Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-12 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES April 28, 2020 The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on April 28, 2020 at 11:03 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 Appointed Staff A. Horsman, Chief Administrative Officer Elected Officials Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor K. Duncan Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef 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 T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer S. Nichols, Corporate Officer Other Staff as Required H. Exner, Fire Chief 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. 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA R/2020-142 It was moved and seconded That the agenda of the April 28, 2020 Council Workshop Meeting be approved as circulated. CARRIED 2. MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the April 14, 2020 Council Workshop Meeting R/2020-143 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of April 14, 2020 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL -Nil 2.1 Council Workshop Minutes April 28, 2020 Page 2 of 4 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Fire Master Plan The Fire Chief provided a presentation on the Fire Department Master Plan and responded to questions from Council. 4.2 Request for Federal Funding to Stabilize Public Transit Staff report dated April 28, 2020 recommending that the request to the Government of Canada through the Canadian Urban Transit Association ("CUTA") for emergency funding to assist public transit operations across Canada be endorsed. The General Manager of Engineering Services spoke to the staff report and responded to questions from Council. R/2020-144 It was moved and seconded WHEREAS the situation of an unprecedented drop in public transit ridership provoked by the COVID-19 outbreak accompanied by massive revenue losses is affecting public transit agencies right across Canada putting in jeopardy their financial viability and future ability to operate; AND WHEREAS the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), Canada's largest public transport lobby, the membership of which includes most Canadian transit agencies has called for urgent emergency funding to address the immediate liquidity issues of transit operators while providing financial stability while ridership rebuilds; AND WHEREAS it is estimated that nationally as many as 40 per cent of systems may require bridge funding over the coming months requiring some $1.2 billion to help them keep the buses and trains running, up to $400 million a month to keep services running as fare box and other revenues drop by up to 100 per cent; AND WHEREAS it is noted that it will likely take some time for transit operators to rebuild ridership to February 2020 levels during a gradual return to more normal economic activity and without a quick infusion of funds by the Government of Canada it is impossible to assure that the gains made over the past decade in growing the modal share of all rides taken via collective transit will not be lost; Council Workshop Minutes April 28, 2020 Page 3 of 4 AND WHEREAS while transit is a provincial jurisdiction, only the Government of Canada has the budgetary capacity to stabilize public transit during the COVID-19 emergency it is recommended: THAT the request to the Government of Canada through CUTA for emergency funding to provide immediate liquidity to transit operators and on-going funding to alleviate revenue loss as ridership rebuilds be endorsed by the City of Maple Ridge Council; and further THAT a copy of this motion be sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Transport of Canada and the Minister of Finance of Canada. CARRIED 5. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Federation of Canadian Municipalities ("FCM") -Protecting Vital Municipal Services Correspondence dated April 23, 2020 from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) outlining the urgent request to the Federal Government to provide emergency operating funding for municipalities in order to address the financial crisis facing Canadian cities and communities due to COVID-19. 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL -Nil 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT-Nil 8. NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING R/2020-145 It was moved and seconded That 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)(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. Council Workshop Minutes April 28, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Section 90(1)(i) The receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. 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. CARRIED 9. ADJOURNMENT -11:56 a.m. M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct S. Nichols, Corporate Officer ----_---,:--. --· . TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: May 12, 2020 01-0640-30-2020 Workshop SUBJECT: Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Quality child care options for parents and caregivers supports a healthy and thriving economy through the social, physical and emotional well-being of our youngest citizens. In recent years, the Province of British Columbia has invested $237 million into the child care sector to improve accessibility including more than 800 new licensed child care spaces in the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows region. In January 2019, Council directed staff to apply for the UBCM Community Child Care Planning grant to conduct a Child Care Needs Assessment to evaluate and identify needs at a local level. The needs assessment encompassed comprehensive community engagement including feedback from caregivers, service providers and child care operators. This information, with an inventory of existing child care spaces, informed the identification of space creation targets and a strategic direction and action plan creating a resource for the City, child care operators and community partners to address current and future child care needs. RECOMMENDATION: That the Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan be endorsed. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In March 2019, the City of Maple Ridge applied for the UBCM Community Child Care Planning Program Grant which was successful with an award of $25,000. Staff retained child care research consultant, Roberta O'Brien, who led the collection of child care data, obtained information from a variety of provincial and local agencies and led a community consultation and feedback process including an open house held at the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre. The intended outcomes of the Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan 2020-2025 were to: 1. Conduct a gap analysis, identifying the key child care needs for Maple Ridge over the next 1-10 years. 2. Provide a resource for the City and others involved with child care, in planning for current and future child care needs. 2425183 Page 1 of 4 4.1 ---~ ---!~~ :. : 3. Set strategic priorities and new child care targets for the next 10 years to improve the access rate for affordable, accessible and high-quality child care in line with projected growth. 4. Establish the organizational structure through which the Child Care Action Plan will be collectively implemented, monitored and evaluated by partners between 2020 and 2025. 5. Inform non-profit, commercial and municipal licensed child care space creation. The development of the Action Plan was supported by a number of City Departments who regularly interface with child care operators, such as, Buildings, Licenses and Bylaws, Community Planning and Economic Development. This inter-departmental team provided expertise in a variety of areas around child care operations and afforded the opportunity to include diverse perspectives representing the voices of the community each department serves. Through the data and comparative analysis, key findings emerged informing the foundation of the short, medium and long term goals and recommendations. Key Findings Affordability Parents/Guardians indicated affordability was an important factor in accessing and determining what child care they would utilize. It was deemed the most significant of all barriers, gaps and issues. Lack of availability Both Parents/Guardians and Child Care Operators indicated a lack of available child care spaces with the infantjtoddler and before and afterschool care incurring a significant shortage of spaces. Accessibility Accessibility and flexibility in terms of part time spaces, extended and non-traditional hours, and drop-in spaces were of high importance. The child care inventory shows that only seven child care operators provide extended care before 6am and after 7pm, five provide overnight care and only one operates on statutory holidays. Location Parents indicated their preference is to access child care close to their home or their child's school. The majority of child care centres are located centric to more populous areas of Maple Ridge whereas new residential neighbourhoods in north Maple Ridge and east Maple Ridge appear to be underserved. Awareness of Child Care Supports & Community Resources It was evident from the comments from parents, service providers and child care operators that there was a lack of awareness regarding resources for parents to access support, find child care and access other programs, services, resources and supports in Maple Ridge. These findings informed the recommendations within the Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan. The plan includes 7 key focus areas: • Policy and Planning • Creating & Supporting Spaces • Collaboration & Partnerships • Promotions & Marketing 2425183 Page 2 of 4 • Advocacy • Accessibility & Inclusion • Monitoring & Research Each focus area includes corresponding recommendations and are identified as short, medium and long term actions. A significant portion of the recommendations will be led by the Child Care Action Table; City Staff will initiate the Action Table and invite key stakeholders such as Public Health, School District No. 42, Indigenous representation, newcomer agency representation, and child development agencies and existing child-focussed committees. Completion of the Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan will provide future applicants of the Childcare BC New Spaces Fund with the relevant data to create new licensed child care spaces. Through UBCM, the information will be shared with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and may position the City to receive future space creation funding from the Province. b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome is Council's endorsement of the Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan. The Action Plan identifies short-term (one to two years), medium-term (two to five years) and long-term (five to ten years) actions that are intended to improve access to child care in the community, based on the local priorities. c) Strategic Alignment: The Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan aligns with Council's priorities of Inter-Government Relations and Growth. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Residents and businesses will benefit by having a local child care plan that addresses specific needs and gaps. The data collected will help to inform the planning and implementation of licensed child care spaces and provide operators information on how best to align their business models with community needs. e) Interdepartmental Implications: A number of departments will be engaged in the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan. Creation of an inter-departmental implementation committee could carry out the work with representation from Parks, Recreation & Culture, Planning, Buildings, Licenses and Bylaws, and Economic Development. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan was identified in the 2019 Business Plan. Council's endorsement will result in the Action Plan being addressed in the 2021 Business Planning process. There is no additional funding required to achieve the short term recommendations. g) Policy Implications: Recommendations within the Action Plan identify policy development pertaining to child care facility locations that would, when drafted, be presented to Council for endorsement. 2425183 Page3 of 4 -. ' <----.c_-~ -CONCLUSION: The Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan is intended to support citizens, child care operators, service providers and stakeholders in providing a clear direction of child care needs in the community, which in turn leads to a positive impact on providing quality child care for children. The plan will act as a catalyst for Maple Ridge in determining where the greatest needs are for future creation of child care spaces and will act as a resource for current and prospective child care business owners. Prepared by: Jen Baillie Children's Recreation Programmer Reviewed by: Christa Balatti Manager, Health & Wellness Reviewed by: Danielle Pope Director, Recreation & Community Engagement Attachments: A) Community Child Care Space Creation Action Plan 2425183 Page 4 of 4 MAPLE RIDGE I ACTION PLAN 2020 ·-~-Maple Ridge --.. -= -,-:__,.:.-, -=:~-~:---. . .-Acknowledgments The 2020 Maple Ridge Child Care Needs Assessment is a result of the valuable information and contributions made by staff, organizations, and members of the public. We would like to thank Maple Ridge parents and guardians, child care operators and other stakeholders who participated in the consultation process through their participation in focus groups, interviews, and completion of on~ line surveys. • Ridge Meadows Child Table • Maple Ridge Child Care Resource and Referral • School District # 42 • Consultant, Roberta O'Brien • City of Maple Ridge Parks, Recreation & Culture Staff: Jennifer Baillie and Christa Balatti • City of Maple Ridge Economic Development & Civic Property Staff: Wendy Dupley, Bruce Livingstone • City of Maple Ridge Planning & Development Services Staff: Christine Carter, Lisa Zosiak, David Tieu and Amanda Grochowich • City of Maple Ridge Bylaws & Licensing Services Staff: Michelle Orsetti and Sian Kane • City of Maple Ridge Public Works & Development Services Staff: Stephen J Cote-Rolvink and Michael L' Arrivee -~"i::~.---------~! -----------·---~~-~-----..... -. ~.;;-.,...-------Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................. 5 National Context ................................................................................. 5 Provincial Context ............................................................................... 6 Municipal Context .............................................................................. 9 Demographic Highlights ................................................................... 12 Methodology .............................................................................................. 13 Needs Assessment ......................................................................................... 15 CommunityConsultation Findings .................................................... 15 Child Care Gap Analysis .................................................................... 20 Identification and Interpretation ofTrends ...................................... 21 Strategic Targets, Directions and Recommended Actions ........... 25 Recommended Strategic Directions & Actions ............................ 26 Maple Ridge r_ :.::_ -----. Executive Summary Quality and abundant childcare opportunities, for parents and caregivers, support a healthy and thriving economy through the social, physical and emotional well-being of our youngest citizens. Recently, the Province of British Columbia has expanded investment in the child care sector of $1 billion over three years, including $237 million to improve access to child care and the creation of 22,000 new licensed child care spaces. The 2020 Maple Ridge Child Care Needs Assessment and Child Care Action Plan is the first child care needs assessment undertaken by the City of Maple Ridge. The purpose of this report is to better understand the child care needs of families and identify key strategies to support space creation targets over the next 10 years, as well as, provide a resource for the City, child care operators and community partners to address current and future child care needs. This report provides an overview of the current child care situation in Maple Ridge. More specifically, it defines what is meant by child care and describes the different types; details its importance for Maple Ridge children and families from developmental, social and economic perspectives; discusses how it is delivered and funded; the City's current role; examines the supply and demand factors through an extensive gap analysis; and identifies and analyzes a number of related trends, gaps, barriers and concerns. Maple Ridge British Columbia The Child Care Needs Assessment incorporated comprehensive community engagement and consultation through feedback obtained by parents, caregivers, service providers and child care operators specific to the needs of Maple Ridge. This information, a child care gap analysis and an inventory of existing child care spaces, informed the identification of space creation targets and recommended strategic directions and actions to create a Child Care Action Plan that will guide and support the delivery of child care in Maple Ridge. Five significant priorities emerged that informed the recommended strategic directions and actions. These priorities are: 1. Affordability. 2. Availability of child care spaces to meet families' needs. 3. Accessible and flexible solutions, including part-time care, extended and non traditional hours. 4. Location of child care centres in schools, or new residential areas. 5. Lack of awareness of Child Care Supports & Community Resources to support and provide resources. The seven recommended strategic directions that address these priorities, support short, medium, and long term goals and objectives: • Policy & Planning • Advocacy • Creating & Supporting Spaces • Accessibility & Inclusion • Collaboration & Partnerships • Monitoring & Research • Promotion & Marketing The Child Care Action Plan will support families, child care operators, service providers and stakeholders through collaborative practices by providing informed responses regarding the child care priorities set forth in this document. The plan will also act as a catalyst for Maple Ridge in determining where opportunities and challenges exist in the creation of future child care spaces. British Columbia '" ' ' ' ' ' f--t ' Introduction To better understand the childcare needs of Maple Ridge, staff received Council's endorsement to apply for funding through the UBCM Community Child Care Planning Program to conduct a local Child Care Needs Assessment. Although much of the community consultation results are reflective of a community approach that is based on a Public Health child care licensing mandate the national, provincial and City perspectives and contexts, as they relate to child care in Maple Ridge, are also included in the Background section of this report. This report includes the methodology, community consultation process, results of the municipal plan, bylaw and policy review, and gap analysis. Based on this information, a comprehensive action plan was created including strategic targets, directions, and recommended actions. Community consultation took place from November 2019 to March 2020 and included extensive feedback from parents and caregivers online survey with 631 respondents, and in-person surveys, an online survey and in-person interviews from 15 child care operators, and in-person interviews with 13 service providers that include the following agencies and organizations: • Family Support Institute of BC • Child Care Resource and Referral • Maple Ridge Library • Immigrant Services Society of BC • Family Education and Support Centre • School District 42 • Fraser River Indigenous Society • MRPM Community Network Maple Ridge • Fraser Health • Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living • Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Community Services • Ministry of Children and Family Development • Infant Development Program • Supported Child Development British Columbia t-I I-I I I i i i I i I I. I ~ I l ! ~ --------~~-The outcomes of this overview include: • Identify the key child care needs for Maple Ridge over the next 1-1 O years. • Provide a resource for the City and others involved with child care, in planning for current and future child care needs. • Define strategic priorities and new child care targets for the next 10 years to improve the access rate for affordable, accessible and high-quality child care in line with projected growth. • Establish the organizational structure through which the Child Care Action Plan will be collectively implemented, monitored and evaluated by partners between 2020 and 2025. • Inform non-profit, commercial and municipal licensed child care space creation. These outcomes will improve access to quality, affordable and accessible child care services; identify and address the unique child care needs at the local level; support healthy children; strengthen families; and build a resilient community and more prosperous economy. Maple Ridge -------____,J;:,--:_--------. ·"---:-Background The following provides an understanding of the roles played by respective levels of government regarding early learning and child care and lists funding and support enhancements to families, child care operators and early childhood educators. The municipal perspective speaks to varying policies that support child care in Maple Ridge. The last section provides demographic highlights of Maple Ridge to understand key characteristics of our population and to put the context of this report into community perspective. National Context As part of the national Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework (ELCC) the Federal and Provincial Governments introduced a shared long term vision of early learning and child care. The Federal Government recognizes that "The evidence is clear that there are positive relationships between quality early learning and child care, especially for less advantaged children, parental labour market participation, especially for women, and child developmental outcomes."1 The Federal Government has invested approximately $155.6 million over three years to the Province of BC to enhance its systems of early learning and child care. The $51 million annual investments are targeted to increase the quality, affordability, accessibility, fiexibility, and inclusivity (including underserved populations) of child care. Other federal financial supports include: The Canada Child Benefit (CCB): administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). It is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age. The maximum annual benefit has increased to $6,639 per child under age 6 and to $5,602 per child age 6 through 17. The CCB may include the child disability benefit and any related provincial and territorial programs. The Child Disability Benefit: the child disability benefit is a tax-free monthly payment made to families who care for a child under age 18 with a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions. Government of Canada website Maple Ridge Provincial Context As part of the ELCC, British Columbia's priority areas of investment include: 1. Enhance the accessibility of child care options by increasing the number of spaces; 2. Increase affordability of child care, beginning with Infant/Toddler care; 3. Enhance the quality of licensed child care programs by supporting the training and professional development of early childhood educators; and 4. Enhance equity through targeted investment in underserved communities -Indigenous families, families with children with special needs, and young parents completing their secondary education -improving access to inclusive, affordable, and flexible child care programs. British Columbia is currently in its third and final year of ELCC investments. As part of the province's Childcare BC2 action plan the following key areas have been achieved through year 2. • Completed the first intake of the Child Care Community Space Creation Grant; • Created 53 Childcare BC Universal Prototype Sites to deliver more than 2,500 low cost, affordable child care spaces, serving over 2,900 children, and helping to set the stage for the implementation of a model of universal child care; • Allocated funding for professional training opportunities in multiple areas, including but not limited to ethics, sexual abuse prevention, and family child care training, and the development of multiple online learning platforms; • Created 643 new spaces in Aboriginal Head Start programs to deliver culturally appropriate and safe full day child care programming to Indigenous children and families, with 181 spaces becoming operational in the second year; • Provided additional funding to Supported Child Development and Aboriginal Supported Child Development programs to assist 339 more children per month who require additional support to access child care programs; and • Made amendments to the Child Care Subsidy Regulation to enable enhancements to the Young Parent Program, which covers child care costs for young parents completing their high school education. Provincial child care funding available to parents, child care operators and early childhood educators include: Affordable Child Care Benefit: Families with a pre-tax income of up to $111,000 may be eligible for savings of up to $1,250 a month per child. Benefit amounts are determined by factors such as family size, type of child care and income. 2 Childcare BC website -~ -Maple Ridge British Columbia Young Parent Program: Parents who are under the age of 25 may qualify for help with child care while they finish high school -including: • Up to $1,500 (per month per child) to help cover the cost of child care. • A space for their child in a care program at or near the school they're attending. Early Childhood Educator Wage Enhancement: Front-line Early Childhood Educators (EC Es) working in licensed child care facilities may be eligible to receive a $2 per hour wage enhancement. Additional funding for statutory benefits is also provided at a rate of 18.73%. Early Childhood Educator Recruitment and Retention Program: Includes the ECE Bursary Program that funds up to $500 per course to pay for tuition, books and materials, and the ECE Workforce Development Fund that funds up to $5,000 per semester to help with ancillary costs associated with continuing education and training, such as: tuition, books, materials, time off to complete practicums, child care expenses while in class, and travel. The Child Care Fee Reduction Initiative (CCFRI): Enhances child care affordability by offering funding to eligible, licensed child care providers to reduce and stabilize parents' monthly child care fees. Child Care providers must apply to receive funding; parents do not need to apply. Child Care Operating Funding (CCOF): Is available for eligible licensed providers through CCOF Base Funding, the Child Care Fee Reduction Initiative (CCFRI) and the Early Childhood Educator Wage Enhancement (ECE-WE). Participation in CCOF Base Funding, CCFRI and ECE-WE is optional however, enrollment in CCOF Base Funding is required to be eligible for CCFRI and ECE-WE. This funding is available to: • Assist with the day-to-day costs of running a licensed child care facility, • Reduce fees for parents, and • Enhance Early Childhood Educator wages. Child Care BC Maintenance Fund: The Childcare BC Maintenance Fund helps licensed child care facilities in emergency circumstances, defined as sudden and unexpected conditions that directly impact children's health and safety or may result in immediate facility closure. The fund is available to assist with the costs of addressing necessary repairs or replacing eligible item. The fund may also help with expenses from relocation costs if the relocation is required for compliance under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Start-Up Grants for Becoming a Licensed Child Care Facility: One-time start-up grants are available to assist registered lisence-not-required (RLNR) and lisense-not-required (LNR) child care providers, early childhood educators (ECE's), and any other eligible adults over the age of 19 to cover the costs of becoming licensed child care providers. Maple Ridge ' ' 1_· _. 1---~; i·-· ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_-, __ 1_-_ 1_-, __ ~-: -ft-[; !: f f ~ I I-I I ! r-J:":_-L_ r ! I -: i ~: t I-r ~ -! ---------~~-::.._-_-_;_.-----Community Child Care Space Creation Program: The fund, administered by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), provides local governments with up to $1 million to create new licensed child care spaces for children aged 0-5. Priority will be given to projects that build spaces that serve infants and toddlers, offer care outside of regular business hours, are operated by a public body or non-profit organization, and/or benefit underserved populations. Community Child Care Planning Grants: The Ministry of Children and Family Development has provided $2.85 million for the Community Child Care Planning Program, administered by UBCM. Under this program, eligible projects can receive up to $25,000 to help local governments identify their child care space needs. Child Care BC New Spaces Fund: This funding is available to support the creation, expansion and relocation of child care facilities proposing to create new licensed child care spaces. The following applicants are eligible to apply: • Public sector organizations, including local governments, school boards, health authorities and public post-secondary institutions. • Indigenous governments. • Non-profit societies, including non-profit child care providers, child development centres, and Indigenous non-profit societies. • Businesses and corporate companies, including partnerships, sole proprietors, limited companies and incorporated companies. Per project, eligible applicants can receive up to: • $3 million for up to 100% of eligible project costs for public sector organizations and Indigenous Governments. • $1.5 million for up to 100% of eligible project costs for Indigenous non-profit societies. • $1 .5 million for up to 90% of eligible project costs for non-profit societies, including non-profit child care providers and child development centres. • $250,000 for up to 75% of eligible project costs for child care providers that are businesses or corporate companies. Other provincial financial supports available include: B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit: Budget 2019 replaces the B.C. Early Childhood Tax Benefit with a new B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit (BCCOB) effective October 1, 2020. The B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit provides a tax-free monthly payment to families with children under the age of 18. The maximum B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit is: • $1,600 for a family's first child. • $1,000 for a second child. • $800 for each subsequent child under the age of 18. Maple Ridge Municipal Context Official Community Plan3 and Area Plans The Official Community Plan outlines the long-term vision for growth and community development for the City. Chapter 4 speaks to Community Services. A few key policies pertaining to child care services to highlight include: • Policy 4-12 -Maple Ridge will encourage opportunities for decentralization and integration of community services at the community and neighbourhood level. • Policy 4-22 -Maple Ridge encourages the development of accessible quality child care facilities throughout the community, and will encourage the provision of space for child care in all assisted rental housing projects developed under senior government programs. • Policy 4-36 -Maple Ridge supports the establishment of child care facilities in Residential, Institutional, Commercial and Industrial land use designations subject to compliance with District bylaws and regulations.4 Overall, there is a strong policy base to support the provision of child care services throughout Maple Ridge. In addition to the Official Community Plan, there are neighbourhood plans that govern specific geographic areas of the City. A few key points pertaining to the provision of child care services by area plan are as follows: Albion Area Plan: Currently, the Albion Area Plan (2014) includes two commercial nodes, an elementary school and an under construction community centre (anticipated completion date of 2021). As of 2020, both existing commercial nodes contain a child care centre. The endorsed North East Albion Concept Plan (2019) includes an additional commercial node and a co-located elementary school/ park site. Child care services were identified as potential operators or users of the space at both the future elementary school and commercial node. Hammond Area Plan: ln Hammond, there are a number of areas designated for commercial uses. Hammond was the first area that introduced some specific commercial zones (H-1; H-2) which continue to provide for the possibility of child care facilities. A number of child care facilities operate in the Hammond Area. Silver Valley Area Plan: Silver Valley has a number of sites designated for future commercial use throughout the four hamlets. Blaney Hamlet was the first Hamlet in Silver Valley to develop. The land designated for commercial in Blaney Hamlet includes a child care centre with an anticipated opening date of 2020. 