HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-14 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA April 14, 2020 11:00a.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. REMINDER: April 14, 2020 Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the March 31, 2020 Council Workshop Meeting 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Community Social Safety Initiative Update (COVID-19 Response) Presentation provided by the Acting General Manager Corporate Services 4.2 Detached Garden Suite (DGS) Project Outcomes Staff report dated April 14, 2020 providing an outline of the DGS Pilot Project process and input received from the pilot project property owners. For information only. 4.3 Strategic Transportation Plan Presentation provided by the General Manager Engineering Services 4.4 2020 Citizen Survey Staff report dated April 14, 2020 providing details on the 2020 Citizen Survey. For information only. Doc#2392392 ' ' ' l _
Council Workshop Agenda April 14, 2020 Page 2 of 2 4.5 Federation of Canadian Municipalities ("FCM") and Union of British Columbia Municipalities ("UBCM") Resolutions Verbal update by the Corporate Officer 5. CORRESPONDENCE 6 BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/ QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. 9. NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING The meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90(1) and 90(2) of the Community Charter as the subject matter being considered relates to the following: Section 90(1)(a) Personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality. Section 90(1)(e) The acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality. Section 90(1)(f) Law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment. Section 90(1)(k) Negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public. Any other matter that may be brought before the Council that meets the requirements for a meeting closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90 (1) and 90 (2) of the Community Charter or Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: DATE: cA:2D-Ot/-09 ' ' !-~ ,. L
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
March 31, 2020
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on March 31, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in
the Blaney Room at 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
D. Boag, General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture
C. Carter, General Manager Planning & Development Services
C. Crabtree, Acting General Manager Corporate Services
D.Pollock, General Manager Engineering Services
S. Nichols, Corporate Officer
Other Staff as Required
C. Goddard, Director of Planning
A.Grochowich, Planner 2, Community Planning
D. Mikes, Manager of Procurement
C. Nolan, Corporate Controller
R. Stott, Environmental Planner 2, Development and
Environmental Services
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Council members participated electronically.
Note: Councillor Duncan was in attendance at the start of the meeting but stepped away from
the meeting until 11:27 a.m.
1.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
R/2020-113
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda of the March 31, 2020 Council Workshop Meeting be
approved as circulated.
CARRIED
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
March 31, 2020
Page 2 of 6
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the March 10, 2020 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2020-114
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of March 10, 2020 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 Delegation: Metro 2050
Erin Rennie, Senior Planner, Regional Planning, and James Stiver, Division
Manager, Growth Management and Transportation, of Metro Vancouver
provided a detailed presentation on the Regional Growth Strategy and
responded to questions from Council
Staff provided background information on the Regional Context Statement and
the process that staff followed to create and update our plan.
Note: Councillor Duncan returned to the meeting.
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 2020 Community Emergency Preparedness Fund EOC & Training Application
Staff report dated March 31, 2020 recommending that staff be authorized to
submit an application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities 2020
Community Emergency Preparedness Fund Emergency Operations Centre and
Training Program for funding toward "Fire Hall #4 EOC Equipment" project.
R/2020-115
It was moved and seconded
That staff be authorized to submit an application to the Union of British
Columbia Municipalities 2020 Community Emergency Preparedness Fund -
Emergency Operations Centre and Training Program for funding in the amount
of $16,912.00 toward 'Fire Hall #4 - EOC Equipment' project.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
March 31, 2020
Page 3 of 6
4.2 Housing Needs Report: Proposed Scope of Work
Staff report dated March 31, 2020 recommending that the proposed scope of
work for the City of Maple Ridge Housing Needs Assessment be endorsed.
The Manager of Community Planning introduced and provided background on
the item. A. Grochowich, Planner 2, provided a detailed presentation and
responded to questions from Council.
Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
R/2020-116
It was moved and seconded
That the proposed scope of work for the City of Maple Ridge Housing Needs
Assessment be endorsed.
CARRIED
R/2020-117
It was moved and seconded
That the meeting be recessed for 30 minutes.
CARRIED
At 12:51 p.m. the Mayor announced that the recess had ended and called the meeting
to order.
Note: Councillor Robson returned to the meeting at 12:53 p.m.
4.3 Town Centre Visioning Process
Staff report dated March 31, 2020 recommending that the Town Centre
Visioning Public Engagement Process be endorsed.
The Manager of Community Planning provided a presentation and responded
to questions from Council.
R/2020-118
It was moved and seconded
That the Town Centre Visioning Public Engagement Process be endorsed.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
March 31, 2020
Page 4 of 6
4.4 Integrated Stormwater Management Plans - South Alouette River and Kanaka
Creek Watersheds
Staff report dated March 31, 2020 recommending that the South Alouette River
and Kanaka Creek Integrated Stormwater Management Plan be endorsed and
that staff be directed to bring forward the recommendations of the ISMP as part
of future Business Plans for consideration.
The Manager of Utility Engineering introduced the item and the presenter Glen
Shkurhan, Urban Systems. Mr. Shkurhan provided a detailed presentation and
responded to questions from Council.
R/2020-119
It was moved and seconded
That the South Alouette River and Kanaka Creek Integrated Stormwater
Management Plan be deferred until such time as staff can respond to the
questions and comments raised by Council.
CARRIED
Councillor Duncan - OPPOSED
4.5 Maple Ridge Tree Permit Survey Update
Staff report dated March 31, 2020 recommending that staff prepare
amendments to the Tree Bylaw and process.
The Director of Planning introduced and provided background information on
the item. R. Stott, Environmental Planner 2, provided a detailed presentation
and responded to questions from Council.
R/2020-120
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to prepare amendments to the Tree Bylaw taking into
consideration the comments and feedback received from Council.
CARRIED
4.6 Employment Lands: Update on Yennadon Lands Process
Staff report dated March 31, 2020 providing an update on the Yennadon Lands
Redesignation Process including the proposed community engagement
process and next steps.
The Manager of Community Planning introduced the item advising that public
consultation will not take place until public gatherings are permitted.
Council Workshop Minutes
March 31, 2020
Page 5 of 6
A. Grochowich, Planner 2, provided a detailed presentation and responded to
questions from Council.
R/2020-121
It was moved and seconded
That staff revise the previously endorsed process with direction that staff work
with the consultant to prepare some land use concepts for Council to review
prior to going to a public open house.
CARRIED
4.7 Update - Review of Purchasing Policy 5.45
Staff report dated March 31, 2020 recommending an interim increase in
approval thresholds and that staff bring forward an updated Purchasing Policy
for Council consideration.
The Acting General Manager of Corporate Services introduced and provided
background on the item. The Manager of Procurement provided a presentation
and responded to questions from Council.
R/2020-122
It was moved and seconded
That the Purchasing Policy be tabled for staff to bring forward alternatives to
the proposed approval thresholds.
CARRIED
5. CORRESPONDENCE – Nil
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL - Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
7.1 The Mayor provided a verbal update on the COVID-19 Provincial Emergency and
the plan to communicate with Council.
Note: Councilor Meadus left the meeting at 4:46 p.m. and did not return.
Council Workshop Minutes
March 31, 2020
Page 6 of 6
8. ADJOURNMENT – 4:48 p.m.
_______________________________
M. Morden, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
S. Nichols, Corporate Officer
City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: April 14, 2020 FILE NO: 2018-200-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATIN: Workshop SUBJECT: DGS Pilot Project Outcomes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Detached Garden Suites (DGS) have been permitted in Maple Ridge since regulations were adopted in 2008. A review of the DGS and Secondary Suites regulations was undertaken in the Fall of 2017 through a public consultation process that included a stakeholder workshop and an open house event. The public consultation outcomes were presented at the February 6, 2018 Council Workshop, wherein Council directed staff to provide information on pilot projects to: • Allow a Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot; • Allow a DGS size to be a minimum of 20.3m2 (219 ft2); and • Allow a DGS size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less. A DGS Pilot Project scoping report was presented at Council Workshop on May 1, 2018, wherein the following resolution was passed: That staff be directed to proceed with the Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project Process, outlined in the report titled, Detached Garden Suite Program Review: Pilot Project Process, dated May 1, 2018. The primary aim of the DGS Pilot Project process was to have constructed examples of DGS units, in one or"more of the Council endorsed configurations, and to invite Council and the public to tour the completed projects and provide further input as part of the DGS and Secondary Suite regulatory review. This report provides an outline of the DGS Pilot Project process and input received from the DGS Pilot Project property owners on their experience through the building permit process and learnings on the City side. The learnings will be incorporated into an "Online Help Tool" that is being designed by staff from Building, Planning, and IT for property owners undertaking small development projects. The outcomes of the DGS Tour survey are also provided in this report, along with options for next steps in the DGS regulatory review process. RECOMMENDATION: For Information only. 4.2 2426541 Page 1 of 13
1.0 BACKGROUND: The review of Secondary Suites (SS) and DGS regulations was initiated at the August 29, 2016 Council workshop, wherein Council directed staff to look into expanding these programs. A scoping report for the SS review was presented to Council on September 19, 2017 and the DGS scoping report was presented on October 3, 2017. Each of these reports included an outline for a public consultation process and received Council endorsement. Public consultation commenced in November 16, 2017 with a DGS stakeholder workshop, followed by a public open house for SS and DGS on November 25, 2017. The open house included a questionnaire requesting the community's input on several potential options for expanding the SS and DGS regulations. The questionnaire was made available online after the open house event for approximately three weeks. The outcomes of the public consultation were presented at Council Workshop on February 6, 2018. At that meeting, Council directed staff as follows: 1. Provide information on pilot projects to: • Allow a Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot; • Allow a DGS size to be a minimum of 20.3 m2 (219 ft2); and • Allow a DGS size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less. 2. Undertake further research and report back to Council on: a. Allowing a Secondary Suite in all single-family residential 'zones; b. Allow a Secondary Suite within a Duplex unit (RT-1 zone); c. Allowing a DGS in all single-family residential zones; d. Allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot; e. Allowing 2-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones; f. Allowing Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure; g. Allowing Tiny Homes as a temporary DGS structure; and h. Removing owner-occupancy requirement for Secondary Suites and DGS. 3. Undertake interdepartmental/stakeholder processes to: a. Review the building permit application process; and b. Develop an approach for creating pre-approved DGS building permit plans. 2426541 Page 2 of 13
1.1 DGS Pilot Project Process A DGS Pilot Project scoping report was presented at the May 1, 2018 Council Workshop, wherein Council endorsed the proposed process, outlined in the diagram below: • . . Meet with Property Owners on potential pilot projects Select and confirm pilot project properties Deadline set endorsement* amending for receipt of of Look-Book bylaw to Public Building Permit document Hearing applications Property owners prepare and submit BP applications owners Property owners construct Pilot Project DGS units Tours scheduled for approx2 months Final Occupancy for DGS property owners concepts * Council consideration required The process above involved identifying interested property owners as a first step and then preparing a Look-Book (see link below) that profiles each proposed project that Council viewed prior to proceeding with the Zoning Bylaw text amendment process. https://www .mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenterNiew/17464/MR-lookbook Public notifications to identify interested parties were made through newspaper advertisements, City website and social media, and an email was sent to those who signed up for process updates at the Fall 2017 open house event. The selection criteria was as follows: • Property owners who were first to confirm interest were given priority consideration; • Feasibility of property for one of the three Pilot Project options; • Projects that would contribute to a wide range of examples, both urban and rural, depicting a variety of sizes, DGS forms and designs; • Owners able to meet Pilot Project deadlines and commit to: o Payment up to $1,000 to contribute to costs for preparation of Look-Book document,; o Signing a Housing Agreement Bylaw that will be registered on the property title; o Allowing Council and the community to tour DGS units for a period of two months prior to receiving final occupancy; o Gifting approved building permit plans to the City to be used as pre-approved plans as an option for future DGS property owners. Properties within the Agricultural Land Reserve were excluded due to the restrictions and complexities for accessory dwelling units in the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the potential time delay that would be involved in seeking approval from this senior agency. To help provide a clear framework for the differences between existing and Pilot Project DGS units, Appendix A provides a comparison of the existing regulations and the DGS Pilot Project regulations, as well as the allowable maximum size of a DGS unit on a small, medium, and large size urban lot. 2426541 Page 3 of 13
