildfires or motor vehicle blockages of Dewdney Trunk Road. • Since the new corridor is intended to serve the redevelopment in the north-east sector of the City, the identified preferred option on Dewdney Trunk Road is indirect, with traffic required to route via Abernethy Way, turn south on 240 Street, then east on Dewdney Trunk Road, and finally north on 256 Street, a distance of approximately 5.5 km. A more direct route would be about 3.5 km -a 35% shorter travel distance. • The ability to secure and cost effectively assemble the right-of-way for the future Abernethy Way Extension alignment is best achieved over 25+ years, about the timeline defined in the STP to deliver phase 4 of the corridor. Given this direction, a subsequent assessment was undertaken for the extension of Abernethy Way between 240 Street and 256 Street. This assessment was considered in conjunction with the 2019 Abernethy Way Extension Study recommendation to widen the Dewdney Trunk Road corridor and provide a new link on 124 Avenue between Ansell Street and 246 Street. This new link can be delivered in a timeline determined by the City since the right-of-way already exists. Also included as part of the previous study was the planned future extension on 240 Street north to Fern Crescent. This new network connection is therefore assumed as part of this study. Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 3
3. Revised Concept Alignments 3.1. ROUTE OPTIONS Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 To help better evaluate the section of corridor under review, it was divided into two segments: Segment 1 from 240 Street to 248 Street, and Segment 2 is from 248 Street to 256 Street. The previously shortlisted options were again included as route options, and one new route option was considered for each segment. All the route options are described below and shown in Figure 4, and more detailed segment plans are provided in Appendix A. Segment 1: 240 Street to 248 Street • Route A -This route follows the existing 124 Avenue corridor from 240 Street to 248 Street. It makes use of the existing Latimer Creek culvert crossing on 240 Street. Most of this route is existing except for a short section from Ansell Street to 246 Street. Realignment of the intersection at 240 Street is required to improve the roadway geometry and taking into account the local topography. • Route B -This route consists of a new road from 240 Street to 244 Street where it ties back in with the existing 124 Avenue to 248 Street. The route would require a new crossing of Latimer Creek on the north of Meadowridge School. • Route C -This route consists of a new road from 240 Street to 248 Street. This route would require two new crossings of Latimer Creek. Segment 2: 248 Street to 256 Street • Route D -This route goes north on the existing 248 Street from 124 Avenue, and then follows the existing 130 Avenue to 256 Street. Most of this roadway is existing but requires modifications to the 240 Street and 130 Avenue intersection to establish more direct and continuous traffic flow. • Route E -This route goes north on the existing 248 Street from 124 Avenue, and then follows the existing 128 Avenue to 251 Street. A new road would be constructed within the existing right-of-way between 251 Street and 256 Street. • Route F -This route follows the 124 Avenue alignment from 248 Street to 256 Street. A new road and right-of-way would be required between 248 Street and approximately 250 Street, as well as between 254 Street and 256 Street. The existing roadway between 250 Street and 254 Street would require upgrading. The recommended Dewdney Trunk Road option and 124 Avenue connection from the 2019 Study (Route G) from 240 Street to 256 Street is also shown in Figure 4, and is included in the set of route plans in Appendix A. This option remains valid. The future proposed upgrades to Dewdney Trunk Road from the previous study are shown on the route plans. Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 4 ~I i I i f-l I i I I
------~=~--Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 Figure 4: Corridor Segments and Route Options 3.2. RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH ASSESSMENT When reevaluating the route options east of 240 Street, it is evident that the existing rights-of-way are 20 m wide. As a result, assessment of whether a 20 m or 24 m right-of-way will serve the future needs of the corridor is warranted, noting that widening to 24 m will add significant property related risk and cost to the project. The 2019 Abernethy Way Extension Study recommended a two-lane, Suburban Arterial type corridor between 240 Street and 256 Street. This was based on forecast corridor traffic volumes and traffic volume thresholds for Arterial versus Collector road types in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The type of cross section was based on the City's Design Criteria Manual (relevant extract shown in Figure 5). A rural cross section was recommended with a 24 m right-of-way as shown conceptually in Figure 6. The study report noted "that property acquisition is required to achieve this cross section, the specifics of which would be determined in the next design stages". Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 5
'. Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 Figure 5: City Design Criteria for Rural Arterial and Collector 24.0 ARTmlAL er 21l.D CCLI..E:CTOR m R_D..W. 12.llll <Y' 1 O..DD 12.00 er Hl.llll ~.o 1.ao 7, D 1.50 .00 1,80 .2:.9 lli ~ ~ ~ MAK. SLOPE 2: 1(T't?) I h1i!>X. DEPlH 1.CJCJ (Tv'P) ' l.11tl. DEPTH 0.50 [!::{ lrllll-VADTH o..aD I I (j) ~ ! t 4.00 I BACK SLOPE AS REQUIRED r " c'iJ ~ I Ill IYJ mm CRUSH ED GFW.EI.. 9-tDIJL.IJER TD BS!'. STMIIDARD PROCTCR----\--:2.00 mm ,: 5CI mm ASPHALT CURE! MINIMUM 40 mm ASPHALllC Ca>laETE SURFi\OC OOUR ld1Nlt.1Ulli -40 mm Afif'HAL 'TIC CCf\lCRETE !iA5E cruRSE MINIMUM 100 mm 11f 21l>Tim MINUS mUSH QRA...a BASE TO ll~ ~QDIFIED PROCTOR DENSITY MINIMUM JOO mm ,;if PIT-RlJII SUB-BASE ID !!Sit r.lODIFIEll PROCTOR 00\ISITY SJB-GRADE TO ~ lrllDFIED PR.'OC'TOR DENSITY ~ 1. 1HE S'TRUCTURAL ROAD ELEMENTI'i SHO\\N AAE 1HE MINIMUM RECUIREl.1EtlTI'i. BEt1KEL1i1AN BEAM TE5T RE SUL Tii DR AN ECIJl\l'AI..ENT TECHNICIJE s-!AI..L BE U5ED TO DESIGN TttE RDAD STRUCTLRE. I I ,I I : i ~OJ$D I ~ :!. .All. U'TILITY SE:R\o1CES AND SE:R\o1CE OOllNEC'TICt.lS SHALL Ell': INSTAUID PRIOR TD Flt.lAL flAVlllG. 3, All PERli1,!,JIIENT WORKS Otl PRIW, TE PROPERTY SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A RECISTERED EASEli1ENT OR RIGHT OF WAY. . 4. DITCHES SHALL BE PIPED l"AST UllLITY POLES i!tND Fl11£ H'iflRAtlTS 'MIERE REOUIRED • .5.. lliAST ARM UGl'TINGS ARE RE.lUIRED AT INTEmECTICJ<JS., DEAD Et.IDS AND A!. t.l~RY. RURAL ARlERIAL AND COLLECTCR __ ,___ ________ -1 0~-15 HYDRO/TEL LOCA'TION RE',15ED 1------------------------tNC. IIAlE CIIY Dl1 J.LlPLll RillDlil Dl'GIIIEl!:llJNG Dll'.Alfl1IEIIT .......... _ ...... ___ T"'"" _____ __,,.....-------t DE51!;111: C5 DRA'Ml: C5 D'A1. Na, IIIJPPLHMENTARY i!l'ANIM1ID lltmlL llll!Will'C8 lllLTE:: J,r,1,1 2D1 :! SCALE: NT!. R109 Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 6 r ' -' -' -,-'" ~. '
Figure 6: Concept Cross Section: 240 St to 256 St ~~---·---.. <1 .,·;~----...!l.'-·------1· .J
' •• c--"-'C.......,-1-.Mt.--:-··~t I I ~ t ~------+--fl-·l l Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 ---·---.J, -~--~~r i To limit further property impact, the feasibility of reducing the right-of-way to 20 m was assessed. The City's Design Criteria Manual for a Rural Arterial and Collector advises a 24 m right-of-way for an Arterial, and a 20 m right-of-way for a Collector (refer Figure 5). Further examination of traffic volume thresholds for Arterial versus Collector road types in the HCM shows a variance of 600 to 700 vehicles per hour for roads with 10% Heavy Vehicle volumes, and a consistent 600 vehicles per hour for roads with 20% Heavy Vehicle volumes. Forecast 2050 traffic volumes are between 650 and 700 vehicle per hour in the peak travel directions. These calculated volumes combine background traffic growth with new trips assumed to be generated by a full build out of the land uses identified in the OCP Adjustment for the north-east sector. The latter makes up 80% of the forecast trips. Even with full build out of this area, the certainty of which is unknown, the forecast traffic volumes are close to the Collector threshold and within the margin of error of the forecast to 2050. The corridor also passes through what is primarily Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Based on the above, it is reasonable to classify the proposed new corridor as a Collector, and therefore adopt a 20 m right-of-way. This is still consistent with the STP which identifies Abernethy Way west of 240 Street as a future arterial, but does not provide a classification for the section to the east (refer Figure 7). Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 7 1:i 1---1 I
------.. --~-~ Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 Figure 7: Long-Term Road Network Classification (Strategic Transportation Plan, Map 20) A City of Pitt Meadows \ ,---,---1 -Major Road Network • Signalized Intersection -Highway n Pedestrian Signal -Arterlal Road -Major Collector Future Roads -Collector Road ••••• Collector Local Road .... , Arterial ........ District of Maple Ridge 11? Ave. I I I I I : I I The extension further to the east is identified as a "Candidate Major Municipal Road Improvement" as seen in Figure 8, but does not advise on the possible classification. Figure 8: Candidate Major Municipal Road Improvements (Strategic Transportation Plan, Map 6) N A City of Pitt Meadows L---, \ 23zth St Widening Dewdney Trunk ,-1 I I I I I . I o~wdney trunk Rd I ! 112 Avf!. I I I As shown in the cross section in Figure 6, the 24 m width is generous and the features intended to be included within the cross section (lane widths, shoulders, MUP, ditch) can likely still be accommodated within 20 m. While this can only be confirmed in the detailed design stage, the relatively flat topography in Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 8 -.:~ I L -I ~= i ': 1-.-.:: --
------= Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 the study area reduces the risk of potential cut/fill slopes, however if needed, walls could be built to remain within the 20 m right-of-way. Based on this assessment it is feasible to proceed with a 20 m right-of-way, however to further facilitate a final decision, both 24 m and 20 m wide right-of-way widths were included in the evaluation of the route options. 4. Revised Cost Estimates The cost estimates developed during the previous study were revised for the routes under consideration, and are shown in Table 2, with a breakdown for each provide in Appendix B. These estimates are a Class D based on the Wolski Elements Cost Estimating Method (cost per meter of road) and apply the same unit rates and methodology from the previous study, except that only property required for the road right-of-way has been included in these estimates. Further study would be required to better determine the probable property takes and assess slither properties, possible consolidations, new public park opportunities, etc. For the purpose of comparing costs between the routes this methodology is acceptable. Table 2: Updated Concept Alignment Cost Estimates 248 Street to 256 Street New Road & Partial 124 Ave Corridor New Road Corridor Route D 248 St/ 130 Ave Corridor 24m 20m $13.6M 5. Revised Multiple Account Evaluation Route E 248 St/ 128 Ave Corridor Route F 124 Ave Corridor A similar process was used from the previous study to evaluate the routes, with some Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) criteria revised to better suit the corridor segments and to allow for more quantitative versus qualitative criteria. Mandatory criteria for each route were also introduced, and both 20m and 24m rights-of-way were evaluated. The MAE tables use coloured balls to demonstrate the relative difference between routes, and each colour is assigned a point score: green (best) = 2 points; red (worst) = 0 points; and yellow= 1 point. Importantly, in the MAE process routes are compared relative to each other, and not in isolation. After totalling the scores, the routes in each segment were further assessed as follows: • Taking into account all the criteria, how often did the route compare worst versus the other routes? • Can the route alignment be tweaked to minimize property impacts? The results of the evaluations are shown in Table 3 for the segment from 240 Street to 248 Street (Routes A, B, and C) and Table 4 for the segment from 248 Street to 256 Street (Routes D, E, and F). Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 9 I i:. i ' I I I r --c I I i i: 1~ \_ -i ' i. 1-i" -