3 htlps://www.mapleridge.ca/316/0fficial-Community-Plan 4 The draft Zoning Bylaw removes child care from permilted Industrial uses Maple Ridge ~~:;::..-C::-";':-:---,... --·.-.-_--_-,_~ --· _--~ -----The City has started to receive land use applications for the other Silver Valley Hamlets. There are 3.25 hectares of commercially designated land between Forest, River Village and Horse Hamlets (with an additional 4.61 hectares of Tourist Commercial land also available). While this land will not go solely towards child care centres, they will be able to operate at these locations. South of Silver Valley lies the historic Yennadon community along 232nd Street. The ongoing Yennadon Lands Employment Redesignation process may also provide additional opportunities for child care centres to locate in this area as the site is accessible to Silver Valley residents as well as located along major transportation corridors. Town Centre Area Plan: The Town Centre Area holds a significant amount of the City's commercially designated land, and as such, sees a high number of child care facilities locate in these areas. Several in-stream applications have included discussions regarding creating more child care spaces in these new developments. City of Maple Ridge -Zoning Bylaw Child care facilities are governed largely by the regulation and requirements of other government agencies. From a planning perspective, there are three scales of Child Care Facilities identified in the City of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw5 and draft bylaw6: Family Day Care: Under the Zoning Bylaw, these facilities can accommodate up to 8 children, in a dwelling unit, licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. These are permitted in all single family zones. Neighbourhood Day Care: Under the Zoning Bylaw, these facilities can accommodate up to 15 children, in a home environment, licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. These are currently permitted in all suburban and rural lots (i.e. RS-1, RS-1 a, RS-1 b, RS-1 c, RS-1 d, RS-2, RS-3). Child Care Centre (Assembly Use): Under the Zoning Bylaw, these facilities are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. These are permitted in several Commercial and Institutional zones. Each type of facility is important for the provision of child care in our community. Each of these facilities have different needs and should be dealt with differently in terms of recommended next steps. 5 hi !ps://www .mopleridge.co/Documen!Cen!er /View /587 /Zoning-Bylow?bidld= 6 h!!ps://mopleridge.co/2283/Zoning-Bylow-Updo!e Maple Ridge City of Maple Ridge -Other Relevant Bylaws7 The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw addresses requirements for owners and occupiers of land to provide off-street parking and loading spaces: Family Day Care: May be similar to Home Based Business requirements as the Bylaw is silent on Family Day Cares specifically-1.0 space per non-resident employee working on the lot. Neighbourhood Daycare: 1.0 space per non-resident employee plus 1.0 additional space for each 10 children enrolled. Assembly Use (Child Care Centres): 1.0 space per 20m2 gross floor area. Currently, no long-term bicycle parking spaces are required for child care centres in institutional uses, but may have requirements for Commercial zones. h!!ps://www.mapleridge.ca/Documen!Cen!er/View/549/0ff-Stree!-Parking-and-Loading?bidld~ Maple Ridge Bnllsh Columbia -~~ --: ,.... --· Demographic Highlights The following demographic statistics were derived from Census Profile, 2016 Census Maple Ridge8, unless otherwise stated. • Population growth: Maple Ridge has seen a growth in population from 2011 to 2016 of 8.2%, whereas BC's rate of growth during that same time is 5.6%. • Immigrant Population9: The immigrant population from 2011 to 2016 grew by 19.6%, and other than Langley District, has seen the highest rate of immigrant population growth in the Lower Mainland and Southwest BC. • Median total income of families (2015): Maple Ridge's median income rate of $99,899 is considerably higher when compared to BC's median income rate of $88,451. • Prevalence of low-income based on the Low-income measure, after tax (LIM-AT) (%)10: Maple Ridge's low-income rate for children under 6 years of age is 12.8% compared to BC's rate of 18%. The rates are almost identical for both Maple and BC for children under 18 years of age. • Lone-parent census families in private households: The rate of lone parent families in Maple Ridge is 15.6%, just over the rate for the same population in BC at 15.1 %. • Labour Force: Unemployment rate was 5.1 %, but will likely see an increase due to economic impacts of Covid-19. • Vulnerable Children: The Wave 7 Early Development Instrument (EDl)11 data (collected in 2016-2019) revealed that 31 % of School District 42 children were vulnerable on one or more domain. This is lower than the provincial average of 33.4%. This rate reflects almost one in three children developmentally impaired prior to school entry. 8 https://wwwl 2.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016 9 NewToBC Maple Ridge Demographic Profile 2018 10 The Low-income measure. after tax, refers to a fixed percentage (50%) of median adjusted after-tax income of private households. The household after-tax income is adjusted by an equivalence scale to take economies of scale into account. This adjustment for different household sizes reflects the fact that a household's needs increase, but at a decreasing rate, as the number of members increases. 11 The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is o 104-item questionnaire developed by the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP). The EDI is completed for individual kindergarten students by their teachers once the children enter the public school system. The EDI data provide communities and policy makers with valuable information for monitoring children's development. and for developing effective program and policy responses to help BC's children and families thrive. The EDI measures five domains: physical Maple Ridge ! r .. ----Methodology Four methods of collecting data and information were used to inform this report -an internal analysis of the City's plans, bylaws and policies, the community consultation process, the child care space gap analysis and community forum. 1. A comprehensive internal analysis of plans, bylaws and policies was conducted and included reviews of the City of Maple Ridge -Official Community Plan, Zoning Bylaws, Parking Bylaws. This work was led by Parks, Recreation and Culture (PRC) and supported by several City Departments who regularly interface with child care operators: Buildings, Licenses and Bylaws, Community Planning and Economic Development. 2. Community consultation to determine child care utilization patterns and collect feedback were derived from several sources of data collection methods from November 2019 to March 2020. The tools created to assess the trends and concerns from community stakeholders included: • a comprehensive and anonymous online parent and caregiver survey, of which 631 surveys were completed, • an in-person survey conducted at PRC's Parent and Child Playtime program to provide input into their child care needs, of which 15 parents and caregivers completed, • a service provider in-person survey of which 13 different agencies and organizations partook and 22 directors, managers and program leaders completed, • an on line child care operators survey, of which 6 completed, • child care operators in-person interviews, of which 9 were interviewed. Maple Ridge 3. Child care utilization rates and gap assessment outcomes were derived from utilizing the following: • the generic HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC) formula to assess the gaps in child care, commonly used by communities to calculate the gap in child care, • the child care inventory spreadsheet, a mandatory document that UBCM provided used to calculate how many current child care spaces exist, • Baragar children's population data provided by Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows School District #42 (SD42) that provided the data required to create the projected child care gaps. The HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC)1 formula, developed by Lynell Anderson2 and utilized by several other communities, has been used to calculate the gap in varying types of child care. The HELP formula utilizes local data, estimates and assumptions in order to determine the gap between current and desired child care spaces. The formula is based on the premise that child care is of high quality, easily accessible, affordable and incorporates full-time, part-time and full-time and part-time inclusive spaces. Inclusive spaces are spaces for children with varying abilities. Baragar data provided by SD42, was obtained to create a baseline of children's populations from ages birth to 12 years. Child Care Resource and Referral Services created proportions for projected participation rates -note that these are estimates but were discussed thoroughly in order to provide an accurate snapshot for the current need of types of child care in Maple Ridge. 4. Lastly, the City hosted a community forum in March 2020 to showcase the collective efforts regarding child care priorities that emerged through the community consultation process. A map of the locations of all child care operators in Maple Ridge was produced, and several City departments who provide resources were available to answer questions. It also provided an opportunity for community members to give insight into the concerns and issues regarding child care that the community consultation process may have missed prior to reporting out on the findings. HELP is the premier inslilulion, situated in UBC, that monitors the stale of children's development and, in partnership with McMaslers University, created the Early Development Instrument, a non diagnostic tool used globally to assess kindergarten children's developmental outcomes prior to school entry. 2 CGA and previous Senior Family Policy Researcher at UBC's Human Early Learning Partnership. Maple Ridge ' ,. ' -' .-' -' -,·-l I f r f ~ -r I I I 1·-i i I-i I I I L [ r ._.._._ ___ ~---~ ------,.__ _____ -..;::::;::._---~-----Needs Assessment This section highlights the results of the community consultation process, and the child care space gap analysis. Community Consultation Findings A comprehensive online child care survey conducted by the City resulted in 631 respondents and included data on family demographics, child care needs, gaps and barriers. Feedback was collected for 1,119 children ages birth to 12 years with over half of these children between 5 and 12 years old. Most families stated they have lived in Maple Ridge for more than three years, were born in Canada, work days, full-time outside of the house in Maple Ridge or neighbouring communities and make more than $75,000 annually. Of the 631 survey respondents, 180 answered these demographic questions. The number of respondents considered marginalized was a small fraction and suggests the barriers, issues and gaps discussed throughout the report reside among the broad spectrum of socio-economic families. The aggregation and analysis of the online caregiver survey and focus groups, in-person service provider survey, online child care operators survey and in-person focus groups and interviews resulted in the following five priorities: 1. Affordability and cost of child care is paramount for parents and caregivers and was deemed to be the most significant of all barriers, gaps and issues. 2. Availability of child care spaces to meet families needs, particularly regarding infant/toddler incurring 69% shortage of spaces and before and after school care incurring 67% shortage of spaces. 3. Accessible and flexible solutions, including part-time care, extended and non traditional hours, and drop-in spaces are desired and needed by parents and caregivers. 4. Location of child care centres are primarily centric to the more populous areas of Maple Ridge, such as the dense urban core and along busy transportation corridors with not many options in outlying neighbourhoods, close to or in schools, or new residential areas. 5. Lack of awareness of child care supports & community resources to support and provide resources, training and networking opportunities for families and child care operators. Maple Ridge ~~~~-----·--ex--. -,.--.. ----·-::---~----Concerted efforts were utilized to engage child care operators to participate in both the focus groups and the child care operator online survey through various organizations and networks, such as, CCRR, the City of Maple Ridge's social media platforms, the RMCCT and PRC's daycare provider drop-in gym programs. Focus groups were scheduled during the day and evening, and weekdays and weekends, but garnered minimal participation rates. Child care operators agree with caregivers and service providers regarding the barriers and issues that parents and caregivers experience. Six operators that participated in the online survey ranked caregivers' challenges causing some duplication and different ranking patterns. Maple Ridge -------------,-----------....... -The following findings provide greater context to these priorities utilizing the tabled charts, revealing the main concerns, and finding commonality between themes provided by all stakeholders that participated in the community consultation. Table 1 below shows the top five priorities for parents and caregivers. They are also listed as the top priorities for service providers in Table 2. What are the barriers that could make it difficult to find your preferred arrangement in the future? Select all that apply. Table 1: Caregiver barriers to child care Cost Availabiliry of part·time child care Hours of Operation Location of the program Availability of full-time child care A program that meets the needs of a special needs child Transportation to/from school to/from daycare Need a program that me<=ts my language or cultural needs Rotating work schedules/shift work/extended hours Quality of child care Before and after school programs In or close to schools Long waitlis~ , m m m m l'il l'il I Issues or trends observed that might help the City better understand child care needs. Table 2: Service provider feedback regarding issues and trends that their clients experience Cost Availability (not enough spaces) Cultural (Indigenous, language barriers) I Location (less malls, include in new developments, more rural, safe area) ,------------Better and more trained ECE's Special Needs Support (more trained, evicting children) 1-----------Lack of commercial child care space Waitlists Transportation to care Population Growth Awareness & support {how to find child care) More B/A care Parents are stressed (work, child care, cost) ,•-• 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 *B/ A = Before/after school care Maple Ridge : · l ------~~-=--" . . , -~"""----Tables 3 and 4 describe what parents and caregivers consider as important aspects of programming and what caregivers want to see improved regarding child care. Recurring themes are present and include cost, accessibility, availability and location. How important are each of the following aspects of a child care program for you? Table 3: Important aspects of child care for parents and caregivers Program i.s licensed Activities for children Qualrty of indoor play space Reputation of the program An outdoor playground Cost Accepts children with special needs Hours the program is open Program reflects my language/culture Located near my home located near my child's school Located near my work 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 • Very important • Quite importa-nt • Somewhat Important • Not at all important 450 500 What are the top three things you would like to see happen to improve the child care situation for you and other families in the Maple Ridge? Table 4: What caregivers want to see improved regarding child care More spaces/availabilit>,• Lower cost Onsite before/after school care More Before/after schools paces More accessibility Quality less waittimes Part time options More ECE's -better pay/education Location -safety and to outdoor spaces More special needs support Waived fees for stay at borne par,ents, students, low income 1-0perators -lease subsidies/health care exemption More spaces outside downtown Feed back on child's development ~ 0 Maple Ridge 20 40 60 80 100 • First • Second • Third *ECE's = Early Childhood Educators ' ' ' ' ,--' ' \_-_. r< Tables 5 and 6 below speak to the challenges underserved populations experience accessing child care and suggestions for delivery of child care and child development services from a service providers perspective. Service providers explained that underserved populations experience the same issues and challenges that the broader population experiences with the exceptions that awareness and support, cultural programming and barriers, and special needs supports and funding should be improved upon and have also been included in the recommendations that the Action Plan addresses. Challenges underserved populations experience. Table 5: What challenges service providers feel their clients, more specifically Indigenous, newcomer, refugee, immigrant, minority, low-income, single parent and parents under 25, experience. Cost Accessibility (shift work, extended hours} Awareness & support (how to find child care) Availability {spaces) Waitlists More B/A care Cultu al (Indigenous, newcomer language barriers} Special Needs Support Reg fees (admin, waitlfst, depost) -not a.ffordable Location {rura I, safe area} Safety .1• .......... Transportation to ca re 0 2 4 6 8 10 Suggestions for the delivery of child care and related child development services. 12 Table 6: Service providers suggestions for better delivery of child care and related child development services More special needs funding More child care flexibilitv Training for ECED Spaces Cohesive Community Child Ca re Plan Wages. for support stff Services attached to B/A school ca re Municipal By-laws Child care available to businesses Cultural programming •, ----. Lower,cost Quality of staff 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 16 7 8 *ECED = Early childhood education development Maple Ridge ~~-----Child Care Gap Analysis The child care utilization rates and gap assessment outcomes were derived from: • The child care inventory spreadsheet provided by UBCM to calculate how many spaces currently exist. • The generic HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC) formula commonly used by communities. • The Baragar children's population data provided by Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows School District 42 (SD42). _c:;-.._·--~::::-'"""~-:-...:.:.: -The child care inventory spreadsheet was populated with specific child care group and family centres information from Public Health and was compared to current child care operators in Maple Ridge using CCRR's database of public health licensed care providers up to January 2020. This information confirmed 26 new child care operators, which were added to the inventory, bringing the number of current child care operators in Maple Ridge to 140. The child care inventory also includes information on the types of child care, numbers of children in each type and whether operators provide extended hours ( evening, weekends, statutory holidays, etc.). The inventory was used to calculate the current number of total public health licensed child care spaces utilized in 2020, which is 3,295 spaces. Baragar population data is used by SD42 to create population projections for children birth to 12 years for each school catchment area. This data aids the School District in planning for future changes in school populations. The Baragar data utilized for this report shows population data for each year from birth to 12 years, for years ~019 to 2025, for each elementary school catchment in Maple Ridge. This data allowed for the calculation of gaps in child care. CCRR applied proportions for each type of child care to create utilization rates for full-time, part-time and inclusive spaces. The amount of child care spaces that are required to meet the need of families in Maple Ridge were calculated using these proportions based on the 2020 Baragar data for each age of children for each year. The number of spaces required to meet the need in 2020 are 7,625, and as mentioned above the current number of spaces are 3,295. The overall gap (need) in child care is 4,330 spaces meaning less than half the need is currently being met. In order to meet child care needs (the child care gap of 4330 spaces), while looking for or waiting for space, some parents and caregivers access family members and friends to care for their children. This leads to less stable and predictable child care arrangements and can be costly as only licensed care is subsidized. They have also commented they feel that their children could be missing out on quality child development opportunities and that older family members may be overwhelmed and overburdened looking after young children. British Columbia i I ,_ t l::: 1.-.-(:: [-:-1s --·--------=::--""':__ . These calculations, broken down into type of child care as determined by Fraser Health, shows that infant/toddler spaces and before/after school spaces show the highest gaps of 69% more spaces and before/after school care requiring 67% more spaces being required, respectively. Identification and Interpretation of Trends The culmination of all the preceding findings were filtered into the five priorities listed and explained in detail below. These priorities have informed the Child Care Action Plans' recommended strategic directions and actions. Affordability and Cost Affordability of child care is paramount for caregivers and was deemed to be the most significant of all barriers, gaps and issues, even more than lack of available child care spaces. Many caregivers explained that they made the decision to stay home with their child until the child enters the school system and to support their household solely through/with their partners income, rather than combine their household with two incomes and pay for child care as they would not financially gain from the latter. As most caregiver respondents make over $75,000 annually many were eligible for child care subsidies. The majority of parents who provided information on the cost of child care for their household eported costs between $500 to $1100/month. Caregivers that paid 'nothing' either did not access child care as their children were older ( 10 to 12 years) or grand parents and/or friends took care of their children. Service providers described subsidies are helping families that earn lower incomes, however, cost, as seen throughout most communities in BC, is the number one challenge that service providers are seeing for caregivers and they encourage that the Affordable Child Care Benefit3 be expanded to include all Public Health licensed child care types in the immediate future and increase subsidies and/ or incorporate universal $10 a day child care4• Operators explained that the Employer Health Care Tax5 (EHCT) is another expense they will incur effective January 2020. If they request an increase in fees to the province to pay for this expense, and are denied, they feel they will have no option but to recover this expense by reducing funding for programming, thereby decreasing the quality of program delivery. 3 Affordable Child Care Benefit (ACCB) are subsidies for child care that parents may access if they meet certain income criteria. 4 $10 a day child care plan is estimated to cost $1.5 billion a year to implement and would create 31.215 new full-time child care spaces, reduce fees for parents, and provide a living wage for child care workers by the year 2025. 5 Employer Health Tax is now in effect. Employers with a payroll of more than $1.5 million in BC will pay a role of $1.95% on their total payroll. Lower rates apply lo employers with lower payrolls. Employers with payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from paying the Employer Health Tax. Maple Ridge British Columbia i r.":0.-, .. ,_. r-·-r.""--ft h-_:~ l:-1·· 1--1: i: i 1-i~ r le i~ ------------. -.~----~~--Availability The projected assumptions derived from the HELP formula reflect that Maple Ridge has an overall shortage of 53% for all child care types. The model also shows that the two types of child care that have the highest demand are infant/toddler incurring a 69% shortage of spaces and before/after school care incurring a 67% shortage of spaces. Caregivers, service providers and child care providers all state that most licensed and group centres are carrying waitlists. Caregivers wish to have one care provider for all their children and space is typically not available in one or more types for what they require. There are two main reasons why infant/toddler spaces are in critical need: • Child care operators state that there is shortage in early childhood educators, specifically for special needs and infant/toddler designation. They also reported that their staff are gravitating to the higher paid positions offered at other centres in Maple Ridge. Early childhood educators require a two year diploma and operators expressed that individuals are opting to become early childhood educator assistants, rather than educators, because there is less financial burden and the designation only requires one year of education. Additional specialized training for staff was also mentioned by service providers and operators as essential to accommodating behavioural issues and overall child development requirements in the field. Quality of programming, although not rising to the top of the priorities listed in this plan, was expressed as the most important aspect of a child care program caregivers would choose for their child/ren and includes: licensed programming, reputation of the program, quality of indoor and outdoor play space, and activities. Service providers explained that continued and ongoing funding should be infused into education and training for child care workers in the form of subsidies and bursaries. As well as the improved action of new core competencies be introduced into the education curriculum for early childhood educators and assistants that creates training opportunities, similar to what teachers receive in the education system, regarding child led play, outdoor education and behavioural training. • Operators expressed that infant/toddler spaces are expensive to operate due to the high ratio of staff and the increased wages for their certification, thus they prefer to provide some infant/ toddler spaces, but not enough to meet demand. Maple Ridge ~=..:':...:._~: !~~ 1-.