Approximately 60 inquiries were received and six projects were initially selected, however, two chose to drop out within the first month. A significant majority of interest came from property owners on acreage who were interested in constructing a 140m2 (1500 ft2) DGS unit. Table 1 below, shows the characteristics of the six properties selected: Table 1: Properties Selected for Participation in DGS Pilot Project Neighbourhood Lot Size Zoning Site Conditions DGS Proposal 1. Rural -Whispering Falls 1.05 acres RS-2 water, septic, no-build area 140 m2 (1500 ft2) unit for septic 2. Rural -Yennadon 1 acre RS-2 water, septic, floodplain, 140 m2 (1500 ft2) unit Wildfire DP Area 3. Rural -Academy Park 1 acre RS-2 water, septic, outside Urban 140 m2 (1500 ft2) unit Containment Boundary 4. Urban -Albion Area 588.30m2 RS-1b fully serviced, new DGS size 47.6m2 (512 ft2) subdivision, vacant lot and SS on same lot 5. Urban -Hammond Area 629.5m2 RS-1 fully serviced lot DGS size 94m2 (1016 ft2) over garage and SS same lot 6. Rural -Ruskin Area 1.72 ha RS-3 well water, septic 20.3 m2 (219 ft2) unit . . . .. Note: Six properties were 1nit1ally selected for part1c1pat1on 1n the DGS Pilot ProJect and early on two properties (#5 and #6) either declined or withdrew from participation. Initially it appeared that all three DGS unit configurations would be represented with fully constructed units. However, after projects 5 and 6 dropped out, project 3 did not receive third reading from Council (due to neighbourhood complaints) and project 4 dropped out after it was determined that the lot configuration and grade were making it too challenging to provide the required parking for the DGS unit and the Secondary Suite. As a result, only projects 1 and 2 proceeded through the entire process. A requirement for Pilot Project participants was to apply for a building permit after third reading of the Zoning Bylaw text amendments and the projects were not added to a Council agenda for final reading until the building permits were close to being issued. Both projects 1 and 2 received final bylaw readings on November 27, 2018 and the Test Case #1 building permit was issued in December 2018 and Test Case #2 was issued in April 2019. Test Case #1 was cqmpleted just prior to Christmas 2019 and Test Case #2 was completed in January 2020. 1.1.1 Potential City Use of DGS Pilot Project Building Permit Plans A requirement for property owners participating in the DGS Pilot Project process was to obtain permission from their respective DGS designers for the City to use and distribute their building permit plans. The intent was that if the DGS design complied with existing regulations, or were to comply in future if changes were made to the regulations, the City would be able to offer these pre-approved building permit plans to property owners who are interested in constructing a DGS, particularly for a rental unit, in an effort to save some project costs. Both of the DGS Pilot Project property owners have provided the necessary permissions to the City for use of the approved building permit plans for their respective DGS units. 2426541 Page 4 of 13 on
2.0 DEBRIEF WITH DGS PILOT PROJECT PROPERTY OWNERS From the start of the process, DGS Pilot Project property owners were provided with contact details for a point person in the Planning and Building Departments to address any issues, concerns, or questions during the process. It was intended that by having key staff as point people, the approvals and construction processes would run as smoothly as possible and that any issues would be incorporated into the regulatory review process for an assessment of what could be changed/improved to reduce the potential for future similar scenarios. The following sections (2.1 through 2.3) discuss the learning received by the Planning and Building Departments and the feedback received from the property owners on their experience. 2.1 Navigating the DGS Pilot Project Process Both properties that proceeded through to completion of the DGS Pilot Project are one acre parcels, wherein a 140m2 (1500 ft2) DGS unit was permitted to create a test case example. Test Case #1 is located in Whispering Falls and Test Case #2 is located in Yennadon. The particulars and requirements for each site are provided in Table 2 below. Table 2: Particulars of Each DGS Pilot Project Test Case Test Case #1 Test Case #2 Neighbourhood Whispering Falls Yennadon Zone RS-2 (one-family suburban residential) RS-2 (one-family suburban residential) Lot Size 1.05 acres (4,260m2, 45,854ft2) 1 acre (4,047m2, 43,561ft2) Dwellings on Site Principal dwelling and DGS unit Principal dwelling, DGS unit and a detached garage Accessory DGS project included constructing an DGS project included constructing an Buildings/Parking attached three-car garage attached two-car garage Servicing Property on municipal water and septic; New Property on municipal water and septic at septic system was installed for DGS unit start of project; installed sewer connection to principal dwelling and DGS Lot Featur~s/ Slight slope on site; Wildfire DP Area Forested; in Floodplain; yVildfire DP Area Challenges Designer Professionally Designed Professionally Designed Builder Construction mainly by property owner, with Hired General Contractor contractors hired as needed Estimated Cost $250,000-$300,000 $300,000 Actual Cost Approximately $320,000 for DGS only; With servicing and septic system; Approximately $400,000 Total cost: approximately $385,000 As both Test Case projects proceeded through the approval and construction processes, learning occurred for both property owners and City staff. Additionally, after the DGS Tours were completed, staff undertook a debrief with each property owner to ask for feedback on the process and their experience with the City. Property owners for both test cases stated their appreciation for the opportunity to construct a home for their children on their property that would enable the younger generation to not only live in the same community, but within the same neighbourhood, while enabling the older generation to age in place. Additionally, both property owners also praised the staff selected as point persons, who quickly stepped in to help resolve any issues that arose. Staff from both the Planning and Building Departments have gained valuable experiences by following both processes from beginning to end and have identified changes that can made to City processes to improve the 2426541 Page 5 of 13 I t
experience of future applicants for new DGS's. Although both property owners are happy with how their units turned out, each project did run into unanticipated requirements and costs. An example for each is provided below. 2.1.1 Test Case #1 For Test Case #1, the approval and construction process proceeded with few issues or concerns. However, one unknown that did arise is that the property owner was hoping that the existing site septic system would be sufficient for the principal dwelling unit and the DGS and this did not turn out to be the case. The private engineering firm hired to review the septic system, for Fraser Health approval, determined that a new system would be needed for the additional unit. While this did not cause a significant delay in the project, it did result in an unanticipated cost to the property owner. 2.1.2 Test Case #2 For Test Case #2, one key issue was a lack of clarity on the City's floodplain requirements. This issue caused a time delay and additional cost in finding a private engineering firm to make time in their schedule to complete storm-water design drawings. Additional issues were also experienced with regard to information not filtering through City staff in a timely manner and although these did get sorted out quickly, there was some frustration on the part of the property owners. The above scenarios are ones that are often difficult for the City to anticipate and provide early intervention, as the City relies on outside architectural, engineering and construction firms to review the Zoning Bylaw, information guides, checklists, and application forms, which contain a significant amount of information in meeting City requirements. Of course, applicants are always encouraged to contact the City on construction projects and staff do their best to provide thorough and complete information, but some opportunities for improvement have been identified through development of an online help tool for property owners to access at any time in the planning and execution of their construction project. 2.2 Learning ta be Applied to Development of an Online Help Tool Development of an on line help tool is in process as a collaboration between the Planning, Building, IT, Engineering, Communications, and Fire Departments. Development of this tool was identified early in the DGS regulatory review process as something that would benefit property owners by compiling information for individual properties on their requirements for small construction projects, such as a DGS, secondary suite, detached garage, single-family house, etc. Staff have been working through the details of putting this online tool together, which involves reviewing the background processes, ensuring existing forms and applications are up to date, and taking a general inventory of what currently exists for each department. 2426541 Page 6 of 13
Once the background information review is complete, work will get underway on building the online tool. The aim of the on line help tool is to: • Help inform property owners of approval and construction requirements related to their property, based on their specific site characteristics for their intended projects; • Retain the information provided to the property owner in one location with a "project inquiry number" that can be recalled at any time by the property owner at home and also by City staff; • Help inform City staff of the specific project requirements identified for the intended project and pinpoint where a project is in the process at any given time of approvals from the various departments involved; o This would include identifying when a project is awaiting Provincial agency approval requirements (e.g. Fraser Health and the Agricultural Land Commission) that are administered by the City. 2.3 Further Learnings from DGS Pilot Project Process A key objective of the DGS regulatory review and pilot project was to identify whether there is one or more ways to reduce the cost of constructing a DGS unit, so that they may be more affordable to build as a rental suite. Staff looked into alternative foundations (such as concrete piers, bigfoot footings, and helical screw piles) and while these were found to possibly be a somewhat cheaper option, it was also determined that it would be difficult to find a contractor who is familiar with the alternative forms and it is possible that a contractor who is willing to try the alternative would charge a premium for the extra time and uncertainty involved. The issue of obtaining adequate insurance coverage for these alternative foundation systems may also be a problem. The following realities have been identified as challenges to reducing costs of DGS units, particularly in the construction of smaller rental units: • Servicing the site with water, sanitary, electrical, etc. is the same cost regardless of the size of unit being constructed; • Foundations are a relatively fixed cost regardless of the size of unit being constructed, as the price will not vary much from a 500ft2 unit to a 1000ft2 unit. • · General contractors are less likely to schedule a small construction project (p'articularly a small DGS unit) over a larger construction project and as such, a premium may be charged in situations where a contractor is willing to take on a small DGS project. 3.0 DGS TOUR & SURVEY OUTCOMES 3.1 DGS Pilot Project Tours Once the DGS Pilot Project units were constructed, planning for the DGS Tours commenced. The intent of the tours was to: • Allow Council and the community to tour the newly constructed DGS Pilot Project units; • Create an opportunity to showcase other DGS units, completed under the existing DGS regulations; and • Create more awareness of DGS units as an infill option within Maple Ridge. Originally the intent was to run several dates of DGS tours over a period of two months with no occupancy of completed units being permitted during that time. However, it was determined that this 2426541 Page 7 of 13
time period would have required a significant amount of staff overtime to run the tours and in order to reduce this need the timeframe was condensed. Additionally, because of the condensed tour timeframe, the DGS occupants were permitted to move into their new homes while the tour events were being organized (one couple moved in just before Christmas). A total of three tour events were held for the registered attendees at three locations (23525 Dogwood Avenue, 26378 126th Avenue, and 28490 123rd Avenue) on: • Wednesday February 19, 2020 • Saturday February 22, 2020 • Sunday February 23, 2020 5:30pm -7:30pm 1:00pm -3:00pm 1:00pm -3:00pm Invitations to participate in the tours were sent to 61 property owners of existing DGS units within the City. These DGS owners were invited to showcase their units as part of the tours. Additionally, they were requested to send photos of their DGS units and share their DGS experience which would be incorporated into the DGS tour materials. Two owners expressed interest in showcasing their DGSs as part of the DGS Tours. Ultimately, one owner declined to participate due to unforeseen circumstances. The DGS Pilot Project Tours were advertised utilizing several methods, which included: • Newspaper advertisements in the February 5th, 7th, and 12th editions; • City Webpage information (with banner and link located on homepage as well as updates on the DGS Pilot Project webpage); • Facebook and Twitter; • Flyers were made available at the Planning & Development front counter (attached as Appendix B); • Email invitations sent to those on the DGS regulatory review process update list; and • Letter invitations sent to all DGS property owners. 3.2. DGS Tour Event . . A total of 257 responses were received by either phone or email for the DGS Tour Event. A total of 199 attendees were registered for the DGS Tours (see Table 3 below for breakdown for individual dates). The tour on Wednesday February 19, 2020 had a lower number of attendees, as staff limited the number to 35 in an effort to not overwhelm the home owners. The number of attendees were increased for the weekend tours after it was determined that each unit could accommodate an increased amount of attendees. Unfortunately, not all requests could be accommodated as a significant amount of interest was received from the community and a total of 58 people remained on the waitlist. Table 3: Breakdown of Registered Attendees per Tour Date Total Number of Registered Attendees for DGS Tours: Wednesday February 19, Saturday February 22, 2020 Sunday February 23, 2020 2020 TOTAL 35 81 83 199 A Self-Guided Tour Map (attached as Appendix C) was sent to all registered attendees with a suggested starting location to limit overcrowding at each location. Property owners of the DGS tour units were present to guide members of the public through the units and answer questions about their experience with the process. Additionally, two staff members were present at each location to sign in attendees 2426541 Page 8 of 13