... .. '' • ': Criteria .. . . . .. . . Dewdney Trunk Rd Provides Access to NE Sector of the City Consistency with Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) I OCP Public Preference Directness of Route Utilization of Existing RoW I Ease of Construction # of Properties Impacted ~------------Environmental Impact (incl. Tree Canopy, Creeks) Possibility of Archaeological Impact ALR Impact (incl. split parcels, farming production/efficiency impact) Noise, Pollution/Dust, Visual Impacts # of Intersections I Estimated# of Driveways on Route (Safety Conflicts) Approx. # of Existing Dwellings within 30 m Set Back of RoW Significant Utility Relocation # of Bridge Structures (Life Cycle Cost Consideration) Cost Estimate (Class D; $2019, RoW Property Only) •• • Route A Existing 124 Ave Corridor 20m II 24m M M M M • • • 3 27 • • • • • • • • • • 5 / 21 5121 • • 8 8 • • • • 0 0 • • • • 8.9M 11.3M je2pts; 1pt;.Opts 16 11 1------·-----Total Score • • Recommendation . Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 • • .. • • • • • Route B Route C New Road & New Road Partial 124 Corridor Ave Corridor 20m 1124m 20m 1124m M M M M M M I M I M -1-• • • • • I• • • 6 17 5 7 ~ • • .e I• • • I • , . • • • • • • • ''l'"L~ 2/2 • • • • -5 -I s-1 • 1 • • • • • i 2 I 2 I le • I • 1• '• I • 10.8M ! 11.9M 12.8M 13.6M i 15 13 ! 13 13 . .. • Influencing Factors Mandatory (M) requirement for the new corridor Mandatory (M) requirement for the new corridor Mandatory (M) requirement for the new corridor To be determined •1• • • 1-------·---·------·-·-----1 * • Compared to the other Routes, this Route i I does not compare worst in any of the criteria · • Route can we tweaked to minimize property impacts Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 10 I I I I. 11 l, 11 I ! i I I I 1 I I J
Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 Table 4: Segment 2-248 to 256 St: Options Evaluation (comparison of options relative to each other) Influencing Factors Provides Network Redundancy for Dewdney Trunk Rd M M M M M M Mandatory (M) requirement for the new corridor Provides Access to NE Sector of the 1-.~~ (M) req"iremeot foe th, "'w M M M M M M City corridor Consistency with Strategic M M M M M M I Mandatory (M) requirement for the new Transportation Plan (STP) I OCP corridor Public Preference To be determined Directness of Route • • • • • • r Utilization of Existing RoW I Ease of • • • • • • North side of 130 Ave already developed; ! Construction, incl Land Assembly 128 Ave has existing RoW r 1 55 0 48 4 19 Widening to a 24 m right-of-way results in # of Properties Impacted • • • • significant property impacts Environmental Impact (incl. Tree • • • • • • Canopy, Creeks) Possibility of Archaeological Impact • • • • • • ALR Impact (incl. split parcels, farming • • • • I • • production/efficiency impact) Noise, Pollution/Dust, Visual Impacts • • • • • # of Intersections I Estimated# of 5 / 49 5149 3 / 43 3 / 43 2120 2 / 20 Driveways on Route (Safety Conflicts) • • • • • • Approx. # of Existing Dwellings within 26 26 16 16 12 12 30 m Set Back of RoW • • • • Significant Utility Relocation • • • • • • I # of Bridge Structures (Life Cycle Cost 0 0 1 0 0 I Consideration) • • t~~ 9;M • Cost Estimate (Class D; $2019, RoW • • • • Property Only) 12.2M 14.9M 11.1M 10.6M I I e2 pts; 1 pt; eo pts 16 9 14 10 18 17 i---• • • • • • ! Total Score • While RoW does not exist for sections, Recommendation * however those sections are not developed and are on few longitudinal properties. Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 11
Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 6. Recommendation Based on the results of the Multiple Account Evaluation of alignment routes in each segment, the following route rights-of-way are recommended to be secured over the next 20+ years for the future alignment of phase 4 of the Abernethy Way Extension: • Segment 1 -240 Street to 248 Street: Route B, a new road from 240 Street to 244 Street and then follows the existing 124 Avenue alignment from 244 Street to 248 Street (Figure 9) • Segment 2 -248 Street to 256 Street: Route F, which generally follows the existing 124 Avenue corridor (Figure 10) Figure 9: Segment 1 Recommended Route 8 -240 Street to 248 Street) Figure 10: Segment 2 Recommended Route F-248 Street to 256 Street) For both segments, a 20 m right-of-way is recommended. Since this phase of the Extension is expected to be delivered in 20+ years time, the recommended route in the 2019 study, i.e. the Dewdney Trunk Road alignment with the new link on 124 Avenue between Ansell Street and 246 Street (the Hinch Trail), remains valid. This continuous, but circuitous corridor can be constructed in the short-to medium-term, giving time for land assembly for the future long-term option. The section between Ansell Street and 246 Street is shown in Figure 11. Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 12 r-=
Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 Figure 11: Short-term Recommendation: Construction on 124 Ave between Ansell St & 246 St (Hinch Trail) In summary, the recommended Jong-term Abernethy Way Extension alignment is shown in Figure 12, and the short-term alignment is shown in Figure 13. The widening of the section of Dewdney Trunk Road between 240 Street and 252 Street is anticipated to occur in the interim period. Larger plans of both these alignments are provided in Appendix C. Figure 12: Long-term (20+ years) Abernethy Way Extension Alignment Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 13
Our File: 2111-03980-00 I August 21, 2020 Figure 13: Short-term (Interim) Abernethy Way Extension Alignment McElhanney Ltd. Prepared by: DRAFT James Anderson, P.Eng. Engineer janderson@mcelhanney.com 604-674-7127 Technical Memo I Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge Reviewed by: DRAFT Bernard Abelson, P.Eng., M.Eng., TOPS Project Manager babelson@mcelhanney.com 604-424-4935 Abernethy Way Extension Study -240 Street to 256 Street Update Page 14
I I ~ ~-
SEGMENT 1: 240 ST TO 248 ST !>--_-+--+-------------+---<~~--'j'u~'J:'L"""'°",:u i~~~. ;~::==~~:~;"::=~===::;::::::================~,~~ ·.:.:..;::::.r;.:;.:.r,:. js• O•lt ·--~·=---= ·-·-~--··-= ~ SEGMENT 2: 248 ST TO 256 ST CONCEPT NOT FOR Ec=-----1 COl~STRUCTION CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENG!NEERIIIG ll£PJ.RTIJOH ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY -· ~·: "" 240 ST TO 256 ST PL,t,N ROUTES A, 8, C, D, E, F & EXISTING EN17-66
e--<--+------------f---1:::..~~·-~>-;,-+--~0/-~-/'+"-~-.,-,oo-.-,ru-,,-.-, ---------+-----<~;·•""'~= l~•:.•1 COX>'<""' <-<~-'-+------------>-----<"nr..,.,...r21crflt'.f0FY 6 PA 0/0f'>/2 1~51.'(DHRO!SC\JS9CII J• _r:1<1.,,vr.-su• <-<--+------------>-----< i N> ~•TE ·="'"" __ .,. = -~·,, .. =_, • .,. = W////, SEGMENT 1 CONCEPT NOT FOR Ec='----\CONSTRUCTIOM CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENG•tlIT!ilUGDEPARTIJEtH ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY -· ~•: '"'' 240 ST TO 248 ST PLAN ROUTES A, B, & C EN17-66 --l ,-' ' f r
SEGMENT1 i,20 I i I i ! I 1'00 i ! I ! i ,~-----t----,-1 ___,_~; ---i---,-'. -,i---~+:-----t-----+---t---~: ----t-----11--+----+--: ----t------r---+-i----+--: -t:----+:----+-----+--l --i--t--t-i -t--i -j--j--j---..,1_ -+----+--H !ill I I I Ill! I~--I I t .. .... ;.. I - -~ --_,_ '. -~ I .... I I I ~1~~ " --11 -' i ' I 1 =-R-1 i 60 : ;---+---t----t---t-! --t-----t---lli I ' ~ --r 1-1-L1 1--+l---+l---+-1--t---+---+---+---+--I -+-I -+--1--i---+---;-l-+i ----H ~~~~!~~,~~:-_-t+~i~l~l~l111l1I-I I I I I I I I ii l ' I ! I I ~· i ! • . I ti --+---+----i-~t -.+-. ~___,__: --+1-!___,1_.,__. -"--,+-I ~i _ ._i_J_ ----~1 .• 11_ -~ 1-+-. --+--+. _----iJ-~:1 -.+-! ~___,__ --+---+j___,I_;,_· --'-'I, .. 1----+-----+a---~---~+-. ---1---+------,----+----=l+-. --__,~---+---i+-; __ __,ii----1----·+·· --~~ :!, I § • ! •. t t, 1, i' i, ii: ~. ~-t I, t ~ ¥1STAllCW
j .~--~--~---~--~--~--~--___l__j ' I > f !>--_-+--+--------------+---<eT.1%..,J'.%'':.·1°"°"""'."' -;-pa ~0/08/1 ISS~CO fOO oisOJ
SSIOtl l~a.~;,1;:oon:;:;,~:::,ro;::::,~=•:::•~:::,:::•~===============~~JA :::;\"':.~::="..'!, i N, ~•n; ............ ,c-rs ---i.=J ·-.. ~=-,-~. = wm;: CONCEPT MOT FOR e=-=----ICONSTRUCTION 1:2.~00 \OIT. 1:~0 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERIIIGCEPJ,RTIJENT ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY = ~'; '"'' 240 ST TO 248 ST PLAN & PROFILE ROUTE A EN17-66
i ! I f t ? ! ' I l f ' i I ; }·~:+=-i::::==========:::r:=::r==------i-;;::::~;:-::;;::;=::;-------------=,;;----:;;---,.;c------,---_Jgi~l~f~ld.JS~E~~l~~~~l,fci~1·~~L~~i\.~~M=c=E=l~h=a:n:ne:y:J iHr--+------------1--=-1 ~i:=:'.ih~u "'°"""" :::::~:: ~ <>«on BA CONCEPT CIT~N£~ERr~c~~P~~wE~~DGE 'r.~±10/;;;M';c-/'t;''"'cc"cc;;:'~:--;·':;'ru::,"='::._' -------~ ~ NOT FOR OH< ~ P>-0/05/2 1SS1Jto roi oiswss,Ot< JA =~~~. =~--__,coNSTRUCTION ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY ~ .1.1rir w,o i ~~ D<lt 240 ST TO 248 ST b--,~'---1 '°''· PLAN & PROFILE ROUTE 8 EN17-66 f l l t--~: f----r_-c.._-. r -" ,._..,_
SEGMENT 1 i I I i I I I I 1--: I I I I I I i I I ' -· i I -l ~~ . --·~· I i i ! i ' I ,--' I\ ,) I l ~~-~-~-~-~--~-~-~----~-~--------~------~-~-~----~-~---~----~-~· l---+--1'--_I__L ___ ~ ,--+· 1 __ ,__l_, __ , __ ~!~-1--+---,1__,-+l _ _,_l _-+--+--l---+1---+-~l--+--+-+--t-1 -+--H I i I I I I ! I ! I I i tt=t=ttt=J=t1 x=o=t1 =t1 rtt1 rri =1t11=t1 :1bl;t, 1=1=t: rt:tt1:r:J· I----+--+-'>"-+--+--+--+~--+-i-_____,r!--+-~--0-~·~-~-:J-++--++J_--+j-;:_:-=·-+·'4--·+-· -:·~=:___..J--___ -----;_--+-_:_-+-,1---l-____ -+_-ti---~-· ·+ ,-_--:I :,_· -+-~--+·l--1_--+ .. -+~-----::-=-· --=-1----++-li~; I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I 1 r a al I I § •' ! ii, ~ ~I ~ ~I ! 1 I i: ~: ;',*ol ----+----f-----_,!----it-•, ------~---f-t.---+---~f----¥+-, ---~+,i----t,1----'~.----~f----+---~+,' ---,-/-~ 'ST~l1011 ~--~---~--~---~----------~--~--------~· ---+----~---~---'----~---+------i.l.___i • I ~ L --,··=--·-= CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE jl-_-+--+-------------+---1*"""-,... 10·~·1™"""' -; Pa :o,IO!l/171S~tDf0!IOm'..lJ5SIOI• ft~'~' =•M='.::n~•===·w=,=~=•=•ru=ss=•=• ===============~,=;~ ::;,::.~";.~.!. -~,.·=-····= ~ CONCEPT NOT FOR >-==----+ CONSTRUCTION ENGll!EERIUG OEP~-RTJJENT ABERNETHY WAY EXITNSION STUDY = ~•: '"'" 240 ST TO 248 ST 1 No. O•!'E PLAN b. PROFILE ROUTE C EN17-66 \ ~' ,---·
!-+----,------------+--~~:.~·-'f-N--+-,,-,00-,--,, -,~~--w-,-m-,-,ru-,,-~--------+-~.~~}~~11 =•"u µ.,f-,~,E,~;oo~nc-tc-,~~"'~",~m~,~,ru~,,~,-,--------+"--~ ~ j•"o OAT[ SEGMENT2 .. -.. --·=-·-·· = W/& ~-------CONCEPT NOT FOR I""=-=--~ COl~STRUCTIOM l:J
.OOQ
V.:,,f.
I:~ CITY OF-MAPLE RIDGE ENG!NEERl/lG DEP~RTIJENT ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY •= "; '"'" 248 ST TO 256 ST PLAN ROUTES D, E, & F EN17-66 ' ,_ ' h-h ' ,-' -'
i I i l i t 1 ! : ' I l ' l ; ! ; " " . I I I i I ' I I I I I I I I i I : I I I I l I I I I i I ----L I I ! I I a C ' ' SEGMENT2 n-1 11111 j~r~1~~1~1~1-1f---. ------+-I -i---+-1 -f--+---1 -+I-I 1 L._J! l_j I I i , 11"' I 11 ~ i I 'L-------------~~-----~-------------------~---~~-----~D=~=~C=Nu=c~=~=16="=1=;=1,f=L~~i'-::_:::_M_c_E_1_h_a_nn_e_v----l J = .,_,""'""' __ ..,. CJ CIT~Ng~ERl~G~rP~fmJ;}DGE ¥1-,:;_,_10JM-/-, '-,.-~,-, -,~-,-,w-,s-,-, --------1--------l """"'"-= l~•~•lcoo,:,,,,., ,.,..,.,...,.-=-,..,..,. ~ =======--------1--------ll'U<',,....IO"OC ... fOJY I,_,_,• ~""'-"='=~w~,~~·~,w~,s~•-• --------1--------lJ~ _,,.,, • .,omo:,; no, i ~. ouc CONCEPT NOT FOR '=~---I CONSTRUCTION ,,,,coo .,.,,,. 1:&00 ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY -· ": '"'" 248 ST TO 256 ST PLAN&. PROFILE ROUTED EN17-66
I f ; I '' I ! I i I I i __J ! ! I I I I I i .... __ I I I f----j • ~ • ' . • "' ,---t---~---t------1---1-----;~ ~'~; i tSTAlKH L SEGMENT2 I ' i ~ ~ . i: ;I ~ " • • I I I I '" I I I I I I I I I "' I I I n' I I I pl=-I I ~ I r I I I ~ • ' " .J • ~ ' a "' ·, ii • ; • ~ ii • -, I §~ •' 8 8 : • • -, I ~~~3~;16~~ 6t7L~ .I'-McElhanney ·h--~-----~r--------.----------------=~---=-------.-~===~~~=-------j i = .. >V .........