-_ ,-' ' In addition, the City of Maple Ridge is growing, increasing the need for more spaces and types of child care, including more specialized services for children with special needs and behavioural issues. Operators expressed that there is an increased trend of children, whether diagnosed or undiagnosed, that exhibit behaviours that are disruptive to other children and staff. As Maple Ridge's population increases more spaces for children that require extra supports will be required. Operators also specify the need for dedicated child care spaces in new developments and more commercial spaces that include appropriate outdoor space. Operators also felt that the cost of commercial space is extremely high, especially for non profit operators. Accessibility The findings show that accessible and flexible solutions, including part-time care, extended and non-traditional hours, and drop-in spaces are desired and needed by caregivers. Non traditional work hours, shift workers and caregivers that work in other communities require extended, evening and weekend programming hours. Many caregivers report penalty surcharges by child care providers for late pick up. Operators explained there are multiple steps in the process to become a licensed provider which makes it difficult to operate in a field where there is high demand for services and high staff vacancies. While strict guidelines regarding extended hours of care and temporary placements, leave caregivers frustrated and without care. Service providers are seeing an increasing trend for clients experiencing issues with finding child care that reflects the reality of their work schedules, including options for shift workers, overnight and weekends. Requirements for overnight care mean that operators must provide bathing facilities, which they felt could be difficult in some circumstances. The child care inventory shows that only seven child care operators provide extended care before 6am and after 7pm, five provide overnight care and only one operates on statutory holidays. Location The majority of child care centres are located in more populous areas of Maple Ridge such as the urban core and along transportation corridors where parking and traffic safety is perceived as a concern. This results in many outlying schools and newly developed residential areas being underserved. For convenience, caregivers prefer child care close to their home and/or school and near public transit for those utilizing this service. Before and after school care is also highly sought after by caregivers and there is a keen preference for this type of child care to be located on school grounds. Also, caregivers desire more options for part-time and drop-in child care to meet the needs of part-time employed families and caregivers that take on additional work. Maple Ridge Operators reported a lack of available commercial space with adequate outdoor space and that commercial space is costly, which increases pogrom fees. Service providers described play spaces within child care locations' are typically unnatural. In particular, environmental child care centres have identified difficulties in finding spaces with outdoor space, and that safety was of paramount concern to ensure that child care locations are not exposed to other social issues. Lack of commercial space is one of the obstacles for service providers to collaborate and partner with child care operators to provide wrap around services. If more space was obtainable with adequate outdoor play space more providers may opt to consider the possibility of co-locating with child care centres above all other obstacles. Several child care operators expressed that navigating the City's licencing, bylaws, planning and fire requirements are challenging. Some operator's expressed that it would be extremely helpful if there was a 'one stop shop' at City Hall to find all the information required to open or renovate a centre. This has since been implemented the Economic Development. Awareness of Supports & Community Resources Caregivers, service providers and child care operators commented on the lack of awareness, particularly for underserved populations, to access support to complete subsidy forms, find child care and access other programs, services, resources and supports in Maple Ridge. Such services are provided to the community by Child Care Resource and Referral Service and are also are available to support child care operators, provide training and drop-in programs, offer networking opportunities and connect them to free resources, such as the toy lending library, and broader networking opportunities. Maple Ridge British Columbia ~[ I ' i ! i t i I I I [_ ! I-I r-1--f.c ,. ' I I r ,. Strategic Targets, Directions and Recommended Actions Recommended Action Plan Targets ----------_-----~· --. To address the child care gap analysis in this report, child care creation targets have been set below to increase the number of targeted types of child care to meet community need. These numbers will need to be reviewed and updated in Years 3 and 6 of the plan to allow for changing demographics. Short-term Targets (Year 1 & 2) Current Child Care Spaces 2020: 3,295 New Child Care Spaces 2020 -2022: 1,450 Targeted Types of Child Care: Group under 36 months; Group 30 months to school age; Group school age Location: Maple Ridge (urban core, rural north and new residential areas, rural east and new residential areas) Flexible Spaces: 450 (child care spaces available outside of typical hours) Medium-term Targets (Year 3 to 5) Current Child Care Spaces 2023: 4,745 New Child Care Spaces 2023 -2025: 1,250 Targeted Types of Child Care: Group under 36 months; Group 30 months to school age; Group school age Location: Maple Ridge (urban core, rural north and new residential areas, rural east and new residential areas) Flexible Spaces: 450 (child care spaces available outside of typical hours) Long-term Targets (Year 6 to 10) Current Child Care Spaces 2025: 5,995 New Child Care Spaces 2025 -2029: 1,650 Targeted Types of Child Care: Group under 36 months; Group 30 months to school age; Group school age Location: Maple Ridge (urban core, rural north and new residential areas, rural east and new residential areas) Flexible Spaces: 600 (child care spaces available outside of typical hours) Maple Ridge < --~~-.:._ -~:.....:... Recommended Strategic Directions & Actions To address the child care needs and concerns identified in this report, seven strategic directions with thirty-four recommended actions are being presented for Council's consideration. The seven strategic directions are: • Policy & Planning • Collaboration & Partnerships • Advocacy • Monitoring & Research • Creating & Supporting Spaces • Promotion & Marketing • Accessibility & Inclusion Recommendations have been noted as short term priorities (l-2 years), medium term priorities (3 to 5 years) and long term ( 6 to l O years) and many will be ongoing. Seven strategic directions and thirty-four recommended actions, including leads responsible for the work of each action, are presented below to address the needs and concerns identified through community consultation and the child care gap analysis. Recommended Strategic Directions & Actions Lead 2020-2022-2025-Ongoing 2021 2024 2029 1. Policy & Planning 1.1 Create a Child Care Action Table (CCAT), PRC X consisting of community agencies that may include City staff and representatives from Child Care Resource and Referral, Health, Education, Indigenous communities, newcomers agencies and committees, child development agencies and organizations, and Ridge Meadows Community Children's Table to oversee the work of the Child Care Action Plan. 1.2 Designate child care as a standard community Planning X need, like park land, and that it be considered in municipal policy, planning and land use decisions, including the review of larger developments and master planned communities. 1.3 Establish annual targets for the number and CCAT X type of child care spaces. 1.4 To Review policies and bylaws that support CCAT child care space creation. Maple Ridge ' ' ' ,. '. ,_ Recommended Strategic Directions & Actions Lead 2020· 2022 • 2025 · Ongoing 2021 2024 2029 1.5 Research and consider building or Planning, X incorporating space for child care facilities as part Building of the development of new municipal facilities or major renovations to existing ones. 1.6 Review the quality outdoor/nature-based CCAT X play spaces in child care centres and make recommendations to improve upon these spaces if needed. 1.7 Rsearch opportunities in North Maple Ridge Planning X and based on the Commercial & Industrial Strategy (2014) west of 222nd Street, east of 227th Street along DTR to create spaces in these high need areas. 1.8 Review the Off-Street Parking and Loading Planning X Bylaw's parking space requirements for child care centres. 1. 9 Develop a Child Care Facility policy similar to Planning X X OCP Policy 6-45 (Employment Lands) which sets out preferable attributes of future child care facility locations. Possible attributes could include along major transportation corridors, access to green spaces, opportunity for unstructured play, etc. These attributes can be broken out by scale of child care facility. 1.10 Review zoning bylaw definitions to better Planning X align with other City bylaws (i.e. Business Licencing Regulation) and other governing agency definitions, when appropriate. 1.11 Explore permitting Neighbourhood Daycares Planning X in an Accessory Building similar to Home Based Businesses. This would apply to larger suburban / rural lots (i.e. RS-1, RS-1 a, RS-1 b, RS-1 c, RS-1 d, RS-2, RS-3). 1.12 Explore owner-occupancy requirements for Planning X Neighbourhood Day Cares. 1.13 Develop an updated Child Care Needs PRC, Planning X Assessment every five years (pending funding). Maple Ridge .. -... -·------~-~ _......_ __ :-----. --"!".'t-.:: .· ---Recommended Strategic Directions & Actions Lead 2020-2022-2025-Ongoing 2021 2024 2029 2. Advocacy 2.1 Support the advocacy of local agencies for a CCAT X publicly funded child care system, like that of the public education system. 2.2 Support the advocacy of enhancing access CCAT X X to the Child Care Subsidy, including for median or moderate income families and ongoing, increased funding dollars for educational bursaries for early childhood educators, and continued and increased wage and benefit enhancements for early childhood educator's to attract qualified professional's and support the existing and new child care spaces being created. 2.3 Enhance funding support to agencies and CCAT X X organizations for children with varying abilities. 2.4 Work with the Ministry of Health to explore CCAT X X strategies regarding meeting outdoor play space requirements and extended hours. 3. Creating & Supporting Spaces 3.1 Explore all mechanisms, including developing Planning, PRC X civic child care facilities, accessing senior government grants and working with developers to maximize child care spaces. 3.2 Share information on new opportunities for CCAT, X agencies and partners to co-locate. Building, Planning 3.3 Monitor funding and grant opportunities, CCAT X along with future actions planned by senior levels of government regarding child care initiatives, to maximize opportunities to enhance affordable, accessible and quality care in Maple Ridge. 4. Accessibility & Inclusion Maple Ridge ------------·~-Recommended Strategic Directions & Actions Lead 2020-2022-2025-Ongoing 2021 2024 2029 4.1 Consult with Indigenous and multicultural and CCAT X immigrant serving agencies and organization to determine ways to improve cultural programming and awareness. 4.2 Review child care settings to support CCAT X accessible barrier free designs and inclusive elements in locations of child care reflective of special needs populations. 4.3 Work with the Ministry of Health to ensure CCAT X X that the creation of extended care opportunities (before 6am, after 6pm, overnight, weekends, drop-in care) are obtainable and barrier free for child care operators to incorporate into their programs. 5 Collaboration & Partnerships 5.1 Support child care facilities in applying for CCAT X senior government funding, accessing statistical information, facilitating partnerships, etc. 5.2 Prepare information for developers and Economic Completed realtors. This information would document needs, Development identify opportunities, discuss facility requirements, and provide links to resource materials. 5.3 Participate on the Ridge Meadows Community PRC X Children's Table, including any action teams related to child care and child development. 5.4 Identify educational opportunities for students CCAT, X in early childhood education to increase the Education, number of Early Childhood Educators (including Child Care infant/toddler and special needs designation) in Operators the field to support the creation of new spaces. 5.5 Foster relationships with senior levels of All X government to ensure the City is consulted on Federal and Provincial policy changes. Maple Ridge ---------=-!':~ •a.:t_________ -------· . _, Recommended Strategic Directions & Actions Lead 2020-2022- 2025-Ongoing 2021 2024 2029 6. Monitoring & Research 6.1 Review Maple Ridge's child care space needs PRC, Planning X X and dependant on funding, update child care space targets. 6.2 Learn about child care needs in Maple Ridge CCAT, X and how they can build capacity to meet child Child Care care needs. Operators 7. Promotion & Marketing 7.1 Create awareness through promotion and CCAT X marketing of caregiver and child care operator supports, services and resources. 7.2 Improve availability of information to Maple CCAT X Ridge families on child care and family-related resources. 7.3 Update, as needed, the City's child care PRC X webpage and resources, including child care location map to provide information on current civic initiatives related to child care and links to useful resources that build awareness and educate the community. 7.4 Support agencies to expand the complement CCAT X of promotional vehicles such as social media to share information about child care with caregivers and child care providers. Maple Ridge ---___ -___ -... ~-City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: SUBJECT: BC Hydro Water Licence Renewal on the South Alouette River EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: May 12, 2020 11-5225-05 Workshop BC Hydro (Hydro) is seeking the renewal of one of three water licences for the diversion and storage of water at the Reservoir although it is not seeking to change to conditions of the expired licence. In addition, Hydro is also engaging with stakeholders on the Water Use Plan Order Review (WUPOR), including the City. Damming of the South Alouette River in the 1920s to construct the Alouette Lake Reservoir (Reservoir) for the generation of hydro-electric power resulted in the loss of passage for multiple species of fish. The benefits of the hydro-electrical power generation are counter-balanced by impacts on the river and there has been many investigations over an extended period of time with divergent perspectives. In addition to the broader objectives supporting the goal of a functional, healthy watershed there has been advocacy in the community for the re-establishment of unhindered fish passage at the Reservoir to replace the current trap and truck operation. Between 2007 and 2017 there has been a recorded total of 331 Sockeye salmon returning. The Alouette River Sockeye Reanadromization Program (ARSRP) is a joint initiative among the Katzie First Nation (Katzie), the Alouette River Management Society (ARMS), BC Hydro, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOE), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and local stakeholders to promote the re-establishment of anadromous Alouette Sockeye and investigate the feasibility of fish passage at the Reservoir. The project is expected to take some 11 years to complete. In 2018 the Alouette River Ecosystem Partnership (AREP) was started as a separate initiative, comprised of four parties including the City, Katzie, Kwantlen and ARMS. The AREP has made little progress since its inception and it has not been possible to date to have all parties meet, except for an initial meeting in January 2019. This report does not seek, nor claim to present a full historical record of actions and impacts but to acknowledge activities that are currently in progress to facilitate discussion by Council on possible next steps. Regarding next steps, Council may elect to: 1. Retain a suitably qualified independent consultant to review the existing decision-making frameworks, analytical reports and data generated through the various processes to facilitate dialogue with Council as the basis for the development of a position to the Comptroller of Water Rights Doc#2449720 Page 1 of 5 4.2 2. Have the City formally participate in the ARSRP with Katzie, Hydro, MOE, DFO and ARMS on the feasibility of fish passage through the Framework 3. Continue dialogue with Hydro and develop an independent position on the water licences and fish passage outside of the ARSRP and respond directly to the Comptroller of Water Rights on the applications 4. Work with other community stakeholders to prepare a response to the Comptroller of Water Rights. RECOMMENDATION: That a suitably qualified independent consultant be retained to review all reports and data generated to date for the various processes underway in support of the BC Hydro Water Licence and Order to facilitate dialogue and generate the development of a Municipal position for submission to the Comptroller of Water Rights. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The South Alouette River was dammed in the late 1920s to create the Reservoir, to be used for hydroelectric power generation as part of the BC Hydro Alouette-Stave-Ruskin system. One consequence of the Reservoir construction was that fish passage to the upper reaches of the Alouette was blocked; aside from the release over the Reservoir the water that is stored is diverted from the Reservoir east to Stave Lake to be used for power generation at the Alouette Generating Station. The benefits of the hydro-electrical power generation are counter-balanced by impacts on the river and there has been many investigations over an extended period of time with divergent perspectives. This report does not seek, nor claim to present a full historical record of actions and impacts but to note activities that are currently in progress to facilitate discussion by Council on possible next steps. BC Hydro -Water Licences Hydro is seeking approval for the renewal of one of the three licences associated with the Reservoir; two pertain to the diversion of water to the Alouette Generating Station (Licences FWL 124724 & FWL 124725, for 8.5 and 19.8 cubic metres per second (ems) respectively) while the third licence (FWL 124 726) is for storage of water in the Reservoir. Of the three licences, two were issued in perpetuity while the third (Licence FWL 124 724) for the diversion of 8.5 ems of water expired on December 31, 2018 but the renewal application was made prior to the expiry date so it is still valid. Hydro is not proposing any changes to the licence conditions or footprint as part of the renewal application. A Water Use Plan and Order for the Reservoir was approved in 2009 and as Hydro is currently undertaking a review of their compliance with the Order in addition to the licence renewal application .. The link between the Water Licence and the Order is that the Licence defines the limits under which water can be stored and diverted while the Order defines how Hydro needs to operate within the Licence limits. Doc#2449720 Page 2 of 5 Fish Passage Decision Framework The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) is a partnership between BC Hydro, the Province of BC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and Public Stakeholders established to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife in watersheds impacted by existing BC Hydro dams. In 2008, FWCP created the Fish Passage Decision Framework for BC Hydro Facilities (the Framework) document to establish a formalized decision-making approach to the analysis, technical feasibility and likelihood of success of restoring target species above Hydro facilities through the installation of some form of fish passage infrastructure. Upon completion of the feasibility phase, if the FWCP Board endorses the fish passage proposal established through the implementation of the Framework it then goes to Hydro for the development of a business case and financial approval. The Alouette River Sockeye Reanadromization Program (ARSRP) is a joint initiative among the Katzie First Nation (Katzie), the Alouette River Management Society (ARMS), BC Hydro, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOE), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and local stakeholders to promote the re-establishment of anadromous Alouette Sockeye and investigate the feasibility of fish passage at the Reservoir. The project has multiple steps and follows the Framework established by the FWCP and has been established as an 11 year plan, scheduled for completion by 2027. The ARSRP is approximately at Steps 3 & 4, which are Environmental Feasibility Studies and Preliminary Technical Feasibility, respectively. A 2014 study prepared by LGL Limited, environmental research associates, for FWCP identified a staged approach for the re-establishment of a self-sustaining Sockeye run to the Reservoir that proposed as an interim stage the continuation of the trap and truck operation to transport returning adults to the Reservoir, with the volume of outgoing smolts augmented through hatchery intervention. Should the interim strategy prove successful and increase the escapement numbers to a minimum of 500-1,000 fish then it is expected that the trap and truck operations would be overwhelmed and the construction of a fishway, again with hatchery enhancement would be viable. The LGL study does note that their focus was only on the Sockeye species. Sockeye Returns 2007-2017 In the years from 2007 to 2017, a total number of 331 adult Sockeye salmon returned to the Alouette Watershed, ranging from a high of one hundred and fifteen in 2010 to a low of zero in 2014. In 2017, three returned, one of which was released alive into the Reservoir. Alouette River Ecosystem Partnership (AREP) Following notification that Hydro would be applying to the BC Comptroller of Water Rights for the renewal of a water licence at the Reservoir the City, along with the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations and ARMS, formed the Alouette River Ecosystem Partnership (AREP) and all parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in September 2018 to with the goal to create a strong and aligned response to Hydro's licence renewal application. Doc#2449720 Page3 of 5 The stated purpose of the MOU is to: • Collaborate to prepare an aligned and strong shared position to the Comptroller of Water Rights, the provincial and federal governments and BC Hydro through the water licence renewal process • Develop a set of recommendations to create a functioning watershed ecosystem in the Alouette Watershed, including a scientifically sound fish passage for all species of salmon and freshwater species, protecting and enhancing the current freshwater species, enhancing wildlife resources and collaboratively developing recreational and functional opportunities with BC Parks and others • Secure direction from the Comptroller of Water Rights to include a requirement for the construction of permanent fish passage as a water licence condition • Secure an agreement with BC Hydro and the Province of BC regarding the Alouette River Ecosystem. Aside from a meeting in January 2019 there has been very little progress on the AREP as it has not been possible to have all parties meet together despite repeated efforts and the partnership would seem to be largely moribund. Next Steps Hydro has undertaken stakeholder engagement including at Council Workshop, presenting information on a range of topics including a review of their systems and operations, dam safety, fish passage, water licence renewal and the Water Use Plan Order Review, and their staff have indicated a willingness to return to Workshop for further dialogue although at the moment, as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Hydro has suspended engagement activities on the Water Use Plan Order Review. Hydro staff have stated that while they will engage the City as a stakeholder, they do not require City endorsement or approval for their application processes, that they look to the Comptroller of Water Rights for approval. Regarding next steps, Council may elect to: 1. Retain a suitably qualified consultant to review the existing analytical reports and data generated through the various processes to present a summation to Council as the basis for the development of a position to the Comptroller of Water Rights 2. Have the City formally participate in the ARSRP with Katzie, Hydro, MOE, DFO and ARMS on the feasibility of fish passage through the Framework 3. Continue dialogue with Hydro and develop an independent position on the water licences and fish passage and respond directly to the Comptroller of Water Rights on the applications 4. Work with other community stakeholders to prepare a response to the Comptroller of Water Rights. b) Desired Outcome: In 2018, the Council of the day indicated the intent to communicate a position to the Comptroller of Water Rights regarding the Hydro applications in progress, seeking to secure an agreement with Hydro and the Province of BC on the Alouette Watershed and the desire for the restoration of lost fish passage incurred as a result of the construction of the Reservoir, but Council has not expressed a position to date. Doc#2449720 Page 4 of 5 ---,----_.,_._. __ -c) Strategic Alignment: The goals of the AREP align with the Natural Environment section of the Council Strategic Plan. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The Alouette watershed is a highly prized waterway, valued by all residents in the City of Maple Ridge and the community at large has a vested interest in protecting the Alouette River ecosystem. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: For the AREP, the City funded up to $15,000 for a project facilitator and legal counsel if deemed necessary and it is expected these funds could be re-purposed. Additional funds would be identified if deemed necessary to retain the independent consultant if deemed necessary. CONCLUSION: The Alouette River ecosystem is a valuable resource to not only City residents but to people all across the Metro Vancouver Region and the City has a vested interest in its preservation and protection and ultimately the improvement in the overall health of the watershed system. Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng. General Manager Engineering Services Concurrence: Chief Administrative Officer Doc#2449720 Page 5 of 5 } __ _ C. c· f. l i~·-City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: mapleridge.ca His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: May 12, 2020 09-4560-20 Workshop SUBJECT: Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria Policy 6.33 Amendment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 27, 2018, Council adopted Council Policy 6.33 Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria. This Policy determined how approvals for cannabis retail are to be processed at the municipal level. Preference was given to Provincial stores followed by any private store that had been approved by the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) within the ninety day waiting period. Pursuant with Council practice, Council adopted policies are subject to review after 1 year. As some of the material in this policy is now outdated, this report will identify those areas that need revision and/or removal. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. That Policy No. 6.33 (Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria), be adopted as amended; and 2. That staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to remove the 1,000 metre distance requirement between cannabis retail stores. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: On November 27, 2018, Council adopted Council Policy 6.33 Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria. This policy determines how approvals for cannabis retail are to be processed at the municipal level. Preference was given to Provincial stores followed by any private store that had been referred by the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) within a ninety day waiting period. After the ninety day waiting period, each application was brought forward in the order it was received. Since the adoption of Policy No. 6.33, there have been seven private applications that have received provisional Provincial approval. Of those seven, three have been approved by Council, one is being prepared to go to Council, one has been denied and two are still going through the process. See Appendix Ill for more details. Key to the current Policy is that priority is given to Government operated stores. There are two locations that the Province has committed to: one at 22441 Dewdney Trunk and one at 20638 Lougheed Highway. The one on Lougheed Highway is going through a rezoning process and is expected to open as soon as possible depending on conditions. The location on Dewdney Trunk Road is going through some challenging lease agreement and the Doc //2/!22350 Page 1 of 3 4.3 Province has not updated the City on the current status even though several attempts have been made by staff to get an update. During a recent review of a referral from the LCRB there was discussion regarding the appropriateness of the 1000 metre minimum distance separation requirement between cannabis retail stores in the Zoning Bylaw. In that particular case, the applicant was directed by Council to make application to amend the Zoning Bylaw to allow for the location of the proposed cannabis retail store. At that time, it was acknowledged that Policy 6.33 was effective in regulating the location of stores, noting that Council can consider each application on its merits and suggesting that the 1000 metre requirement in the Zoning Bylaw was not necessary as the Policy deals with it. b) Proposed changes The Policy appears to have worked well and has provided a mechanism for Council to consider applications. The Policy is clear that applications are reviewed at Council's discretion and that Council is not obligated to approve any application. Pursuant with Council direction, staff have reviewed the Policy and are recommending the changes to the Policy as follows (refer to Appendix I -the original policy and Appendix II -the draft amended policy): Policy Statement: The proposed changes to the Policy Statement section are as follows: • Section A -Based on the above discussion, staff recommend removing the 1000 metre separation requirement in the Zoning Bylaw and placing it in the Policy. This allows Council to look at each application on its merits without having to make the applicant go through the rezoning process. The draft amendment reads: The location of each Cannabis Retail Store must be a minimum of 1000 metres from any other Cannabis Retail Store • Section B -This section originally addressed the initial 90 day intake period for processing applications and has been deleted because it is no longer relevant. The first two sentences have been deleted and the following provision remains: "Applications may be reviewed, on a case by case basis, at the discretion of Council". • Section C -Is removed in its entirety and Section D becomes Section C. • Section D -Given that there are two approved private stores in the Town Centre, one proposed Government Store and one application pending review by Council, it is believed that there are a sufficient number of Cannabis Retail Stores in the Town Centre and residents are well served. Based on this, it is recommended that the Policy read: "Only applications outside of the Town Centre will be accepted". Procedure Overview: The proposed changes to the Procedure Overview section are as follows: • Item 1 in the current Policy identified that the process would start upon receipt of a letter of intent from the Province confirming their intention to operate a Government store(s). This has occurred so this section has been deleted. Page 2 of 3 • Item 6 in the current Policy referred to a Cannabis Application Review Panel. This group were helpful in getting the process set up but is no longer required. Bylaw & Licencing staff will continue to liaise with these departments as needed. This item is removed in its entirety. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Applicants will still be able to go through the official process and Council will be able to consider each application on a case by case basis. Council can approve an application without going through a rezoning application. d) Alternatives: Council could choose not to amend the current policy. CONCLUSIONS: Pursuant with practice, staff have reviewed the Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria Policy 6.33 and have concluded that the Policy has been an effective tool in reviewing applications, and allows Council to consider each application on its own merits. Appendix II attached is the updated draft Policy. A number of the recommended changes to the Policy are administrative in nature, however the Policy does place a moratorium on new applications in the Town Centre. The report is also recommending that a Zone Amending Bylaw be prepared to remove the 1000 metre minimum distance separation between Cannabis Retail Stores in the Zoning Bylaw, in favour of addressing this requirement in the Policy. '211v ~v PrepJred by: i=tMcNair Senior Advisor, Bylaw & Licensing Services ~ Co-Prep~eOrsetti Approved by: Concurrence: RM/jd Attachments: Director, Bylaw & Licensing Services U{ Christine Carter, M.PI., MCIP, RPP General Manager: Planning and Development Services Qra~n~~ Chief Administrative Officer Appendix I: Original Cannabis Retail Processing and Evaluation Criteria Policy 6.33 Appendix II: Amended Cannabis Retail Processing and Evaluation Criteria Policy 6.33 Appendix Ill: Status list of cannabis retail applications Doc #2422350 Page 3 of 3 I· ·-APPENDIX I Title: Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria Authority: 1ZJ Legislative Approval: 1ZJ Council Policy Statement: Operational D CMT D General Manager POLICY MANUAL Policy No: 6.33 Supersedes: New Effective Date: November 27, 2018 This policy applies to all referrals from the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) regarding applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores. A. That the location of Government Operated Cannabis Store(s) be confirmed by receipt of a Letter of Intent from the LCRB before commencing a review of Private Cannabis Retail Stores. B. All applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores referred from the LCRB will be reviewed as a group. The Initial Intake of application referrals will be held until Section A is satisfied; and for a period of 90 days following receipt of the first complete application from the LCRB. Referrals received after the initial intake period may be held if the LCRB advises there are other applications under review that will be referred to the City. If no other applications are being reviewed by the Province, the applications may be reviewed, on a case by case basis, at the discretion of Council. C. In the event of a Government Cannabis Retail Store and Private Cannabis Retail Store being proposed within 1000 metres of each other, preference will be given to the Provincial store in recognition of Provincial immunity to local land use regulation; a strong track record of handling a controlled substance and checking identification to ensure that cannabis does not fall into the hands of minors; and support for the creation of stable, well paying jobs in the community. D. Regardless of compliance with City Zoning Bylaw regulations, Council is not obligated to support an application for a Private Cannabis Retail Store. Procedure Overview: 1. The review of applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores will commence upon receipt of a Letter of Intent from the LCRB confirming their intention to operate a Government Cannabis Retail Store at a specific civic address/location. 