and address questions and comments from the public regarding the DGS Pilot Project and current DGS regulations. 3.2.1 Information Boards & Handouts Information boards (Appendix D) and a handout (Appendix E) were prepared and made available to the public during the. DGS Tour Event. The materials included background information on the DGS Pilot Project, including the process timeline and next steps. Additionally, the Pilot Project Participants provided their DGS story detailing their experiences throughout the process. The tour materials were made available to the public on the DGS Pilot Project webpage after the tours were completed (https://www.mapleridge.ca/1887). 3.2.2 Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project Survey A paper copy of the survey (attached as Appendix F) was made available to attendees at each location of the DGS Pilot Project Tours and at the Planning & Development front counter. The survey was also sent electronically to a total of 276 people on February 26, 2020 (including registered and waitlisted attendees as well as those who provided their contact information on the tours). The survey remained open for submissions (electronically or paper copies) until March 13, 2020. 3.3 DGS Survey Outcomes The DGS Pilot Project Survey generated 96 responses from the tour attendees and waitlisted members of the public. From the surveys received, 95% of the respondents indicated that they live in Maple Ridge (question 1) and 86% percent indicated they lived in a Single Family Dwelling (question 2), as shown in the graph below. Question 2: Current Housing Type Occupied by Respondents Question 2. What type of home do you currently live in? 100% S-6% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 4% 10% 1% 2% 0% 4% 2% 0% --Single Duplex/ Townhouse Apartment DGS Unit Secondary Other Family Triplex Suite House A summary of the survey results is presented in the discussion below and the questions have been grouped according to common themes. A copy of the survey results are included in Appendix G. Participants were asked a series of questions related to their current experiences and interest in DGS units within the City of Maple Ridge. Table Q3 below summarizes the participant experiences with DGS units. A majority of respondents indicated that they were interested in building a DGS unit in the future. 2426541 Page 9 of 13
Question 3: Participant Experiences with DGS Units Survey Participants Identified As: DGS Owners Residents within a DGS Neighbour to a property with a DGS (i.e. residing on same street) Currently in the process of building a DGS Considering building a DGS unit in the future Considering or currently looking to buy a property with a DGS unit Considering or currently looking to live in a DGS unit None of the Above #of Responses 1 2 8 0 71 8 11 16 Additionally, a large proportion of participants also expressed interest in exploring DGS options in the City of Maple Ridge and the possibility of providing housing options for family or close friends. Table Q4 below summarizes what interested the respondents most about the tours. Question 4: Participant Interest in DHS Tours What interests you about DGS unit(s) and/or the City's DGS Tours? Exploring what a DGS unit is Learning more about DGS regulations in Maple Ridge Increasing the property value of a single family lot Capability of providing housing for a family or close friend Possibility of generating rental income Other #of Responses 46 61 24 71 33 6 Participants surveyed were asked a series of questions related to what size of a DGS unit they would support within the community. Respondents also indicated what DGS units they were able to visit during the tour, which is presented in Table Q5 below. Most respondents indicated they were able to visit both of the DGS Pilot Project Units on the tour. Question 5: Result Summary of Units Visited By Participants DGS Units Visited By Survey Participants 23525 Dogwood Avenue: DGS Pilot Project Unit 26378 126th Avenue: DGS Pilot Project Unit 28490 123rd Avenue: DGS unit constructed under existing regulations I was not able to attend the DGS Tours #of Responses 76 77 62 10 The survey outcome for the questions related to DGS Unit size is summarized in Table Q6& 7 below. A majority of respondents indicated support for both the current DGS unit size permitted 90 m2 (968 ft2) as well as the larger DGS Unit size 140m2 (1500 ft2). 2426541 Page 10 of 13
Questions 6 & 7: Summary of Survey Results Related to DGS Unit Size # of Yes # of No DGS Unit Size Supported by Survey Participants Responses Responses Do you support allowing DGS units at the existing regulated size of 90 m2 (968 ft2) in 7 4 (80%) 18 (20%) gross floor area? Do you support allowing DGS units to be up to 89 (94%) 140m2 (1500 ft2) in gross floor area? 6 (6.7%) There were several positive comments received on allowing a maximum 90m2 unit size (which is currently permitted), although the majority of comments expressed a desire to allow units larger than 90m2 to be constructed to allow for families and greater livability (see Appendix H). A significant majority of comments received on allowing a maximum 140m2 unit (not currently permitted) indicated support for increasing the allowable maximum to this size of unit (see Appendix I). Several comments stated that the larger unit size would help to: • Accommodate young families; • Keep older and younger generations together within the community; • Provide greater livability for a couple in retirement who are downsizing; and • Create more affordable housing options for families and the ability for seniors to age in place. Four comments received noted that the cost difference between building a smaller and a larger unit are minimal, making it more cost effective to build a larger unit. A small number of negative comments were received with regard to increasing the maximum size permitted for a DGS unit. These comments indicated a feeling that the units were too large, as one individual described the 140m2 units as "mansions" and another as a "second house". One individual who commented on the Dogwood DGS indicated the unit was "very large" and that having the garage attached to the side of the unit "overwhelmed the property". This person stated a preference for the DGS on 126th where the unit was constructed above the garage. Two questions were asked in relation to professional interest and experience with DGS Units: • Are you interested in DGS units from a professional capacity? • In your professional capacity, are you experiencing a growing interest or demand for DGS units? What challenges are you experiencing in meeting the demand? 2426541 Page 11 of 13
A total of 18 respondents (22%) indicated that they were interested in DGS units from a professional capacity. The breakdown of representation of industry professionals is summarized in Table QB below: Question 8: Professional Interest in DGS Units Representation of Industry Professionals Architecture & Design Planning & Development Construction & Associated Trades Real Estate Not a related professional Other #of Responses 5 5 6 2 60 4 Survey participants indicated that they are experiencing growing interest for DGS units within the community. Interest has been related to rising housing prices as well as the ability to provide housing for family members. Challenges that professionals are currently experiencing have been related to onerous regulatory requirements and length of time in processing of applications. Additionally, required servicing and building upgrades can increase project costs and have become a barrier for construction (See Appendix J). 3.3.1 General Comments Respondents were able to provide general feedback related to DGS units in the final question of the survey. A total of 57 comments were received which have provided more understanding of the views of each participant. Additionally, two emails were received in relation to the DGS tours and Pilot Project. These comments and emails have been attached as Appendix K. 3.4 Conclusion of Survey Outcomes The feedback received from the DGS Pilot Project Survey and Tours has been primarily been positive and the majority of respondents (94%) have indicated support for increasing the current permitted maximum size of DGS units in the CitY: It is also noted that many respondents support this form of housing as a way to keep families together and provide an affordable housing option for members in the community. 4.0 NEXT STEPS: Staff will be bringing a report to Council Workshop on accountability mechanisms for secondary suites and DGS units, later this Spring, wherein a discussion and recommendation(s) on potentially expanding regulations will be included. It is anticipated this discussion will include consideration of: • Removal of Owner-Occupancy requirement (see note below); • Allowing a maximum 140m2 (1500ft2) DGS unit, or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less; • Allowing a Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot; • Allowing a DGS size to be a minimum of 20.3 m2 (219 ft2); • Allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot; and • Allowing 2-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones and consider a maximum permitted garage size for a DGS unit. 2426541 Page 12 of 13
It should be noted that the Council motion regarding the abeyance of bylaw enforcement on the owner-occupancy requirement of secondary suites, that was passed on May 7, 2019, remains in effect. CONCLUSION: From the outcomes of the DGS Pilot Project process, it is clear that larger DGS units are a very popular option within the community. The larger unit option was supported through the public consultation process in 2017, generated the majority of inquiries on the review process and the DGS Pilot Project, and also received the majority of support from the DGS tours survey. Helping to provide affordable housing for family members and keeping them close by is a very attractive option for many property owners. It has also been identified through the DGS regulatory review process that there are a few fixed-cost challenges in trying to reduce the cost of constructing a DGS unit, so that more property owners would choose this option for providing rental stock within the community. Prepared by: Approved by: Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: QfHo~ Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: AppendixJ: Appendix K: 2426541 Comparison of Current DGS Regulations and DGS Pilot Project Permissions DGS Tours Advertisement Flyers Self-Guided DGS Tour Map Information boards posted at tour locations Handout provided at tour locations Survey Questions (in paper copy form) Survey Results Comments received for survey question 6 Comments received for survey question 7 Comments received from professionals regarding demand for DGS units General comments received for survey question 9 Page 13 of 13 t.
*
Comparison of Building Sizes for Curre nt DG S Reg ulations and
DGS Pilot Project Pe r m ission s
Current DGS Regulations DGS Pilot Project Permissions
Minimum size permitted 37m2 (398 ft2) 20.3m 2 (2 19 ft2)
Maximum size permitted 90m2 (968 ft2 }, or 10% of the lot area, whichever is less* 140m2 (1500 ft2), or 15% of the lot area, whic hever is less *
Maximum Building Height • 4.Sm from ground level for properties less than 0.4 hecta res; • 4.S m from ground level fo r prope rties less than 0.4 hect ares;
• 6.0m for properties: • 6.0m fo r prope rties:
-0.4 hectares (1 acre) or more in size ; -0 .4 hectares (1 acre ) or more i n size ;
-zoned RS-2, RS-3; or -zoned RS-2 , RS-3; o r
-with lane access . -w ith lane acce ss .
An inc rease in height to 7.S m was perm itted to Test Case #1 th rough th e
Zonin g Bylaw te xt amendm ent.
Siting on Site Rear yard Rear yard
Tes t Ca se #2 was perm itted to locate t he DGS in the front ya rd, th ro ugh the
Zoning Byl aw t ext am endme nt, as t he principa l dw elling is loca t ed in t he
rea r yard.
DGS on a 557m2 (5,995 ft2) urban Maximum DGS size permitted M aximum DGS si ze example
lot (RS-lb zoning)** 55.7m2 (600 ft2) 84m2 (899 ft2)
DGS on a 668m2 (7,190 ft2) urban Maximum DGS size permitted Maxim u m DG S si ze exa mple
lot (RS-1 zoning) 60 .8m2 (719 ft2) 100 .2m2 (1,078 f t2)
DGS on a 1,011m2 (1/4 acre) lot Maximum DGS size permitted M ax im u m DGS size example
90m2 (968 ft2) 140m2 (1 500 ft2)
Note: The DGS regulations do not address the maximum pe r mitted size of a garage for the DGS un it. Currently, one pa r king stall is requi red for a DGS and it may be provided as a pa rking
pad or within an enclosed garage .
** Note: 557m2 is the smallest lot size where a DGS is currently permitted.
~f:-':-'l7-T'iTT!iqp;:7'lr'')rr:1~~;-:~~:T"''.T~
)>
""O
""O n, z
CJ
X
)>
DETACHED GARDEN SUITE ::t!ri i:t..... (DGS) TOURS ~ What: Detached Garden Suite (DGS) Tours When: Wednesday February 19, 2020 5:30PM-7:30PM Saturday February 22, 2020 1 :OOPM -3:00PM Sunday February 23, 2020 1 :OOPM-3:00PM Where: A Self-Guided Tour Map will be provided to registered attendees. RSVP: By email or phone with your Full Name, Phone Number, Email and the Tour Date you would like to attend. ,, .. MAPLE RIDGE Housing Action Plan 18] planning@mapleridge.ca \. 604-467-7341 For more info, please visit our website www.mapleridqe.ca/1887 ---=4~·~ 111• APPENDIX B
6
N
Scale: 1 :30,000
TOUR LOCATION #2
Detached Garden Suite (DGS) Tour Notes:
o Sign In: please s ign in with City staff when you arrive on site and e nter through the garage.
0 Street ParkingOnly: please do not park in the driveway, block streets or driveway
accesses of the neighbouring properties.
o Accessibility: there are stairs, sloped driveways and uneven surfaces at the tor_u_r ____________ ~
locations, please use caution when on sit e.
o Time at Each Location: please be respectful of the other attendees
and try to limit your time to 10-15 minutes at each location.
The City of Maple R idge makes no gua rantee
regarding the accuracy or present status of
th e info rmation shown on this map.