---c:=l Cl TYEN£~1~/J:~fni:JDGE l._.--+--+-------------+----1 ~:?,,:~--J'~'"""L""""'.'"' ..... ~-a.~~::~~+:-::-:-;-:-:-:-::-:-: --------+-,---1. ~'":.'.'..:.:::..'!. ·-··--~-·-·· = W/& 1 So 0•1t CONCEPT NOT FOR Ec=----,CONSTRUCTION 1:4,COO Wlf. 1:IICO ABERNElHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY -AA: "" 248 ST TO 256 ST PLAN & PROfll£ ROUTE E ENl 7-66 ;_-I I
I ' f : ' ' I l • I i I SEGMENT 2 ~I~--~~: ~~~~I ~I ~1~~1._ ~~~~l~I ~~~~~:~I ~~l~I~~: -~11 ~l~I~,~ i I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I >--+--I ---;--i---;--1' I I
. . I I ' I I I Ii I , .. ,··· '1,_ f-+-' -'" j ! i I I I j I i I I ~-t-'----+--i-------+--1 I I I I i I I I I 1 1 1 I -11 ----1111:_-t--...-+-.. +i,. -1-~1 I ~I ! +'., =cl =i==:t=i ===t=::::;::' f11 =-·Fi 1· 11 ~+:=:r···· +--1,'" f-----i--t----+--+-----+-+' -+----+-+--~--i---+-->---+-. l ! ! -1~&o ! II 11-1[1!11 I ll I! II i 0~~~~~~l~1'I cir?L~ ~ McElhanney Jl-:~~----------~~-----~.---"-~-=------=---_-----------~---~~--~-~='::C::IT"'Y"'rn::£{::ma'::t~::o~~~-~~-n,-~-)D-G-E------l !1-_+--1-----------!-iur.-"""-)~'~']=••"• ,._.,,..,,m_, ... ..,.c:::::J CONCEPT "t '1-~'-!'~'1~~1c-t"~'=='"='~~·==~"=00-------+--<'""' .. ,...w,«.,,....tt .....,....,,"'...,...J<:""" ~ >---~~---<co~~[R~g~OM ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION SlUDY =1 .l!r~Emo '-,_"~"'"~'"-+-"~-"-'~-•_•~_,._oo ______ --+'--<~ ........,.,,.,t.-,....,. ,,i.= 248 ST TO 256 ST f So out ""'· 1:500 PLAN & PROFILE ROUTE F EN17-66 l
l I ' ! I I i I t t ' n ! l • ! i ! ; ~I I . --r------I I I I I I I i I I i I . I I ~I i ! I I I I i I I I I I I ; I _,::.-----~-SEGMENT 1 I I I I I i I ----··-----1 ! I ! I 1--..... ! IT! I I ' I I I l--+---l----j-·+l-+----+--+-!1_· -~_I _I: I I I I I : ! D~~~~~;l~N-~,?L~ "" McElhanney il-:--.---,r------------,--,-------.--.--"-.-,=-----.~-=--·-------------r.c.,,.---,,---r..---r--~==c=,T=~=,?=1N~="=1~c=~~~~~}~.,~!;~)D~G~E-----I ~ _., __ l• ,arii .. ~,..
... """_,..,.~• c:J CONCEPT ,,. ;~~::;,=,,,..=1j,,:::,s~=,ru=,=00=•s=ru=s·= .. =============::1=::1::rn•=;:::.~=-o•n W/#/, '==-~---lco:J~;R~g~ON ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION STUDY ....u J,Jlll:20'0 I,_,_,• ~•!00~"-_,_'~-~Eo_,_oo_•s_ru_,._°'--------+-"-+.-.rntt~·•0~....... 240 ST TO 244 ST iS• g'1t "-ll
f. PLAN & PROFILE EXISTING ROUTE EN17-66
I I SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT2 i f--------i-t--l+t------+--t----;---,---r--t--t-----+---t-----+---+-----+---t--1 i l '001-+-------+--+---+-1-; oo~Jt-___ ~ .. tij1±±==±=i=t=Ft-+TJ=t=fi= __ .-~. = .. +=i Ft=~rt=rT~t, i 1,-----~ 1of---j----l----·+--+--+--+-----,--+--+--+----l-·-j.-+------+-----i----+-----i----+-~--t-----!--+------+-,.----+-l--+--·t--,----+--r-+--l-----i ' ; I I r I I ! ~-¥ 1, ~' '-----'----'----L--~------· --~--~--~---~----§ 1, I i m~ ·~· ---L--~---'----'-------L---L~ i ~~~~~~i6,~ ~fl~ i'-McElhanney f~:=+==::;====================:;:~~-------,-.~-"-.--------=----.------------==----r.,,-------,----~==::::C:::IT:::Y:::=O:::F=M::A:'.,P,-,LE,,....,,R---,ID...,GccE----1 !f---_+-----t----------+-ti,r1}.~;-.:,;.u~,i """°"' ... ,.,.,,,..., ..... _,..,"""[=:! CONCEPT ENC'llEEFHIICDtFMHlJENT i:::~:::::'.:::::'.:.~::::=:====::=:=:::=-=··=· ============:::=:J~ ~"7..::.:::..:. ....,,,=...,......,_ :wa 1===-cc'------1co~~iRtg~IOM ABERNE~J4 WT~y s~x!~s~~N STIJDY 9al .t.·•:: 20~0 j ,.-, out ,..,.,. 1:1.~oo PLAN & PROFlLE EXISTING ROUTE EN17-66
__ ( = l I ! I I l-! ! I f -r: l , .. 1~~: ti=
Date: 2020-08-21 File: 2111-03980-00 Estimator: JA Reviewed By: BA CLIENT: CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE J\ McElhanney SUMMARY SHEET ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE \PROJECT: ABERNETHY WAY EXTENSION OPTIONS FROM 232 STREET TO 256 STREET fil.M SECTtOtl LENGTH (m) 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS 4.0 WATERMAIN 5.0 BC HYDRO/TEUGAS 6.0 STREET LIGHTING 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS 9.0 EROS!ON AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 10.0 PROPERlY ACQUISITIONS SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (S 2019) (GST EXCLUDED) 2020-08·21 03980--00 Cost Estimate CO.xtsx 9/2312020 @ @ 15% 40% ROUTE A ROUTE B ROUTEC 20mROW 24mROW 20mROW 24mROW 20mROW 24mROW 1.865 1.665 1,697 1,697 1,707 1.707 4,305 120 4,305,120 4,726,200 4,726,200 5,068,810 5,068,810 156,500 156,500 309,250 309,250 240 000 240,000 140,000 140,000 20,000 20,000 28,000 28,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 228,660 228,660 252,440 252.440 271,200 271,200 949,580 2,468,240 1,649,820 2,407,690 2.545,420 3,081,450 5,751,360 7,270,020 6,950,960 7,708,830 8,240,680 8,776,710 862,704 1,090,503 1,042,644 1,156,325 1,236,102 1,316,507 2,300,544 2,908,008 2,780,384 3,083,532 3,296,272 3,510,684 8,914,608 11i
61!J~!J t10,11;saa 11,948,687, 12,773,054 1~,6_()3,901_ CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY I ROUTED ROUTE E ROUTE F 20mROW 24mROW 20mROW 24mROW 20mROW 24mROW 2.6-49 2,649 2.501 2,501 1,645 1,6-45 6,121,950 6,121,950 6,026 070 6,026,070 4,061,040 4,061,040 233,750 233,750 205,250 205,250 227,750 227 750 980,000 980000 540 000 540,000 360,000 360,000 40.000 40,000 38,000 38,000 25,000 25,000 368,790 368,790 340,470 340,470 233,690 233,690 118,760 1,855,900 6,310 792,490 1,385,880 1,904,080 7,863,250 9,600,390 7,156,100 7,942,280 6,293,360 6,811,560 1,179,488 1,440,059 1,073,415 1,191,342 944,004 1,021,734 3,145,300 3,840,156 2,862,440 3,176,912 2,517,344 2,724,624 i,1_2,188,038 14,880,605 [11,091,955 I' 12,310,534 i 9.t754,708 10,557,918. 1011
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS ROUTE A (24m ROW) CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE f,,,;-: !ri~;c~{y;~i: · :'-:'.:-<-;_;':--,( lreM :UNIT .. 'QUANTITY 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS 1,865 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 2.82 Common Excavation and Removal m' 20,515.95 lrrl)Ort Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 24,246.12 240 STREET TO 248 STREET (2 LANE) m 1,865.09 INTERSECTIONS 240 Street and 241 Street Ls. 1.00 124 Avenue and 241 Street Ls. 1.00 124 Avenue and 244 Street f.s. 1.00 124 Avenue and Ansell Street l.s. 1.00 124 Avenue and 246 Street l.s. 1.00 248 Street and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 WALLS (Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail} m' 0.00 EX. As~halt and Base Structure Re-Use and Over1£1Y 0+000 to 1 +250 -6.0m m 1,250.00 1+460 to 1+865 -6.0m m 405.00 m 1,655.00 < S!JB'TOTAL RC>AD !!,SITE WORKS . 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS SUB,TOTJ\l STQRl,ISEWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS · SUB.-TOTALSANITARYSEWER 4.0 WATERMAIN . ·sutFl'.OTALWATERMAIN 5.0 BC HYDRO/TEUGAS BCH Pole Relocation ea. 12.00 C SUBJ:QTALBC HYDRO/TEL 6.0 STREET LIGHTING I SIGNALS LIGHTING INTERSECTION SIGNALS ·SUB,TOTAL STREET LIGHTING•· 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings l.s. 1.00 . -SUBTOTALSIGNAGE.&PAVEMENTMA~KINGS -· 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS .. sue,,:otAL-MISCE.ti:ANEOUS 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 !.s. -,sus,TOTAL E;~QSION;AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR (20m ROW) m' 3,907.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m ROW) m' 1,107.00 Land -ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 4,444.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 2,041.00 sUB,TOTAkPR.ORl;RTYAC<2UISITJOfl1S -TOTAL OET AILED CONSTRUCTION COST 2020--08-21 03980-00 Cost Estimate CO.Jdsx 9/23/2020 INFLATION oo-l $30,000 $45 $22 $1,596 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $670 ($310) $20,000 $4,573,120 $84.11 $560.94 $84.11 $560.94 ·UNIT· $30,000 84,640 $45 923,220 $22 533,410 $1,596 2,976,900 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $670 $ ($310) ~----~(5_1~3,~05_0~) 4,305,120 _; $0~-------'$.; $0~-------$20,000 --"-----~2~4~0,~00~0~ $0--"--------$0~-------$28,000 ~-----2~8,~00_0_ $0~--------·-2s,ooo · 5% ~$~---~2=2~8,~66~0~ $84.11 ~----~3=2~8,~62~0~ $560.94--"-----~6=2;=.0,e,:96"'0~ $84.11 ~-----3~7~3,~78~0~ $560.94--". ____ 1~, 1~4~4,"'8"'80~ 2of7
1.0 2.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS Clearing and Grubbing Common Excavation and Removal lrrport Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) 240 STREET TO 248 STREET (2 LANE) INTERSECTIONS Abernethy Way and 124 Avenue 124 Avenue and 244 Street 124 Avenue and Ansell Street 124 Avenue and 246 Street 248 Street and 124 Avenue WALLS (lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail) Left Side -STA 0+130 Right Side -STA0+130 EX. Asphalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overlay 0+810 to 1 +090 -6.0m 1+290 to 1+697-6.0m SUB-TOTAL: ROAD & SITEJ,\IORKS STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 7 -Latimer Creek (0+130) Headwalls -Large S(1_13:TOJAl:iSTORM SEWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS · 'SUBiTOTAI.SANITARYSEWER 4.0 WATERMAIN ···,suB,TOTALINATERMAIN 5.0 BC HYDRO/TEUGAS BCH Pole Relocation --SUBTOTALBCHYDROITEI.;· 6.0 STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS LIGHTING INTERSECTION SIGNALS SUB-TOTAL STREE_T LIGHTING 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS ROUTE B (24m ROW) CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE -s"· INFLATIDW. :°Ur,llT ->QUANTITY --ri% 1,697 1600nmlD m ha m' tonne m l.s. l.s. l.s. l.s. Ls. rri' m' m m m ea. ea. 1.s. 3.39 18,670.91 22,065.62 1,697.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 412.50 412.50 280.00 407.00 687.00 30.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 $30,000 $45 $22 $1,596 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $670 $670 ($310) $3,375 $27,625 $20,000 '_SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE 1l. PAVEMENT MARKINGS -8.0 MISCELLANEOUS SUB~T9IAD.MiSCELI.ANEOUS -9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 ·~;"SUB.·TOTAL EROSION AND_SEDIMENTCONTROL 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR (20m ROW) Land -NON-ALR (20m ROW) Land -ALR (20m to 24m ROW) Land -NON--ALR {20m to 24m ROW) l.s. m' 19,615.00 m' 0.00 m' 5,736.00 m' 491.00 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST 2020-08-21 03980-00 Cost Estimate CO.>dsx 9123/2020 $5,048,700 $84.11 $560.94 $84.11 $560.94 _ I.INIT -PRICE,· $30,000 $45 $22 $1,596 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $670 $670 101,600 840.190 485,440 2,709,180 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $ 276,380 $ 276,380 ($310) -'$~---~<2~1~2,~97-'0~) $3,375 -'$~----1-'0~1,~2~50~ $27,625 -'$~----~5~5,~2~50~ $0~---------$_.' $0~-------$20,000 -'$~----1~4~0,~0~00~ $0~-------$0~-------$ $26,000 -=------=2~6,~0~00~ ·$: -C 26,000-1 5% ~-----2_5_2,~44_0_ $84.11 1,649,820 $560.94 $84.11 482,450 $560.94 275,420 3of7
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHYWAYOPTIONS ROUTE C (24m ROW) CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE i" :, ,, ~ ~e;~1i1fr;~N · .·• .. rreM ·• UNIT QUANTITY 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS 1,707 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 3.95 Common Excavation and Removal m' 18,774.97 Import Embankment Fill (75nm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 22,188.60 240 STREETTO 248 STREET (2 LANE) m 1,706.82 INTERSECTIONS Abernethy Way and 244 Street l.s. 1.00 Abernethy Way and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 248 Street and 124 Avenue l.s. 1.00 WALLS {Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail} Left Side -STA0+130 m' 412.50 Right Side -STA 0+130 m' 412.50 Left Side -STA0+510 m' 176.00 Right Side -STA 0+510 m' 176.00 EX. Asi;ihalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overlay 1+560 to 1+707 -6.0m m 147.00 m 147.00 SUB-TOTAL ROAD.& SITE WORKS 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 7 -Latimer Creek (0+130) 1600mm!D m 30.00 Crossing 8 -Latimer Creek (0+510) 1200mm!D m 60.00 Headwalls -Large ea. 4.00 sus:ToTAL S.JORMSEWER • 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS soe,TQTAL SANITARY.SEWER 4.0 WATERMAIN 'S01:i,TQTAl.;Ni/ATERl\'IAIN 5.0 BC HYDRO/TEL/GAS SCH Pole Relocation ea. 1.00 · c',;SUll'fOTAi:ll<::HYDgOJTEL 6.0 STREET LIGHTING / SIGNALS LIGKTING INTERSECTION SIGNALS ·,sOa-TOT/IL:STREETLIGHTING 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings 1.s. 1.00 k • -'SlJBTOTALSJGNAGE 8. PAVEMENTl\'IARKINGS .. ·. 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS ... SUB-t<>TALMISCEL\ANEOUS'0 9,0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 l.s. . •\SlJB,l"Ol'AL'i:ROSIOl\l'ANDSEDIMENTCONTROL.~ 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR (20m ROW) m' 30,263.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m ROW) m' 0.00 Land -ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 6,373.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 0.00 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST 2020-08-21 03980-00 Cost Estimate CO.Jdsx 912312020 INF~TION 0% $30,000 $45 $22 $1,596 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $670 $670 $670 $670 ($310) $3,375 $1,625 $27,625 $20,000 $5,424,060 $84.11 $560.94 $84.11 $560.94 .. U~IT PRICE ·AMOUNTi $30,000 118,480 $45 844,870 $22 488,150 $1,596 2,724,280 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $670 $ 276,380 $670 $ 276,380 $670 $ 117,920 $670 $ 117,920 ($310) (45,570) $i s;o511,310: $3,375 $ 101,250 $1,625 $ 97,500 $27,625 $ 110,500 .'·;•$'· ' ,;,; 309,250,; $0 .,.,$ $0 $ $20,000 20,000 C$ 20,000; $0 $0 $ .$ $26,000 26,000 ).$,. .· '26;000_ i $0 5% 271,200 .';$. . 271,200 i $84.11 $ 2,545,420 $560.94 $ $84.11 $ 536,030 $560.94 $ 4of7