2. Application/referral for a Private Cannabis Retail Store is received from the LCRB. 3. Application is checked for Zoning and Official Community Plan compliance. a. If the application is not compliant with Zoning, the LCRB will be advised the application is denied. The applicant will further be advised that, where compliant with OCP designation, a rezoning application could be made to rezone the property to permit the use. b. If the application is compliant with Zoning: i) the LCRB will be advised the application is compliant with zoning and be requested to proceed with their analysis of the application. The City will do no further review of the __ c:,. __ --~ .. _-____ _ .::.-_-.·"'·.---------_-_-_------, ----------.:--.-=· application until the LCRB analysis is complete and is referred back to the City; and ii) applicants will be advised that "Private Cannabis Retail Store Business Plan and Community Impact Overview" section of the Policy must be completed by the applicant and received by the City before further review of the application occurs. 4. Letters will be mailed to all property owners within 200 metres of the proposed store. 5. Referral to RCMP for input. 6. Once all information is received, a staff Cannabis Application Review Panel comprising of representatives from various City Departments, will evaluate each application based on Sections 9 and 10 of this Policy. Other pertinent information may also be considered. 7. A Council report will be prepared including an assessment of the applications in regards to the policy, a location map, the location of intended Government Cannabis Retail Store(s), and other pertinent information. 8. Council will make a recommendation to the LCRB for each application 9. Private Cannabis Retail Store Business and Community Impact Overview: In addition to Provincial requirements, applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores will be evaluated on the viability of the business operation. The City is committed to ensuring each retail store will be an appropriate fit, and a good community partner. Applicants must provide a thorough submission in order for the City to conduct its review. This submission must include: a) Business overview. Please provide a business description, number of staff, how the business will operate and be in compliance with all provincial regulations; how minors will be prevented from purchasing cannabis; and how provincial identification requirements will be met. b) Details of signage to demonstrate compliance with Provincial and Municipal regulations. c) Information regarding availability of parking on the site and adjacent to the store. d) Community benefit. Please provide details of contributions or supports to non-profit organizations or local community groups etc. Demonstrate how your business will be a good community partner. e) Details of mitigation plan to minimize community impact. f) Information regarding staff training. Page 2 of 4 Policy , __ ' ' ' ' ' '· ' ' ' '. ' ,. ' ,-' ' ,. ,. ,. ,_ ' ,. ,. ,. ,. l: F-r i i !:-_ l-· i-l 10. APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA: To be completed by Cannabis Review Panel Requirement Zoning Bylaw Requirements*: Check Appropriate Box/ Note Zone Complies D Zoning Map -prepared at a scale of 1:2000 Surrounding Land Use: North: Include the location of any site being considered by the South: LCRB for a Government Store East: West: Public Input #or% Comments Number of letters mailed Number of responses received of total number of letters mailed Percentage supportive of total number of letters mailed Percentage non-supportive of total number of letters mailed RCMP Input Y/N Comments No issues Issues: Comments Parking Details Y/N Details On Site On Street Compliance History Y/N Details Compliant Non-Compliant: Details Business Plan Y/N Details Not Submitted Submitted: Details Community Benefit -applicant has Y/N Details identified contribution to the community No Yes: Details Community Impacts -applicant has Y/N Details identified possible negative impacts and provided a plan to mitigate impacts_ No Yes: Details Page 3 of 4 Policy ' ' , __ ' ,_ f c t r i I-! f ' '. '. ' -' ' f Definitions: Private Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by any individual, partnership, corporation or Indigenous nation that holds a British Columbia cannabis licence. Government Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by the Province of British Columbia. LCRB Letter of Intent: means correspondence from the Provincial Government advising of the Provincial intent to open and operate a Government Cannabis Retail store at an identified location(s). Exemptions: Government Cannabis Retail Stores are not subject to this policy. Key Areas of Responsibility: Action to Take Staff Cannabis Application Review Panel will review all applications to determine compliance with the Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria Policy. Page 4 of 4 Responsibility Bylaw & Licencing Services Planning Department Policy I f ~-: APPENDIX II MAPLE RIDGE POLICY MANUAL -aot,.h Ctth,,,11• Title: Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria Policy No: 6.33 Supersedes: New Effective Date: ~A_u_t_h_or-ity-:~~D~L-e-gi-sl-at_w_e~~~~~~D~O-p_e_ra_t-io-na-l~~~~~~-----<May2020 Approval: D Council D CMT D General Manager Policy Statement: This policy applies to all referrals from the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) regarding applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores. C. Regardless of compliance with City Zoning Bylaw regulations, Council is not obligated to support an application for a Private Cannabis Retail Store. Procedure Overview: 1. Application/referral for a Private Cannabis Retail Store is received from the LCRB. 2. Application is checked for Zoning and Official Community Plan compliance. a) If the application is not compliant with Zoning, the LCRB will be advised the application is denied. The applicant will further be advised that, where compliant with OCP designation, a rezoning application could be made to rezone the property to permit the use. b) If the application is compliant with Zoning: i) the LCRB will be advised the application is compliant with zoning and be requested to proceed with their analysis of the application. The City will do no further review of the application until the LCRB analysis is complete and is referred back to the City; and ii) applicants will be advised that "Private Cannabis Retail Store Business Plan and Community Impact Overview" section of the Policy must be completed by the applicant and received by the City before further review of the application occurs. 3. Letters will be mailed to all property owners within 200 metres of the proposed store location. 4. Referred to RCMP for input. 5. A Council report will be prepared including an assessment of the application in regards to the policy, a location map, the location of intended Government Cannabis Retail Store(s), and other pertinent information. 6. Council will make a recommendation to the LCRB for each application. Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX II 7. Private Cannabis Retail Store Business and Community Impact Overview: In addition to Provincial requirements, applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores will be evaluated on the viability of the business operation. The City is committed to ensuring each retail store will be an appropriate fit, and a good community partner. Applicants must provide a thorough submission in order for the City to conduct its review. This submission must include: a) Business overview. Please provide a business description, number of staff, how the business will operate and be in compliance with all provincial regulations; how minors will be prevented from purchasing c~rtriabis; and how provincial identification requirements will be met. b) Details of signage to demonstrate compliance with Provincial and Municipal regulations. c) Information regarding availability of parking or\ the site and adjacent to the store. d) Community benefit. Please provide details of contributions orgupports to non-profit organizations or local community groups etc. Demonstrate how your business will be a good community partner. e) Details of mitigation plan to minimize community impact f) Information regarding staff trairiing. Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX II 8. APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA: To be completed by City staff Requirement Zoning Bylaw Requirements*: Check Appropriate Box/ Note Zone Complies D Zoning Map -prepared at a scale of 1:2000 Surrounding Land Use: North: Include the location of any site being considered by the South: LCRB for a Government Store East: West:. ·.·. ·.:. Public Input #or% Comments Number of letters mailed / ..... Number of responses received of total '· number of letters mailed . • .. / Percentage supportive of total number . . of letters mailed 1::: Percentage non-supportive of total number of letters mailed . :· RCMPlnput Y/N Comments No issues . .. •.· Issues: Comments ·. . : Parking Details Y/N Details On Site .· .······· . ·.· • . . . ·. · . .· ;: . On Street ·: .. :·:· .. '•: . ;'. . . .. : · . Compliance History Y/N Details Compliarit .... .:, : Non-Compliant: Details . ;, ;: Business Plan Y/N Details Not Submitted : : : Submitted: Details •. :: < Community Benefit -applicant has Y/N Details identified contribution to the community No Yes: Details Community Impacts -applicant has Y/N Details identified possible negative impacts and provided a plan to mitigate impacts No Yes: Details Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX II Definitions: Private Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by any individual, partnership, corporation or Indigenous nation that holds a British Columbia cannabis licence. Government Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by the Province of British Columbia. Exemptions: Government Cannabis Retail Stores are not subjectto this policy. Key Areas of Responsibility: Action to Take Staff will review all applications to determine pgmpliance with the Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria Policy. Page 4 of 4 Responsibility BylaVv &Ucencing Services APPENDIX Ill Current Retail Cannabis Applications Information is current as of April 29, 2020. • Spiritleaf #670 22709 Lougheed Highway o Fit & Proper Assessment received from LCRB Dec 24, 2018. o Status: APPROVED • Cannabicana #7 22214 Dewdney Trunk Road o Fit & Proper Assessment received from LCRB April 4, 2019. o Status: DENIED • Green Star Cannabis 22222 Lougheed Highway o Fit & Proper Assessment received from LCRB Sept 9, 2019. o Status: APPROVED • SpringLeaf Cannabis 11939 240 Street o Fit & Proper Assessment received from LCRB Oct 30, 2019. o Status: APPROVED • Storm Naturals Inc. 22780 Dewdney Trunk Road o Fit & Proper Assessment received from LCRB Dec 11, 2019. o Status: Email advising of next steps sent to applicant on Dec 11, 2019. • Green Dreamz 11696 224 Street o Fit & Proper Assessment received from LCRB Jan 30, 2020. o Status: Public mail out started • Arcannabis Store 11781 Fraser Street o Fit & Proper Assessment received from LCRB Feb 11, 2020. o Status: Email advising of next steps sent to applicant on February 13, 2020. .-~ -~-o..--~:::;::_--~-;--· ·---·------TO: mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: May 12, 2020 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Commercial and Industrial Strategy: Commercial Lands Overview EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The "Commercial & Industrial Strategy: 2012-2042" was endorsed by Council in 2014 and provides a road map to help the City navigate the industrial and commercial landscape, in order to position the City for optimum future growth and prosperity. The Strategy provides recommendations on both industrial and commercial lands, however, this report only focuses on the recommendations regarding commercial lands. The recommendations of the Strategy are intended to improve, enhance, or expand the land base for employment and economic opportunities within the community. The key findings in the Strategy that relate to commercial lands are as follows: • There is sufficient city-wide commercial land to meet future demand. This includes the Town Centre where there is an adequate supply of commercially designated land to enable the restaurants, retail, professional services, etc. However, most of this land is either under-utilized or vacant. • Metro Vancouver has a target number of 48,000 total jobs in Maple Ridge by 2041. The employment sectors with the most potential to help achieve this target are: business services, manufacturing, information and culture, tourism and educational facilities. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy projected Maple Ridge will require an additional 70~112 acres of commercial designated land by 2042. Since 2015, much work to advance the recommendations of the Strategy has been completed collaboratively with various municipal departments namely the development of Area Plans to make better use of vacant and under-utilized commercial lands. In parallel, and as identified in Council's Strategic Plan, as one offive strategic priorities, efforts to identify new employment initiatives and grow the commercial and industrial tax base are ongoing. The table below (Table 1) provides a snapshot of the City's commercial land that is currently zoned and designated in comparison to zoned commercial land in 2014. The table suggests that the City has enough zoned commercial land to meet future demand, but there is 13% more commercial land that is needed to meet future demand. Table 1: Overview of Commercial Land in 2014 and 2020 2014 Zoned Additional Land 2020 Zoned Designated Commercial Land Demand Projections Commercial Land Commercial Land 353 acres (total) 70-112 acres (total) 456 acres (total) 515 acres (total) 4.4 2449353 Page 1 of 12 '. I The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a background on the Commercial and Industrial Strategy's recommendations regarding commercial lands and an overview on the work underway to better utilize vacant or under-utilized commercial lands. RECOMMENDATION: For information only. 1.0 BACKGROUND: 1.1 Commercial Policies in the Official Community Plan: The Official Community Plan (OCP) outlines the long term vision for growth and development in Maple Ridge. Section 6.3 specifically provides the framework for commercial development in the City by identifying key issues, principles, and policies. The objectives of the OCP's Commercial Strategy are: • To ensure that Maple Ridge has an adequate supply of commercial land to meet present and future requirements. • To create a large and diverse commercial sector that provides a wide selection of goods and services for citizens of Maple Ridge. • To expand employment opportunities, diversify the Maple Ridge economy, generate additional investment, and to increase property tax revenues. • To create a more "complete community" by providing for a range of commercial opportunities throughout the municipality. Policies in the OCP are aimed at addressing issues and guiding planning decisions on use management within Maple Ridge. One key issue addressed in the OCP is that there is designated commercial lands are under-utilized or vacant. Currently, 176 acres of designated commercial land is under-utilized or vacant. The OCP identifies that the majority of vacant and under-utilized commercial lands within Maple Ridge are found in the Town Centre and along the Lougheed Highway. The OCP notes that current commercial needs, especially in these two areas, are being met, but there are potentially negative impacts on the quality of the urban environment if growth is not planned properly. Policies in the OCP also emphasize the importance of various commercial land use designations in achieving compact communities and the interconnectedness between all types of commercial land use designations. Such policies include: 3-3 Commercial uses that support the residential population of the Town Centre through the provision of necessary goods, including food, and services such as medical care are a priority function and will be encouraged to develop or remain in and around the Central Business District of the Town Centre and in the commercial designated areas of Port Haney. 6 -18 Maple Ridge will work with the business community, investors and the public to encourage more compact forms of commercial development and to explore mechanisms that improve the urban environment and "fit" with the surrounding neighbourhood. 6 -20 Commercial Centres and Nodes form part of an integrated system and development applications within such areas, and Area Plans will require suitable linkages to other commercial centres and nodes, and residential neighbourhoods. Linkages include an adequate transportation system which considers transit, trails, bikeways, pedestrian corridors and roadways. 2449353 Page 2 of 12 A compact and interconnected community connects all aspects of community development to improve well-being and achieve greater economic, social and environmental outcomes. Connected communities do not happen by chance; they are designed and take a holistic and integrated approach to long-term community planning. To achieve compact and interconnected communities within Maple Ridge, the OCP establishes a 'commercial hierarchy' system of categorizing commercial centres in terms of their size, and function. Factors such as land use compatibility, functionality, and siting, are key considerations of the categorization of commercial uses within the hierarchy. Each category has a planned function, which details the role of the commercial designations and suggests an appropriate total quantity of commercial space. A map of the commercial lands within the City of Maple Ridge can be seen in Appendix A and the OCP map of the Community Commercial Nodes and Historic Commercial Centres is Appendix B. Within the OCP's Commercial Designation, there is 'General Commercial' which permits a flexible range of permitted commercial zones and uses in order to respond to emerging market trends and shopping preferences of Maple Ridge residents. There are also five sub-commercial categories. The five sub-commercial categories, zones and examples are identified in the table below. Table 2: Commercial Zoning Categories and Examples OCP Designation/Category Zones Example General Commercial: C-2 Community Commercial Intersection of CS-1 Service Commercial Lougheed Highway Permits a flexible range of permitted CS-2 Service Station and 216 Street commercial uses in order to respond to Commercial emerging market trends and shopping CS-3 Recreation Commercial preferences of Maple Ridge residents. CS-5 Adult Entertainment and Pawnshop Community Commercial Node: C-2 Community Commercial Dewdney Trunk Road CS-1 Service Commercial at 216 Street, 232 Provides the convenience shopping Street, and 240 Street and personal services to residents surrounding neighbourhoods. Village Commercial Node: C-5 Village Commercial Intersection of 102 Ave & 241A Street Provides services as key locations throughout the City to provide a mix of daily convenience shopping and limited community retail opportunities. Neighbourhood Commercial: C-1 Neighbourhood Commercial Intersection of 240 Street & 112 Avenue Provides the small scale retailing of commodities of a conscience nature and related used for household or personal needs in an urban setting. Rural Commercial: CS-3 Recreation Commercial Near intersection of CS-4 Rural Commercial 128 Street & 232 Provides for the small scale retailing of Street -by Yennadon commodities of a convenience nature Elementary School and related uses for household or personal needs in a rural area. 2449353 Page 3 of 12 Historic Commercial: C-1 Neighbourhood Commercial Hammond Village C-4 Neighbourhood Public concentrated at Maple Serves as a historic focus for existing House Crescent and Dartford historic community neighbourhoods. CS-1 Service Commercial Street CS-2 Service Station Commercial CS-3 Recreation Commercial CS-4 Rural Commercial H-1 Heritage Commercial The Town Centre commercial zone (C-3) is important in developing the Central Business District and other commercially designated lands in this area. The intent of this category is to create a compact and vibrant commercial area that is pedestrian-oriented. This zone permits high density mixed-use commercial at grade with office and/or apartment above (min 3, max of 20+ storeys). Ultimately, this zone permits the greatest flexibility in the range of permitted commercial uses in order to respond to market trends, professional service's needs, and shopping preferences of Maple Ridge residents. To have a complete understanding of how these commercial categories can properly serve the residents of Maple Ridge, a strategy was developed. In alignment with OCP policy 6-4, a Commercial and Industrial Strategy was completed in 2012 and endorsed by Council in 2014. 1.2 Policy Updates Through Commercial and Industrial Strategy Implementation: The Commercial and Industrial Strategy is an important component of Maple Ridge's long-term planning in the context of shifting regional economic conditions. Ultimately, it is a road map to help the City strategically plan industrial and commercial growth. The Strategy divides its analysis into 'Commercial' and 'Industrial'. The Strategy's key messages regarding commercial land use designations are: • There is a significant amount of under-utilized or vacant lands designated for employment uses throughout the City. • The designated commercial lands supply is sufficient to meet future demand. Retention of commercially designated lands in the Town Centre and Silver Valley are important elements of the future commercial land supply, along with the maximization of the City's existing employment lands. As a result, the focus of the Strategy is to find more industrial land. • There is sufficient land area in the Town Centre for the projected future office space demands. • The Town Centre needs residential development to support commercial investment • Overall, the most beneficial approach to attracting and retaining businesses within the community is to focus on sectors that are likely to see significant growth and sectors that are not dependent on population growth. These could include business services, manufacturing, information and culture, tourism and new educational facilities. At the October 5, 2015 Council Workshop meeting, Council endorsed the Strategy's Implementation Plan Matrix. Since the matrix plan was endorsed, much work has been completed to advance the recommendations of the Strategy. To date, the highlights of work completed collaboratively with various municipal departments has been the re-designation of 144 ha (355 acres) of land for future employment uses and the development of various Area Plans to make better use of vacant and under-utilized commercial lands. For commercial lands, the Town Centre is the focus as it is the primary commercial destination, entertainment, and shopping district in the municipality. Strengthening the Town Centre is also part of 2449353 Page 4 of 12 the broader strategic commercial planning goals and principles outlined in the OCP. To help achieve a balanced, complete community, the Commercial and Industrial Strategy recommends that Maple Ridge reinforce the network of mixed use commercial activity centres. The recommendations include: • The Town Centre as the area of central focus for business, culture and entertainment; • A hierarchy of commercial centres based on the needs of the local population, to promote compactness, community identity, transit, and commercial activity. Focusing on residential development in the Town Centre has been effective in attracting new jobs to the City. However, the Commercial and Industrial Strategy notes the challenges to develop the vacant and under-utilized commercial lands in the Town Centre include high land cost and smaller lot sizes, as lot consolidation may likely be required to meet the minimum lot area, lot width and/or lot depth. These challenges may make developing commercial lands outside of the Town Centre more appealing, but the Strategy cautions that developing commercial lands in non-commercial designated zones could undermine development in the Town Centre. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy's implementation has also been ongoing with recommendations for the retail and service commercial sectors to support growth for these sectors within the urban landscape. However, one key factor implied within the Strategy is the need for strong land use planning policies that will guide: • How much land is needed to support commercial uses, now and into the future; • Where best to locate these lands to support compact forms of development; • Other interdependent uses within commercial areas, such as multi-family residential and office, that will help create "complete" and well-designed urban neighbourhoods. For future planning policies, the Commercial and Industrial Strategy provides the analysis on how much land is needed to support commercial uses, now and into the future. The Strategy breaks down the commercial areas into 'sub-regions' for the analysis. Below is a table that displays projected commercial land needs for each 'sub region', zoned commercial land in 2014 and present, and designated commercial lands. Table 3: Comparison of Commercial Land in 2014 and 2020. Additional 2020 2020 2014 Zoned Commercial 2020 Zoned Designated Vacant & Under-Area Commercial Land Commercial utilized Land Demand Land Commercial Designated Projections Land Commercial Land Core/ Town Centre 152 acres 33-55 acres 208 acres 208 acres 83 acres West Maple Ridge 125 acres 23-38 acres 163 acres 187 acres 60 acres Core East Maple 16 acres 5-7 acres 30 acres 29 acres 8 acres Ridge East Maple Ridge 24 acres 2.5 acres 31 acres 29 acres 9 acres North Maple Ridge 36 acres 6-8 acres 24 acres 62 acres 16 acres Note: For 2020 numbers, right-of-ways were included in the calculations as it is believed the 2014 numbers included right of ways in the calculation. Under-utilized lands were determined to be land with a low value of improvements to property value (Jess than 10%), which is in keeping with the Commercial and Industrial Strategy's methodology. 2449353 Page 5 of 12 The commercial landscape in Maple Ridge is evolving, with some significant new projects either already underway or coming soon that will bring many new shopping opportunities to the community. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy's analysis has been included in the next section in order to pair with the planning work that is underway to address the Strategy's recommendations. 2.0 SUB-REGION COMMERCIAL LAND UTLIZATION Each sub-region of Maple Ridge currently has sufficient designated land capacity to accommodate projected demand for retail and service commercial over the next 30 years. However, to avoid potential negative impacts on the quality of the urban environment, each area with under-utilized and/or vacant commercial land use, must be properly planned and followed. To create a more "complete community" there must be a balance of commercial opportunities throughout the municipality. This section identifies the work being done in alignment with the Official Community Plan (including Area Plans) and the Commercial and Industrial Strategy to ensure appropriate utilization of vacant and under-utilized commercial lands within each sub-region of Maple Ridge. 2.1 Town Centre Town Centre Visioning The Town Centre is expected to be the most populated sub-region by 2042. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy believes that the magnetism of the Town Centre is increasing due to the cluster of non-retail anchors in an attractive civic precinct, significant streetscape, and fagade improvements that make the area more attractive for investments and housing growth. This magnetism is able to grow and be fostered due to most of the Town Centre Central Business District being designated as Town Centre Commercial. The Town Centre Commercial zone permits the greatest flexibility in the range of permitted commercial uses. The Town Centre Area Plan was adopted in 2008 and established a vision for creating a pedestrian-oriented, compact, and high density downtown for the community. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy supports the Plan's vision and states that the 164 acres of OCP designated "Town Centre Commercial," will be more than enough to accommodate anticipated development and redevelopment over the next 30 years, if developed at appropriate densities. Currently, the entire Core area has 208 acres of OCP designated lands and 83 acres are currently vacant or under-utilized lands. Near-term development pressure will be mostly directed at vacant and under-utilized zoned lands while over time existing commercial buildings will depreciate to become under-utilized and thus become prime candidates for redevelopment. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy projects that between 2012 and 2042 the population in the Town Centre will grow by 45%. With a significant increase in population and density in the Town Centre, it is anticipated that it will attract commercial investment and bring more jobs to Maple Ridge. Ultimately, the Town Centre needs residential development to support commercial investment and transit expansion, as living close to commercial amenities and to work, means increased demand for local goods and services. On March 31, 2020 Council endorsed the Town Centre Visioning Public Engagement Process that is to take place in the fall/ winter of 2020. While the goals of the Town Area Plan remain relevant today, a refresh is timely. Through this process, the community will be invited to revisit and refine the original vision to ensure that as the Town Centre continues to grow development will proceed in the right direction. Commencement of the project is coinciding with some positive work currently underway in the Town Centre on the Community Social Safety Initiative (CSSI) and it is anticipated that synergies between these two projects will help support awareness and engagement in both. 2449353 Page 6 of 12 Port Haney Policy Review Staff have observed growing development interest in the Port Haney neighbourhood, acknowledging the broadness of the current land use policies that apply to this area. Long envisioned as a flexible, mixed-use location, staff see a timely opportunity to revisit the land use policies of Port Haney towards providing clarity on the preferred land uses and built forms that could be developed in the future. This opportunity could align well with Council's interest in maximizing commercial and employment-generating lands in the Town Centre, especially towards attracting more professional office and tech-sector opportunities. The Port Haney Policy review will be included in the Town Centre Visioning process and potential policies changes will be identified through this project. 