~1
Detached Garden Suite
(DGS) Tour1!t..A -
I'--
"' N
i
i
ci i Cl• ~i
..!!
ii :! : t! ~,
oi
!
i
l I
Detached Garden Suite
Self-Guided Tour Locations
PLANNIN G DEPAR T MENT
MAPL E RIDGE
Bn1 \h Columb,a
mapleridge.ca
FILE: DetachedGardenSuiteTourMap.mxd
DATE: Feb 1 3, 2020 BY: OT
)> -c -c rr, z
C,
><
(')
f
Fall 2017 -February 2018 February 2018 -June 2018 ~~-------------~~~, • June 2018-December 2018 December 2018-December 2019 February 2020-April 2020 APPENDIX D • The City's Housing Action Plan (HAP) was adopted in 2014 • The HAP Implementation Framework was endorsed by Council in 2015 • In 2016, Council directed staff to report back on undertaking a review and potential expansion of the DGS and Secondary Suites (SS) programs. • Council endorses Public Consultation process on the potential expansion of the DGS and SS regulations • The City held a Stakeholder Workshop & Public Open House • Outcomes of Public Consultation presented to Council • Council directs a DGS Pilot Project be undertaken • DGS Pilot Project process endorsed by Council • Each DGS Pilot Project is outlined in a "Look-Book" document which was endorsed by Council • Zoning Bylaw text amendment approval process • Building Permit application and approval process -Building Permits issued for 2 DGS Pilot Project units • Building Permits were issued in December 2018 & April 2019 • Construction began immediately after approval • DGS Pilot Project units were completed in December 2019 • Public tours of the 2 Pilot Project Units and existing units are scheduled • A survey of attendees to obtain input on Pilot Project units • Outcomes of DGS Pilot Project presented to Council I I
OBJECTIVE OF THE DGS TOURS The first objective of the DGS Tours is to enable the public to experience the DGS Pilot Project units as well as DGS units constructed under the existing regulations and invite feedback on the option of an expanded unit size (being the 140m2/1500ft2 units). As well as, a unit constructed under the existing Zoning Bylaw regulations. Another primary objective of the DGS tours is to create greater awareness of DGS units as infill housing in both urban and suburban/rural areas. Because there are specific zones where DGS units are permitted and some restrictions for land within the Agricultural Land Reserve, the DGS tours provide an opportunity to learn more about the regulations, find information on the City's website and talk with staff about options and potential projects. Current regulations allow for up to a 968 ft2 (90 m2) Detached Garden Suite or 10% Maximum lot coverage for all buildings and NEXT STEPS Proposed regulations of the DGS units built under the pilot project increases the size of a Detached Garden Suite up to a 1500 ft2 (140 m2) or 15% of the lot area (whichever is less) 1 Acre Lot (4000 m2 Lot) All DGS tour participants will be invited to complete a survey that is available in paper format or can also be emailed and completed electronically. The deadline for completing the survey is Sunday, March 15, 2020. The outcomes of the survey will be compiled and a report will be prepared and presented to Council in April 2020. For more information on the DGS and Secondary Suites (SS) review process, please view the City of Maple Ridge website at www.mapleridge.ca/1887 If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact Lisa Zosiak at lzosiak@mapleridge.ca or phone at 604-467-7383.
23525 Dogwood Avenue Zone: Lots Size: Unit Size: RS-2 (One-Family Suburban Residential) 1 acre (4047 m2), 43561 ft2) 140 m2 (1500 ft2) # of Storeys: One (at grade) OUR STORY "We were thrilled to be chosen to participate in this project it has allowed us to share our acreage with our son, daughter in law and 2 grandsons. It is also allowing them to live in Maple Ridge, and bring their family up in the municipality they both grew up in. This is something that is difficult for young people nowadays to do and revising the municipality's guidelines for garden suites to allow more families to stay in the community we see as a benefit for everyone. 16 years ago we added a detached 1000 sq. foot garage and workshop to our property. This included clearing areas including trees and building across from our current home (which is on the South Alouette River), It was a fairly straight forward procedure. As we looked to the future a few years ago and started exploring the possibilities of how we might be able to build on our property to support our children, we were told subdividing was not an option. We looked into the garden suite option and it was too small for a family. As we continued to explore, the pilot project option came available and we were contacted about this opportunity. We had to commit to applying for the pilot project very quickly. In the end things had changed over 16 years and we had no idea. So ask the questions, where is my property located, is it in the 200 year flood plain (established since our garage addition) and requiring a registered flood plain covenant, are we in the wildfire hazard zone, check with environment on their requir~ments (which includes the new tree bylaw and new setback regulations from streams and waterways). All of these added up to major expenses we had no idea we would have to incorporate into our project. We would a/so recommend that you hire a good general contractor. We were very grateful to have Jason Schmidt of Norquest Homes as our general contractor, we definitely could not have accomplished this build without his assistance and vast knowledge of building in Maple Ridge. Last but not least, however long you think it is going to take, count on 3x as Jong. We wish to thank Lisa Zosiak, Bill Ozeroff and April Crockett who were our contacts for this pilot project, they were a pleasure to work with. We look forward to seeing the revised garden suite guidelines." -The Richardson's C l_-_
26378 126 Avenue Zone: Lots Size: Unit Size: RS-2 (One-Family Suburban Residential) 1.05 acres ( 4260 m2), 45854ft2) 140 m2 (1500 ft2) # of Storeys: Two (DGS over 3 car garage) OUR STORY "The process of building our DGS started in the fall of 2017 when the city of Maple Ridge held an open house to see how much interest there was in building different kinds of secondary residences on properties, and what changes to the current regulations were desired. As we wanted to move away from renting and step into home ownership, we jumped at the opportunity to provide our input. With the housing market being so limited and unaffordable, having a second residence on our family property would allow for us to have both affordable housing, and to stay near each other. When the city launched a pilot project to showcase various sizes of DGSs, we were fortunate to be selected as one of the families to take part in the larger DGS unit category. We began building our carriage house on our one acre property in January of 2019 and completed it in December of the same year. Overall, it was a positive experience. One of the challenges we faced was extra costs when it came to running the utilities back to the DGS. Another was the additional septic field required. However, there were so many advantages. With 1,500 square feet and a max height of 7.5 metres, we were able to build a beautiful, comfortable, spacious home, which the current restrictions· do not allow for. In addition, doing the majority of the work ourselves made this an even more affordable housing option. We were a/so able to design a space that worked for us and our needs. We are so grateful that we had this opportunity and we hope that other families will be able to have the same experience as us. Again, it is so important that we have these housing opportunities for a number of reasons, such as keeping families near each other and creating both affordable housing and more options for housing. We have certainly benefitted from a relaxation in the DGS regulations through the Pilot Project and we see real promise for this in the city of Maple Ridge." -Garry, Lesli, Natasha & Andrew
OBJECTIVE OF THE DGS TOURS The first objective of the DGS Tours is to enable the public to experience the DGS Pilot Project units as well as DGS units constructed under the existing regulations and invite feedback on the option of an expanded unit size (being the 140m2/1500ft2 units). As well as, a unit constructed under the existing Zoning Bylaw regulations. Another primary objective of the DGS tours is to create greater awareness of DGS units as an option for infill housing in both urban and suburban/rural areas. Because there are specific zones where DGS units are permitted and some restrictions for land within the Agricultural Land Reserve, the DGS tours provide an opportunity to learn more about the regulations, find information on the City's website and talk with staff about options and potential projects. BACKGROUND ON DGS REGULATORY REVIEW AND PILOT PROJECT In September 2015, Maple Ridge Council endorsed a Housing Action Plan (HAP) implementation framework that included recommended actions to facilitate and preserve affordable housing options in Maple Ridge. One of the strategies in the Action Plan is to create new rental housing opportunities. A component of which included a rev.iew and expansion of the DGS program and the secondary suites program. A public consultation process for reviewing the DGS and Secondary Suites regulations was endorsed by Council in September 2017. The public consultation was undertaken in November 2017 and included a DGS Stakeholder workshop and a public open house. The outcomes of the public open house were presented to Council in February 2018, wherein Council directed that a Pilot Project for expanded regulations be explored. MAPLE RWGE Orn1,<: !:..lt,.mtJ;i. APPENDIX E
HOUSING ACTION PLAN • The City's Housing Action Plan (HAP) was adopted in 2014 • The HAP Implementation Framework was endorsed by Council in 2015 • In 2016, Council directed staff to report back on undertaking a review and potential expansion of the DGS and Secondary Suites (SS) programs. DGS & SS REGULATORY REVIEW • Council endorses Public Consultation process on the potential expansion of the DGS and SS regulations • The City held a Stakeholder Workshop & Public Open House • Outcomes of Public Consultation presented to Council DGS PILOT PROJECT • Council directs a DGS Pilot Project be undertaken • DGS Pilot Project process endorsed by Council • Each DGS Pilot Project is outlined in a "Look-Book" document which was endorsed by Council DGS REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS • Zoning Bylaw text amendment approval process • Building Permit application and approval process -Building Permits issued for 2 DGS Pilot Project units CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Building Permits were issued in December 2018 & April 2019 • Construction began immediately after approval • DGS Pilot Project units were completed in December 2019 DGS TOURS & OUTCOMES • Public tours of the 2 Pilot Project Units and existing units are scheduled • A survey of attendees to obtain input on Pilot Project units • Outcomes of DGS Pilot Project presented to Council 2014-2017 Fall 2017-February 2018 February 2018 -June 2018 June 2018-December 2018 December 2018 -December 2019 February 2020 -April 2020
Review···.· DGS PILOT PROJECT PROCESS & TIMELINE Council endorsed the DGS Pilot Project in May 2018, which would allow the following options for Pilot Project participant properties: • Allow a secondary suite and DGS on the same lot; • Allow a DGS to be a minimum of 20.3m2 (219 ft2); and • Allow a DGS to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less. Following a public process, that included inviting homeowners and the general public to participate in the pilot, four properties were selected for a DGS Pilot Project. The proposed Pilot Projects represented only two out of the three options above, being #1 above and #3 above, as there were no committed proposals for a 20.3m2/219ft2 DGS unit. A DGS Pilot Project "Look-Book" was prepared to showcase each proposed project and was endorsed by Council in June 2018. The DGS Pilot Project approval process included undertaking a text amendment to the Zoning Bylaw (which included four Council readings of the Zoning Bylaw amendment and a public hearing) and applying for and receiving a building permit. Only two DGS units successfully completed the approval process, which reduced the options being explored through the Pilot Project down to one (#3 above), and these are the two Pilot Project units on display today. Also on tour is a DGS that is not part of the Pilot Program and built under the current regulations. NEXT STEPS All DGS tour participants will be invited to complete a survey that is available in paper format or can also be emailed and completed electronically. The deadline for completing the survey is Sunday, March 15, 2020. The outcomes of the survey will be compiled and a report will be prepared and presented to Council in April 2020. For more information on the DGS and Secondary Suites (SS) review process, please view the City of Maple Ridge website at www.mapleridge.ca/1887 If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact Lisa Zosiak at lzosiak@mapleridge.ca or phone at 604-467-7383.