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS ROUTE D (24m ROW) CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE .. -.bESC~.;f1Cnt·: -ITEM,; . UNIT .'QUANTITY 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS 2,649 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 3.81 Common Excavation and Removal m' 29,142.62 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) lonne 34,441.28 248 STREET TO 256 STREET (2 LANE) m 2,649.33 INTERSECTIONS 248 Street and Marshall Avenue l.s. 1.00 248 Street and 128 Avenue 1.s. 1.00 130 Avenue and 128 Avenue Ls. 1.00 130 Avenue and 130AAvenue Ls. 1.00 130 Avenue and 251A Street Ls. 1.00 130 Avenue and 253A Street Ls. 1.00 130 Avenue and 256 Street l.s. 1.00 WALLS (Lock Block w/ MMCD-C14 Handrail) Left Side -STA 2+500 m' 112.00 Right Side -ST A 2+500 m' 112.00 EX. Asghalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overfa~ 0+000 to 0+860 -6.0m m 860.00 0+960 to 2+649 -6.0m m 1,689.00 2,549.00 suB:TO'fAl~OAQ & SITE WORKS 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 16 (1+400) 600mm ID m 20.00 Crossing 17 -Webster's Creek (2+500) 2.44 x 1.27 Arch m 30.00 Headwalls -large ea. 2.00 Headwalls -Small ea. 2.00 suB,TOTALSTQRl\tS.EWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS . s.os:toTALSANITARYSEWER 4.0 WATERMAIN }SU,B-TOTALWATERMAJN 5.0 BC HYDRO/TEL/GAS BCH Pole Relocation ea. 49.00 SIJBT:OTAl}BC HYORO/TElt 6.0 STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS UGHrlNG INTERSECTION SIGNALS SUB-TOTAL STREET LIGHTING : 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings Ls. 1.00 SUBTOTAL S!GNAGE & l'AVEMENT MARKINGS 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS SUB,TOTAl.'MISCELlANEOUS .. : 9,0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 Ls. •·:: ... SUB-TOTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT.CONTROL 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR (20m ROW) m' 1,412.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m ROW) m' 0.00 Land -ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 7,515.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 1,970.00 SUj:1,'fQTf-L;f'ROPERJYACQUISITIONS.·. •. TOT,'\L'' -DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST 2020-08-21 03980-00 Cost Estimate CO.>fsx 912312020 INFLATION: : ' ,--~-~0%-------$30,000 $45 $22 $1,596 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $670 $670 ($310) $625 $5,000 $27,625 $8,000 $20,000 $7,375,700 $84.11 $560.94 $84.11 $560.94 UNIT -/-:~. -> ---<.-:~) -:, PRICE .·.AMOUITT-·I $30,000 114,280 $45 1,311,420 $22 757,710 $1,596 4,228,650 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $670 $ 75,040 $670 $ 75,040 ($310) {790,190) -·-$; · , .•. e;121,oso I $625 12,500 $5,000 150,000 $27,625 55,250 $8,000 16,000 .-.• $ : .2~3,750) $0 $ $0 >':$ \;j $20,000 980,000 .:$ ·i• 9a.o,ooo I $0 $0 $ -,:, I $40,000 40,000 ·;i(0$:c::-· •
0
'':,10,000 I $0 $ ·a I 5% 368,790 <'$-368,790 J $84.11 118,760 $560.94 $84.11 632,090 $560.94 1,105,050 ··•:·$·; :·.1,855;900 j ,$' •!l,600;390 j 5of7
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS ROUTE E (24m ROW) CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE JTEM · oE~iRf~-rtbl¥ . UNIT CQUAN,ITY· : 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS 2,501 m Clearing and Grubbing ha 4.53 Common Excavation and Removal m' 27,513.42 Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) tonne 32,515.86 248 STREET TO 256 STREET (2 LANE) m 2,501.22 INTERSECTIONS 248 Street and Marshall Avenue l.s. 1.00 248 Street and 128 Avenue l.s. 1.00 128 Avenue and 130 Avenue l.s. 1.00 128 Avenue and 251 Street l.s. 1.00 128 Avenue and 256 Street Ls. 1.00 WALLS (Lock B!ockw/ MMCD"C14 Handrail} Left Side -ST A 2+400 m' 112.00 Right Side -ST A 2+400 m' 112.00 EX. Asi;ihalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overla~ 0+000 to 1+470 -6.0m m 1,470.00 m 1,470.00 SOB~T.OT-ALROAD&SITEWORKS .· 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Zirk Brook (2+400) 2.44 x 1.27 Arch m 30.00 Headwalls -Large ea. 2.00 SUBCTOTALSTORM SEWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS sue;tofAL SANITARY'S$'1/ER. : 4.0 WATERMAIN :::, SUB.-TOTAlfWATERMJl.lN'i 5.0 BC HYDROfTEL/GAS BCH Pole Relocation ea. 27.00 S.UBTOTAI.: BCHYDROiTEL , 6.0 STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNALS LIGHTING INTERSECTION SIGNALS SUB,TOTAL STREEl: LIGHTING_ 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings l.s. 1.00 ''SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS :.,,;·sue-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 l.s. '• .iSUB-TOTALEROSJON AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR (20m ROW) m' 75.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m ROW) m' 0.00 Land -ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 9,347.00 Land -NON-ALR (20m to 24m ROW) m' 0.00 ···-=sOB-TCif At: PR0PERTYiACQ01SITJONS.' TQTAL: DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST 2020-08-21 03980·00 Cost Estimate CO.:dsx 9/23/2020 INFLATION· -·,::~-'0%;~ $30,000 $45 $22 $1,596 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $670 $670 ($310) $5,000 $27,625 $20,000 $6,809,320 $84.11 $560.94 $84.11 $560.94 _:UNIT PRICE--_ ~7}.tii~Ml $30,000 $ 135,990 $45 $ 1,238,100 $22 $ 715,350 $1,596 $ 3,992,250 $50,000 $ 50,000 $50,000 $ 50,000 $50,000 $ 50,000 $50,000 $ 50,000 $50,000 $ 50,000 $670 $ 75,040 $670 $ 75,040 ($310) $ (455,700) $ : · 'i6;026,0?0 ! $5,000 150,000 $27,625 55,250 $• ·:205,2501 $0 $' $0 $ .·,$· $20,000 $ 540,000 'c$:':i': .. 's.io;ooo; $0 $ $0 $ $" -$38,000 38,000 F --·;:aa;ooo i $0 $ 5% $ 340,470 .. _,_ $ '340,4701 $84.11 6,310 $560.94 $84.11 786,180 $560.94 $ ... -. '· 792,49(i'i . ,$: .. ' ' :7,942,200 1 6of7
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ABERNETHY WAY OPTIONS ROUTE F (24m ROW) CLASS 'D' CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM • DESCRIPTION 1.0 ROAD & SITE WORKS Clearing and Grubbing Common Excavation and Removal Import Embankment Fill (75mm Pitrun Gravel) 248 STREET TO 256 STREET (2 LANE) INTERSECTIONS 124 Avenue and 252 Street 124 Avenue and 254 Street 124 Avenue and 256 Street WALLS (Lock Blockw/ MMCD-C14 Handrail) Left Side -STA 0+970 Right Side -STA 0+970 EX. Asphalt and Base Structure Re-Use and Overlay 0+420 to 1+210-6.0m · SUB>TOTAL ROAD .&SITE WORKS 2.0 STORM SEWERS AND CULVERTS CULVERTS Crossing 9 -Zirk Brook (0+970) Headwalls -Large . Si.JBaTOTALSTORM .. SEWER 3.0 SANITARY SEWERS 4.0 WATERMAIN 5.0 BC HYDROTTEL/GAS BCH Pole Relocation . ···•· SUBTOTAGBCflYDRO/tEb 6.0 STREET LIGHTING I SIGNALS LIGHTING INTERSECTION SIGNALS -SUB~TOTAL STREET LIGHTJNG ·,· . 7.0 SIGNAGE & PAVMENT MARKINGS Signage/Pavement Markings UNIT QUANTITY 1,645 m ha m' tonne m Ls. Ls. l.s. m' m' m m 3.35 X 1.75 Arch m ea. ea . Ls. 3.16 18,098.41 21,389.03 1,645.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 112.00 112.00 790.00 790.00 30.00 2.00 18.00 1.00 · .. SUBTOTAL SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS SUB-TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 9.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Costs of Items 1 through 8 l.s. •· .SUB-'fOTAt EROSION .AND SEDiMENT:CONTROI. 10.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Land -ALR (20m ROW) Land -NON-ALR (20m ROW) Land -ALR (20m to 24m ROW) Land -NON-ALR (20m to 24m ROW) . : SUB-TOTACPRC>PERTY ACQUISITIONS'i. 2020-08-21 03980-00 Cost Estimate CO.xis>: 9/23/2020 m' m' m' m' 16,477.00 0.00 6,161.00 0.00 DETAILED CONSTRUCT/ON COST INFLATION ·0%' $30,000 $45 $22 $1,596 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $670 $670 ($310) $5,750 $27,625 $20,000 $4,673,790 $84.11 $560.94 $84.11 $560.94 $30,000 $ 94,760 $45 $ 814,430 $22 $ 470,560 $1,596 $ 2,626,110 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $50,000 50,000 $670 75,040 $670 75,040 ($310)_$~---~(2~44~,9~0~0) $5,750 -'$~----~17~2~,5~0~0 $27,625 -'$'------'5"5"',2"'5"-0 <227,7501 $0 ~$~------$ $0 -'$~-------$20,000 _$~----~36~0~,0~0~0 · • •'360,000 ·l $0 -'$~------$0 _$~-------$25,ooo _$~ _____ 2_5~,o_o_o 5%-'$,_ ____ =,23,,3o.,,6c,9"-0 "-$. . ••233,690 ; $84.11-'$'-----"1 '"38,,50.,,Bc,8"-0 $560.94_$~-------$84.11-'$'-----~51~8"',2~0"-0 $560.94_$~-------7of7
I I-I
SEGMENT 1: 240 ST TO 248 ST SEGMENT 2: 248 ST TO 256 ST f-f_ ! r I C k~ ,-[-r I
SEGMENT 1: 240 ST TO 248 ST SEGMENT 2: 248 ST TO 256 ST
-==::-:-= --:::¢ -__ ""____ ----.;:-TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 01-0540-01 MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Snow and Ice Control Policy No. 9.08 Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the spring of 2020 Council considered an update to the City's existing Snow and Ice Control policy. Council requested additional information on certain matters that have now been considered. In addition the City undertook an on line survey to seek public input on snow related issues. This report provides the updates on the issues raised as well as the results of the survey. The purpose of this proposed Policy update is to ensure that the service delivery levels specified are achievable, protect the City against liability and in alignment with Council's expectations. In addition, staff have reviewed similar policies in other municipalities in the lower mainland to confirm the City is consistent with policies and practices in other jurisdictions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Snow and Ice Control Policy No. 9.08 be adopted as amended. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The intent of the Snow and Ice Control Policy 9.08 is to identify priorities and also implement good management practices for the City. The proposed updates provide more specific guidance regarding the roads given priority to be ploughed, when they will be ploughed and what resources will be allocated to these roads. Currently the City has thirteen pieces of snow and ice control equipment that may be deployed in a winter weather event. All of this equipment is dual purpose and is used throughout the year for maintenance operations. In the winter time this equipment is outfitted with ploughs and sanders for winter operations. It should be noted that it is not uncommon for equipment to breakdown during prolonged winter weather use the full fleet may not all be available. 1134 DOC # 2606041 Page 1of 4
The policy update assigns all roads in the city to one of three categories: First Priority Routes are the arterial and major collector roadways as well as emergency response routes, bus routes and school zones; Second Priority Routes are industrial and commercial as well as minor collectors that connect into arterials and major collectors, while Third Priority Routes are all remaining residential and local roadways. The intent of the categorization of roadways is to mitigate risk and limit the City's exposure to liability. Winter storms can stretch resources considerably and this policy update sets out clear direction that First Priority Routes will be maintained 24/7 around the clock with crews moving to Second Priority Routes only when conditions are determined to be under control. Local roads will be ploughed only after First and Second Priority routes are fully cleared and only during regular hours. The lack of snow clearing of local roads is often the subject of complaints by residents and the concerns are acknowledged; as outlined above, with the primary focus on First and Second Priority routes, in the majority of cases it is not possible to get to local, or Third Priority routes before the snow is packed down and forms a bond with the pavement. Once this occurs, ploughs have minimal impact. In order to clear local roads, enough equipment and personnel would be required to clear every local road within an hour, before the snow is packed down. The personnel and fleet resources need to be managed carefully so that they will be available should the storm continue or another subsequent weather front comes in. Safety of the public on the roads in winter weather is extremely important but the safety of City employees is equally important, in addition to making sure drivers and operators are fully trained to operate the large equipment safely in harsh conditions without becoming fatigued. This proposed policy update sets out what can be safely achieved with existing resources without exposure to excess liability risks. While there will always be some liability associated with operating public roads, this policy seeks to minimize those risks. This draft policy is consistent with other local government snow and ice policies in the lower mainland. In minor usual snowfall events City resources are able to clear a majority of the roads in the City, but to make a noticeable difference in road conditions during a heavy snowfall event a significant increase to the fleet equipment and personnel would be required. Further, it is very unlikely these extra vehicles would be used outside the relatively short duration of inclement weather. A survey was put out on social media and was open for approximately one month for residents to fill out. The results of which are attached as Appendix C to this report. The comments received are attached as Appendix D. There were 252 responses to the survey. The majority of respondents lived in detached homes and overall the response was positive. The results also showed that a clear majority of respondents were not willing to pay more for improved winter service levels and were happy with the current levels. While there were a number of residents who wanted an increase in service levels, these were primarily on local roads which are the last roads to be cleared during a storm. To allocate resources to clearing local roads before all priority routes are clear would expose the City to significant liability risks. DOC # 2606041 Page 2 of 4