2.2 West Maple Ridge The Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan The areas identified as "the West" in the Commercial and Industrial Strategy contains 187 acres of OCP designated commercial land, which addresses current and future demand in the community. In September 2018, the Lougheed Transit Corridor Study was initiated to review the City's OCP land use designations along the Lougheed Highway and surrounding area west of the Town Centre. The timing of this review coincided with the announcement of a new Lougheed Highway rapid bus service that commenced in January 2020 and runs between downtown Maple Ridge and the Evergreen Skytrain line in Coquitlam. A draft Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan was developed from the outcomes of a public consultation process and was informed by recent updates to the Commercial and Industrial Strategy for this sub-region. The draft Concept Plan was presented at the December 3, 2019 Council Workshop. Overall, the draft plan anticipates that the traditional commercial land base in this area will evolve into a more compact mixed-use form, particularly around the R3 bus stop intersections. This is due to several factors, including: • a growing desire for people and businesses to locate close to rapid transit nodes; • an expanding shift towards on line retail sales; and • changing regional and local draws, such as: o the development of large format Fremont Village in Port Coquitlam; o the removal of tolls on the Golden Ears Bridge (leading to a 30% increase in traffic and ease of access to shopping in Langley and Surrey); and o ongoing new development in the Maple Ridge Town Centre with the addition of Walmart and unique local businesses (3 micro-breweries, a notable bakery, and destination restaurants) that are drawing more people to this area. With the area projected to evolve into a more compact mixed-use form, the types of commercial uses permitted through the upcoming zoning work will need to be carefully considered in order to create a complete and connected community. Additionally, the commercial uses for this area will need to be reviewed in relation to the commercial uses permitted in the Town Centre, as the Commercial and Industrial Strategy cautions that developing commercial lands in non-commercial designated zones could undermine development in the Town Centre. Ultimately the goal, recommended in the Strategy, is to better utilize the vacant and under-utilized commercial lands without undermining the Town Centre. An update on the draft Lougheed Transit Corridor Plan is scheduled for presentation at the May 12, 2020 Council Workshop. Hammond Commercial Area Hammond Village Commercial designated lands are mainly concentrated in Hammond's historic commercial node at Maple Crescent and Dartford Street. On January 24, 2017, Council adopted the 2449353 Page 7 of 12 Hammond Area Plan, which is a detailed document that guides land use and development in the Hammond area. This plan encourages an increase in residential density through various forms in most areas of Hammond, with the highest densities to be located within and around the historic commercial node and along the major corridors. It is intended that encouraging higher residential densities (and a wider range of housing forms) will in turn support revitalization of Hammond's historic commercial node. 2.3 East Maple Ridge Albion Flats Area Planning Process: There is a very long history of planning in the Albion Flats and in 2018, Council re-affirmed a work plan to explore a land use area planning process for the lands south-east of Jim Robson Way. On November 12, 2019, Council endorsed a concept plan for the Albion Flats and directed that the plan be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in advance of a meeting with the ALC. ALC comments were recently received, however, the ALC will be reconsidering the concept plan at the upcoming meeting. Should the ALC comments be supportive, the City will submit an application for exclusion and commence an Area Plan Bylaw approval process. The endorsed concept plan has a variety of commercial and employment land uses, which include light industrial, service commercial, retail/restaurant, and office uses. North East Albion Land Use and Servicing Concept Plan The OCP and the Commercial & Industrial Strategy identify that future growth in the North East Albion area may create the need for commercial spaces that are in proximity of the neighbourhood. On October 1, 2019, Council endorsed the North East Albion Land Use and Servicing Concept Plan and it is currently serving as a guide for development in the area. The Plan emphasizes the development of a 'complete community' by integrating mixed-use developments where residents can live, work and play. Recognizing that the Albion Area has limited commercial opportunities and is geographically small, two commercial nodes are proposed in the North East Albion Area to offer residents gathering spaces and commercial opportunities. One node is proposed at the intersection of 112th Avenue and Lockwood Street and the second is located adjacent to the proposed elementary school at 248th Street. It is anticipated that the northern node will be developed first while the southern node will likely coincide with construction of the school. Currently, the Concept Plan is being developed into policies for a draft Area Plan and proceeding within the Council endorsed process. Lougheed Lands at 240th The Lougheed Lands are located to the west and east of the Kwantlen First Nation lands along Lougheed Highway east of 240th Street. In 2017, the Albion Industrial Area was expanded to include these lands. Public comments and Council discussion raised the potential for commercial synergies around the intersection of 240th Street and Lougheed Highway. Current surrounding land uses for this area include the Albion Growth Area to the north, a historic commercial node to the west at the corner of Lougheed Highway and 240th Street, and the Albion Industrial Area further west of 240th Street along Lougheed Highway. Reflecting on the comments from Council and the public, the historic commercial node at Lougheed Highway and 240th Street was modestly expanded to include four properties at the western edge of the Lougheed Lands. The bulk of the area continues to be intended for industrial lands. 2449353 Page 8 of 12 2.4 North Maple Ridge Silver Valley Hamlets The Silver Valley Area Plan spans several years of background research with a lengthy public participation process. The Silver Valley Area Plan was adopted in 2002 and has a number of sites designated for future Commercial over the four hamlets; Blaney, Forest, Rover Village, and Horse Hamlet. The Plan emphasizes capitalizing on economic opportunities in the area by concentrating compact residential development in hamlets that will foster commercial development, with the main commercial centre in one village. Local commercial uses are encouraged within a 400-500 metre radius of the Hamlet Centers. Each of these Centres are intended to provide for limited food and service needs to help reduce reliance on the private automobile. Commercial buildings would be mixed use, integrating retail, office use, and residential. Currently, there are 8 acres of OCP designated commercial land between Blaney, Forest, River Village and Horse Hamlets. The Silver Valley Area Plan recognizes that commercial development is population driven and that commercial development will not occur until the later stages of the Plan. For example, the Blaney Hamlet has been the first Hamlet in Silver Valley to see commercial development. Yennadon Lands (128 & 232 Street) The Yennadon Lands is comprised of 13 properties that total 63 acres and the Commercial & Industrial Strategy identifies this area as a future opportunity for sensitive mixed-employment. It is projected in the Strategy that the area could attract a varied combination of light industrial, commercial, as well institutional and civic uses. The Strategy has also highlighted that many residents already make destination shopping trips to the Town Centre and that future retail development slated for this community should be in the convenience commercial categories. Existing uses within this area range from single family use to vacant lands, according to BC Assessment data. Also, a historic commercial node is located within a 200-400 m distance of the subject properties and Yennadon Elementary School. At the March 31, 2020 Council Workshop, Council directed 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. Currently, staff are working with the consultant to prepare some land use concepts and will bring the concepts for Council comment in the near future. 3.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL & INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The implementation of the Commercial and Industrial Strategy continues to be an intergovernmental and interdepartmental undertaking. Planning staff continue to collaborate on various ongoing projects with staff from other City departments, as well as staff from Metro Vancouver and the ALC. Implementation of the Commercial and Industrial Strategy has been and continues to be a multi-department undertaking with the Planning and Economic Development. Additionally, implementation of the Strategy through Area Planning and new development will also involve ongoing collaboration with the Engineering, Building, Fire, and Parks, Recreation & Culture Departments. CONCLUSION: The development and location of future commercial and employment lands requires careful consideration and should be undertaken in a comprehensive manner to ensure that future development is reflective of community goals, and "fits' with the character of the community. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy and OCP is a road map to help the City navigate the industrial and 2449353 Page 9 of 12 commercial landscape, positioning the City for optimal future growth and prosperity. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy concluded that Maple Ridge has sufficient commercial land capacity already designated to for the next 30 years. For commercial lands, the Town Centre is the focus as it is the primary commercial destination, entertainment, and shopping district in the municipality. However, the Town Centre needs residential development in order to support commercial investment and transit expansion. Focusing on residential development in the Town Centre has been effective in attracting new jobs to the City. However, high land cost and smaller lot sizes create challenges for developing commercials lands in the Town Centre. These challenges may make developing commercial lands outside of the Town Centre more appealing, but the Commercial and Industrial Strategy cautions that developing commercial lands in non-commercial designated zones, and creating additional competition, could undermine development in the Town Centre. Strengthening the Town Centre is part of the broader strategic commercial planning goals and principles outlined in the OCP. To help achieve a balanced, complete community, the Commercial and Industrial Strategy recommends that Maple Ridge reinforce the network of mixed use commercial activity centres. Since 2015, in partnership with multiple city departments, much work to advance the recommendations of the Strategy has been completed through adherence to OCP policies and the development of various Area Plans that focus land use and policies at the neighbourhood level. The aim of the work to date has been to strategically locate commercial lands and carefully guide development in an effort to reduce commercial land vacancies and under-utilization. The recent work undertaken on Area Planning and the upcoming projects discussed in this report will help ensure that the objectives of the Commercial & Industrial Strategy are achieved and that new commercial development is directed to existing designated lands in accordance with OCP goals and objections. "Original signed by Krista Gowan" Prepared by: Krista Gowan Planner 1 "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM, Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Corporate Administrative Officer The following appendices are attaches hereto: Appendix A: Map of Commercial Categories in Maple Ridge, 2020 Appendix B: Community Commercial Nodes and Historic Commercial Centres (OCP Appendix E, Figure 2) 2449353 Page 10 of 12 -·-. ---·-~ ... f Appendix A: Map of Commercial Categories in Maple Ridge, 2020 2449353 ~ -:,,._______ ---------:.:..;_--::._-:_-~ . C .Q m C ·o, If) Cl) 0 Cl) If) :::> 'C C ('(J ...J m ·~ Cl) E E 0 (.) I Page 11 of 12 ' ' ' '. ' r.--' '. ' 1:-_ , .. ,. , .. r-.- rv .i:,. .i:,. co w CJ1 w R evised Jan 24. 2017 Adopted Feb 11 . 2014 Bylaw No. 7060-2014 ~ I • • COMMUNITY CO MMERCIAL NODES (SUBJECT TO SECTION 6.3.5) VILLAGE COMMERC IAL NODES (SUBJECT TO SECTION 6.3.6) t; ;;? I I N * HISTORIC COMMERCIAL CENTRES (SUBJECT TO SECTION 6.3.8) D URBAN AREA BOUNDARY °c% f-> rv 0 -f-> rv C j -~ ~· -~ 1:! ~ 116AVE t!; '- !ju 0 ~J :g ! en . i5 CO-,UNffY COltllllEAClAL NOOES. Vil.LADE COWtEJtCIAl NOOE.SANO MSTOIUC COIIMEJtCW. CEJfTRD •. -CORPORATION OF T HE DISTRIC T OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT JA.N 2~. 20t7 Not To~ Figure 2. )> "C "C (1) :::::J C. x· P:l (") 0 3 3 C :::::J ~ (") 0 3 3 (1) 0 ~ z 0 C. rn Dl :::::J C. :::c ~ -, c=;· g 3 3 (1) 0 ~ (") (1) ~ rn 0 (") .:, )> "C "C (1) :::::J C. x· !" "Tl ~- CD ~ ·I 1 i ! .I ',d q1 TO: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: May 12, 2020 FILE NO: 2019-032-CP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop SUBJECT: Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the December 3, 2019 Workshop, Council received a draft of the Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan. During the meeting, Council provided comments on elements they would like to see reviewed or changed and directed staff to provide an updated draft for Council consideration. Items discussed in this report that were raised by Council at the December 3, 2019 Workshop include: • Employment Business Park use: Consider permitting flexibility in this use to allow a wide range of employment and supportive employment uses, as well as allowing buildings to be more than two storeys in height; • Consider designating more land for commercial use and allow commercial mixed-use building heights to be greater than six storeys; • Concern regarding the portion of the proposed greenway route that would provide a pedestrian and bicycle pathway through the cemetery; • Consider incentives for employment use; • Ensure accessibility for seniors and those with mobility issues; • Plan should be able to accommodate post-secondary use; and • Ensure the plan establishes an identity for the area and helps create a sense of place. The intent of this report is to provide Council with an update to the Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan that incorporates the items above and discusses the changes that have been made. The report recommendation is for Council to direct staff to present this draft to the public for feedback. Once feedback on the draft Concept Plan is received, this information will be brought to Council for consideration of Concept Plan endorsement. RECOMMENDATION: That staff present the draft Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan to the public for feedback and report back on the outcomes. 4.5 2449187 Page 1 of 7 1.0 BACKGROUND: The Lougheed Transit Corridor Study was initiated in September 2018 with an aim to review existing Official Community Plan designations and policies for this area and create a more detailed land use plan to guide future development. The timing of this study coincided with the Transl ink announcement that a new rapid bus (R3) service would commence along Lougheed in the near future. The R3 bus route commenced in January 2020 (although Translink recently suspended this route, along with several other Metro Vancouver bus routes, due to a massive downturn in regional ridership resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic). The land use policy review is supported by the recommendations stemming from the City's Commercial & Industrial Strategy to accommodate additional employment opportunities in west Maple Ridge by 2042 and to improve utilization of existing commercial land to meet long-term demand. However, this work did not identify the need for additional commercial lands along the corridor. Over spring 2019, an extensive public consultation program engaged approximately 500 people at events and through survey responses with 23 thousand online interactions to digital content. Over 20 thousand postcards and letters were mailed and distributed. Feedback from the consultation was presented to Council at the June 25, 2019 Workshop. A draft Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan was presented at the December 3, 2019 Workshop, wherein Council provided feedback in the following areas: • Consider expanding commercial land use designation, beyond what is proposed, including allowing building heights greater than six storeys; • Incorporate flexibility into proposed employment/business park use and consider incentives to draw this use; • Consider incentives for employment use; • Review proposed multi-use pathway through the cemetery; • Ensure accessibility in new development for seniors and those with mobility issues; • Consider post-secondary institutional use in this area; and • Ensure the plan facilitates a sense of place. The outcomes of the review for each of the items listed in the section above are discussed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 in this report. 2.0 DISCUSSION Starting in early 2020, Planning staff began undertaking a review of the draft Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan to incorporate the comments received from Council. Two key areas that were reviewed are the Flexible Commercial Employment lands and the Employment Business Park lands shown on the December 2019 draft Concept Plan. Of note in this updated draft Concept Plan (Appendix A) are the following: • The Employment Business Park designation has been renamed to Flexible Employment, as this area has been reimagined somewhat for a business park/light industrial/office use, as well as highway commercial use; • The Flexible Commercial Employment designation has been dropped, and the lands either redesignated to Flexible Employment or Commercial Mixed-Use; 2449187 Page 2 of 7 Review of the commercial and employment land use designations for the Concept Plan are discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 below. Additionally, another look was taken at the portion of the Greenway that runs through the Maple Ridge Cemetery and this is discussed in Section 2.3. 2.1 Commercial Mixed-Use Land Use Designation Comments received from Council on the draft Laughed Transit Corridor Concept Plan indicated a desire for greater flexibility of uses within the commercial land use designation, along with allowing an increase in building height greater than six storeys. A key consideration of Concept Plan development has been to determine how much designated commercial area is appropriate based on projected future demand. A commercial land use study on the Lougheed Transit Corridor was completed for the City by Urban Systems in October 2019. The study findings have projected that the following additional floorspace will be required to meet future demand by 2029 for the: • 203rd Street area (between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway and includes lands a block east of 207th St.): o an additional 14,400 to 20,200 ft2; • Laity Street area (which includes lands west and east of Laity to 122nd Ave): o An additional 10,200 and 14,300 ft2. Urban Systems also completed a land use study for Metro Vancouver in February 2019 which found that the impact of the R3 Bus on multi-family residential demand will result in approximately 2,100 new units and of this total it is estimated that: • 1,571 new residential units are anticipated to be in a ground-oriented form; and • 535 are anticipated to be in apartment form. Table 2 below shows the current area of land designated and zoned for commercial use within the Lougheed Transit Corridor. Note that these areas include vacant and underutilized lands, which have been calculated at 9.1 and 11.5 acres respectively. Table 2: Current Commercially Designated Lands and Zoned Lands Current OCP Commercial Land Use Current Zoned Commercial Land Designation (ft2) (ft2) 203rd Street 4.7 million 3.8 million Laity Street 312,153 581,250 216th Street 735,175 681,356 TOTALS 5. 7 million ft2 5 million ft2 New development for this area in a high density built form would utilize approximately 70% of the land area, as surface parking would be minimal and most of it provided in underground parkades. Most of the existing commercial floorspace within the Lougheed Transit Corridor is in the form of one storey buildings that utilize approximately 30% of the total developable area (on average). With the anticipated low demand for additional new commercial floor area needed over the next 10+ years, it is unlikely that all or most of the existing commercial lands will be redeveloped into a high density mixed-use form. As such, the most prudent approach for achieving more compact development over time is to reduce the total area of land currently designated commercial and focus a commercial land use designation in key areas where compact urban development is desired most. The intent in proposing a conservative approach in maximum building height within the Mixed-Use Commercial 2449187 Page 3 of 7 designation is to prevent the potential for a small number of high rise buildings utilizing the anticipated demand for multi-family units. A potential high rise development scenario would undermine the goal of achieving a compact urban form around the transit nodes and prolong existing land vacancies and underutilization into the long-term. The building heights proposed for the lands showing as Commercial Mixed-Use on the draft Concept Plan are a minimum of four storeys and a maximum of six. The uses are intended to be similar to those in the Town Centre Area, such as boutique retail, hair and aesthetic salons, small to medium size grocery, restaurants, coffee shops, bakeries, and professional offices. This commercial designation would also support a post-secondary institution. The office use and/or multi-family residential would make up the four to six storeys above grade. With the above uses and intended building form in mind, the following land areas are proposed for the Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Total Area of Proposed Commercial Mixed-Use Lands Proposed Commercial Proposed Commercial Proposed Commercial -Square Feet (ft2) -Square Metres (M2) -Hectares (ha) 203rd Street 2 million 190,700 19.07 Laity Street 392,900 36,500 3.65 216th Street 850,350 79,00 7.9 Totals 3.3 million ft2 306,200m2 30.62 ha In order to ensure that commercial redevelopment in this area is able to meet the projected future demand within a high density mixed-use form (particularly around the transit nodes), consideration has been made for reducing the amount of total land area designated around 203rd Street. Additionally, a small increase in Commercial Mixed-Use designated lands is proposed at Laity Street and 216th Street, to facilitate each of these to become 'high streets' that connect Dewdney Trunk Road (and a local bus route) with Lougheed Highway (and a regional bus route). The 'high streets' are intended to offer local shopping opportunities within a commercial mixed-used built form. This idea came out of the design charrette that was part of the public consultation process for the Lougheed Transit Corridor study. 2.2 Flexible Employment Land Use Designation The proposed employment lands have been expanded with more potential future uses and as such, the title in this updated draft has been changed from "Employment Business Park" to "Flexible Employment Use". In the earlier December 2019 Concept Plan draft, the employment lands were envisioned for business park and office space that would include a range of typical uses, such as business services, manufacturing and wholesale and retail of products, product distribution centres, mini warehouse, machine and furniture repairs, along with new technology uses, such as multi-media production, testing and research laboratories, and craft brew and spirits. While these uses remain as proposed for the Flexible Employment use, incorporating a highway commercial use (such as auto dealerships, auto repair shops, large format grocery and retail stores, restaurants and coffee shops) is also proposed to allow for greater flexibility and potential synergies with uses typical to business parks, large format office space, and light industrial. The Flexible Employment land use designation would also suit a post-secondary institutional use. While it is anticipated that highway commercial businesses will continue to locate along the Lougheed Highway over the next ten or more years, ongoing shifts in the current commercial form are likely to occur through redevelopment opportunities. As this area evolves over time, some of the existing uses 2449187 Page 4 of 7 may evolve in terms of size and context and/or become part of larger developments. It is the intent of the draft Concept Plan that these uses are able to be accommodated over the long term. The total land area proposed for a Flexible Employment use is 21.4 ha (2.3 million ft2/214,509m2). It is proposed that building heights within this designation be permitted up to a maximum of six storeys to also help provide economic synergies with office use encouraged wherever possible. By inviting business park, light industrial and office uses (that typically offer jobs with salaries much higher than minimum wage) into the Lougheed Transit Corridor, the goal is to provide more opportunities for the City to achieve its local employment objectives. 2.3 Proposed Greenway Through the Cemetery The draft Concept Plan includes a Greenway that is proposed to run eastjwest between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway. The Greenway is intended to support vehicle traffic where possible and pedestrian and cycling traffic along the entire length of the route. At the December 3, 2019 Workshop, concerns were expressed with regard to planning for the portion of the Greenway proposed through the Maple Ridge Cemetery in that a recreational route would invite the people to recreate (with walking or cycling) through the cemetery on a regular basis, when people are also visiting the final resting place of deceased loved ones. The Maple Ridge Cemetery Master Plan, completed in 2008, describes cemeteries as places that are intended as recreational park space for the living to enjoy various recreation activities and that consideration should be made to make the Maple Ridge Cemetery more accessible to the general public. A key finding of the Plan is that many local residents don't know that the cemetery exists due to its somewhat hidden location. Additionally, the Plan states that during an open house event held to obtain community input for creating the Cemetery Master Plan, many attendees expressed a desire to see the cemetery opened up for walking, quiet contemplation, running, tai chi and dog walking (although not off-leash). Creating greater awareness of the community cemetery and encouraging people to visit and enjoy the site is more likely to increase interest from local residents to consider it as an appealing final resting place when the time comes. It was in the spirit of these outcomes of the Cemetery Plan that a Greenway was originally planned through the site, as it is an opportunity to create greater awareness of the existence of this important community space and for people to experience and enjoy the park-like setting when walking or cycling through the neighbourhood. Planning staff met with staff from the Parks Department in Summer and Fall of 2019 to identify the most appropriate route through the cemetery (to ensure no current or future burial sites will be disturbed) and it is intended that more collaboration will occur on potential future design considerations when Development Permit Guidelines are prepared for guiding all aspects of form, character, and context within the Lougheed Transit Corridor Area Plan. 2449187 Page 5 of 7 3.0 NEXT STEPS Upon receiving Council comments on the attached draft Concept Plan, the report recommendation is for Council to direct staff to present the draft for community feedback. It is proposed that the draft Concept Plan be posted on the City's website with an invitation for feedback through the usual social media formats and a link would be sent to those on the email update list (created through the public consultation process). Additionally, the website link would be advertised in the local newspaper. Additionally, options for holding a virtual public open house in the Fall will be explored and undertaken, unless current Provincial social-distancing restrictions are relaxed at that time, wherein an in-person open house event could be planned. Once community feedback has been received, it is proposed that the outcomes be presented to Council along with the draft Concept Plan for Council endorsement. The following steps are anticipated upon endorsement of the Concept Plan: 1. The Concept Plan will serve as a guide to direct development applications that have not yet reached third reading. 2. The Concept Plan will also serve as a guide for developing policies for the Lougheed Transit Corridor Area Plan. Anticipated Zoning Bylaw work will also be drafted at this time. Through this zoning work, staff will take a careful look at commercial uses for the Lougheed Corridor to ensure what is being planned for in this area does not undermine the goals for attracting commercial and office use to the Town Centre, as the latter is the priority area for high density mixed-used development. 3. Lougheed Transit Corridor Development Permit (DP) Guidelines will also be drafted to support the Area Plan. Note that the DP Guidelines for form and character will help to guide design aspects of individual sites, as well as sensitive transition into the neighbourhood context. A key aim of the DP Guidelines will be to ensure they support the creation of a local identity for the Lougheed Transit Corridor and establish a community feel and sense of place. DP Guidelines are also helpful to address design for a variety of concerns, including accessibility for seniors and those with mobility issues. 4. The Area Plan and DP Guidelines will be presented to Council for input. 5. The Area Plan and DP Guideline bylaws will be presented to Council for first reading. If Council were to direct staff to explore an employment use incentive program, this could be undertaken through the Area Plan policy development phase in step 2 above. 4.0 INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The Planning Department will continue to work interdepartmentally as the Concept Plan evolves into Area Plan policies, DP Guidelines are developed and Zoning Bylaw work is undertaken. The recently adopted Access Management Policy 9.14 will be used to evaluate all new development applications along the corridor. 