APPENDIX F Thank you for participating in the DGS Tour! The City of Maple Ridge supports the creation of affordable rental housing options in our community. Detached Garden Suites (DGSs) are one way to provide more housing options while preserving the single-family character of our existing neighbourhoods. Other housing forms the City is exploring include expanding options for secondary suites, as well as duplex, triplex and fourplex homes. More information about the Detached Garden Suites Pilot Project can be found on line at www.mapleridge.ca/1887. Please take a moment to complete the survey -it should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Your input is valuable to us and will help inform future discussions with Council. The survey will close Friday March 13, 2019 at 4:00pm. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact the City of Maple Ridge Planning Department at planning@mapleridge.ca or by phone 604-467-7341. 1. Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? D Yes ONo 2. What type of home do you currently live in? D Single Family House D Duplex/ Triplex D Townhouse D Apartment D DGS Unit D Secondary Suite D Other 3. Are you a: (Check all that apply) D DGS Owner? D Resident within a DGS? D Neighbour to a property with a DGS (i.e. residing on same street)? D Currently in the process of building a DGS? D Considering building a DGS unit in the future? D Considering or currently looking to buy a property with a DGS unit? D Considering or currently looking to live in a DGS unit? D None of the Above 1~, •.•
4. What interests you about DGS unit(s) and/or the City's DGS Tours? (Check all the apply) D Exploring what a DGS unit is D Learning more about DGS regulations in Maple Ridge . D Increasing the property value of a single family lot D Capability of providing housing for a family or close friend D Possibility of generating rental income D Other ______________________________ _ 5. Which units were you able to visit? (Check all that apply) D 23525 Dogwood Avenue: DGS Pilot Project Unit D 26378 1261h Avenue: DGS Pilot Project Unit D 28490 123rd Avenue: DGS unit constructed unde( existing regulations 6. Do you support allowing DGS units at the existing regulated size of 90 m2 (968 ft2) in gross floor area? D Yes D No Comments: 7. Do you support allowing DGS units to be up to 140m2 (1,500 ft2) in gross floor area? D Yes D No Comments:
8. a) Are you interested in DGS units from a professional capacity? If so, which industry? D Architecture & Design D Planning & Development D Construction & Associated Trades D Real Estate D Not a related professional D Other _______________________________ _ b) In your professional capacity, are you experiencing a growing interest or demand for DGS units? What challenges are you experiencing in meeting the demand? 9. Please provide any other comments you would like to share on DGS units: Thank you for your time! The information provided on this survey is being collected in accordance with Section 26(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the purposes of Planning & Development within the City of Maple Ridge. If you have any questions about the collection, use or disclosure of this information, please contact Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy staff, at 604-467-7 482 or foi@mapleridge.ca. [.~,, ••
4/6/2020 Microsoft Forms ... ... Forms Forms -Plann@~rfilepliltli.Garden Suite (DGS) Pilot ... -Saved Detached Garden Suite (DGS) Pilot Project Survey 96 10:02 Responses Average time to complete 1. Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? • Yes • No 91 5 2. What type of home do you currently live in? 98 • Single Family House 82 88 • Duplex/ Triplex n • Townhouse 4 6~ • Apartment 2 • DGS Unit 0 30 • Secondary Suite 4 2J • Other 2 iJ Closed Status APPENDIXG https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPage.aspx#Analysis=true&Formld=Tgcrl1 PMXUi0DpPZW7FFpYUNdlloLB1 EvS0s4TrsvlxUNDhaWUhNVEhBT... 1/4 l i
4/6/2020 Microsoft Forms 3. Are you a: (Check all that apply) • DGS Owner? BJ • Resident within a DGS? 2 7~ • 63 Neighbour to a property with ... 8 SJ • Currently in the process of bui ... 0 L:i • Considering building a DGS u ... 71 33 • Considering or currently looki. .. 8 2J • Considering or currently looki ... 11 1J • None of the Above 16 J 4. What interests you about DGS unit(s) and/or the City's DGS Tours? (Check all the apply) 83 • Exploring what a DGS unit is 46 7J • 60 Learning more about DGS reg ... 61 • Increasing the property value ... 24 .<13 • Capability of providing housin ... 71 3J • Possibility of generating rental. .. 33 2J • Other 6 1J J 5. Which units were you able to visit? (Check all that apply) • 23525 Dogwood Avenue: DGS ... 76 • 26378 126th Avenue: DGS Pila ... 77 • 28490 123rd Avenue: DGS uni ... 62 • I was not able to attend the D ... 10 https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPage.aspx#Analysis=true&Formld=Tgcrl1 PMXUi0DpPZW7FFpYUNdlloLB1 EvS0s4TrsvlxUNDhaWUhNVEhBT. .. 2/4
4/6/2020 Microsoft Forms 6. Do you support allowing DGS units at the existing regulated size of 90 m2 (968 ft2) in gross floor area? • Yes • No 74 18 7. Please provide comments on why or why not you support allowing DGS units at the existing regulated size of 90 m2 (968 ft2) in gross floor area. 62 Latest Responses Responses "Good to have a range of size options including larger DGS." 8. Do you support allowing DGS units to be up to 140m2 (1,500 ft2) in gross floor area? • Yes • No 89 6 9. Please provide comments on why or why not you support allowing DGS units to be up to 140m2 (1,500 ft2) in gross floor area? 72 Latest Responses "It is necessary to allow more size for DGS to support family housing n ... Responses "7 500ft2 is the needed space for a family. If it was smaller it would not... https://forms .office.com/Pages/Design Page .aspx#Analysis=true&Form Id= T gcrl 1 PMXU iODpPZW7 FF p YUN dlloLB 1 EvS Ds4 TrsvlxU ND haWUh NV Eh BT. . . 3/4
4/6/2020 Microsoft Forms 10. Are you interested in DGS units from a professional capacity? If so, which industry? 6:J • Architecture & Design 5 s:i • Planning & Development 5 43 • Construction & Associated Tra ... 6 ~8 • Real Estate 2 • Not a related professional Z:J 60 • Other 4 1:J :J 11. In your professional capacity, are you experiencing a growing interest or demand for DGS units? What challenges are you experiencing in meeting the demand? 25 Responses Latest Responses 12. Please provide any other comments you would like to share on DGS units: 68 Latest Responses "Please amend regulations to allow larger DGS up to 7 500ft2, as there ... Responses "Thank you for this tour opportunity. Your staff were very helpful." https://forms .office.com/Pages/Design Page .aspx#Analysis=true&F orm Id= T gcrl 1 PM XU i0DpPZW7FF p YU NdlloLB 1 EvS Ds4 TrsvlxUN D haWUhNVEhBT. . . 4/4 t:: ~} f-~2-r:-' I
~-----DGS Pilot Project Survey Results ---~•ar, ~ti.,••• ,r,1::-a:11r,u.:;i,~:ft.l1n..-,,11.~u,,.---=. --!:Jr~1. .... • 1all'J • A .... . • # ·--=-=---- -~ ·-·--. , ... ~ 1J;-11•· :uo:1 r:.n ,.., ii1:I••1·1J-"l&:1:1;Jatt• . • riut.llJJT•.1&.:.C~fl 1 seems like a reasonable size 2 If a property owner has a large enough lot to accommodate a DGS why not allow it? 3 I would support a 968 sq.ft. DGS or 15% of lot size. 4 Ideal for parents like us to provide for our daughter's hopes to have a home of her own without the expense of buying the land 5 to help out family or friends in need I think it is appropriate to have the size of DGS be in relation to size of property. Both DGS sizes+ another smaller size should 6 be available but in relation to property size. 7 I think DGS unit is good for providing additional livable house space 8 Cost to build 968 sq feet versus 1500 sq feet at the time of build is minimal and allows you only 2 bedrooms where most families require 3 bedrooms. 9 Small is good in some locations for some people and lots. 10 On properties of 1 acre or more I propose increasing the allowable to 1200 to 1500 ft.2 11 Too small, unrealistic limitation for 'real family' benefit. 12 N/A 13 it is an appropriate size for a DGS -smaller would not be large enough for a family. 14 N/A 15 This could be a suitable size for someone but I find it a little small. If it helps out a family member and there is ample parking I'm all for it. 16 support affordable housing for families 17 I would like to see up to 1500 sq. ft. suites where lot size and parking and little impact on neighbors would permit 18 I think we need t be providing housing for extended family 19 I support the 968 sq. ft.,DGS plan as it allows better utilization of expensive land. 20 I think it is a resonable size for a sinlge or couple 21 N/A 22 Would only allow for 2 bedroom unit. If my sons family grows, they would have to move out. 23 N/A 24 If there is parking and space, we need more living accomodations 25 It is a wonderful way to help family stay together. 26 N/A I like the concept of the GS properties but I was a little bit confused about how much it cost to build the units I talk to the people at the Horns one told me 250,000 to build it the other one tells me 400,000 to build that and the other one told me 27 380,000 to build it the smallest one About the units to build had a very steep hill and he said to us that it would cost 400,000 to build the one with the 1500 ft.' which was really nice the guy told us 250,000 to build it in the last one was 380,000 on Dogwood so it was really difficult to get a good idea of how much something like that would cost to build 28 N/A 29 N/A I feel they are too small and for the amount you have to spend to build etc .. the additional footage of 1,SOOsqft. suggest in 30 the next question makes it worth the effort. Easier to entertain, store personal belongings etc. with the extra footage too. 31 In keeping with the intended purpose of a "suite" then 968 sq ft is big enough 32 I support the DGS as with the housing crunch it provides another alternative for families, seniors, students, rentals, and is a safe progressive idea for the community ..... si 33 To provide affordable housing I beleive that they can be a good solution to a housing need. But to date they only real viable location, or cost effectie location, 34 is within a new subdivision, as old neighbourhoods, where this type of housing would be best suited and is most needed, is too costly from an engineering up grade to the neighbourhood, as wella sprinklering in neighbourhoods that are well within the fire departmentsstation existing cachment areas. 35 building code restricted size is too small, unlivable for anyone other than a couple, and certainly not family friendly housing which is our most needed sector. 36 N/A 37 It helps provide housing for more people in the community. 38 To small and should be allowed for up to 1500 sqft f 39 I support it as a means for additional housing options for family on our property 40 this would give oportunity to a home owner to get help on their mortgage 41 N/A 42 I think it is a reasonable way to assist population densification and help families help their kids towards home ownership 43 Far too small to make it a comfortable living uint 44 Only for city size lots 45 N/A 46 N/A 47 Only if the property is the appropriate size and the design notto be more than one floor level. 48 N/A 49 Housing shortages, costs of living, Families living together to share costs and support so I would support DGS suites at the existing regulated size of 90 sq m in order to expand the availability of affordable housing and to allow families to co-exist on the same property with separate dwellings. APPENDIX H c. C c. C C r
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 while this size might be the maximum on a city lot, i found it to be extremely small, suitable for a single person or couple only. it would most likely be suited for a rental. It is nothing I would consider living in personally due to the lack of storage and accessibility. N/A I found the small 90 m2 just too small. I really liked the 1500ft2 better. This is lavish compared to today's condos, yet not as large as standard homes. It's a good intermediate step. maximum size can be regulated, however 90m.sq. provides very limited oportunities for use/ arrangement of the space With todays wages and such, our children will not be able to afford to purchase. It would be nice to have a secondary suite for them I don't think that the size allows for a useful living situation for a family -only a single or couple. 90 sq. meters is the largest suitable size for lots unde'r 10,000 sq. ft. This should be the smallest size allowed. I support allowing DGS of that size and would like to see it increased to 1000 sq ft Given the land area in Maple Ridge and thinking of a comfortable living space that area makes sense to me. Additionally it makes it simpler to design a space that can accommodate all the essentials. Home owners may need more square footage for family. N/A N/A N/A OK for a single person .. .or two at most, but excludes couples with even one child. Housing is expensive. We need to be efficient in providing secondary housing that is affordable and optimizes land use. I believe the size of units being 968 sq ft would limit homeowners as to whom would be able to live in them for a longer period of time. The limited space would inhibit young familiess The square footage should depend on the lot size and the proximity of other buildings and views. Larger sq ft should be encouraged where ever possible. Looking forward who knows how the housing situation is going to progress. The regulations need to be flexible -and individually based on each request on an individual basis. Some can be big or small depending on space and variables to the lot etc. Affordability based on square foot costs Would like to see the existing regulated sized of 90m2 increased to 140m2 and the ability to build 'in front of', 'beside of, rear of' a self contained dwelling unit N/A N/A Up to 1500 sq ft up to 1500 sq ft Nice size for smaller lots -a compatible design could be built on a lot beside the main home instead of directly behind it (for example on a 122' wide x 100' deep lot. N/A But should be larger to accommodate more than one person N/A N/A N/A N/A I think they.are a great idea N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Good to have a range of size options including larger DGS. 1 r-'