The possibility of using private contractors to supplement City resources was also raised. Staff have reviewed this with other lower mainland municipalities. All lower mainland municipalities stated they use their own municipal forces for snow and ice control on roadways and do not supplement that with contracted resources. Similarly to the City, they use contractors for clearing of parking lots. Most small contractor equipment is suitable for this purpose but is not appropriate for street clearing. Larger contractors with such equipment charge a sizeable retainer fee to offset the large cost to purchase such equipment in case it is not needed, so the municipality will be charged regardless of whether the equipment is used or not. b) Desired Outcome: Updating the policy will provide a clear framework for the delivery of snow and ice control and risk management on municipal roadways during winter weather conditions. c) Strategic Alignment: Safe roads and transportation corridors for emergency vehicles are critical to community safety. d) Business Plan/Financial Implications: This policy is in keeping with the scope of the Engineering Operations Business Plan. The annual budget for snow removal operations including purchase of salt, is approximately $328,000 for 2020. The City maintains a limited reserve fund to cover abnormal events. e) Alternatives: The attached policy identifies a level of service that is achievable with existing funding and resources. This service level could be reduced resulting in some costs savings but would increase the level of inconvenience to the public. The service level could also be enhanced, which would both increase the costs and resources necessary, but would also increase the City's exposure to liability in meeting that higher level of service. CONCLUSION: The Snow and Ice Control Policy 9.08 most recently reviewed in 2009 should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to ensure that it remains in alignment with Council's vision and values and reflects current best practices and capabilities. DOC# 2606041 Page 3 of 4
---0,..-:c-.--ei:~ed by: Walter Oleschak, PMP Roads and Fleet Superintendent ~ -/ ~ -6-:r::---B~d by: James Storey, ASCT Director of l~ngineering Operations \)~ r J~95Lf '-Approved by: Concurrence: Al Horsma Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: (A) Snow and Ice Control Policy 9.08 (8) Draft Update to Snow and Ice Control Policy 9.08 (C) Snow Survey Results (D) Snow Survey Feedback Comments DOC # 2606041 Page 4 of 4
MAPLE RiOGE ----61 rln."-[ ::2h.n1l~.I POLICY STATEMENT District of Maple Ridge ~t:tD1i'OOf:!i 1Jrf.\~l;11.r-M~t"~,r• Title: Snow Removal and Ice Control on Municipal Roadways Authority: _C=o=u,,,_,n__,_,c=il,_ __________ _ Approval: July 6, 2009 Policy Statement: Policy No: 9.08 Supersedes: New Effective Date: July 7, 2009 The District of Maple Ridge provides for a level of service within financial, personnel, equipment and other resource availability, for the improvement of vehicle mobility during winter conditions, with respect to snow removal and ice control on municipal roadways. 1.0 Key Areas of Responsibility Action to Take Implement the Snow and Ice Control Policy for Municipal Roadways 2.0 Detailed Actions For Operational Services activities: A. The municipality be set out into six areas. Within the six areas, there are Primary and Secondary Routes, Major Road Network Roads, Hills, Bus Service, School Drop off Areas and Local Streets. The routes and order of priority for service of streets within an area will be affected by changing variables such as, but not limited to, financial considerations. road inventory, weather characteristics, road conditions. freezing level, driver skill set, type of equipment or other resources available. Subject to those variables, the District's snow removal and ice control priorities for a given area would be to: • Provide access to emergency sites for medical, fire or police response on request. • Increase vehicle mobility on Major Road Networks • Increase vehicle mobility on Primary routes • Increase vehicle mobility on Secondary routes • Increase vehicle mobility on Hills with greater than an 11 percent slope • Increase vehicle mobility for Bus Service and School Drop-off areas • Increase vehicle mobility in other areas identified during changing weather or other conditions. • Reduce depth of snow on local streets once average depths of snow exceed 300mm (12") on local road driving surfaces. I-r: 1:~ I I I·
-------· ----~ POLICY MANUAL Title: Snow and Ice Control Policy Policy No : 9.08 Supersedes: Update Authority: D Legislative Approval: ~ Council ~ Operational D CMT Effective Date: December 2020 Review Date: October 2023 D General Manager Policy Statement: The City of Maple Ridge provides a level of service within financial, personnel, equipment and other resources availability for the purposes of public safety and vehicle mobility during winter conditions on municipal roadways. Purpose: To define the parameters under which snow and ice are cleared from City of Maple Ridge roads. Definitions: "Anti-Icing" -the pre treatment of road surfaces with salt or salt brine to prevent the formation of ice "De-icing" -the removal of ice formed on the roadway "Downtown Core" -the area of the city within the boundaries of 222nd Street east to 228th Street and from Lougheed Highway north to Dewdney Trunk Road "Good Winter Condition" -roadway is passable for vehicles with proper winter tires and driving according to the conditions (driving cautiously; defensively and at a speed appropriate for slippery roads which is not necessarily the speed limit and could be significantly less than the posted speed limit); this does not mean bare pavement and some accumulations of snow or ice may be present "First Priority Routes" -Arterial Roads, major collector roads, hospital routes, bus routes, steep hills and school zones (regardless of road classification) "Second Priority Routes" -Industrial and Commercial roads and secondary through roads (minor collectors and specifically identified local roads) in residential areas that are located and connect to arterial or major collector roads. Typically these roads are over 200m in length and connect local traffic with major routes. "Third Priority Routes" -All remaining residential roads, local roads and cul-de-sacs. "Roads Supervisor" -the person identified as responsible for conducting winter operations and directing the City snow and ice control crews; this could include the Roads Supervisor; one of the Page 1 of 3 Policy Doc# 2605674
city's Superintendents; the Director of engineering Operations or the General Manager of Engineering Services "Under Control" -roadway can be maintained in good winter condition with only minimal resources Key Areas of Responsibility Action to Take Responsibility Snowplowing and sanding/salting operations are conducted according to the following priorities: 1. First Priority: Plowing and salt/sanding operations are Engineering Services -carried out around the clock as long as poor conditions Operations exist as determined by the Roads Supervisor. First Priority routes are maintained until the conditions are under control, as determined by the Roads Supervisor or Roads Superintendent; and the road is able to maintained in passable condition with minimal resource allocation; only then are resources re-directed onto Second Priority routes. 2. Second Priority: Work on second priority routes is Engineering Services -performed on regular weekday shifts only; minimal Operations overtime is permitted to extend the workday. 3. Third Priority: A "condition based" level of service exists Engineering Services -on all third priority routes. Conditions will be assessed by Operations Road Supervisors only after First and Second Priority roads have been fully cleared. Compacted snow is the accepted condition and minimal de-icing materials will be applied. Third Priority work is performed during normal working hours only. 4. As soon as conditions deteriorate on any of the higher Engineering Services -priority routes, resources are moved back to those routes. Operations 5. First and Second Priority Routes are defined and Engineering Services -established as those roads and streets shown on the "City Operations of Maple Ridge -Snow Plowing Routes Map" as amended from time to time. 6. Plowing/Salting operations commence as conditions Engineering Services -dictate as determined by the Roads Supervisors, i.e.: black Operations ice, snow accumulations or slippery conditions. Salting/Plowing on Third Priority roads will only be done at intersections and only when conditions warrant. Page 2 of 3 Policy Doc# 2605674
7. Anti-icing will be done as a preventative measure as determined necessary by the Roads Supervisors. 8. Snow Plowing commences when snow depth exceeds 10 centimeters and the storm is continuing or when the Roads Supervisor deems it appropriate for the safety of the public. 9. Roads surfaces are to be maintained in good winter condition, which does not mean "bare pavement", through continued use of assigned personnel and equipment and subject to the availability of resources. 10. Snow removal from sidewalks is the responsibility of the adjacent property owners. 11. Snow clearing operations will impact driveways, city crews will not lift plows to avoid driveways, or send crews afterwards to clear driveways. 12. Snow removal from roads is undertaken in the downtown core area only and only under conditions where snow windrows interfere with on street parking for businesses and only after all priority 1, 2 and 3 route clearing is completed. 13. City equipment used for snow and ice control on public road ways may be used for snow removal at municipal facilities only when no longer required for public roadway maintenance. Page 3 of 3 Doc# 2605674 Engineering Services -Operations Engineering Services -Operations Engineering Services -Operations Property Owner Engineering Services -Operations Engineering Services -Operations Engineering Services -Operations Policy
Appendix C Survey Results Do you have snow tires? * 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Answers Yes No DOC# 2605675 Yes L No Count Percentage 175 77 30.56% Answered: 252 Skipped: 0 Page 1 of9
Where do you park? * 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 In my garage In my driveway... On the road in... In the drive 11a ... Underground be... In a parking I... In my garage 83 32.94% In my driveway in front of my home 144 57.14% Oil the road in front of my home 43 17.06% In the driveway leading on to a back lane 8 3.17% Underground below my condo 10 3.97% In a palking lot adjacent to my condo 6 2.38% Answered: 252 Skipped: O DOC# 2605675 Page 2 of9 ' -I
On a scale from 1 to 5, how would you rate the City's snow clearing between November 1, 2019 and April 1, 2020 w ... 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Answers 2 3 4 5 DOC# 2605675 2 Page 3 of9 3 4 5 Count Percentage 27 10-71% 31 12.3% 80 31.75% 81 32.14% 33 13.1% Answered: 252 Skipped: 0 ,--r~ '
On a scale from 1 to 5, how would you rate the Province's snow clearing on the Lougheed Highway, Haney Bypass ... 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Answers 2 3 4 5 DOC# 2605675 2 3 Count 20 31 85 89 27 Page 4 of 9 4 5 Percentage 7.94% 12.3% 33.73% 35.32% 10.71% Answered: 252 Skipped: O --------, ,. ' , __ ,_ f-~ c· ' ' -' ' ,_ ' ' ' ,_ ,_ ' f ~-
How would Compare Maple Ridge's snow clearing between November 1, 2019 and April 1, 2020 compared to the c ... 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 They did a bet... Answers They did a better job Aboot tile same Our City was a bit better Our City was much belier Donolkoow DOC# 2605675 ---··· -· --··-----·-··· . ----~ About the same Our City was a ... Our City was m ... Do not know Count Percentage 57 22.62% 86 34.13% 16 6.35% 21 8.33% 72 28.57% Answered: 252 Skipped: O Page 5 of9 I I._
Would you be willing to pay more on your annual taxes for an increased level of snow removal? .. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Answers Yes No DOC# 2605675 Yes Page 6 of9 No Count Percentage 80 31.75% 172 68.25% Answered: 252 Skipped: 0
-----r How much would you pay on your annual tax bill for an Increased level of service? • 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Answers $10 $15 $20 $25 S30 DOC# 2605675 S10 $15 $20 S25 Count 34 15 18 5 8 Page 7 of9 -·---·--·---·---------i S30 Percentage 13.49% 5.95% 7.14% 1.98% 3.17% Answered: 80 Skipped: 172 I I· [,·
~==~' -----Do you have a snow shovel and salt at your home or In your car during the winter? • 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Answers Yes No DOC# 2605675 Yes Count 159 13 Page 8 of9 -i; f -f I I: i f No Percentage 63.1% 5.16% Answered: 172 Skipped: 80
What Is your residence type? Answers Count Condo apartment with underground parking 13 Condo apartment with ootdoor parking 5 Townhouse with attached garage 18 Townhouse with outdoor parking 5 Detached house with garage 128 Detached house with outdoor parking 53 Rural property (east of 256 street) 29 DOC# 2605675 Page 9 of 9 Percentage 5.16% 1.98% 7.14% 1.98% 50.79% 21.03% 11.51% Answered: 251 Skipped: 1 l 1 I