2449187 Page 6 of 7 CONCLUSION: The aim of the draft Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan is to set the foundation for land use that will support the growth and change that is anticipated for this area over the long-term. While the initial study commenced a review of the existing OCP land use policies for this area, the Concept Plan establishes a vision for the future. Once the draft Concept Plan receives Council endorsement, it will serve as a guide for new development. Work on developing an Area Plan will follow and build on the Concept Plan vision and this work will include the creation of Development Permit Guidelines for the area and supporting Zoning where required. "Original signed by Lisa Zosiak" Prepared by: Lisa Zosiak, MRM., MCIP, RPP Manager of Community Planning "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A: Appendix B: 2449187 Lougheed Transit Corridor Land Use Map Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan Page 7 of 7 6 N Scale: 1:11 ,000 Legend * Landmark Feature [:]study Area Boundary Option 1 -Park * Neighbourhood Park -Commercial Mixed-Use m; Transit Corridor Multi-Family ~ R3 Bus Stop D Flexible Employment D Local Residential Infill D Institutional D Intensive Attached Residential Infill • • Greenway D Conservation Q Corridor Node The City of Maple Ridge makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or present status of the information shown on this map . Transit Corridor Land Use Concept Map PLA NNING DEPARTMENT l~-mapleridge.ca FILE: TransitCorridorlandUseConcept.mxd DATE: Apr 30 , 2020 BY: OT )> "'O "'O rn z 0 >< )> ~----···-·· . I .. h·! ··! :~l. Lil ':: :i/f1 :1/1,i 1,il 'I: ;::1 ., APPENDIX B Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan The Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan is comprised of five main sections forming a comprehensive outline that will form the foundation for creating a Lougheed Transit Corridor Area Plan. The concept plan sections are as follows: 1. Guiding Principles 2. Neighbourhood Characteristics 3. Land Use Designations 4. Transportation and Connectivity 5. Park and Conservation 6. Land Use Map Guiding Principles . The Lougheed Transit Corridor planning process has produced five Guiding Principles to help navigate content development for the concept plan. Supporting objectives have been developed to create clear linkages between the Guiding Principles and the policies that will be developed for the area plan bylaw. 1. Rapid transit stops are mixed-use employment hubs. Objectives: • Locate highest residential densities surrounding rapid transit stops and along adjacent 'high streets'. • Focus medical offices and complimentary health services close to the Ridge Meadows Hospital. • Connect Maple Ridge to the region through rapid transit. • Increase the number and types of jobs within walking distance of rapid transit. • Grow transit ridership to build a case for future rapid transit investment. • Encourage a hierarchy of nodes that maintain the Town Centre as Maple Ridge's downtown. • Promote architectural design excellence at prominent gateway sites. 2. Mobility choice is enhanced. Objectives: • Everyday needs and destinations are within walking distance. • Streets are designed to be safe and enjoyable places to walk and cycle. • Building complete communities makes walking and cycling more viable. • Investigate strategies for public parking near rapid transit. • Explore transportation demand management strategies. New roads and pathways create smaller blocks to reduce walking and cycling distances. 1 3. The built environment is designed at a human scale. Objectives: • Buildings and streets are designed to create vibrant and dynamic places. • The form of development focuses on creating attractive streetscapes. • Expand opportunities for both informal and formal gathering spaces. • The form and character of new development is informed by local identity and context. • Create 'high streets' that entice people to stop, meet, linger and connect. 4. Neighbourhoods are safe, diverse and inclusive. Objectives: • Provide for community gathering spaces through redevelopment. • Integrate culture and heritage through public art installations. • Support the adaptive re-use of heritage buildings. • Reflect universal accessibility and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles in all design considerations. 5. Housing for the needs of many. Objectives: • Respect the character of established residential neighbourhoods. • Create new multi-family housing units in existing commercial areas. • Increase and enhance the stock of rental housing. • Ensure affordable housing units exist for current residents. • lncentivize sensitive infill between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway. 6. Green spaces connect people and nature. Objectives: • Create a linear greenway route that supports walking and cycling for transportation and recreation. • Provide new park spaces in infill areas. • Improve access and visibility of existing green space and environmentally sensitive areas. • Enhance and maintain health of environmentally sensitive areas. 2. Neighbourhood Characteristics The Lougheed Transit Corridor study area extends from 200 Street to 221 Street, bisecting numerous neighbourhoods and sub-areas in West Maple Ridge. 2 Throughout much of the corridor surrounding 203 Street and Laity Street, most homes have construction dates before 1991, with less than 3% of housing stock constructed since 2006. The predominant housing form is single family, with over 75% of units being owned compared to rented. The median age ranges between 40 and 42 years old and the average household size is 2.8. The Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan supports the creation of two mixed-use high density transit-oriented development nodes where Lougheed Highway intersects with 203rd and Laity Streets. These two transit nodes, where the rapid bus stops are located, are intended to be places for people to live, shop, work, and play. West Side Transit Node-The Commercial Heart of West Maple Ridge: The largest transit node is located at 203 Street and Lougheed Highway, surrounding a rapid transit stop. This node is the gateway into the city as the western entry point. Landmark buildings and features are desirable at the intersection of Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway, where triangular lots lend themselves to creative architectural expression. This node between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway is envisioned to transition from suburban strip malls to a vibrant urban village offering employment opportunities and multi-family housing in a mixed-use form. A public realm standard comparable with the Town Centre's will include attractive streetscapes focused on the West Ridge Greenway and outdoor plaza space for community gatherings. 203 Street between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway will be enhanced to create an inviting 'high street' streetscape connecting local and regional public transportation. The Ridge Junction Transit Node -An Urban Neighbourhood Steeped in Maple Ridge History: The key destinations of the Ridge Meadows Hospital and the Maple Ridge Cemetery surround the Laity Street Rapid Bus stop. The area's colonized history traces back to the 19th Century, when settlers first began establishing themselves along the Fraser River. St John's the Divine Church, identified as one of the oldest churches in the province, as well as numerous heritage homes in the neighbourhood stand as a legacy of the City of Maple Ridge's earlier times. Building off the charm and important healthcare function of this neighbourhood, the concept plan seeks to increase commercial use in both retail and service industry opportunities. Ensuring affordable 3 I I I r-1 -·_·,.: ~=.::---=--:..:..=--housing units for existing residents, as well as expanding housing options, will be an important focus in the neighbourhood. New housing forms such as duplexes, triplexes and street townhouses are supported as an infill option between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway, with multi-family forms such as apartments fronting Major Corridors. Neighbourhood High Streets -Walkable Places Create Greenway Destinations Supporting the new key transit nodes as 203 Street and Laity Street, respectively, four 'high streets' connect Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway at 203 Street, 207 Street, Laity Street, and 216 Street. 'High streets' at 203 Street and at Laity Street provide enjoyable routes that link local bus services on Dewdney Trunk Road to regional bus routes on Lougheed Highway, and are focal mixed-use areas that function with the node. The 216 'high street' is envisioned to provide for neighbourhood destinations along the greenway, and serve primarily the surrounding neighbourhoods with daily goods and services. It is envisioned that the 207 'high street' will attract small light industrial type of businesses with store fronts for retailing manufactured goods. All 'high streets' are intended to become shopping locales 'that connect to neighbourhoods and destinations north and south of the Lougheed Corridor. 4 3. Land Use Designations There are five land uses proposed for the Lougheed Transit Corridor Concept Plan (see land use map attached): • Commercial Mixed-Use • Flexible Employment • Transit Corridor Multi-Family • Local Residential Infill • Intensive Attached Residential Infill The draft concept plan reflects both the community vision and transit-oriented development planning principles to create an urban environment that offers transportation choice. Two primary mixed-use nodes are identified at rapid bus stop locations, and four north-south 'high streets' intersect with the West Ridge Greenway running in an east-west orientation. Employment and light industrial land uses reflect a desire to increase local jobs and regional demand for employment lands. In terms of housing, a greater range of tenure and size is encouraged and targeted between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway. • Local Residential Infill Purpose: To maintain existing single family character, while allowing for small-scale change. Sensitive infill options with a maximum of three storeys include secondary suites, detached garden suites and duplexes. • Transit Corridor Multi-Family Purpose: To continue multi-family residential densification through lot consolidation along key arterials such as Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway. Supported multi-family residential forms of development include townhouses and apartments with a maximum height of six storeys 5 •_-_r-_ --:_;;:-• ..........:_;:__ • Intensive Attached Residential Infill Purpose: To increase the choice of housing units in proximity to transit, services, and the West Ridge Greenway while maintaining the existing lot pattern. Attached residential housing forms such as duplexes, triplexes, and rowhomes to a maximum of three storeys are supported moderate density. • Mixed-Use Commercial : Purpose: To allow a mixed:use form of development with ground floor commercial and apartments above at transit nodes and along 'high streets'. A minimum of four storeys and a maximum of six storeys building height is supported. • Flexible Employment: Purpose: To promote local jobs in proximity to an established transportation network and existing residential neighbourhoods. A business park form of development is encouraged, with a consistent architectural standard, pedestrian focused design and a maximum height of six storeys. Typical highway commercial uses are also permitted and opportunities to incorporate this use within a business park format is encouraged. ,._ ~ -6 • Conservation Purpose: To protect and enhance natural features. These environmentally sensitive areas have opportunities for expanded buffering through re-development. Larger conservation areas provide space for walking trails that create recreational opportunities and pedestrian connectivity. • Park Purpose: Active spaces are focal points in neighbourhoods for a range of purposes for residents including recreation and gathering, as well as environmental benefits for stormwater management such as permeable infiltration, tree canopy and biofiltration. • Institutional Purpose: This land use provides for services such as education, government, fire protection, public transit, health and welfare, and cultural/spiritual. 7 i -' ' r Zoning Matrix To align with the proposed new land uses in the concept plan, several existing and some new zones are proposed to realize the building form and range of uses envisioned through the land use concept plan. Land Use Supported Zones Local Residential Infill • R-1 • R-4* • RT-1 Major Corridor Multi-Family • RT-2 limited to fourplex and courtyard • RM-1 • RM-2 Intensive Attached Residential Infill • RST • RT-1 • RT-2 limited to triplex Mixed-Use Commercial • C-7* Employment Business Park • M-6* • M-3 Flexible Commercial Employment • C-2 • CS-1 • M-3 *These zones are currently not in the Zoning Bylaw, and would be brought forward with a development application. 4. Transportation and Connectivity Lougheed Highway: A guiding principle of the concept plan is to enhance mobility choice. The Lougheed Highway will continue to be a high capacity east-west transportation route under the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure jurisdiction. The Lougheed Highway is identified as the future rapid transit corridor between the City's western boundary to the Town Centre. As a result, the City will work in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in reviewing development applications for properties fronting Lougheed Highway. As redevelopment occurs along this corridor, it will be important to obtain sufficient road right-of-way to accommodate future vehicular capacity and higher level forms of rapid transit. The City of Maple Ridge will also consult with the 8 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in determining land requirements for future rapid transit stations at 203 Street and Laity Street. Transit Supportive Development: Another guiding principle is to create mixed-use employment hubs at rapid transit stops. Translink will begin service of the R3 Lougheed rapid bus route in January 2020 between Haney Transit Exchange and Coquitlam Central Station. The Maple Ridge stops will be located at Laity Street and 203 Street on Lougheed Highway. A future stop at 222 Street may be added in the future. Residential and commercial growth is focused at the two rapid transit stops, with improved amenities and public realm also envisioned for these areas. The 203 Street node will support taller buildings and a larger range of commercial uses, serving as the western gateway into Maple Ridge. The Laity Street node will support a smaller geographic growth area, with the focus on retail and professional services that serve existing destinations at this intersection and a range of housing options including seniors and adaptable housing units, as well as assisted living units. In order to create transit-oriented communities, a range of uses within a walkable distance of a rapid transit stop is necessary. The concept plan seeks to achieve this at 203 Street and Laity Street, with apartments, retail uses, neighbourhood services, and employment opportunities clustered at the intersections. Beyond the rapid transit stops, a walkable, urban form of development is desired at the following intersections: 207 Street, extending between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed; and at 216 Street, focused at Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway. Between these four nodes of varying sizes, residential densities, and commercial uses, lower transitional forms of development are supported. This includes townhouses, fourplexes and courtyard forms of housing, service-oriented commercial uses, such as highway commercial (car dealerships, garden centres, lumber yards, and drive-through businesses), as well as business parks. West Ridge Greenway: To achieve enhanced mobility choice and to create re-imagined green spaces that connect people, and nature, a greenway between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed connecting the Town Centre to the western City boundary is desired. The greenway will support pedestrian and cycling movement continuously from 202 Street to 224 Street, and will support vehicular traffic between 203 and 207 Street, between 210 and Laity Street, and east of 216 Street. 9 West of McKenney Creek, the greenway will feature a multi-use facility on both sides of the street, I/\ Office or Residential =-r ~ Office or Office or Residential Residenfiol Office or Office or Residential Residenlial Pedestrian Pedestrian oriented retail oriented retail N g "' pedestrian level lighting, wayfinding signage, and garbage interactions and non-vehicular transportation on the greenway. East of McKenney Creek, the greenway will travel through residential neighbourhoods with a multi-use path continuing on the north side of the street. A new pedestrian and cycling connection will be created at Laity Street through the Maple Ridge Cemetery. Fronting the greenway east of 216 Street, a new neighbourhood park is creating a safe and attractive space for cyclists and pedestrians to use in a mixed-use setting. Allowing on-street parking on both sides of the street, will create a buffer between traffic and the multi-use path. An enhanced public realm standard, including double rows of street trees, seating, space for public art, receptacles will further invite proposed. The West Ridge Greenway will connect into the Town Centre's network of cycling ar,d pedestrian routes. 10 New Connections: The creation of new connections will enhance mobility choice and create re-imagined green spaces that connect people and nature, new road and path connections have been identified to improve movement in the study area. 1. Extend 119 Avenue west of 203 Street 2. Connect 119 Avenue east of 206 Street 3. Extend 119 Avenue east of 207 4. Pedestrian and cycling connection across McKenney Creek 5. Pedestrian connection from Cook Avenue neighbourhood south to Lougheed Highway 6. Improved access through Maple Ridge Cemetery 7. Pedestrian connection at Howison Avenue to Lougheed Highway. 8. Pedestrian connection from Bruce Avenue and Patterson Avenue to Lougheed Highway 9. North-south trail along McKenney Creek 10. North-south trail along Katzie Slough Transportation Demand Management: In order to further support mobility choice through enhanced, walking, cycling and transit opportunities, transportation demand management will be encouraged by exploring potential for: • Reduced parking standards for commercial development. • Opportunities to reduce residential parking standards based on housing form and tenure. • Encourage metered parking/pay parking in primary commercial node. • Planning for bike infrastructure such as: storage lockers, lock up facilities, tool stations at key nodes and greenways, parks. • Encouraging en.ct of trip facilities at businesses or mixed-use buildings. • Require short-term and long-term bike parking spaces in new mixed-use developments. Parks and Conservation: Currently, the following park space and conservations areas are located within the Lougheed Transit Corridor: • Maple Ridge Cemetery (park) • McKenney Creek (conservation) • Katzie Slough (conservation) Improving connectivity to these spaces by way of the West Ridge Greenway will be sought through redevelopment. This will require some expansion of the conservation area along McKenney Creek and Katzie Slough to allow for walking trails that will connect with the larger road network. Ensuring connectivity with the West Ridge Greenway is also intended for new neighbourhood parks being planned for the area. The aim for improved connectivity is to create local green spaces and enjoyable destinations as densities increase through infill development. 11 The existing Cook Park will be expanded to provide more recreational activities and a new park between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway east of 216 St has also been identified. Urban gathering space opportunities will also be explored as redevelopment occurs, specifically in the 203 Street node. Examples include an outdoor plaza where small events could be hosted, or indoor multi-purpose rooms for public use. 12 .~. iit44•i9M91 -~ i:ffi@Hi%-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: May 12, 2020 FILE NO: 2013-096-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem Parking Update After Consultation EXECUTIVE SUM MARY: A Tandem Parking Update report was presented to Council at Council Workshop on May 7, 2019. At this Workshop meeting, Council provided direction with respect to the following questions on tandem parking: • Should the Bylaw permit two car enclosed tandem garages? • Should the Bylaw permit one car enclosed tandem garages, with a driveway apron for parking? • What size of vehicle should be accommodated in the garage/apron? • Should the amount of tandem parking be limited? • To what percentage should the tandem parking be limited to? • Should internal garage dimensions be specified? • Should the amount of visitor parking be increased? • Should a defined storage area be required in the garage? Staff reviewed the feedback provided by Council in response to the above-referenced questions and have prepared options for amending the Zoning Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw accordingly. Staff also surveyed residents of townhouse developments with varying percentages of tandem parking, and sent letters to the development community to seek feedback on the proposed amendments based on Council's direction. The proposed amendments were also presented at the Urban Development Institute and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver Municipal Advisory Committee meeting of October 25, 2019, and feedback has been provided. This report summarizes the feedback provided by residents and developers and provides Council with options to consider for amending the Zoning Bylaw and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. RECOMMENDATION: That staff prepare a Zone Amending Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw for consideration at a future Council meeting, which reflects one of the three options presented in the staff report dated May 12, 2020. BACKGROUND: The current Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 allows for residential parking that obstructs access, where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space, either on a driveway apron, or enclosed within a garage. This is considered "tandem parking" and it is permitted in the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, R-1, RT-1 and RM-1 4.6 2013-096-RZ Page 1 of 8 zones. Tandem parking garages may be provided with two parking spaces placed one behind the other in an enclosed garage (see Diagram 1); one parking space enclosed within a garage and the second parking space provided on the apron in front of the garage (see Diagram 2); or as two un-enclosed parking spaces provided on an apron. Currently, there is no restriction on the amount of tandem parking garage units within a development. Garage dimensions and apron lengths are also not currently specified within the bylaws. DIAGRAM 1 YARD YARD STRATA ROAD STRATA ROAD A summary of the work that has been done to date to address Council's concerns around tandem parking is provided in the Council Workshop Update Report, dated May 7, 2019 (see Appendix A). Although no amending bylaws have been adopted to address Council's concerns around tandem parking to date, Staff have been working with developers to generally have a maximum of 70% tandem parking garage units and 30% double-car garage townhouse units, based on previous Council discussions. At the May 7, 2019 Council Workshop, Council provided direction on what restrictions they would like to see imposed to address their concerns. Staff also solicited feedback from residents, builders and developers. Based on the information received, Staff have prepared three options for Council's consideration. Each of the options would include: ., adding the definition of Tandem Parking into the Zoning Bylaw; and • limiting the number of townhouse blocks to six units, or 45 m (14 7 .5 ft.) in length. The three options differ in the amount of tandem parking garages that would be permitted within a townhouse development, as follows: • Option 1: 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages; • Option 2: 70% tandem garages and 30% double-car garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages; or • Option 3: 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, allowing two-car enclosed tandem garages, but with slightly shorter driveway aprons to accommodate a smaller vehicle (i.e. 4 m (13.1 ft.)). 2013-096-RZ Page 2 of 8 Amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw would accompany the Zone Amending Bylaw to reflect minimum garage and apron length dimensions. These proposed changes are discussed later in this report. CONSULTATION FEEDBACK: a) ResidenVOwner Feedback: A survey was sent to 600 residents/owners at townhouse developments with varying percentages of tandem parking garage units, in order to gauge how tandem parking is functioning, and their preference in selecting a tandem garage townhouse unit versus a double-car garage unit (see Appendix B). Forty-seven surveys were completed and a summary of the responses is provided (see Appendix C), with key questions summarized below. Of the 4 7 respondents, 38 respondents live in units with tandem garages; 25 of those are units with two-car, enclosed tandem garages, and 13 are units with single-car enclosed garages (see Figure 1). Of those respondents living in units with a tandem garage, affordability and availability were the biggest factors in selecting their unit (see Figure 2). Thirty-two of the 47 respondents in units with tandem garages would have or may have preferred a double-car, side-by-side garage (see Figure 3). Sixteen of those 32 respondents would have been willing to pay extra for a unit with a double-car, side-by-side garage; fourteen would not be willing to pay extra; and two did not respond to that question (see Figure 4). Of the 4 7 respondents, 14 have vehicles that regularly park on the street (see Figure 5), two of which are from units with double-car garages. A summary of why residents park on the street is provided in Table 1 of Appendix C. Eight of the 14 respondents that park on the street do so because either the vehicle is too large to fit in the garage or the garage is too small to accommodate two vehicles plus storage. Three of the respondents park on the street because the household has more than two vehicles. Two of the respondents park on the street because they use their garage for storage instead of parking; and one of the respondents parks on the street as it is too difficult to move the vehicles around. 2013-096-RZ Figure 1 -Questions #13 and #14 What type of townhouse unit do you live in? One-Car Endosed Tandem Garage 28% Double-Car Garage One-Car Enclosed Tandem Garage !ii Two-Car Enclosed Tandem Garage Page 3 of 8 Figure 2 -Question #15 Biggest Factor in Selecting a Tandem Garage Unit Avai 11 Affordability m Location Other m No response Figure 3 -Question #17 Would you have preferred a double-car, side-by-side garage? 1ll Yes m Maybe No 2013-096-RZ Page 4 of 8 Figure 4 -Question #16 If you preferred it, would you be willing to pay for a double-car, side-by-side garage? lll Yes :ai No Cl No response Figure 5 -Question #10 Does another person in your household park on the street? Yes ei No Based on the information provided by the resident survey, it could be inferred that: • affordability and availability are major factors in selecting the tandem garage units; • nearly half of the respondents who may have or would have preferred a double-car garage would be willing to pay extra for this type of unit (although an amount was not specified in the survey); and 2013-096-RZ Page 5 of 8 • the major reason vehicles from townhouse developments are parking on the street is because either the garage is too small to fit both vehicles plus storage, or the vehicle is too large for the garage. b) Developer/Builder Feedback: Letters were sent to the Building Department's Builders' Forum contact list, the Urban Development Institute, the Home Builders Association of Vancouver, the Condominium Home Owner's Association of BC, the BC Real Estate Association, and the Canadian Home Builders Association of BC, seeking feedback on the proposed amendments that were prepared based on Council's feedback (see Appendix D). A presentation was also provided at the Urban Development Institute and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver Municipal Advisory Committee meeting of October 25, 2019. Discussion at this meeting indicated that the developers at that table would like to see the percentage of enclosed tandem parking units permitted in the Zoning Bylaw amendment to be 70% enclosed tandem garage units, and 30% double-car garage units, as per staff's current practice. Four response letters of correspondence were received (see Appendix E). In general, developers have concerns around providing a variety of products and allowing the purchaser to choose based on their needs, and around the affordability of the units. They note that affordability decreases as the cost of land is borne by fewer units, thus increasing the average cost of all the units. An example calculation was provided by Polygon, through the Urban Development Institute, with financial and building data from 2014, indicating how the average cost per unit increases as the percentage of tandem parking units decreases, suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the number of tandem units and affordability. OTHER MUNICIPALITIES: A summary of municipalities that restrict tandem parking was provided in the Council Workshop Report dated May 7, 2019 (see Appendix A). Currently, the City of Coquitlam is the most restrictive, allowing a maximum of 33% enclosed tandem parking within a townhouse zone. Mission, Richmond, Surrey, and Port Moody allow 50% enclosed tandem parking, whereas Port Coquitam and the Township of Langley allow 40% enclosed tandem parking within a townhouse zone. The Township of Langley requires an additional 0.3 parking stalls for units that provide tandem parking garages. Surrey and Port Moody are the only cities that provide garage or apron dimensions, specifically related to the tandem parking arrangement. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: Based on Council, resident, and Developer/Builder feedback, three options to amend the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone are provided below. The three options attempt to alleviate the concern around vehicles parking on the street by limiting the amount of tandem parking garage units in townhouse developments. Each of the options would also include: • adding the definition of Tandem Parking into the Zoning Bylaw; and • limiting the number of townhouse blocks to six units or 45 m (147.5 ft.) in length. The above amendments would accompany any of the options below to create a definition for tandem parking, to improve the form of townhouse developments by reducing the scale of large building blocks, and to restrict two-car, enclosed tandem garages. Council was clearly opposed to two-car enclosed tandem garage units; however developers have expressed concerns with the design of a 2013-096-RZ Page 6 of 8 single-car enclosed garage unit with a carport or driveway apron, and the increased amount of land taken up for parking without having living space above. Based on this feedback, a third option is proposed, to reduce the amount of tandem garage units, but to allow them to be two-car enclosed garages, with a smaller driveway apron to accommodate a smaller vehicle. The three options are summarized below: Option 1: Based on Council's Direction Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone to 30% tandem garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, and 70% double-car garages, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages. Option 2: Based on Developer/Builder Feedback Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone to 70% tandem garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, and 30% double-car garages, as per current practice. This option would also prohibit two-car enclosed tandem garages. Option 3: Compromise of Options 1 and 2 Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone to 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, allowing two-car enclosed garages, but with slightly shorter driveway aprons to accommodate a smaller vehicle (i.e. 4 m (13.1 ft.)) as an alternative for the second vehicle. Once a percentage is determined, if a developer wanted to incorporate more tandem parking within a townhouse development than what is permitted, the developer could seek a variance to the zone. Council could then evaluate the amount of tandem parking on a project-specific basis through a Development Variance Permit. As with similar changes to the Zoning Bylaw or Official Community Plan, development applications will be monitored for one year after changes are implemented, and an update report to Council will be brought forward for review. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING BYLAW: In addition to amending the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw should be amended to reflect Council's desire for storage space and longer driveway aprons for Options 1 to 3. The following amendments are proposed for the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: • For Options 1 and 2: require a minimum 6 m (19.7 ft.) long and 3 m (9.8 ft.) wide driveway apron for single-car enclosed tandem garage units (note: Surrey requires an apron that is 2.75 m wide and 6 m long; Port Moody requires an apron that is 6.1 m long); • For Option 3: require a minimum 4 m (13.1 ft.) long and 3 m (9.8 ft.) wide driveway apron for two-car enclosed tandem garage units; 2013-096-RZ Page 7 of 8 • For Options 1 to 3: require a minimum 3.8 m (12.5 ft.) wide, 6.7 m (22.0 ft.) long, and 2.1 m (6.9 ft.) high single-car, enclosed garage dimensions, to accommodate a full-sized vehicle and storage (note: Surrey requires 3.2 m by 6.1 m); and • For Options 1 to 3: require a minimum 6.5 m (21.3 ft.) wide, 6.7 m (22.0 ft.) long, and 2.1 m (6.9 ft.) high double-car, enclosed garage dimensions, to accommodate full-sized vehicles and storage. Townhouse developments within the Town Centre Area could be exempted from providing the minimum dimensions proposed, as there is more access to transit and more likely that two vehicles may not be required. Council should advise if they would prefer this option. It should be noted that some developers have expressed concern with the cost of the additional floor area required above the larger garages if the minimum garage dimensions are implemented. CONCLUSION: At the request of Council, Staff have prepared options to amend the Zoning Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw to address concerns around tandem parking. This Staff report has been prepared to provide Council with the information needed to select a preferred option for limiting tandem parking within townhouse developments. Council may direct Staff to prepare the Zone Amending Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw based on their preferred option. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Tandem Parking Update Report, dated May 7, 2019 Appendix B -Example Tandem Parking Survey Appendix C -Summary of Survey Results Appendix D -Letter to Builders/Developers/Realtors Appendix E -Correspondence from Builders and Developers 2013-096-RZ Page 8 of 8 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Tandem Parking Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: APPENDIX A. MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 FILE NO: 2013-096-RZ MEETING: Workshop Tandem parking in townhouse developments has been a topic of discussion for several years, due to concerns around residents using their parking space for storage, lack of unit storage space, garages being too small and narrow, and short driveway aprons to accommodate vehicles. Concerns from residents surrounding townhouse developments are that the developments do not provide sufficient parking, and cause jncreases in the number of vehicles parked on the street. Council directed staff to review the tandem parking issues in 2013, a Public Open House was held on the proposed bylaw· amendments, and in 2015, the issue was referred back to staff for further review. The 2015 Planning Department Business Plan identified Tandem Parking Review as an item within the Business Plan; however based on Council's prioritization exercise, the item was removed from the 2015 Work Program. This item has been identified as a priority for this Council's 2019 Strategic Plan and staff were directed to provide an update to Council. The purpose of this report is to summarize the work done to date and to seek direction from Council on how to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: That Staff be directed to consult with residents residing in certain townhouse developments as listed in the report dated May 7, 2019, the Urban Development Institute.and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver Municipal Advisory Committee, the·· Builders' Forum, and Condominium Home Owners' Association to obtain feedback regarding tandem parking. BACKGROUND: The current Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 allows for parking that obstructs access, where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space. This is considered tandem parking. Tandem parking may be provided with two parking spaces placed one behind the other in an enclosed garage, as opposed to the typical side-by-side double car garage, or one parking space enclosed within a garage, and one parking space provided on the apron in front of the garage. Concerns around tandem parking were raised when several townhouse development applications were presented to Council that proposed either 100% or a high percentage of tandem parking. Council had concerns around the residents not using the second enclosed parking space for a vehicle, but rather using it for storage or living space; not having a driveway apron that could accommodate a second vehicle; not having enough space in the garage to maneuver or park two vehicles; and the logistics of the vehicle that is the first one in is usually the vehicle that would need to be the first one out, so it would be inconvenient to always have to move the vehicles around, resulting in more vehicles P~e 1..of.8 being parked on the street. Due to these concerns, Council directed staff to review the existing regulations, options and implications. On May 27, 2013, a discussion paper on Tandem and Off-Street Parking was presented at Council Workshop (see Appendix A). This discussion paper reviewed how other municipalities were regulating tandem parking in townhouse developments at that time, and reviewed different scenarios for a hypothetical development site, with different allowances for tandem parking (100%; 70%; 50%; and 0% tandem parking allowed). Based on the analysis conducted, the discussion paper made recommendations for regulation changes to limit the amount of tandem parking while trying to strike a balance between affordability and liveability. Staff were directed to prepare the bylaw amendments and conduct an Open House for review of the amendments. On October 8, 2013, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024 -2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 were given first reading, with amendments to what was proposed in the original Council Workshop Report (see Appendix B). The bylaw amendments were then referred to a public process for comments and feedback. On November 13, 2013, an Open House was held and the results of the feedback provided from the general public and from the developers were summarized in a report presented at Council Workshop on February 17, 2014 (see Appendix C). Resident concerns with tandem parking were as follows: • The inner tandem garage is used for storage/living area, so secondary vehicles are forced onto the street; • Tandem garages are too small for a pick-up truck and a car; • The taller tandem units are not senior-friendly; and • The narrow tandem units do not have a visually pleasing steetscape. Developer concerns were a$ follows: • They are concerned with the 70% maximum allowance for tandem units, as it will make it difficult to sell the 30% double-car garage units, as they will be more expensive; • They support having a mix of tandem and double-car garages, but would prefer it to be left to the architect, to be assessed on a site-by-site basis, rather than putting in the 70% maximum tandem unit restriction in the bylaw; • They oppose the requirement for a full driveway apron for each tandem unit, as it increases the parking requirement, but does not discourage people from converting tandem garage space to storage/living space; and • There is general support for providing more on-site visitor parking on townhouse site. Based on the feedback from the questionnaires provided at the Open House, amendments were proposed to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024 -2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 and were presented at the March 25, 2014 Council Meeting for second reading and to proceed to Public Hearing for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024 -2013; and for second and third reading for Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 (as amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw are not required to go to Public Hearing) (see Appendix D). A summary of the bylaw iterations over the years is provided as Appendix E. Page 2 of 8 Council did not give second reading as they were not satisfied with the bylaws as amended, and rather referred the bylaws to a future Workshop Meeting. Concerns expressed around the amended bylaws included the following: • Were the proposed amendments addressing residents' concerns? • How are the storage issues being addressed? • Average vehicles are too large to fit within the proposed dimensions and the proposed apron lengths also do not accommodate larger vehicles. • Council liked the original proposal of 70% maximum tandem parking units, but appreciated the flexibility for site-specific considerations. The 2015 Planning Department Business Plan identified Tandem Parking Review as an item within the Business Plan; however based on Council's prioritization exercise, the item was removed from the 2015 Work Program. In the meantime, based on the previous discussions, Staff have been recommending to developers to provide a 70/30 or 60/40 ratio of tandem garages to double-car garages for townhouse developments to alleviate Council's concerns until the bylaw amendments were approved. Anecdotally, since 2015, many developers have been reverting back to double-car garages in Maple Ridge, in recognition of the larger vehicles driven here and market demand. However, as affordability has decreased, tandem parking is again being increasingly considered by developers to increase densities and reduce costs. Therefore, this review is again timely. This item has been identified as a priority for this Council's 2019 Strategic Plan and staff were directed to provide this update to Council. Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: The current Off-Street Parking and Loading and Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 allows for parking that may have obstructed access where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space. This tandem parking arrangement is currently permitted in the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, R-1, RT-1 and RM-1 zones, without restriction. Garage dimensions and apron lengths are also not currently specified within the bylaw. Given that several years have passed since our Council first discussed implementing a limit on the tandem parking within townhouse developments, it is worthwhile to provide a summary of surrounding municipalities that have implemented similar restrictions within their comparable townhouse zones. The table below summarizes municipalities reviewed. The most recent implementation was the Township of Langley, which just passed the Zone Amending Bylaw in March 2019. Note that the highest allowable percentage of tandem parking is 50% for surrounding existing municipal regulations. Table 1 -Summary of Municipalities that Restrict Tandem Parking in Townhouse Developments Municipality Maximum Percentage of Tandem Visitor Parking Parking Permitted in a Townhouse Requirements Zone Coquitlam 33% 0.2 Mission 50% 0.2 Port Coquitlam 40% 0.2 Richmond 50% 0.2 Surrey 50% 0.2 Township of Langley 40% 0.2 Page 3 of 8 ANALYSIS: Summary of Vehicle and Garage Dimensions At the Council Meeting of March 25, 2014, where the Zone Amending and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaws were last discussed, Council was questioning the dimensions proposed for the garages and apron lengths to accommodate various vehicles. Below is a summary of common vehicle widths and lengths: Table 2 -Common Vehicle Widths and Lengths Vehicle Type Width Length Small Car (Toyota Yaris, Ford Fiesta) 1.7m (5.6 ft.) 4.0m -4.4m (13.1 ft. -14.4 ft.) Compact Car (Toyota Corolla, Nissan Leaf) 1.8m (5.9 ft.) 4.5m -4.7m (14.8 ft. -15.4 ft.) Compact SUV (Ford Escape, Hyundai Tucson) 1.9m (6.2 ft.) 4.5m (14.7 ft.) , Family Car (Toyota Camry, Honda Accord) 1.9m (6.2 ft.) 4.9m (16.1 ft.) Large SUV (Jeep Cherokee, Toyota Highlander) 1.9m (6.2 ft.) 4.6m -4.9m (15.1 ft. -16.1 ft.) Pick-Up Truck (Toyota Tacoma, Ford F-150) 2.0m (6.6 ft.) 5.4m -6.4m (17.7 ft. -21.0 ft.) The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 currently has minimum off-street parking dimensions of 2.5m (8.2 ft.) wide, 5.5m long (18 ft.), and 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high (parallel parking spaces are to be 6.1m (20 ft.) long). There is a provision to allow for 10% small car only parking stalls, which have dimensions of 2.4m (7.9 ft.) wide, by 4.9m long (16 ft.), by 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high. In addition to the vehicle width, space is required to open doors and maneuver around, which is typically 0.9m (3 ft.) on either side of the vehicle. Based on the widths and lengths of the range of common vehicles listed in Table 2, the minimum internal width required for a single car garage, including the 0.9m (3 ft.) maneuvering space on either side, and front and back ranges from 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.), and a minimum length of 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.), as summarized in Table 3 below. The minimum internal width range for a tandem garage would remain the same, at 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.), but the minimum length would range from 10. 7m (35.1 ft.) to 15.5m (50.9 ft.). Note that this dimension is generous, as it accounts for 0.9m (3 ft.) in front of, in between, and behind each vehicle. The larger range also accounts for two full-sized pick-up trucks, which is probably not likely. A more likely scenario may be a pick-up truck and a compact SUV or car, which would be in the upper range of 13.6 m (44.6 ft.). The minimum internal width range for a double car garage ranges from 6.1m (20 ft.) to 6.7m (22.0 ft.) wide, accounting for 0.9m (3 ft.) on either side of each vehicle and in between. The minimum length range would be the same as a single car garage, ranging from 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.). Page 4 of 8 Table 3 -Minimum Garage Dimensions, Including 0.9m (3 ft.) Maneuvering Space on All Sides Type of Garage Width Range Length Range Single Car 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.) 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.) Tandem Car 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.) 10. 7m (35.1 ft.) to 15.5m (50.9 ft.) Double Car 6.1m (20 ft.) to 6.7m (22.0 ft.) 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.). Based on the above information, if Council wanted to specify dimensions to accommodate a range of vehicles, the minimum garage dimensions would be as follows: Type of Garage Single Car Tandem Car Double Car Table 4 -Proposed Minimum Garage Dimensions Depending on Vehicle Width and Length Typical Garage Width Length Dimensions Family Car/SUV Pick-up Truck Family Car/SUV Pick-up Truck 3.7m (12 ft.) wide by 3.7m (12.1 ft.) 3.7m (12.1 6.7m (22.0 ft.) 8.2m (26.9 ft.) 5.5m (18 ft.) long ft.) 3.5m (11.5 ft.) wide 3.7m (12.1 ft.) 3.7m (12.1 12.5m (41.0 ft.) 13.5m (44.3 ft.) by 11m (36 ft.) long ft.) 5.8m (19 ft.) wide by 6.5m (21.3 ft.) 6.5m (21.3 6. 7m (22.0 ft.) 8.2m (26.9 ft.) 6m (20 ft.) long ft.) Based on a review of townhouse development applications, a typical double-car garage is approximately 5.8m (19 ft.) wide by 6m (20 ft.) long. A typical single car garage is 3.6m (12 ft.) wide by 5.5m (18 ft.) long. A typical tandem garage, with 2 enclosed stalls is 3.5m (11.5 ft.) wide by 11m (36 ft.) long, as summarized in Table 4 above. These typical tandem garage dimensions would accommodate for two family cars/SUVs, with less space in between for maneuvering, but would not accommodate for two pick-up trucks in a tandem arrangement. Council could consider requiring a larger garage dimension to accommodate either a smaller vehicle with storage, or a larger vehicle without storage. Depending on whether or not Council wants to permit tandem car garages with two enclosed spaces, direction on the type of vehicles to accommodate would be required to specify the minimum dimensions in the amending bylaws. Should Council determine that they would like to eliminate tandem garages, due to the concern of using the parking space for storage/living space, and allow for a single car garage with a driveway apron to accommodate the second parking stall, direction would be needed to determine what type of garage and length of the driveway apron would be appropriate. Additionally, should Council determine that they would like to restrict the amount of tandem parking within a townhouse development, as had been proposed as 70% maximum tandem parking in the initial Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 that had received first reading, Council should provide direction in the amount of tandem garages they would deem appropriate. Note that should Council determine they would like the flexibility to review a development on a site-by-site basis, the developer would still be able to apply for a variance to the maximum allowable tandem parking requirement. However, an amendment to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 would provide staff with a baseline to inform developers of what Council prefers. Page 5 of 8 A common concern with townhouse development applications in general is that there is not enough parking in the area and that residents are parking on the streets. Council could direct staff to increase the required amount of visitor parking for townhouse developments to alleviate this concern; however it would not address the issue of residents using on-street parking, as it would be intended for visitors only. The current requirement for visitor parking for multi-family uses in Maple Ridge is 0.2 per unit, which is consistent with surrounding municipalities (see Table 1). Summary of Recent Townhouse Development Applications Although the proposed amendments did not get second reading back in 2015, staff have been working with developers to avoid 100% tandem parking arrangements for townhouse developments and have been recommending to developers to provide a 70/30 or 60/ 40 ratio of tandem garages to double-car garages for townhouse developments. In addition to this provision, staff also limit the block sizes to 6 units per block and insist that the townhouse units are provided with a pedestrian door entrance that is separate from the garage to improve the liveability and appearance of the development. Recent townhouse development applications with tandem parking arrangements that have been approved by Council, range from 10% to 60% are (see Appendix F). One application, located on the east side of 240 Street, north of Kanaka Way, consisted of 54 units, 5 of which were with a tandem garage configuration (10%). Another application, located on the south-west corner of 236 Street and Larch Avenue, consisted of 31 units, 3 of which were with a tandem garage configuration (10%). The third application, located on the east side of 240 Street, south of Kanaka Way, consisted of 130 units, 76 of which were with a tandem garage configuration (58%). All three of these rezoning applications were given final reading in 2018. Another application that received first reading in 2017 and is located within the Town Centre Area Plan, is located on Fletcher Street, and is proposing 7 units, 4 of which would have a tandem garage configuration (57%). In addition to the applications above, a townhouse development application located on Lougheed Highway, received third reading on March 18, 2019. This application was under the RM-4 (Multiple Family Residential District) zone which requires parking to be underground. The developer sought a variance to this underground parking requirement, so the development is similar to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, with a higher density. The development consists of 30 townhouse units, 18 of which are with a tandem garage configuration (60%). The tandem units also have driveway apron lengths of 6.1m (20 ft.) to accommodate a third vehicle. Page 6 of 8 NEXT STEPS: Although much work has been done to try to address Council's concerns with tandem parking, 100% tandem parking remains permitted in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990, and this warrants further review. Prior to amending the bylaws and bringing them to Council for review, staff recommend that feedback be obtained from residents residing in certain townhouse developments, as listed below; the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver (HAVAN) Municipal Advisory Committee, in person at the next scheduled meeting; the Builders' Forum, in person at the next scheduled meeting; and Condominium Home Owners' Association, through a mailout. This feedback would be used to consider what type of amendments are needed and to create options for regulating tandem parking in Maple Ridge. The results of this feedback would be brought back to Council in a future Workshop report. For the residents residing in townhouse developments, anonymous hard copy surveys could be sent to the residents of townhouse developments, with electronic surveys made available, to developments that have: i. 100% double car garages (10 unit example located at 11548 207 Street) ii. 100% tandem garages (159 unit example located at 10151 240 Street) iii. 70/30 tandem to double car garage ratio (61 unit example located at 13260 236 Street); iv. 60/40 tandem to double car garage ratio (167 unit example located at 11305 240 Street); and v. 50/50 tandem to double car garage ratio (40 unit example located at 23986 104 Avenue) The examples listed above were selected as the Development Permits for the townhouses were approved within the last 10 years and have been constructed and are occupied. The survey could be used to determine if the tandem garages are a concern for liveability, and if the cost savings were worth the potential inconvenience of having the tandem parking arrangement, and the extent to which it forces additional vehicles onto the street. ALTERNATIVE: Should Council feel that an additional public consultation process is not required and that enough information has been provided, Council can direct staff to prepare the amending bylaws accordingly with direction on the questions below: • Should the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw permit 2 car enclosed tandem garages, or a single car garage and driveway apron that can accommodate a second vehicle? • The size of vehicles to be accommodated in the tandem garage or on the driveway apron? • Should the amount of tandem parking units within a townhouse development be limited, and if so, to what percentage? • Should the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw specify internal garage dimensions? • Should the amount of visitor parking required per unit be increased? • Should a defined storage area be required in garages? Page 7 of 8 CONCLUSION: This report was prepared as an update to Council on what has been done in the past with respect to regulating tandem parking in townhouse developments, and to seek input from Council on how to proceed. The recommendation is to seek input from the various stakeholders listed in the report and return to a future Council Workshop to summarize the results. Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA PIManer . ' /' v , ~Jj_p_( Reviewed by: Concurrence: The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper, dated May 27, 2013 Appendix B -Tandem and RM-1 Zone Amendments Report, dated October 7, 2013 Appendix C -Tandem and Off-Street Parking Open House Summary, dated February 17, 2014 Appendix D -Tandem Parking in the RM-1Zone Report, dated March 17, 2014 Appendix E -Summary of Bylaw Iterations Appendix F -Recent Site Plans of Townhouse Developments with Tandem Parking Page8 of8 Srlll•ti co,urnbfs TO: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council MEETING DATE: FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: May 27, 2013 Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-street Parking Discussion Paper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Department 2013 Business Plan directed staff to prepare a report on tandem and off-street parking in Maple Ridge, based on concerns with tandem parking in multi-family (townhouse) developments in the District. This was triggered by several recent townhouse development applications proposing all or a significant percentage of the units with tandem parking. Tandem parking is currently permitted in a few single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zohe. Given that recent discussion has noted concerns with tandem parking in townhouse projects, the focus of this report is on tandem and off-street parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Townhouse units with tandem parking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions within the region. Typically the tandem parking arrangement results in a taller, narrower unit with a minimal driveway apron in front of the tandem garage. The perception is that tandem townhouse units typically sell for less, than the units with a double car garage and it is often a preferred option with developers to maximize the unit yield. Staff discussions with some of the private sector stakeholders suggest that tandem units are more affordable, however, there is no concrete evidence that tandem units sell for less in the market. General discussions with staff from other jurisdictions and the private sector stakeholders indicated that while there is a general perception of overall acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with a 100% tandem townhouse developments across the region. This report focuses on the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and includes the following: • Review of the existing regulations for tandem and off-street parking and loading regulations; • Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region; • Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking; • Review of scenarios/ options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic examples of each scenario; • Review of the recommended option for tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. RECOMMENDATION: That the ~Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paperff dated May 27, 2013 be received for information and discussion. BACKGROUND: The Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 permits tandem parking in specific single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may be wider. In some cases, there is parking along the streets as well. 1 However within the townhouse zone it appears to be a concern. The District has seen a steady rise in townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units. DISCUSSION: A) Review of the existing tandem and Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations: The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The bylaw reads: PART IV, Section 4.1(iii)(b){iv), of Maple Ridge off-Street Parking & Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, "the RS-1 (one Family Urban Residential) zone, RS-1a (One Family Amenity Residential) zone, RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential-Medium Density) zone, R-1 (Residential District) zone, RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential) zone and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, may have obstructed access where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking spacew. Out of the above noted zones, the RS-1, RS-1b, R-1 and RT-1 are single family or duplex zones. Each of the above mentioned zones require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit and an additional parking space for a permitted Accessory Residential use such as a Home Occupation, Secondary Suite or Detached Garden Suite (if permitted in the zone). For the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, two spaces per unit plus a 0.2 space per unit for visitors is required. It is important to note that out of all the available multi-family zones in the District, only the RM-1 {Townhouse Residential District) zone permits tandem parking. B) Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region: The following identifies the tandem regulations used in other municipalities within the region (Appendix A): i. City of Pitt Meadows: allows tandem parking in the townhouse zone. The townhouse zone requires a ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors. ii. City of Port Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking rngulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but permits it on a site by site basis. Recently their Council has expressed concerns with tandem parking in the townhouse zones and the City staff has been encouraging a balanced proportion of double and tandem garages on a project by project basis. iii. City of Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but permits it on a site by site basis. In most cases, tandem spaces may be provided as extra spaces and are not included in the parking calculations. They are sometimes proposed in addition to the minimum parking spaces required in the zone, as a marketing tool. iv. Township of Langley: permits tandem parking in the townhouse zone but requires a higher ratio i.e. in the townhouse zone, units with tandem parking garages require a ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit instead of 2.0 spaces per unit for a double garage unit. Th'e Township requires a Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space, to discourage conversion of it to a habitable space. The bylaw is silent on permitting tandem parking in any other zones. 