APPENDIX l DGS Pilot Project Survey Results i:r-:J.:l."f"' lltlH --.... - --'!i"'tT<'L,~ • lmfilrifl .. • IL-f I IL'• I I l!J..! 11•-:HU • # ~llffil:•~, ---~-----~ they seem to be a bit massive for a secondary unit. if this size is pursued then perhaps just go the route of allowing a subdivision. not sure if going 1 this size one could recoup the money invested if it remains as part of the original lot. i dont think that id be interested in something like this and would like to have such a large dgs next to us either. 2 If the space allows, why not? 3 1500 sq.ft. would comfortably allow a 3 bedroom residence which are rare in apartment buildings in Maple Ridge, and is could be built at a lower cost per sq.ft. as all of the infrastructure cost would be the same for a 968 sq.ft. DGS as a 1500 sq.ft. DGS. 4 Being able to build up to 1500 sq ft enables 3 bedrooms and keeping families together in the future. r -5 this tour of 3 DGS dwellings were mansions, not my interpretation of DGS units 6 N/A 7 I think DGS unit is good for providing additional livable house space, bigger size(140m2) is suitable as long as the lot is big enough. 8 Yes, because I can build 1500 square feet, 3 bedrooms for minimal upcharge from building 968 sq feet if the property allows 9 This is more suitable for some larger properties as many people would like this space for a family and even a couple down sizing might find homes up to this size more comfortable. 10 I have young adult children who are finding it hard to find affordable, safe housing. Slightly or larger units would allow space for a young family including children. 11 1500 feet allows for young families, although I would like to see it bigger as 1500 feet allows it's own limitations. 12 if The property is large enough and there is room for off road parking for all vehicles. Should be proportionate to size of land. 13 Allows families to have greater area to be livable. 14 N/A 15 I fond this us a very nice size. It would be comfortable. These suites are ideal to help family members live. I would always want to see parking on the property included. Not parking on the street. Theres enough of that with the apartment and townhouses. 16 support affordable housing for families 17 In the appropriate situation it would be a benefit for all concerned 18 Same as above if the property allows it, but so would have liked to see more that are smaller as I do not think that units need to be later than most main housing units 19 Same as Item 7. 20 While I do think DGS of this size are no different than a second house I can understand the appeal for small families. 21 I would support it on large property, Not on standard city lot. 22 Long term use 23 N/A 24 If the pace is there, why restrict to 968 sq ft? Who came up with is number? 25 This greater sq footage allows space for a variety of situations. Different family member needs. 26 From a cost analysis it makes sense to have a larger DGS. 27 Same comment 28 N/A 29 I feel for property value and rental income the larger square footage is the better way to go. That extra footage allows for having friends and family over without being crammed in like sardines, Storing personal belongings or just furniture in 30 general is easier too. Just a better way of living giving more flex in how one lives. Allows a family to grow too and be able to stay put instead of out growing the space as well. 31 1500 sq ft is a second house, not a "suite". 32 If there is room for this on the property why not.. .. 33 Size appeals more as something we would live in 34 N/A 35 see comment 7 36 Second house. Not a dgs. Not able to see the value in low rental housing 37 If people have the land size to be ableTo accommodate a 1,500 square foot DGS unit, it is a great way to have a home big enough for a family. 38 Provides space for a family of 4 ( two adults and two children) as well is more viable in providing low cost rental for a family of 4. 39 They would need to be up to 1500 sq ft to allow enough space for a family to live comfortably 40 I think this would give opportunity for a family of four to live in DGS as an option. 41 This would utilize the space in larger proberties I think it is a reasonable way to assist population densification and help families help their kids towards home ownership -while also allowing for 42 intergenerational families to co-habitate -the larger square footage allows for family expansion (grandkids) in the DGS where the smaller units do not. 43 This is a reasonable limit for above ground footprint to make it a comfortable and fully functional independent living ( including garage and porch) Option to build basement should be provided to reduce height of building and obstruction. 44 Especially for acreage size lots 45 N/A 46 Why not 47 again if property is large enough to have a 1500ft sq. design and only one level then fine to build 48 N/A 49 The 968 sq. ft. was too small unless only for a single person. Property size should also be a consideration. Housing shortages, costs of living, Families living together to share costs and support 50 My husband and I support allowing DGS units up to 140 sq m. I our circumstances, we would like to sell our home to one of our child rem, and be able to build a suite for ourselves on the same property, however 90 sq m just seems too small a space for us. 51 With the current lack of affordable housing in the lower mainland, people need affordable options in order to stay in the area. The two larger DGS are a size that can accommodate a family for the long term. 52 If it is built on a an acre or more. And includes off-road parking 53 This is just like a small house and people need space. 54 If there is room on a property, I see no reason not to use it for housing. 55 such size should allow for accommodation of most of the single dwelling concepts
56 N/A 57 This size was so much more practical for a family living environment. I think the larger size would help attract a long term resident/tenant into the space and help support the stability of the neighbourhood 58 this size is suitable for large lots. 59 'Up to" are the key words. This is a very large unit. Especially when the garage is added to the side. It overwhelmed the property on Dogwood. The one with the house above the garage was better. Reconsider the garage attachment 60 If the property size can accommodate a DGS of that size then I think it should be allowed 61 N/A 62 Same as above. 63 1500Ft Allows the space for a more comfortable and permanent home. Lots of 1/2 acre and larger could be considered depending on previous configuration and privacy of community. e. 64 More room for family 65 N/A 66 I support the bigger 1,500ft units as they are more realistic and suited to families 67 This is a reasonable size unit for a couple or a small family. Some areas of Maple Ridge have property sizes that can accommodate larger DGS units without jeopardizing neighbours or parking concerns. As a 68 community, it makes sense to optimize the use of such properties. 69 I would like to see the support allowing DGS units up to including at least 1,200-1,500 sq ft to allow young new families the ability to grow into their unit and not grow out of it 70 For aging owners who live on larger lots it would be perfect for them to build a custom home for there comfort and needs and not having to move off their property. 71 As stated above -it should all be based on an individual situation as there is so many variables out there 72 Increased square footage requires larger lot size 73 see comments #12 74 N/A 75 where property space allows 76 N/A 77 N/A 78 For larger lots -the 2 units currently lived in by family members are wonderful examples of smaller home living -they were lovely and afforded family to grow their families and stay on the properties for a lifetime if they chose. 79 N/A 80 Yes, to help younger family members have a home. Prefer larger unit to accommodate family living (1500 sq ft+) 81 N/A 82 a little bigger, makes for better layout, 968' is too small 83 N/A 84 N/A 85 N/A 86 prefer 1500, more efficient 87 N/A 88 N/A 89 N/A 90 N/A 91 bigger living area 92 N/A 93 Absolutely yes for 1 acre properties. And larger suites allowed in proportion to the size of the properties. 94 N/A 95 1500ft2 is the needed space for a family. If it was smaller it would not be useful. 96 tt is necessary to allow more size for DGS to support family housing needs (we have 3 kids and could not fit in a 968ft2 residence).
APPENDIX J DGS Pilot Project Survey Results ----, ..... ~ tlil~· tU:.1-~"'1 • 1r;;1a11r,, tr.191 iiTJ.,,l,,.~:..41t1:.11.r:::Ja1•1 ~ .. t.Jli"t11.i.11 LJ~u•f:::Jl{~,.-•1-tr.:J # -- ------.:. : ---.::. -l!l1.U!,lf • 111:.1 .. [:.I T.ftJII* fl:.l•r" . , . .... 1 .. 11~tl .. 1r:11u .... . 1 yes. fire dept issues in terms of access. narrow lots and parking. 2 N/A 3 I believe that a DGS maxiumizes the use of single residential lots in Maple Ridge. 4 N/A 5 N/A 6 I know the demand for these units will only increase as home prices continue to rise. Both examples were of children being able to afford a new home on the property of their parents. Setting them up for success in the start of their adult/parent life. That is attractive!! 7 N/A 8 Yes we have seen an increase in interest and work regarding DGS units. 9 N/A 10 N/A 11 Interest is great but the limited size and onerous regulatory cost are almost impossible to get around. 12 N/A 13 N/A 14 N/A 15 N/A 16 N/A 17 N/A 18 N/A 19 N/A 20 N/A 21 I am experiencing a growing interest. 22 N/A 23 N/A 24 The maple ridge planning department has been extremely rude and instructive in the past 25 N/A 26 Have a growing interest for DSG units; However, it seems like the City is not willing to work with builders or developers. 27 N/A 28 N/A 29 N/A 30 N/A 31 N/A 32 N/A 33 N/A 34 Engineering for service upgrades and sprinklering of buildings already within a fire halls cachement area. 35 retired from dev-serv CNW ( we restricted these on city lots due to parking, privacy concerns) 36 Growing interest 37 N/A Not knowing what can be build, where it can be build a total lack of access to rules and knowledge. some of this has been made easier 38 however personnel at the DGS did not have all information and answers to my quested as well and told me that they would reply to the questions no phone call nor email was received to date. 39 N/A 40 N/A 41 N/A 42 N/A 43 N/A 44 N/A 45 N/A 46 N/A 47 N/A 48 N/A 49 N/A so N/A 51 N/A 52 N/A 53 N/A 54 N/A 55 there is a demand for such building. the main challange is ever increasing cost-vancouver is a good example. 56 N/A 57 N/A 58 N/A 59 N/A 60 N/A 61 N/A 62 N/A 63 N/A 64 N/A 65 N/A 66 N/A 67 N/A
68 N/A 69 N/A 70 N/A 71 I haven't begun the process yet -would need to find the perfect house/lot that would be able to accommodate it. 72 Definitely seems to be a demand especially for seniors and young family's. Approval time frame seem lengthy. 73 N/A 74 N/A 75 N/A 76 N/A 77 N/A 78 N/A 79 N/A 80 N/A 81 N/A 82 square footage is too small 83 N/A 84 Time period on administration delays processing. costs involved. 85 N/A 86 N/A 87 N/A 88 N/A 89 N/A 90 N/A 91 N/A 92 N/A 93 N/A 94 N/A 95 N/A 96 N/A
APPENDIX K DGS Pilot Project Survey Results # ~r.1atllfh1:.a:1 1.·a• ;Ii 11:.a .... , ,.,. lui'lf,lU 111fln,.-T•:"aii"1•«i It: 1uHI ..... 1u1 overall quite nice. the larger units were decked out and for family members. not sure how those will fare in a resale market if the 1 purchaser isnt looking for something to put family in. 2 N/A 3 Please increases the allowable build to 15% of lot size, as most lot fall below the maximum allowable build of 968 sq.ft. or 10% 4 We would love to be able to provide space for my daughter and partner to build a home of their own on the back of our .6 of an acre which is really not used at all. 5 well done MR municipality for educating me, well arranged tours, but the dwellings were way beyond my expectations 6 I was disappointed that the tour didnt include smaller lane-way homes. (I come from North Vancouver where they squeese very nice suites onto the properties!) Granny suites are a great solution for living with our parents without everyone losing their freedom ( & minds!) We could also house young adult children who used to be able to afford rent. These different sized options are the way of the future. 7 The lot size must be 1 acre or greater requirement is a little bit too high . 8 If a person's property fits the size requirements for 1500 sq foot DGS's I feel they would be a benefit to families as well as the community. 9 N/A 10 Allowing families to remain on one property helps them support one another. The younger generation can get help with child care and elderly parents needing physical assistance have family members nearby when needed. In addition to my professional interest, I'm also interested for personal family use. One of my daughters is permanently disabled and has a 11 husband and two kids; 1500 feet is a minimum need. Another daughter has 3 sons, one with special needs and 1500 feet is just too small. If something could be created to allow for larger DGS units, especially on an acre or larger, it would go a long way to free up existing housing stock and creating more by way of a more functional DGS. Thank you for your work. 12 N/A The units on the tour appeared very expensive, to build and keep up and 2 of the 3 were for family members only. They were on very large 13 pieces of property and were accessible by stairs only - a barrier for elderly or handicapped people. Also I believe they do not address the housing problem for the lower middle class and working poor and I would like to see council spend more time on rental housing for those groups. I think this concept is a fabulous idea. I currently I do not live on a property that is suitable but I would like to purchase a larger piece of 14 property in the future and be able to have my mother live with me on the same piece of property. I think it is a great way also to be able to help my children in the future as they will probably not be able to stay close to home and afford to buy a house. I think this only makes larger properties more flexible and easy to sell to. I think it's a win-win! 15 I think there should be more of these and less apartments and townhouses after all are we not proud to be "horse country". 16 N/A 17 In the proper setting with proper parking and other concerns met there is no down side to allowing this. 18 I feel that regulations ( septic etc) interfere with the growth of DGS units and yet there is such a demand for such units. 19 N/A While the DGS project is a step forward I don't know that it will greatly increase affordable housing as these DGS are in reality a second house and still cost around $300,000 to build meaning the owners will still have to charge high rent rates in order to cover the cost of the build. Not to say I don't think the revisions should go forward but I think alternatives need to be reviewed. I would like the City and Council to consider options for tiny home living. Either a tiny home community or at least providing an option for 20 residents to place a tiny home on their property for relatives or rental income. Currently most RV parks in the lower mainland are routinely turning away people who are looking to live full time in their RV this shows there is a demand for affordable housing and people are willing and currently are living in what is effectively a tiny home. Here is just one of many groups advocating for tiny homes in BC: http://bctinyhousecollective.com/about/ Great work on the DGS project,; please continue looking forward, be on the progressive front and consider tiny homes as a more affordable option. 21 I think it is an excellent idea. It will address housing shortage issues here. It will also allow homeowners to subsidize the high cost of home ownership here as well. 22 N/A 23 N/A 24 N/A 25 N/A 26 N/A 27 N/A 28 N/A 29 We went to the 28490 123 Ave DGS but we felt it would have been to difficult walking back up the driveway so we didn't get to see that unit. I was very impressed with the other suites. We feel DGS should be continued in Maple Ridge to help with aging parents and rental incomes. Please tell Council and the Mayor that we strongly support the use of garden suites. I think they definitely fill a need that will only grow in the future. It helps families financially and even brings them closer when health 30 issues arise and you're that much closer to help out. It could help with urban sprawl too. Living in the Lower Mainland is getting very expensive to live in and this would help create some hope for our future generations. l i