................................. Do you have an additional comment you'd like to make about snow removal? Would be helpful if the side road stopping areas by the stop signs adjacent to major snow routes were also treated. This would allow water stopping prior to the cleared road as well safer acceleration safer accelleration onto the roads !would like to se-e tne hills Out in Thornnill,-Webster's Corn-er servii::-ed riiorEfregularly oi"included in-the-c:learing-===13ians~tasryear-'We=ootieeu=a=somewl"t-~=sttti"Cai-J=in=arm=asktfasteFs--eroiee=t6-ttt:tt-!,·m:~et=(Pa~iph================ and 112) and we are hoping that this will be a continuing trend. In the past we wouldn't get snow clearing or salt service for up to 5 days, if at all. We have snow tires on our vehicles, but when the snow gets quite deep or icy it is challenging to drive the little road (112 and Palmer Rolph) to 256th. Because we are on an incline, we often see much more snow out here than places as close as 240th or even the 2km difference to 256th and Dewdney Trunk Road. Thank you for putting out the survey and allowing for us to give you feedback. Much appreciated! My comments are based on Thorne Ave and Graves Street. I've lived on Glenhurst St for 5 years and my road has been plowed once I think, last year. I would like to see it included in the maintenance as there are ditches on either side and it's a huge hazard with the icy street when a two-lane road becomes a one lane road with cars parking on the road. We have a driveway that backs on to a cul de sac lane and it is never cleared. It becomes pure ice and very dangerous as lots of people walk to the Kanaka creek trail through there and people can't get in or out of their driveways ! We shovel our driveway but end up parking on the street because of the snow in the back. I think the city forgets it is there! I took transit last year during the big snow fall and our side roads were better then the main roads in Surrey/Langley. I thought you guys did a great job I got stuck in Surrey and had to turn around and was shocked how much better the roads were the second we hit Ridge . . Pitt Meadows did a much better job clearing the old Dewdney than Maple ridge last year I do not understand why you do not work when it is snowing ... you show up days later when it is packed and pure ice. Also the main lougheed hwy on the hill and s shaped stupid designed improvements was pure ice ... I am from N Van and the difference is day and night in the way you work ... never even saw a snowplow or salt truck for years here. $6000 for taxes and no services, pay parking ,no garbage ... what do you all do? In general the city does a good job of our roads, especially when getting out to brine ahead of freezing weather. Last year there were a couple of times when they didn't do that. Our road is has turned into a major route from Dewdney to Abernathy, for commuters, and does not get cleared until well into the snowfall period.
I'm a Community Health Worker, I go to clients' homes and provide assistance with things ranging from giving medications, total bed care, to food prep. When it snow, my clients still need care and many do not live with family who can help them. I have to manage my own safety versus the needs of clients who may not eat or be able to use the toilet without my visit. Even when roads are plowed one of the more difficult things becomes · finding a place to park. All the snow removed from the roads prevents parking on the side of the road. I end up using my time that I should be with my client driving around looking for parking and then having to walk a distance. Sometimes the plowed snow blocks clients' driveways and they are not able to remove it, this is · especially hard when clients live on rural roads with ditches and there is no safe place to park on the road side. Again, I don't know how to remedy this, but it's a snow removal issue I experience, thank you for taking my feed back. Overall I travel most of the lower mainland and Maple Ridge did a great job!! No real complaints had to call the city a couple times they were pretty responsive Not only snow needs to be dealt with , but also ice on the roads ! We often have ice without snow Brining the roads in icy weather really helps. Thank you! Good job so far. I'm a raised Albertan and I think the main roads are well looked after and I know that our area gets plowed as soon as possible by the City, so no complaints here. A request for our corner at 244 and 101 to be sanded a bit more would be appreciated for all in the area. That would be all. More of our $6000/year property tax at work ... Sigh ! I think you guys do a great job. My only area of concern is right at the north point of 210 at the vorner of Jerry Sulin a park. I know the corner is Pitt Meadows but it is so dangerous and a man died there years back from lack of salt. It wouldnt hurt to diuble up the salting in tbe corner just to make sure it's extra safe with the ditch right there. Ive seen MR trucks just pull into the Jerry Sulina parking lot and turn around. Just go the extra 30ft and make it safe! U*+ No City spent all that money for a bike lane on 203rd, but don't clear it, so ikes ride on the road (which is narrow due to the bike lane) Remove snow on side streets more often. I would pay more if our street had more attention sooner when it snowed. Bike lanes should be the last things cleared of snow and ice. The side streets were horrible! I had to keep my son home from school for 2 days because I couldn't get out with my toddler in the stroller. We have no sidewalks and the snow plows did not come once down our street.
We f.!Oticed some roads repeatedly cleared or brined/salted even when not necessary but many secondary routes not cleared for multiple days or at all with little to no brine or salting. There needs to be extra attention given to roads with no sidewalks so residents can still walk to and from school and transit without injury or incident. The side street without sidewalks are dangerous enough without snow and ice. I've lived in our amazing development for 4 years near Kanaka and 240th and we-(on our street) have seen-a-_ snow plow twice in this time._ Terrible service for the $6000 we payj!}_property taxes compared to the two other communities I've lived/work in. Why is brining done one lane at a time? Go down the center of the road and open all the nozzles to wet down all the lanes in one pass. Brine is cheaper than gas. Get one area done quickly and move on to another. Why are the same roads done so many times there is a cloud of salt when traffic passes from time to time? We pay enough taxes now and all we see is a deteriorating city. We aren't willing to fork over more money for snow removal. Everytime it snowed the City took at least 1-2 days to even get to our street as well as 105A in Albion which is a hill leading to a main road (Jackson). y the time the City plowed our street it was already a sheet of ice so their efforts did nothing. The city only came down our street 2 times. It ices over every year. There are many elderly in our area and it was difficult for them to get out. In the last 7 years our street became dangerous and a sheet of ice every time it snowed. The sidewalks to the school MRE were never cleared and the parents and students cleared the sidewalk all the way to 207th and all the ways to Steeves Street. When piles of snow are made, consider going back and breaking them up ... they sit at the gutters and take forever to melt., plus the often block driveways or bus stops. Thank you so much for doing such a wonderful job with snow removal. It is so very important on the hillside streets in Whonnock. They are impassable without snow removal. Thank you! I have lived in my house for 16 years, and only once, in 16 years, has the city cleared the snow in front of my house. You ask if I would pay more in taxes for snow removal? You do not clear the snow now, why would I pay more? Read the allowed answers for the question comparing Maple Ridge to other communities, and then hire someone who can edit your grammar. Why did I have to listen to a self-promoting video before I could answer your survey? If people can't drive in the snow that should stay home or move somewhere it doesn't snow.
"Would you be willing to pay more on your annual taxes for an increased level of snow removal?*". I can't agree or disagree when I don't know the amount or percentage being considered.///// Overall, the removal of snow in our area is consistent with a good job being done.///// Seeing I can't submit the survey without answering the above question, I'll say no because I won't agree to a potentially huge tax increase .. ! have no objection to a reasonable one, but the City's "reasonable" and mine might be different. Figures are needed. Clearing of laneway would be nice once in awhile especially when deep. Lived here almost 25 yrs and only been plowed a few times This survey clearly assumes everybody dri'[eS. I mostly ride my bike, and snow removal is atrocious when it comes to bike lanes and shoulders. In fact, often the snow gets dumped on the bike lanes (and sometimes sidewalks!). If the roads are clear of snow, I ride my bike. When there's snow, sometimes I can't ride for extended periods of time when the snow is piled up where I need to ride, and it takes even longer for the snow to melt there than anywhere else. In other words: more needs to be done to support cycling and walking in our community in the winter time. Especially now when we should all be more aware of the need to reduce the use of private automobiles because of climate change, poor health outcomes of our population due to our sedentary life style, livability of our community, etc. I think that the City team does an amazing job -it would be nice to have the road outside my house cleared but when I ask, it is done pretty quickly. Thank you The only reason my answer is no to higher taxes is that being on my culdesac we don't see any snow removal. Before I bought a jeep I was literally housebound until it melted enough I could get off my block. Snow removal needs to be deployed quicker, with school routes being a priority. Salt and preparation should be done before snow fall to assist with melting/removal. We live on a designated bike route,We were totally disappointed to see city snow removal trucks just drive through without plowing or salting when there was a considerable amount of snow on the ground. The team did a great job last year. People need to be prepared for winter weather. Snow removal on main roads are pretty good, but its the side roads and cul-de-sacs that are BRUTAL! Since we live on Dewdney our back lane is our road. This has never been plowed in the14years that I have lived here. The back lane for the homes on Dewdney should be plowed. There is no other option for these homes with no driveway off Dewdney. Clearance of snow on 132 ave from 232st to 216st and Abernathy doesn't get done early enough, despite it being a major commuter route from silver valley
We have residents who do not drive we walk. Our street never gets cleared. When it takes 45 minutes to walk from our house to Dewdney Trunk Road obviously we need more clearing of the snow. Thank you Our street was never cleared. I live in 236 St. At 11737 townhouse complex. ~ In that area 236 St. is an end street and the street goes down. So it's really a challenge and sometimes impossible to get out the car when packed snow is in the street, even with winter tires. Hope the ice removal trucks can go to the end of the street where a lot of cars are parked there. Been here since 2009, and Our street never seems to get plowed. I realize it is essential! a few-blocks-long dead-end, but being as we are at the very end of it, there have been many times when I have shovelled my entire driveway AND.THE STREET in front of my d~iveway .... and it is still not possible to go anywh~re due to snow. I was very pleased to see the amount of salt, sanding, brining and snow removal on the main roads that I use. As a retired person, I do have the luxury of not leaving the house for work or kids, but on the mornings that I had to go out, even with no snow, I was always pleased to see McClure, 240th and the Kanaka Bridge brined bright and early each day that icy weather was predicted. Our cul de sac is not a main area, but we remarked that the snow was taken away quite quickly. Larch Ave, between 236th & Balsam, is scary going down and difficult to go up. If anyone stops, it's hard to get up. · Lougheed hwy was awfull last year ! I would like go see more people shovel there walk ways and the walkway in front of their homes! On 232nd from Cottonwood to kanaka the road seems to be the last cleared. because North of that area has a bus route they seem to get priority, Why doesn't the snow removal vehicle start at the top of 232nd and come all the way down to the bottom. The road also has a lot of black ice, so you're either struggling to get up or sliding down. There was no snow removal done on our street. That in addition to the dangerous intersections at both ends of the street risked my life as I attempted to get to work. Nurses are not allowed to take snow days, so you need to make sure that the road is actually plowed as the complaints about the dangerous conditions that the intersections provide have gone no where. I can't wait to move back to Langley and live in a city where such issues are addressed promptly! More salting of streets and roads is needed, less snow removal specifically. It's cold and damp in Maple ridge and the ice build up here is worse than other communities. I commute east to Chilliwack and Abbotsford. Maple Ridge ones an amazing job keeping the road safe clear. Much better than the communities to the east.
Side roads take way too long. One year it was almost a week before they plowed our street. If u dont do lougheed or the bridges I dont understand why it took so long. I will call next time to xomplain Our street is not plowed or salted/sanded. Although taxes are paid and service is requested. It is dangerous to leave our street once laity is plowed as there is usually a huge pile of snow that you have to drive trough to get onto laity. With the stop sign, you can't see what's coming and have to take a run at it to get through. Keep up the good work, stick to priority routes. Our location seems to never have snow removal until days after the actual snow fall ceases to be active. The snow removal route should include bus routes and around schools. Our area didn't get ploughed last year Do more in school parking lots and sidewalks near schools We pay much higher tax in this city compared to neighing cities, cities who do a better job. I'm so tired of paying high tax with no garbage service, shopping & services in my own city. Paco & Langley get all my business. Lower our property taxes and fewer bike lanes more snow removal. Thank you. Have a great day. If you have a manual for this, the new bike lanes should be included in your snow removal. Not suggesting they get a high priority but they should be part of it. They are considered part of the traffic and I don't think should be put on home owners to clear them. _Your mowing equipment could be fitted with ploughs or snow blowers for doing the bike lanes. We live on Harrison Street. It's a steep hill. In the past, it was cleared as a priority because it's a danger not to. For the last 4-5 years it is 5-7 days before it's cleared. Last year, we watched cars unable to stop at the Telosky/Harrison stop sign come careening toward our home. We worried our home was going to get hit by a car. On snow days, Harrison Road is often impossible to drive on and if it isn't cleared, it freezes, thaws, refreezes to ice and we become shut ins. Walking on Harrison after snowfall is also treacherous and dangerous. Would be better if side streets ploughed . Main routes great. McClure drive medium-very small ploughed area in width Would love to have our road ploughed once a year at least. No
You ask for more money but what are you doing with the increase in tax revenue from build UP (25 story condos) or private dense housing (Townhouses). These housing types put a bigger demand on others services but don't increase the amount of roads with the exception of widening roads. Sometimes clearing the street of snow makes more work for residents ... ie shoving the "in front sidewalk" or clearing snow on our driveways so we can get out of our yards . . . Wait before you clear is my vote ... heavysaltingfirst.But what do I know ... l'm not the expert ... justan.old guy. with a sore back. Come to think of it, so are most of my neighbours .... Side streets definately need better clearing but not piled high in front of drive way to freeze. Had to use a pick to be able to chip my path out. Not fun!! Only will to pay more for attention on sidestreets. The walkways around our condo was very icy and dangerous. Side streets need more attention. Main roads are done very well. Thank you Stop waiting for it to accumulate in the evening and freeze before attempting to plow. Plow streets with school as high priority. Edge street by Eric Langton is done 2-3 days after a snowfall and only a single path is plowed, not enough for 2 cars to pass Hold businesses accountable for snow and ice removal in front of their business, issue actual warning or fines for refusal of removal. I have had no problem getting into town, DTRoad is always cleared which is near to me. I do get blocked at the top of my driveway by the snow plow leaving it's pile so have to do some heavy shoveling but am always able to get to town. I have been quite happy with the snow removal and give those trucks credit for a job well done. Make the snow clearing for cyclists a much higher priority. Very dangerous having to ride on cleared driving lanes. Need to have help for seniors for the removal of snow and clearing the end of their driveways. If clearing sidewalks is important, the city should do it. If it isn't important enough to have the city do it, we should just let it melt. It's gone in a week anyway. I have a fear of falling and limited mobility. My road where I live is a dead end and often forgotten. I have no snow tires yet as our car is brand new. Clearing sidewalks needs to be a priority. Also, many streets don't even have sidewalks, so pedestrians must compete with cars on snow-filled, icy or slushy streets. These streets should be prioritized for snow removal. In our neighbourhood we never or seldom have had snow removal, a few times sand has been put down, but that has always been way after the fact of the problem with the snow. I have resided in the same residence for over thirty and have maybe had our street properly serviced once or twice. Compared to other municipalities, I feel our snow removal is sub-standard. I have always felt that Maple Ridge does the best and most extensive snow removal of anywhere in the lower mainland
The plow Mivers worked countless hours last year to clear roads, however, proper planning should be in place to prepare for the snowfall beforehand and avoid compacted snow/ice. Also, we live on a road close to a school, the snowplows plow a direct route from Dewdney to the school, creating a snowbank blocking us from easily getting in/out of our own street in small cars. My taxes are already ridiculous for what we get haven't seen the street cleaner in my neighbourhood since I've been here for 10 years still have ditches in the neighbourhood haven't seen a plough come down the street or salt truck And we have to pay for on garbage pick up so no the more taxes learn how to manage the money like the rest of us no We just have all season tires and do not plan to drive on snow days. We are retired. We walk to town most days but found the sidewalks were a real worry the last few winters. There are large parts of sidewalk not near homes or businesses on our route and we often were forced to walk on the street, which was usually plowed. This is not realky a safe option. you guys do a great job, even on years with heavy snow fall. Keep it up Do better. Side streets are horribly kept and when plows finally come through they just make it worse. The only reason why I'm not willing to pay more for snow removal is that the city doesn't remove snow on the sidewalks of the properties it is reasonable for. Once the city lives up to the same obligations that citizens do, I'll consider paying more for improved services. Until then, the city needs to start pulling its weight. Too many injuries on those sidewalks. And I say this as a home owner who doesn't have sidewalks in my neighbourhood . Seeing seniors fall as I'm commuting to my workplace in Maple Ridge is alarming. All main roads need to be salted better! Going to work each morning was a nightmare from hell on ice. My wife and I cycle to work and find it extremely difficult in the weeks after a snowfall since many sections of the city the snow is shoveled into the bike lane, where it builds, freezes and stays for weeks, sometimes months. This forces cyclists to ride in traffic increasing our chances of being hit by a car. If the shoulder and bike lanes could be plowed more frequently it would make our roads more accessible and safe for all users. 112th in front of fire station was not tended to as quickly as it should have given it's an emergency route. Seemsnlast year weather notices came out but the city did not appear to plow. Our side street took days to plow whenbinbthe pastbit has been better. I'm from the prairies, so the level of snow removal in the Lower Mainland is always pretty appalling to me. I realize it doesn't snow as much here and it doesn't make sense to have as much equipment on hand as on the prairies, but I still think there has to be a happy medium and communities in BC can do better.
When the snow removal trucks come to the entrance of our bareland strata the shovel pushes the snow onto our private bareland strata street, creating a very difficult situation for us to remove. We would prefer if they do not dump and increase the snow infront of our street. There needs to be a quicker plan of action when the snow begins to fall especially working as a nurse and _ leaving in tbe_early am, the roads are not cleared. As a person who uses a wheelchair, I have been stuck in my home because the clearing pushes snow onto the corners. Can't cross the road ! While I believe the City does a fairy decent job of clearing main roads, it would be appreciated if side streets, especiallynear schools, received more attention. When we shovel our sidewalk before 10am, the trucks then come and push the snow right up to the sidewalk. Next thing I know, they is snow frozen and at least 1 foot high. What am I supposed to do now??? Can't you just pick up a little ATV with a blade?? Threw out my back 3 years in a row because I'm not strong enough to lift heavy wet or frozen chunks of snow. Our City Works Department does an excellent job. Twice they have fixed flooding on the road in front of our house and they even filled in a large pot hole on the edge of the black top at a friend's house after I made one phone call for each incident. They have their hands full just keeping up with cleaning up after slobs that are too lazy to deal with their own garbage. I have no complaints about the snow removal but if I did I'd phone it in and I'm sure they would consider my call safety related and act on it ASAP. You need more industrial and commercial in mapme ridge to lower our taxes and up our services without charging us more we already pay the highest residential property taxes in metrovsncouver except West van north van known rich areas surrey langley burnaby tri city taxes all lower and have free garbage and recycling in single city provided bin aka 1 recycle bin not 1994 style burnaby as it is mr today with blue box, bags plastic box no.other city sorts at home or pays for their own garbage or if do at least have their own police force like port moody We are being ripped off here with high taxes for no service as you don't have enough industrial business property taxes like everywhere else its offensive to increase my taxes for better snow removal with everything else lacking and paying for less compared to rest of metro van Our street always seems to be last to be cleared. Please try to plow 224th from the town center down to Abernethy as soon as possible.
The overall street clearing is okay. However, I've lived on a cul-de-sac 1 block in from Dewdney Trunk Rd for 31years. In general we NEVER get cleared. We were told a long time ago it was because there isn't anywhere to put the snow. However, we also usually don't get sanding or salting. Over the years this has created numerous problem with cars and more importantly pedestrians unable to navigate our street. They get stuck on ice after the snow melts a little and refreezes. Lots of splits and falls. I'm sure that many taxpayers don't get any sort of rebate for a service not received {snow clearing on their street) but our area has been developed for a long time and is strictly residential. I think last year many neighbours complained until a sand truck came onto our street. I would be willing to pay a bit more to get our street sanded at the minimum. Priorities: At and around schools is very good. I answered a question where I would agree to increases in my property tax to get better clearance. This is in regard to Licensed Day Care facilities -especially home-based facilities. Would be great to see surrounding access and direct clearance at the property. Priorities! If bylaws infocres sidewalk clearing by residential/commercial properties that would help Take better care of the sidewalks,, pay more attention to the side streets I live on a corner lot and am in my 80s. I cannot shovel my sidewalks, I would really appreciate the city shoveling sidewalks. Other cities do it in Canada. I do not have a car. I am using a walker or a manual wheel chair. My challenge is the businesses and the lack of snow removal. Iced up side walks, having to slide around city benches, store sandwich signs, hydro poles. I slide into traffic on Dewdney Trunk road {DTR) last winter. Yikes. So some enforcement to local business. I use the DTR from 222 street to 224th street. There is a need for clearing secondary roads sooner. Sometimes they are not done at all. Also the city should have equipment to do all sidewalks. This should not be left to residents, some of whom are elderly. There are machines that are ideal for sidewalk clearance and should be purchased in an effort to maintain safe passage in city limits. Hopefully the city can prioritize bike lane snow removal for those who need to cycle to work but see their bike lanes buried by the plows Please clear all of the road including the shoulders and bicycle lanes or separate pathways because some of us continue to ride even through the winter and if there is snow left at the sides of roads then even though all the snow on the road has melted, we cannot ride Would be great to find a way to clear sidewalks which are 11between" businesses ..... where there is no business responsible for clearing in front of their business It's very hard for people with walkers, wheelchairs, even people with no accessibility issues .... to "plow through" slush and snow, not being cleared off the sidewalks ..... .
it would be great if city was more influential in getting the community to clear their side walks,,,,, very difficult for people with mobility issues, parents pushing strollers etc//// to move about when side walks are not cleared. I think a better assessment, and thus increase efficiency, could be done whether a street needs to be cleared or not. (25000 km is a lot kilometers) We have_had very good service in our area, bowever, last year the street was cleared a number of times when there was really no need to do this. Regarding the survey please use metric system only, we have been teaching this system in schools since the mid seventies! (Pounds of road salt?) We have a VERY STEEP hill on 284 st that used to get maintained very well. about 3 years ago it stoped getting salted or plowed. I own a snow plow business with several plow trucks and my family have been stranded up - --------the hill for days because it was not maintained. this hill is so steep that one year one of my trucks started sliding down it and into the ditch. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do a better job on this hill. it is very steep and on an "S" curve. I understand there is not a lot of homes up here, but it is a safety concern as there is elderly people that still live up here and last year there was a small fire and the fire trucks couldn't get to the top of the hill. From 2013-2016 the city did an AMAZING job maintaining and plowing this hill. but for the last 3 years it has been horrible. We live at the top of a steep hill. We have lived here for about 7 years. For the first couple of years the hill was salted and plowed very consistently. At that time it was NOT a school bus route. For the past couple of years the hill has not been salted nor plowed unless I call. This has now become a school bus route although the buses don't come up the hill and instead stop at the Ruskin hall to pick up the kids we still have to get the kids to the bottom of the hill to get picked up. I would also like to note numerous times that even 96 where the bus drives when on a snow route has not been cleared. I would call in and I was told the hill / street was taken if the salt and plow list and every time it snowed I would have to call in to get on the to do list. I do understand when it snows everyone is very busy but if the hill was salted I do believe this would give the drivers a little bit more time to get here. Thank you in advance for all the work. ~ We need more plows up our way, we live on top of a big hill We love on a steep curvy hill and for safety concerns need it pliers before driving in it. The city is on lacking on snow removal. Ifs a Joke .. I live on a steep hill that is a school bus route in East Maple Ridge. It's important that our road is cleared, but it is often overlooked (because we are so far east?). It would be great if our road was taken care of so all of our neighbours, some of whom are elderly, can access the roads, and also so emergency vehicles can access our hill if necessary.
Would you be willing to pay more on your annual taxes for an increased level of snow removal? Saying "no" to this question brought up a new question "Do you have a snow shovel and salt at your home or in your car during the winter?" If by saying yes, is the City going to provide me with a new shovel and bag of salt each year? More sand, and less salt and brine would cause less corrosion. Better for the environment. Otherwise, a job well done I Thank you all! 206B, 207 A and 120B Avenue were not plowed at in 2019. Making it extremely difficult to access Dewdney Truck Road that was plowed. I would like to see these_road cleared going forward. The area west of the hospital was only cleared once per season between November and March. This despite my paying the same amount of taxes as in the uptown area. For those who have mobility issues or CAN NOT drive for other reasons are to quote a comment from city hall I got "tough!" Perhaps city hall workers should have a bit more consideration for the people who pay their wages!!! It seemed to be better last year than the year before. Regarding the video/quiz I just watched tho ... The slides went by really really fast ... Especially the last half of the deck. I didn't "learn" much ... Maybe slow it down a bit or split some of those huge slide into multiple screens ... I'm not a slow reader but I couldn't get thru half if it before it flipped to the next one. When the plows leave a ridge of snow in the middle of the road, or at the corners of the intersections (207 and Dewdney was a prime example last year) then it freezes again and melts and freezes etc which makes for slippery sections for days. Can't they plow the whole section of the intersections likes they used to do? Long term resident, have noticed this occurring for the last 3-4 years. Never used to be like this, even in the bad winters going back to 2007 -2009. They seem to plow our area two days after the snow has melted.
TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 FILE NO: 01-0530-01 MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Fire Dispatch and Operations Centre After Hours Emergency Callout Services Contract EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The existing contract for dispatching services between the City of Maple Ridge and the City of Surrey for the Fire Dispatch and Operations Centre After Hours Emergency Callout Services is due to expire December 31, 2020. The original contract resulting from RFP-FD15-42 offers an opportunity of an extension agreement for a further five years of dispatching services. RECOMMENDATION: That the contract for Fire Dispatch and Operations Centre After Hours Emergency Callout Services at a first-year cost of $164,756.00 plus applicable taxes and a yearly increase of approximately 11% be awarded to the City of Surrey; and further That the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In July 2015, a request for proposal (RFP-FD15-42) was issued for Fire Dispatch and Operations Center After Hours Emergency Callout Services. The procurement process was overseen by the Purchasing Department to ensure the opportunity met the Purchasing Policy guidelines. Four proposals were received and evaluated based on the criteria contained in the RFP document. The highest-ranking proposal from the City of Surrey proved to be the best value for the first five (5) -year term ending on December 31, 2020. The resulting 2015-2020 Contract Agreement for Services includes a clause that allows for one (1), five (5) -year extension term. The City of Surrey has provided well-proven emergency call out services to the City of Maple Ridge for over 15 years, with well-managed and effective interoperability between Surrey Dispatch, MRFD and Operations. Therefore, it is recommended that the five (5) year extension term for Fire Dispatch and Operations Centre After Hours Emergency Callout Services be awarded to the City of Surrey. 1151 Doc #2600169 Page 1of 2
b) Desired Outcome: To obtain Council's approval to proceed with the awarding of a contract for fire dispatch and after hour call services. c) Strategic Alignment: Having the seamless interoperability of an integrated computerized dispatch service between the Fire Department and a contractor dispatching service is paramount to Community Safety. This had previously been obtained with Surrey and it is very beneficial to continue for the next five years. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Continued accurate and high of level service when calling and reporting a fire or other emergency. e) Interdepartmental Implications: None f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The costs have been adopted into the Operating Budgets of the Fire Department and the Operations Centre. g) Policy Implications: None CONCLUSION: That the contract for Fire Dispatch and Operations Centre After Hours Emergency Callout Services be renewed for the five (5) ye term with City of Surrey. Prepared by: ?~ Director of Engineering Operations ~ Reviewed by: Daniela Mikes G:j~IJ~t Approved by: David Pollock Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer Doc #2600169 Page 2 of 2
~.-~ .... TO: FROM: mapleridge.ca His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: 2021 Council Meeting Schedule EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City of Maple Ridge MEETING DATE: November 17, 2020 01-0530-04/2021 FILE NO: MEETING: Committee of the Whole The attached calendar of Council Meetings for 2021 generally follows the established pattern of meetings as follows: • Committee of the Whole on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month • Council Workshop on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month • Public Hearing on the 3rd Tuesday of the month • Closed Council on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month following Committee of the Whole, or as necessary The calendar includes the two options for the schedule for the month of January 2022 to allow for better planning of the December break. With appropriate public notification, the schedule may be altered as needed to either add or remove meetings to accommodate Council's workplan. RECOMMENDATION: That the 2021 Council Meeting Schedule including the option chosen for January 2022 be adopted. DISCUSSION: The 2021 calendar generally follows the previous schedule of meetings. Variations are noted below: 1. Spring Break is scheduled for the week of March 15-19 and schools will also not be in session for the week of March 22-26. To coincide with Spring Break, meetings which typically fall on the 3rd and 4th weeks of March have been offset by one week by moving Committee of the Whole, Closed and Public Hearing to March 23 and the Council Workshop Meeting and the regular Council Meeting to March 30. 2. Summer break is scheduled for the first four weeks of August with meetings beginning again on the 7th day of September. 1152 2605475 Page 1 of2 ----==r I
3. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities Convention (UBCM) will be hosted in Vancouver from September 13 through to September 17. September 14 is the 2nd Tuesday which is a Council Workshop and Regular Council meeting date. It is suggested that the Council Workshop Meeting be rescheduled to September 7 prior to Committee of the Whole and that the Regular Council Meeting remain as scheduled. It is anticipated that Council members will be able to return from Vancouver for an evening meeting or alternately can choose to participate virtually. 4. For the month of December 2021, the Public Hearing has been scheduled for December 7. This will allow items to be moved forward to the Council Meeting on December 14 and provide for a new start to business for the year 2022. 5. A break is scheduled to begin on December 20, 2021 and two options can be considered for start of business in 2022. Statutory holidays fall on Monday, December 27, 2021, Tuesday, December 28, 2021 and Monday January 3, 2022. New Year's Eve is on Friday, December 31, 2021. Option 1 -January 2022 Council meetings for the year 2022 can commence on January 4, 2022. However, with statutory holidays falling on December 27 and December 28, 2021 as well as January 3, 2020, staff will have limited time to prepare reports and agendas. Option 2 -January 2020 Council meetings for the year 2022 can commence on January 11, 2022. Should this option be chosen it is recommended that the Committee of the Whole Meeting regularly scheduled for the 1st Tuesday of the month be rescheduled to January 11, 2022 commencing at the usual time of 1:30 p.m. and that items presented at that meeting be moved forward directly to the evening Council meeting scheduled on the same date. This process has been done in previous years on an as needed basis. Legislative Coordinator A~ Stephanie Nichols QCorpo~ Concu~ Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: (A) Proposed 2021 Council Meeting Calendar 2605475 Page 2 of 2
31
101
17 1
24 1
31
--··-------------~=~=~~
41
11 1
181
25 1
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
January 2021
NEW YEAR'S DAY
sl Break
6
1 I I
11 I Bl cow
CLOSED
121 131 J 151
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
191 20 1 21' 221
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
26 1 21 1 2sl 29 1
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
.......... -:7"---:---:----:----:-:"r ·t1 .,~ ·1:ir:!·': ·h1. :';.·1j"':"'."''."'.:-"-7-:-:'"'.: '. '. '01;•,· "!,., . .., .
I~
f /
9
16
23
30
I ----,;:!
7
141
FAMILY DAY
21 i
28
1
8
15 1
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
February 2021
cow
CLOSED
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
cow
2
9
16 1
3 4 5
10 11 12
171 18 1 191
I CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
22 1 231 24 1 251 26 1
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL I
,'1r.'7'."(?i;"f'.'l'.'l;-J'.1,'.~~~~i:~;'.;!ili'.p;ii18~rr;i\1~~~/T~J:Z,?~~~;i~j;j:i7i:~:;--~~T.';l:-''7''.07'~~~~;,~~::"'1~;;:-:'."';-]'."':-<;,";''."'.f'~'7;j;-"""7..-"7"7'7;-""71'.'7--"'.:--':"r-;---:;-----· --r---------~
6
13
20
27
I ,q
I
1
7 8
14 15
21 22
28 29
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
March 2021
cow
CLOSED
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
2
9
16
23
30
3 4 5
10 11 12
17 18 19
24 25 26
31
!'
1~
6
13
20
27
______ J
4
11
181
25 J
5
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
April 2021
1 2
GOOD FRIDAY
6 7 8 9
cow
EASTER MONDAY I CLOSED
12
191
26 J
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
13
20 1
27 1
14 15 16
211 221 231
28 1 291 30
' -.------, . ·; ----'' '·' ,,r,r;,,:,-;-, '..to1 .... , --;:--------.--' . J; -"· • -~
3
10
17
24 1
:1 I[ JI
til
2 1 3 1
9 1 10 1
16 17
23 1 241
VICTORIA DAY
30 31
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
May 2021
41 51 6 1 71 cow
CLOSED I I I
11 12 13 14
WORKSHOP LMGA
COUNCIL Harrison Hot Spring
18 191 20 1 21 1 cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
25 1 26 1 211 2s l
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
1
8
I \!I
i\1 '/ Ill! 15
22
29
-·--------------------------77:;r-r~:1:;;T:rr~, '' -.)
FCM
Montreal
6 1
• 13 1
20 1
27
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
Jun e 2021
11 21 3 1 4 1 cow
CLOSED I I FCM
Montreal
7
1 WORKSHOP 8 1 91 10 1 111
COUNCIL
14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
I I I I
211 22 1 23 1 241 25 1
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
28 29 30
5
12
19
I
261
~:I
r:I
1/j
n,
4 5
11 1 12 1
18 1 19 1
251 26 1
,/';1',1;1Uli.lj!l\.l,;.i
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
July 2021
cow
CLOSED
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
6
13
20 1
27
2
CANADA DAY
7 8 9
14 15 16
21 1 22 1 23 1
2a l 291 301
3
10
17
I
241
31
[· t'
~'!:
j;:1
fl ii 1, '
J
l.
1 2
BC DAY
8 9
15 16
22 23
29 30
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
August 2021
3 4 5 6
Break
10 11 12 13
Break
17 18 19 20
Break
24 25 26 27
Break
31
Break
7
14
21
28
ir.1 ..
5 6
LABOUR DAY
12 13
19 20 1
26 27 1
COUNCIL MEETl:NGS S,CHE,DULE
September 2021-0ption 1
cow
CLOSED
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
7
14
21
28
1 2 3
8 9 10
15 16 17
UBCM Vancouver-+--~~~-+--~~---.
22 23 24
29 30
;, ,.,........,,,m.,.;::;-. -;::,-;c:;;,~,;.-.~;.,,r;..,-,;,;,f, ,,.,.,1,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,, ... ,1,,.,,, ·,I, 1• ,, 1./'i.,,,;1:,.1c1 ,,11i,i'hii~si:iZiTi':, /~1~,ir,(;;j,~,,.,[;,'
4
11
18
25
rii, ti
1
11 ii :1 :/(
/(\'
ijlJ
i/l! LI!
I l
5 1 6 1
LABOUR DAY
121 13 1
19 1
-
201
26 1 27
li;;;~~~~f\~~~~~~~~~',... -,-,-,~ ..,. :,~.._,..,..,':',7,-r;~-;~-:-:7,:---:-· ·-:-:------
COUNCl:L MEETINGS SCHEDULE
September 2021-0ption 2
1 2 3
7 1 81 9 1 10 1
WORKSHOP
cow
CLOSED
14 15 1 161 17 1 COUNCIL
UBCM
I I ~ I Vancouver
21 1 22 1 231 24 1 cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
28 1 29 1 30
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
4
11
181 i I .
I
I
I r;~
25
1.
------___ 1;.,
31 4 1
10 1 111
THANKSGIVING
17 1 181
241 25 1
31
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
October 2021
11
51 6 1 71 8 1
cow
CLOSED
12 1 13 1 14 1 151
WORKSHOP
I I COUNCIL
cow 19 1 201 21 1 221
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
261 211 28 1 29 1
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
~n:.:;;;;-:-:-;,,,.;,;-r-;
I
2 1
::1
le
i1j 1.1
111
91 uti :::
16
I I
1., i::1
23 1 Ii~
30
7
14 1
21 1
28
BUSINESS
PLANNING
11
8
151
22 1
29
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
November 2021
cow
CLOSED
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
BUSINESS
PLANNING
2
9
16
23 1
30
;11 ,1,1; ·i~l!'.H!i: ·,: fri:~7;1~:-~17-,i
3 4 5
10 11 12
REMEMBRANCE
DAY
17 18 191
241 25 1 261
I
13
20 1
27 1
il ~n l!;
' •,r I
)
lj
I!
j
1:1
[
1!
l;j 1, !r'l
~
----~ --;---c--'''I
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE !'. ' 1
I
Dec ember 2021
1 2 3 4
5 1 6 1 7 1 SI 91 10 1 11
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 171 18
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
19 1 20 1 21 1 221 23 1 24 1 25
CHRISTMAS
DAY I tif3reak
26 27 28 29 1 30 1 31 J JANUARY 1
BOXING STAT FOR STAT FOR
DAY CHRISTMAS DAY BOXING DAY
I
I NEW YEAR'S EVE I NEWYEAR'$ DAY
Break
::wi::hl1i1illmm1:;~1i,1J1::::::1::m::;i1;1:n1;111i;;1:u1mdi:11,iiiid:1;;;;;j:11n81~ijl\1~('::·:::·H:1ifr.::fr;f~::nm1rR~~~~:irr!11~:1:i.~u~~Pnnn,1Iw,r·qITi1~~·1nr;q,~1 :i: ·:j · .. :,: · ~. 1r ·· · .. · .,-.~,,i1i1~ilil~~%~~r:-,i',j~1~-riµii'~. ___ _ -1 ··J ' ,!•' •I I ,,.,,..:
2
9
161
231
30
STAT FOR
NEW YEAR'S DAY
3
10
17 1
241
I
31
COUNCIL MEETl'NGS SCHEDULE
·January 2022-Option 1
January 1 11
NEWYEAR'S EVE I NEWYEAR'S DAY
cow
CLOSED
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
4 5
11 12
181 19 1
25 26
61 71 8 1
13 14 15
20 1 211 22
27 28 29
'I
fi1
Ii
I:
fi .I
'1 l
1;. ,'
1i I
rill
r:ij ij1,
I:" _________ ..J
21 3 1
STAT FOR
NEW YEAR'S DAY I
91 101
16 1 17 1
23 1 24 1
30 31
COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULE
January 2022-Option 2
1
NEW YEAR'S EVE I NEWYEAR'S DAY
2022
41 5 61 71 8
I Break
111 12 1 13 1 14 1 15
WORKSHOP
cow
COUNCIL
12 19 1 201 211 22
cow
CLOSED
PUBLIC HEARING I I I I j;I
!l
13 1 261 271 281 29 ' '
WORKSHOP
COUNCIL
l.i J'
---J