We were a little disappointed with the three DGS showings. They were all more like executive homes, not "suites". The DGS on Dogwood has 2100 sq ft of finished floor space (including the room above the garage), a 600 sq ft covered deck, and a 2 car garage .......... it is certainly 31 not a suite. To be honest we were expecting something more like the micro homes or alley homes in Vancouver. I would have also appreciated if the ads in the paper noted that a minimum size of 1 acre is required. 32 The one DGS I saw was excellent and the family very friendly and answered loads of questions which were helpful. 33 Thought the smaller one would have been more appealing if finished and staged, so people could get a sense of what it would look like furnished. I think that this is a strong step forward, but its more important to review why this will be difficult for anyone to make it viable given the engineering upgrades and the fire department requirements for sprinklering. New subdivisions, or newish ones, typically have few, if any requirements for engineering up grades, making the newer neighbourhoods easier to have DGS, at a lesser cost. This is not the final objective. An older area within the City proper, where the access to amenities, transit etc are best suited to a DGS, where the actually 34 desire to service a market need is also strong, coupled with the intent to use existing services, and help to deter sprawl, is rendered impossible for an owner one off, simply by the cost of engineering requirements for complete service upgrades, on site water detention and bylaw requirements for sprinklers, Houses do not require sprinklers by Code. Areas served by Fire halls should not require sprinklers for DGS. Jfyou want a certain amount of upgrade protection, use a bylaw to have better fire ratings -ie: make all DGS use fire rated drywall (cheap) for a 1 hour rating, more than ample time for a fire department to reach any home in the city. This is a really great idea for Maple Ridge, but the technical aspects of the City's own engineering requirements is at odds with the practical and financial requirements of the single lot family, on a limited budget 35 N/A 36 N/A 37 We would be interested in exploring the DGS program for smaller accommodations (under 400 square feet) Great idea and like to see it become a standard way of reducing the stress that is on families due to high and in many cases of affordability with housing cost. 38 There is one fear that the once that have a lot of means will turn this in a for profit means of making more money. I like the idea where and when it is made to ease the burden of parents who are faced with family that are in a position where affordability of purchasing a home can not be met. In many cases rent of a suitable family housing is as well not reachable. I see this as a suitable means of reducing these types of social pressures that families and young couples face these days. 39 I like the size of the 1500 sq ft ones with the double garage. It is more of a livable space for a family or rental unit especially considering the costs involve in building one and obtaining permits. 40 N/A 41 N/A 42 N/A I believe the 1500 sq feet limit plus the 40% occupancy ratio on the property, will make the DGS a popular housing program and addresses 43 overbuilding and staying within the character of the neighbourhood DGS (1500 sh ft) would allow families to provide support for aging parents and keep members together on land they have occupied for 55 44 years. The current size is not in anyway suitable for our property. The City of Maple Ridge needs to move ahead with the current pilot and expand the tax base to meet the future needs of this community. 45 N/A 46 N/A As I'm interested as a resident and not commercial, I feel it is much for me to understand and process. I would like to have some assistance 47 from city hall. For example, references/ suggestions for carpenters, electrician, plumber draftsman etc. I have heard the approval for permits take a Jong time. My family situation is a very big fact regarding a DGS. 48 N/A 49 Families need the ability to be able to support each other (child care, elderly parents, young people starting out in life, extra income) due to the cost of living. This is also a way to help the housing shortage and does not force our children to move away to less expensive areas. Thank you so much for allowing us to participate in this tour, even though we are residents of Pitt Meadows. It seems like such a so progressive idea. Pitt Meadows, in our view, has regressed, in not allowing duplexes any more, unless under very special circumstances, however they will allow subdivision of a lot to provide 2 houses. Makes no sense to me. I would like to see Maple Ridge embrace both larger DGS and secondary suites on the same property. As our population continues to grow 51 and age we need to change our way of thinking and welcome multi generational housing situations as it helps so many of our residents in so many ways. Young families are able to stay in the communities they were raised, grandparents can assist with childcare of grandchildren and in turn adult children can assist their aging parents. Or, the secondary suites and DGS can provide much needed rental housing to deal with our homelessness crisis and unaffordability. Increased inventory will drive the rental prices down to a more affordable level. 52 N/A 53 Thank you for having a tour like this so people who are close or retired have some options. 54 I think by concentrating on large semi-rural properties this pilot is missing the key purposes of laneway housing, which from my perspective are to increase housing density without losing the character of neighbourhoods, and to provide more options for affordable housing. Those are Part 9 (BCBC) buildings that are intended for a low budget construction, even by an average "do it yourself" person. While limiting the maximum size of the buildings has a merit, stipulating the minimum sizes is completely unnecessary. The owner or designer of the building can determine the size and number of the desired spaces based on the simple code provisions. If someone wants just a simple 55 cabin with a toilet and kitchenette or a microhouse type unit-why not?!. Please note that the code does not require participation of any registered professional in the design and construction process-this may reduce the overall cost to the owner however requires the plan checkers and building inspectors to be familiar with , say acceptable methods of determining the loadbearing capacity of the soils, variety of framing methods, etc .. I understand the current bylaws require at least fire sprinkler engineer and licensed sprinkler contractor to be involved. If construction of such small buildings is treated as construction of the more complex buildings ( part 3, over 600 m.sq. building area), requiring participation of a team of consultants, and bunch of contractors, the costs will likely be even more prohibitive. 56 N/A
I think that the City of Maple Ridge should increase the maximum size of DGS untis to 140m2. These size units would attract a family size 57 tenant which would lead to a stable neighbourhood environment. Allowing multi-generational living options also adds to the diversity of a community while maintaining strong property values and tax base for the city. 58 N/A 59 In your information sheet you refer to the DGS as a possibility for rental income, then in another paragraph later you say it can only be used by a family member. Please clarify. 60 Would like to know how to replace an existing DGS on ALR land. There aren1t any issues with the land commission so need to know how to go about getting approval from municipality. 61 N/A 62 N/A In my previous working life I have both sold Real estate was an assistant to my Husband who was an Appraiser. I also worked as an 63 Insurance Inspector providing reconstruction costing for high value housing. This was calculated to determine Insurance Premiums. At some time in the future I may be interested in building a DGS. 64 This is a good solution for family helping family old and young 65 N/A 66 Would love to see the bigger of the DGS approved and regulations for these relaxed, making it easier for families to build 67 N/A 68 The process to get approval and build a DGS in Maple Ridge seems very cumbersome and lengthy. All efforts should be made to streamline that process and make it efficient to add housing to Maple Ridge by way of encouraging DGS units. We thought the units that were on the larger size (Dogwood & 126th Ave.) were done at a high standard and were very beautiful and the 69 homeowners will feel very satisfied at having provided a place their children will not grow out of and have all the benefits of family support near by. Well done!! People need homes so as long as these houses are built with guide lines to promote safe comfortable homes and not destroy the 70 atmosphere of the neighbourhood, start building. #1 71 It's a great idea, the rules just need to be flexible and not so difficult to do and not have so many regulations. #2 72 What are the legality's for the DGS owner should the principle owner decide to sell or pass on? Council is to be applauded for considering options outside of the current regulations. Citing a Vancouver Sun article dated Feb 24, 2020 shared a number of obstacles preventing/delaying ownership of a house. 73 • raising house prices, *high levels of debt, *annual incomes are just a fraction of the cost of buying a home. Vancouver Sun article attached. #3 74 These are needed in the area. They are only for the richer group of people. What about smaller houses in the City limits. #4 I think DGS units are a good idea due to housing demands; especially for families with children of any age. It appears in talking & reviewing the 3 units that there have been a number of challenges created which in turn stop, frustrate and slow down the very purpose intended by 75 the City. Is it not possible to relax some of these regulations to encourage future garden suites being built without killing the project all together. #5 76 N/A#6 77 N/A#7 I was disappointed that the smaller unit was not furnished and staged. Not everyone can imagine the possibilities of small space living and may have difficulty seeing themselves/family living in such a space. It was a put-off considering it was sandwiched between two excellent 78 1500 sq ft garden suites. Thank you for show casing these homes! #8 79 N/A#9 80 N/A #10 Appears to be extremely costly. $250 per sq ft, $2,700 per sq meter. Not counting the land!!! Extreme -difficulty encountered by those building the prototypes. 81 Very difficult dealing with the City Hall 3 year lead-up!! #11 82 you need to allow more units to be built 83 N/A 84 N/A#12 They are beautiful, bright and well constructed. 85 A great addition to the home owners property and the neighbourhood. Definitely a wonderful home for who ever lives in them. Thank you for the tour. #13 86 N/A #14 87 N/A #15 88 Great way for people to live with family or create a second income. Very well done garden suite. #16 Great work! Beautiful suite, would love more in our community. 89 #17 90 N/A#18 91 N/A#19 92 N/A #20
We were permitted to build a 1500 sq ft DGS over a garage with a height variance to 7.Sm, which resulted in a beautiful comfortable home for our daughter and son-in-law to live in. We are grateful that we had this opportunity to take part in the DGS Pilot Project, and sincerely 93 hope that other families will have similar experiences in future. This type of housing is affordable and important for the future of Maple Ridge families. #21 94 N/A 95 Thank you for this tour opportunity. Your staff were very helpful. Please amend regulations to allow larger DGS up to 1500ft2, as there are not enough affordable housing options for families with children 96 who don't want to live in a condo or townhouse. We would consider pursuing building a DGS on our parent's property if it were allowed to be up to 1500ft2, but not any smaller. 1~-:
TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: April 14, 2020 01-13-6430-04 Workshop SUBJECT: 2020 Citizen Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Maple Ridge has conducted citizen surveys since 2003, with the most recent survey conducted in 2014. Staff are currently preparing to collect community feedback on City programs, service levels, and citizen quality of life to inform the development of initiatives over the coming years. Council will have opportunities throughout the survey development process to provide input on the questionnaire, starting with this report. For Council to best consult on what questions to include in the upcoming survey, it is important to have an understanding of the 2014 Citizen Survey results. Generally speaking, respondents were satisfied with the quality of life in Maple Ridge, as well as the services provided by the City with more than a third rating the services provided as good value for their tax dollars. In addition to tracking progress on the service and satisfaction questions posed in previous years, the 2020 Citizen Survey provides an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of community safety and open government initiatives. Questions pertaining to these topics will be included in the survey. RECOMMENDATION: No decision required. For information only. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The City of Maple Ridge conducts periodic citizen surveys which guide the City's work over the course of Council's mandate. The 2014 Citizen Survey was condensed from previous iterations to provide a greater focus on City services and performance. The survey elicited feedback from the public on line and via telephone interview on the quality of life in Maple Ridge, residents' perception of the overall services received, perceived value for property tax dollars, and performance ratings of 14 service priorities, aligning with one of six categories, as shown in Table 1. Specifically, the services were rated by the public on level of importance, and level of service currently being provided by the City. 4.4 2426535 Page 1 of 5
In addition, residents were asked whether the service level should change, how it should change and how improvement should be funded. These questions were followed by a request for suggested services that the City should provide. The remainder of the survey collected demographic data from participants to ensure statistical representation. It should be noted that there is significant overlap between the services measured in 2014 and the priorities identified in Council's Strategic Plan, as demonstrated by the Alignment column in Table 1. Therefore, building off the previously used questions can support tracking improvement over time. Table 1-2014 Service Priorities Getting You What You Need Protective Services Streets and Utilities Results Service Alignment Attracting new 6usinesses ana employers Growtli Bylaw services (response to noise complaints, Community Safety neighbourhood disputes, enforcing regulations) Regulating wliat types of 6uilaings can 5e 6uilt Growtli in specific areas Protecting streams, rivers and other Environment environmentally sensitive areas Recycling depot and curbside collection Environment Online registrations and payments, video Pride & Spirit streaming of Council meetings, social media postings, newspaper announcements, website publications Cultural faci ities (theatres, museums) and Pride & Spirit programs Library services Parks, playgrounds, play fields and trails Recreational facilities (leisure centres, ice rinks, gymnasiums) and programs Fire protection Police services Streets and sidewalks Water, sewer and storm drainage Pride & Spirit Pride & Spirit pools, Pride & Spirit Community Safety Community Safety Growtli Growth Results from the 2014 survey indicate that the majority of Maple Ridge residents surveyed were satisfied with the quality of life in the community, with 84% of respondents indicating somewhat or very satisfied. This result is a four percent increase from 2012, as demonstrated in Figure 1 -Quality of Life 2003-2014. The rationale for their rating was the small town feel of the community and access to recreational activities and facilities. This is the only question for which data collected between 2003 and 2014 can be used for comparison as the remainder of the survey varies greatly from previous iterations. 2426535 Page 2 of 5
Figure 1 -Quality af Life 2003-2014 84% very/somewhat satisfied 47% 58% • Very satisfied 38% • Somewhat satisfied 37% Neither satisfied 5<>·' ,o 7% nor dissatisfied '12% 1Bi, 8% • Somewhat 8% dissatisfied 2003 2006 2008 2012 2014 • Very dissatisfied With regard to municipal services, 53% rated City-provided services as good to very good, while 8% did not give a rating. More than one-third of residents believe that those same services provide good to very good value for the property taxes they pay. An additional 33% believe the value received is neither good nor poor, leaving 23% rating value at poor or very poor. Results of the prioritization of municipal services identified that protective services remain of greater importance, while cultural facilities and programs, as well as access to municipal information and resources, ranks at the bottom. Performance scores relating to specific services indicate that the City rates highest for fire protection and library services. Bylaws services, zoning regulation and business attraction rate lowest. A perceptual map plotting importance over performance for each service is provided as Attachment B. Generally speaking, the majority of respondents (61%) wished to maintain service levels across all categories, except for one service: new business and employer attraction. When asked how to fund the increases, the tendency was to identify user fees, or a combination of user fees and a tax increase. Tax increases were more supported for categories such as protective services, and streets and utilities; however, no more than 36% of respondents supported this methodology. While over 60% of residents did not have any suggestions for additional services the City should provide, those that did most frequently identified garbage collection (19%), green waste and composting (6%), and multi-mode transportation (2%). Once again, taxes and user fees were the most commonly suggested method for funding the new services. Strategic Plan The 2020 Citizen Survey provides an opportunity to gather current feedback as well as focus on Council's strategic priorities, including community safety and open government initiatives. Attachment C includes a sample of questions utilized by the City of Burnaby to collect public safety data. In consultation with the Community Social Safety Manager, these questions will be refined to gather additional data to inform the Community Safety Plan. 2426535 Page3 of 5 r ~-~ -I L
While most priority areas identified in Council's Strategic Plan are addressed by questions from the 2014 survey, additional questions pertaining to inter-governmental relations will be developed and included in the survey to cover the full scope of the Strategic Plan. Survey Development Process Staff will proceed with engaging a consultant in the next several weeks to support the development and facilitation of the 2020 Citizen Survey. Once selected, staff will seek guidance on the optimal timeline for conducting the survey given the current social environment. In preparation, work will commence on developing the format, questions, and language that will be included in the survey. A sample of the process is provided in Figure 2. Figure 2 -Community Survey Process Engage Consultant Additional Data Collection Methods Finalize Survey Administer Survey Report on Results With Council support, staff could explore the introduction of innovative methods of community consultation to complement the Citizen Survey, such as online Community Engagement Research Panels similar to what was used in the Lougheed Corridor Project. These tools would not replace regular surveys but, instead, provide a means for conducting regular "pulse" checks between surveys and support real-time community engagement in a manner that is becoming more commonplace in the municipal environment. b} Desired Outcome: Although Council will have opportunities throughout the development process to provide commentary, initial feedback will guide staff in the development of a draft survey. It is recommended that Council build off the 2014 survey and add, modify or remove questions and topics. c} Strategic Alignment: In addition to providing broad feedback on Council's strategic direction and priorities, the Citizen Survey presents an opportunity to collect feedback from the citizens on public safety in Maple Ridge and on the Community Social Safety Initiative. Some proposed questions can be found in Attachment B. These questions are based on community safety surveys conducted in other jurisdictions and will be further refined through the development process with the consultant, Council, and the Community Social Safety Manager. d} Citizen/Customer Implications: Surveys are one method for citizens to engage with the City in providing input on community direction. They also allow staff and Council to address citizen concerns with the services provided to the community. Citizen surveys are statistically significant representations of public opinion. Data is weighted to reflect the demographic composition of the community based on recent census data. 2426535 Page 4 of 5
e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Parks, Recreation and Culture (PRC) division has previously conducted service level and programming surveys. Due to the timing of the Joint Leisure Services Agreement dissolution, PRC did not conduct a survey in 2016. Now that Maple Ridge has been running independent recreational services for several years, it is opportune to include PRC programming-specific questions into the Citizen Survey. f) Alternatives: Council could opt to forgo the survey until such time that City operations return to full capacity and citizens have access to the full suite of municipal services and amenities for their assessment CONCLUSION: Staff will be engaging a consultant to develop and facilitate the 2020 Citizen Survey. Council will have several opportunities to provide feedback on the questions that will comprise the survey. At this point, staff are looking for initial feedback from Council on a timeline to undertake this work as well as additions, changes, or removals from the prior Citizen Survey. Prepared by: Dan Olivieri Research Technician, Corporate Planning & Consultation OrB:P Approved by: Christina Crabtree, Acting eneral Manager, Corporate Services Al Hors n Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: (A) 2014 Maple Ridge Citizen Satisfaction Survey (8) Importance and Satisfaction of Service Areas (C) Optional Community Safety Question 2426535 Page 5 of 5
Attachment A -2014 Maple Ridge Citizen Satisfaction Survey Questions Main Survey [Q1 a AND 1 b ON SAME SCREEN] Q1 a. The Maple Ridge local government provides a number of services. In general, how would you rate the municipal services you receive in Maple Ridge? 5. Very good 4.Good 3. Neither poor nor good 2. Poor 1. Very poor 6. Don't know Q1 b. Why do you rate it as [INSERT RA TING FROM Q1 a]? Please type in your reasons below Q2. And how would you rate the overall value of services you receive for the property taxes paid? (The municipal share of your property taxes is approximately 65% of your tax bill, with the remainder going to the School District, GVRD, etc.) 5. Very good value 4. Good value 3. Neither poor nor good value 2. Poor value 1. Very poor value 6. Don't know Q3. The following is a list of some of the services that the City currently provides. First, please rate how important each service is to you. Q4. Next, rate the level of service the City provides for each one. [RANDOMIZE ORDER OF SECTIONS AND RANDOMIZE SERVICES WITHIN EACH SECTION] 1, Attachment A How important is this service to you? Rate the current level of service the City provides 1
Neither Unim-Neither Very Imper-portant Not Not at Don't Very Poor Very Don't All Good Poor Important tant Nor Important Important Know Good Nor Poor Know Import Good ant Protective Services Fire Protection Police Services Community Growth Attracting new businesses and employers Regulating what types of buildings can be built in specific areas of the City Bylaw services (response to noise complaints, neighbourhood disputes, enforcing regulations) Parks and Recreation Parks, playgrounds, play fields and trails Recreational facilities (leisure centres, pools, ice rinks, gymnasiums) and programs Cultural facilities (theatres, museums) and programs Library services Streets and Utilities Water, sewer and storm drainage Streets and sidewalks Environmental Services Recycling depot and curbside collection Protecting streams, rivers and other environmentally sensitive areas Getting you what you need Online registrations and payments, video streaming of Council proceedings, social media postings, newspaper announcements, website, publications Attachment A 2
QS. For the same services, please indicate for each one if you think it needs to be increased, decreased or maintained at the current level? [Q6 ONLY APPEARS FOR THOSE SERVICES RESPONDENT WANT TO BE 'INCREASED' IN QS] Q6. And finally, for those services you think need to be increased, how should those increases be paid for? The service should be ... Pay for the increase through ... Combin-Reducing Increased Maintained Decreased Don't Tax User ation of Other Know Increase Fees Taxes and Services User Fees (specify) Same list as previous [Q7a TO BE SHOWN WITHOUT Q7b AND c, UNLESS 'YES' IS CHOSEN] Don't know Q7a. Are there any services that the Maple Ridge local government currently does not provide that you would like to see provided? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know [IF Q7a=NO OR DON'T KNOW, GO TO Q8. IF Q7a=YES, THEN ASK Q7b] Q7b. Which services, if any, that the Maple Ridge local government currently does not provide would you like see provided? Q7c. And for each new service you suggest, please indicate how the service should be paid for. [ALLOW FOR UP TO 5 SERVICES TO BE ENTERED IN Q7b. ALLOW ONLY ONE FUNDING METHOD TO BE CHOSEN FOR EACH SERVICE ENTERED] Pay for the new service by ... Type in the service(s) you want to the Combination Reducing City to start providing: Tax Increase User Fees of Taxes and Other Services User Fees (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o There are no services that I want the Maple Ridge local government to start providing [EXCLUSIVE CODE, SEND TO NEXT QUESTION IF CHOSEN] Attachment A 3 Don't know 0 0 0 0 0 I ~
Q8. Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of life in Maple Ridge? 5. Very satisfied 4. Somewhat satisfied 3. Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 2. Somewhat dissatisfied 1. Very dissatisfied Q9. What do you like best about living in Maple Ridge? Please type in your responses below [ALLOW UP TO 5 RESPONSES] Q10. What do you like least about living in Maple Ridge? Please type in your responses below [ALLOW UP TO 5 RESPONSES] Attachment A 4 I ; '.-3: !3-.,: i:
Demographics Finally here are some basic questions to make sure all types of residents are represented. Please be assured that all of the information you provide will remain completely confidential and will only be used for classification purposes. QD1. How long have you lived in Maple Ridge? [RANGE=O TO 99] Enter number of years. Enter O for less than 1 year D Can't recall or prefer not to say QD2. Do you own or rent your home? 1. Own 2. Rent 3. Prefer not to answer QD3. Which of the following best describes your current living situation? 1. Single with no children 2. Single with children 3. Couple with no children 4. Couple with children 5. Other (specify) Please type in your response 6. Prefer not to answer QD4. Which of the following categories best describes your total annual household income before taxes? 1. Less than $20,000 2. $20,000 to less than $35,000 3. $35,000 to less than $50,000 4. $50,000 to less than $65,000 5. $65,000 to less than $80,000 6. $80,000 to less than $100,000 7. $100,000 or more 8. Don't know 9. Prefer not to answer QF1. Thank you for your input! Please provide the following information to be entered into the prize draw: Attachment A 5
Name: ___________ _ Email: ___________ _ or Phone: __________ _ Enter your phone number without spaces or dashes Thank-you. You are now entered into the prize draw. [IF EMAIL PROVIDED IN QF1, ASK QF2] QF2. May the City of Maple Ridge also use your email to communicate with you regarding the results of this survey and about other important communication? 1. Yes 2. No Thank you very much for your cooperation. We appreciate your participation in this survey. Attachment A 6
Higher Importance
Lower Satisfaction
Attachment B -Importance and Satisfaction of Service Are as
Higher Importance
Higher Satisfaction
100 1· · + · ,,. · + Po ice services F1reyrotect1on Streets and sidewalks +
-C
l1l t
0 a..
E --
90
80
70
1= 60
l1l t
0 a.. .s
~ so <I> >
?ft
40
30
Attracting new
+ bu sinesses and
emplo yers
20 ,.
20 30
Lower Importance
Lower Satisfaction
~otectin g streams,
rivers, ~tc.
+ By law services
+ Reg ulating what type s of
build ings can be bu il t in
spe cific areas
• On line regi stratio ns and
payments, video strea ming of
Council meeting s, et c.
40 so 60
% Very Good / Go od
Page 12 of 14
+ + Water, sewer ansJ4orm drainage
Recycli ng
depot & curb-
side collectio
.ecreational facili ties
and programs
+ Library ser\lices
70 80 90 100
Lower Importance
Higher Satisfaction
26
Attachment C -Optional Community Safety Questions 1. How safe do you feel in the following situations: a. In your residence during the daytime? b. In your residence during the night? c. In your neighbourhood during the daytime? d. In your neighbourhood during the night? e. In the Downton core during the daytime? f. In the downtown core curing the night? 2. What is your sense of personal safety in your neighbourhood? a. Compared to one year ago? b. Compared to five years ago? c. Compared to other neighbourhoods in your area? 3. What is your sense of personal safety in Maple Ridge? a. Compared to one year ago? b. Compared to five years ago? c. Compared to other neighbourhoods in your area? 4. This is a list of some things which may be a problem in your neighbourhood. Please indicate if you feel that this is a particular problem in your neighbourhood. a. Litter, Broken Glass, Trash, or Graffiti b. Drug Trafficking c. Drug Production d. Organised Crime/ Gangs e. Property Crime f. Motor Vehicle Theft g. Impaired Driving h. Traffic Enforcement i. Public Disorder/Causing a Disturbance j. Personal or Violent Crime 5. Imagine it's five years from now, what would community safety look like? 6. What initiatives and solutions do you suggest to improve community safety? 7. Select your top 3 community safety priorities: a. Crime prevention and reduction b. Emergency preparedness c. Emergency services d. Community amenity safety e. Transportation safety f. Environment and sustainability Attachment C 1
g. Housing and homelessness h. Community health and wellness i. Support for vulnerable people j. Other 8. Generally, what concerns do you have about community safety? a. Crime b. Emergency preparedness C. Emergency services d. Community amenity safety e. Transportation safety f. Environmental issues g. Socio-economic issues h. I don't know i. None j. Other Attachment C 2