2 v. City of Burnaby: does not permit tandem parking except for specific projects on site by site basis through a Comprehensive Development zoning. It forms a part of specific site design with a Restrictive Covenant registered on title to ensure that the tandem space is not converted in to a habitable space. The required minimum parking ratio for ground-oriented townhouse zones is 1.75 spaces per unit (including 0.25 spaces per unit for visitor parking) except for a specific zone permitted in the business district where it is reduced to 1.0 space per unit. These ratios are much lower parking ratios than Maple Ridge and other jurisdictions and tandem parking is in general discouraged. vi. Corporation of Delta: permits tandem parking in single family zones, duplex zone, strata house and townhouse zones. There are more than one townhouse zones with varying densities from 25 to 40 units per net hectare, depending on the specific zone. Visitor parking ratio is similar to Maple Ridge's requirements. vii. City of Abbotsford: permits tandem parking in single family and townhouse residential zones. The townhouse residential use is required to provide two spaces per unit, of which one is located in a garage or under-ground parking and 20% of the total parking is required to be for visitors, which is same as the Maple Ridge's requirements. viii. District of Mission: permits tandem parking for ground-oriented townhouse zones, but with a restriction on the percentage of tandem units in two zones. These zones permit up to 50% tandem units which are limited to internal units only. The densities vary in the three townhouse zones they offer and parking ratios are comparable to the District's requirements. ix. City of Richmond: has four sub-zones with the townhouse form and tandem parking is permitted within certain geographical locations in site-specific zones. These zones are permitted in the city centre and other busy areas that have fairly good connectivity by public transit. Standard minimum lengths and widths of the parking spaces are specified and densities vary in the various townhouse zones. It is interesting to note that the amenity space is expressed as a floor space ratio of 0.1. x. City of Surrey: permits tandem parking in ground oriented multiple unit residential use with a greater apron length on the driveway. The bylaw states "In a tandem parking arrangement where the second vehicle is parked outside a garage in the driveway a minimum length of 6.0 metres (19. 7 feet) shall be provided for each parking space". The City has recently been dealing with enforcement issues with tandem parking in Clayton Heights area. The tandem spaces have become living spaces and there are renters with cars on the same site. City of Surrey has some additional regulations with respect to tandem parking permitted in the ground-oriented multiple unit residential zones, such as: restrictions on location of tandem parking spaces on an arterial road; restriction that both the tandem spaces be enclosed and attached to the unit; requirement that both tandem spaces be held by the same owner and that tandem parking is not permitted for units located within 6.0 metres from lot entrances/exits. In reviewing other municipal. parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community with some not permitting tandem parking, some permitting tandem parking on a project by project basis, some permitting tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount of tandem; requiring additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons. Discussion with some of the staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions are expressing concerns over 100% tandem unit developments. 3 C) Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking: The following section of the report notes the issues and preferences relating to tandem parking, that were identified through research and consultation with developers, architects, Building and Fire departments. The issues have been organized into the following categories: i. BC Building Code requirements: Often the tandem or double parking garages on townhouse sites are built to meet the minimum B.C. Building Code requirements for width, depth and height. A driveway apron is the area in front of a tandem garage. It may or may not be adequate to park one vehicle. Under the bylaw, the RM-1 {Townhouse Residential District) zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. If it is not adequate to park one vehicle, this may result in individual vehicles possibly encroaching into the 6.0 metre wide strata road. ii. Unit sizes, architectural design and streetscape: Townhouse units with 9 tandem garage are typically narrower {12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3 or 3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ significantly, one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller, narrow three-storey massing. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form. The townhouse form is often envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single family and apartment building forms. A 100% tandem development maximizes on the density or the unit count on site which can at times be at the expense of creating interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. A combination of tandem and double garage units have greater potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered units and inter-linking green spaces. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous fa9ade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light, ventilation and views. iii. Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space; enforcement of tandem spaces and visitor parking spaces: The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department respond to formal written complaints seeking enforcement. However, they cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property. The District prefers the Strata Councils to try to resolve their own parking disputes. Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after the owner moves in. Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in the streets, after this happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful. For the District it becomes a safety concern, yet enforcement is a challenge. Long-term preservation of tandem parking space cannot necessarily be secured through the use of a Restrictive Covenant. A covenant however, can be informative to the unit owners but the District would be required to undertake enforcement and/or legal action. However, the District is under no obligation to enforce such a covenant even if in place. 4 D) ANALYSIS: Review of scenarios/options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic examples of each scenario: As explained earlier the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone permits a townhouse development with ground-oriented units that have 100% tandem parking spaces. The density permitted is a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6 times the net lot area, with an additional 5om2 per unit basement habitable space. To review the impact of tandem parking spaces on a townhouse development, several factors need to be considered. Some important factors are: density (floor space ratio), usable open space, common activity area, setbacks, size of the block of units, driveway apron length, on-site parking for residents and visitors. The graphic examples attached as appendices help to illustrate the potential impacts of tandem parking along with recommended measures to minimize impacts. For the purpose of this review, four categories were analysed for the various scenarios: a) A townhouse development with 100% tandem parking spaces (currently permitted); b) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 70% tandem parking spaces; c) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 50% tandem parking spaces; d) A townhouse development with no tandem parking spaces (100% double garages). To assist in this review graphic illustrations have been provided utilizing some fixed and variable elements. These have been applied to a hypothetical piece of land. It should be noted that for simplification purpose, the development site is assumed to be a flat, one acre rectangular shaped piece of land with road frontage on one side. The following fixed elements included are: 1) Lot Size: 404 7 m2 (1 acre or 43562.97 ft2) 2) FSR: 0.6 (50 m2 extra for habitable basement area per unit) 3) Unit sizes: 2 bedroom =1000 ft2and 3 bedroom=1500 ft2(50% of each type) 4) Setbacks: 7.5 m from all property lines 5) Parking: 2 spaces per unit (residential) and 0.2 spaces per unit (visitor) 6) 6.0 m wide strata road (no parking along strata road) 7) Max lot coverage: 40% 8) Units in one block: 2 minimum and 6 maximum (2-6 units) Some variable elements that could have a potential impact on addressing previously identified concerns with tandem parking are: 1) Percentage (%) of tandem parking spaces on site 2) Usable Open Space Area for units with tandem parking spaces 3) Common Activity Area for units with tandem parking spaces 4) Visitor parking ratio for units with tandem parking spaces 5) Driveway apron length for units with tandem parking spaces 6) Setback variances A total of 18 scenarios were considered in the review of tandem parking; however, one scenario clearly resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem and double wide units, maximization of green 5 space/useable open space and a well-articulated, livable design, while maintaining a viable unit yield (refer to item i on page 7). Concern has been expressed with the 100% tandem parking (i.e. category a), which is what is currently permitted. In reality no tandem parking (i.e. category d) is not realistic, as most developments prefer to maximize on the number of units on site. Therefore, a mix of tandem and double Wide parking scenarios are explored in greater detail (Appendix C-J). In each of the four scenarios, one variable was introduced to see the overall impact (see Appendix C-J). It was evident that introducing one variable in each of the scenarios did not help mitigate the potential impacts of units with tandem parking spaces. However, when three variables such as requiring a driveway apron, increasing the useable open space and limiting the amount of tandem parking, the overall improvements to the site design were clearly visible. Included below is an illustration of 100% units with tandem parking spaces, as permitted today. Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required #Units 21 Uni!s Site Area 4,047 m2 =43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms l1 Units GFA 2,462 m2 = 26,500 sq ft # oi 2 Bedroams 10 Units Road Area: 473 m2 =5,095 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 100% Driveway Area-: 150m2 "'1,611 sqtt % of double stall to units ()% Site Coverage: 1,2.~m2 "'~3,59Ssqft Usable Open Space 2,011 m2 795m2 Unit/Ha: 51.892 Common Af;tivity At1;1a 100 m2 105m2 Aoad Site Cove~e: 11.7% Visitor Parklng@ 0.2 5 stalls 4.2 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: $.7% FSA: 0.608 MOO Total Hard Surface Coverage: 15,4% Building Site Coverage: 31.2% 40,0% 6 -------~~---It is clear in the site plan above, 21 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. It is important to note that this scenario maximizes the unit count, density, gross floor area and provides minimal articulation to the streetscape for the residents. The required useable open space and common activity area are met by including all the setback areas and not permitting any setback reductions via a Development Variance Permit. i) Scenario 2E: maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces with a driveway apron of 5.5 metres required for units with tandem spaces; usable open space increased by 15 m2 per unit and all the other regulations in the RM-1 zone permitted currently. Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required #Units 17 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 : 43,560 sq tt #of 3 Bedroomi, 7 Unit!l GFA 1,90(i rn2 :20,500$qff ti of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: !;i67m2.:,6,103sq'1t % of tandem still ID unit;; 65% Driveway Area: 27-3 m2 =2,944 sq ft % of doubt-e stall to units 35% Site Coverage: 94:3 m2 "'10,154sq ft Usable Open Space 2,097 m2 955 m2 Unit/Ha: 42.006 Common Activity Area 65 m2 85m2 i=load Sile Coverage: 14.0% Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls $.4 $!alls brlveway Site Coverage: e.ao/o FSR: 0.471 o.soo Total Hard Surfaci. Coverage: 20.8 %-Building Site Coverage: 23.3% 40,0% The graphic example above shows 65% of the units have tandem garages. It is clear in the site plan above that, by introducing a requirement that permits a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces and by requiring a driveway apron length of 5.5 metres only for units with tandem parking 7 spaces, and by increasing the usable open space by 15m2 per unit only for units with tandem parking spaces, 17 to 18 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. The following can be inferred from scenario 2E above: • A combination of the three variables i.e. driveway apron requirement for units with tandem parking spaces; proportionate increase in the usable open space for units with tandem parking spaces and permitting up to a maximum of 70% of the total number of units to have tandem parking spaces; the density is not significantly compromised, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. • Note that setback variances have not been shown. It should be noted that with setback variances the unit yields are very similar to those achieved under the current bylaw (refer to Appendix K). It is clear from Appendix K that when setback variances are granted for scenario 2E, three more units can be achieved, increasing the unit count to 20 (instead of 17 units in scenario 2E above). E) PREFERRED APPROACH: Based on the above analysis it is clear that limiting the amount of tandem parking, and offsetting it with other requirements results in a development that can achieve densities similar to the current bylaw (with variances) and at the same time address the on-site congestion, form, streetscape, and parking concerns. Recognizing that each site is different and that the Development Community prefers flexibility, it is recommended that staff prepare amending bylaws that will limit the amount of tandem parking as stated below: A maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces may be permitted with the following required for each unit having tandem parking spaces, except in the Town Centre Area: • Block size not to exceed six attached units; • Driveway apron length of 5.5 metres; and • Usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or bigger units and 5Qm2 for each two bedroom or smaller units. Note that 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are subject to Council approval. Should Council wish to explore the above noted changes to the bylaws, the following resolution would provide staff with direction to prepare the required amending bylaws: That Council direct staff to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, as described in Section E of the "Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Papern dated May 27, 2013. 8 CONCLUSION: Tandem parking has been permitted in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and a few others single family zones as mentioned in this report. For most of the single family zones that permit tandem parking, it has not been a concern due to wider road standards and longer driveway apron lengths. The biggest impact is seen in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone that is serviced by a 6.0 metre wide strata road and there is no requirement for a driveway apron. It is important to maintain the primary intention of the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, which is to provide for a low-density multi-family housing option. A review of other jurisdictions shows that there are similar concerns about developments with 100% units that have a tandem parking arrangement on site. There needs to be a functional balance of both; tandem and double garage units, to achieve a financially feasible, safe and good quality development. The recommended option (scenario 2E) has been discussed in section E of the report. "original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services "original signed by J.L. {Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Regional review-matrix showing tandem regulations in other jurisdictions; Appendix 8 -Scenario Comparison Chart Appendix C -Scenario 2A Appendix D -Scenario 28 Appendix E -Scenario 2C Appendix F -Scenario 20 Appendix G -Scenario 3A Appendix H -Scenario 38 Appendix I -Scenario 3C Appendix J -Scenario 3D Appendix K -Scenario 2F 9 TO: O•epRa•I• Gftl.1h)r fqe£~hi~ DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council DATE: FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: October 7, 2013 2013-096-RZ CofW SUBJECT: Tandem Parking and RM-1 zone amendments; First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No.7025-2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 27, 2013 Council received a discussion paper on "Tandem Parking and the RM-1 zone", which laid out several scenarios and one preferred approach to regulate the proportion of tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. For the RM-1 zone, the Discussion Paper recommended: • a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking arrangement; • a driveway apron, 5.5 metres long for each tandem unit; • usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or larger unit and 50m2 for each two bedroom or smaller unit; and • limiting the building block size to six attached units. It was also recommended that 100% tandem units in the RM-1 zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. At the regular meeting of May 28, 2013, Council resolved that staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw as described in that report. At the meeting Council raised issues regarding impact on density and unit count, analysis on sloping sites, enforcement on strata lots, and consultation with the development community, which are addressed in this report. The draft bylaw amendments reflect Council's direction. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 be given first reading; 2) That Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be given first reading; and 3) That the above bylaw amendments be referred to a public process for comments and feedback. BACKGROUND: Tandem Parking is the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw permits a tandem garage or a single garage with a tandem parking space on the apron. Council expressed concerns about the impacts of a 100% tandem arrangement in the townhouse proposals seen recently and directed staff to do a review of tandem parking. It is important to note that currently, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The RM-1 zone is the only multi-family zone in the District permitting tandem parking. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may be wider and longer. In some cases, there is on-street parking as well. In contrast, tandem parking has been a concern in the townhouse zone as driveway aprons are typically not provided and the 6.0 metre wide strata roads do not permit parking. In recent years, the District has seen a steady rise in townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units. Townhouse units with tandem parking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions across the region. Typically, the tandem parking arrangement results in a tall, narrow unit with a minimal driveway apron leading into a tandem parking garage. General discussions with staff from other jurisdictions and the private sector indicated that while there is a general acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with 100% tandem townhouse developments across the region. The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities. It compared 18 scenarios, to help understand the impacts of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. The accompanying presentation included photos of existing townhouse developments in the District. All of the 18 scenarios considered both, fixed and variable elements, applied to a hypothetical piece of land. The discussion paper concluded that by introducing a combination of the three variables (i.e. a driveway apron; open space and percentage of tandem units); the density is mildly impacted, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. The report further demonstrated that if setback variances, facing a municipal street were supported, a similar density without seriously impacting unit yields, can be achieved. Out of the 18 scenarios, one scenario clearly resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem and double wide units; maximization of green space/Useable open space; and a well-articulated, livable design; while maintaining a viable unit yield (Scenario 2E). Based on the analysis the recommendation to Council was that, in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone the following shall apply, except in the Town Centre Area: • a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking arrangement; • a driveway apron, 5.5 metres long for each tandem unit; • usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or larger unit and 5om2 for each two bedroom or smaller unit; and • limiting the building block size to six attached units. The Town Centre Area Plan encourages more dense development and has better access to transit so it was recommended to exempt from the draft regulation. It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are subject to Council approval. At the regular meeting of May 28, 2013, Council resolved: -2- That staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (fownhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading bylaw, as described in Section ~ of the 'Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper" dated May 27, 2013. DISCUSSION AND COUNCIL CONCERNS: Tandem Parking can be defined as "the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway". Reviewing the discussion paper, Council asked about implications on sloping sites, density or unit yield, minimum density for financial feasibility. These are discussed below. A) Density and implications on sloping sites: The Zoning Bylaw contains several multi-family zones, of which the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone is the one intended to be for ground-oriented, pedestrian-friendly, low-density developments. In the RM-1 zone, a parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit for residents is required plus a parking ratio of 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors is also required. · In reviewing other municipal parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community. Some do not permit tandem parking; some permit tandem parking on a project by project basis; some permit tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount of tandem parking. Others require additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons. Discussion with staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions have concerns with 100% tandem unit developments. l) Illustrations with no setback variances: The following graphics illustrate the impact of the proposed regulations when setback variances are not granted. a) Scenario 1A-100% tandem and no setback variances: The example below illustrates the current regulations in place. With 100% tandem arrangement at the maximum permitted FSR of 0.6 in the RM-1 zone; 21 townhouse units can be achieved on a hypothetical one acre piece of land. -3- --------------------b} Scenario 2E-70% tandem and no setback variances; driveway a·pron and increased usable open space: The example below illustrates the impact on unit yield if the recommended regulations were applied. In the example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.47, 17 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 18 units. If the proposed regulations were applied, the unit count could drop from 21 (as shown on scenario 1A) to 17 or' 18 units. But this is likely to result in a more architecturally attractive development. It is noted that Council raised the concern that the analysis on sloping site was missing in the Discussion paper dated May 27, 2013. The same hypothetical parcel of land is assumed to have a 15-17% slope as shown in the sketch below. The site is assumed to be sloping down approximately 17% grade down from the north-west corner as shown in the site section. -4- c) Scenario 2E-ss 70% tandem on sloping site and no setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable open space: If the recommended regulations were applied to the sloping site, the following graphic illustrates that the same unit count could be achieved, however, creative design, some retaining walls to achieve flat backyards and possibly stepping and staggering of units to take advantage of the grades on site; will be required. In the_ example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.47, 17 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 18 units. ii) Illustrations with setback variances: The following graphics illustrate the impact of the proposed regulations when setback variances are granted: a) Scenario 2F-70% tandem with setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable open space: The example below illustrates the impact on unit yield if the recommended regulations were applied and setback variances granted. In the example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.57, 20 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 21 units. If the proposed regulations were applied and setback variances granted, the unit count will likely remain same, yet a more architecturally attractive development can be achieved. - 5 - b) Scenario 2F-ss 70% tandem on sloping site with setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable open space: iii) ANALYSIS: If the recommended regulations were applied to the sloping site and some setback variances facing the streets were granted, the Linit count achieved could be around 20 units. Again, creativity in design, some retaining walls and stepping/staggering of the units to meet the grades will be required. Based on the graphic examples above, the following can be concluded, by applying a 70% tandem requirement: • The density and unit count is reduced marginally, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. • With the tandem garage and a driveway apron, there will be three parking spaces per unit available. If the owner ends up converting the internal parking space into a living area, there will still be two parking spaces available. The bylaw will still require a minimum of 2.0 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors. -6- • On sloping sites, some retaining walls will be required to achieve flat backyards, which is consistent with what is done currently. Smaller retaining walls may also be required to achieve the driveway aprons. • Some units will need to be stepped and staggered to take advantage of the grades on site, which is consistent with the OCP policies around "respecting the land" and with what is done currently. • With setback variances the unit yield is quite similar to those achieved under the current bylaw (21 units versus 20 units). The reduced setbacks facing municipal streets allows for greater design creativity with stronger street presence, stepping and staggering of units. A simplified comparison of the above stated graphic illustrations is attached as Appendix A. B) Tandem Parking in the Town Centre Area: There was discussion regarding the appropriateness of exempting RM-1 properties in the Town Centre Area from the draft tandem regulations. The Town Centre Area Plan through several policies talks about increasing residential density in the various precincts. 'The "Ground-oriented Multi-family" designation allows RM-1 zone and the intention is to achieve pedestrian-friendly strata developments that serve as a transition between single family and higher density forms like low-rise apartments. A tall, narrow, three-storey tandem form would fit well in the Town Centre Area, which encourages compact developments, more than other areas in the District. The Town Centre area is also served by better access to public transit and owners may choose to own a single vehicle. It is further noted that the exemption of the Town centre properties from the tandem regulations may also serve as an incentive for further town centre investment. C) Consideration to accommodate seniors: There was discussion regarding making townhouse developments more senior-friendly. Ground-oriented units with a double car garage often result in a more senior-friendly form of development than a 3-storey, multi-level, tall, narrow (12 to 15 feet wide) tandem unit. It is felt that a reasonable balance of tandem and double garages will provide for an appropriate housing choice for seniors and others. D) Common variances supported and its impact on outdoor living space: Historically Council has approved setback, height and parking variances on townhouse sites in the RM-1 zone. Typically height variances are supported on sloping sites where the design of the units takes advantage of the grades by rendering a 2-storey faQade on one side and 3-storey faQade (11.0 metres) on the other side. This will be minimized with the adoption of the new Zoning Bylaw where the maximum height of the structure is measured up to the mid-point of the roof. Setback variances facing municipal streets are common and align with the Multi-Family Development Permit Guidelines that emphasize a better street presence and direct pedestrian access from the townhouse units to the municipal streets. They also often create a more livable rear yard. -7- E) Parking variances are typically fewer and considered on a site-specific basis. The tandem parking arrangement results in more units, so to mitigate the impact of the form and density, an increased usable open space ratio for the tandem units is recommended. This should enhance the livability of the project and create better outdoor usable open space and/or common activity areas. Larger open spaces are an effective marketing tool for developers. Economic implications: Although there is an assumption that tandem units are less expensive, there is no statistical evidence in the market to support this. Scenarios discussed above show that the unit-count may drop marginally if the 70% tandem units regulation is adopted. On sloping sites, some retaining walls and stepping of units may increase the development costs. However, the benefits are thought to outnumber the density impact. A copy the Council report dated May 27, 2013 was forwarded to the Advisory Design Panel to seek their input. The Panel advised that a feasible balance between tandem and double townhouse units is important to safeguard the intention of the zone (low density multi-family form) and the architectural character of the development. The Advisory Design Panel is in support of this initiative and has provided the following comments: • Panel confirmed that tandem parking in the townhouse zones is quite common in all the municipalities. • Panel agreed that regulating the proportion of tandem parking will have some impact on the overall density and unit count, but the benefits are larger. • Panel confirmed that the tandem arrangement is not popular among buyers, but it is used to maximize the unit yield on a site. • The Panel also confirmed that while all tandem townhouse development fit well within the Town Centre Area, a reasonable balance of tandem and double car garages in areas outside the Town Centre will encourage a better streetscape; improve landscaping with a staggering of the units; improve the overall architectural quality of a development and the livability on site. The proposed bylaw amendments strive to strike a reasonable balance between tandem and double parking arrangement, which is economically feasible and architecturally desirable. BENEFITS OF REGULATING TANDEM PARKING UNITS IN THE RM-1 ZONE: The benefits of regulating units with tandem parking arrangement in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone could be broadly categorized into the following: 1) Maintain the primary intention of the RM-1 zone which is to provide a low-density multi-family housing form for the neighbourhoods. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form. -8- The townhouse form is often envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single family and apartment building forms. 2) Encourage a proportion of the units to be a senior-friendly, ground-oriented housing option. 3) Reduce the parking concerns on a strata lot by providing for some driveway aprons. Minimize parking infractions on a 6.0 metres wide strata road. 4) Encourage an interesting streetscape With staggering and stepping of units. Achieve a less monotonous fa9ade. 5) Promote natural light, ventilation, view corridors and "green links" between blocks. 6) Improve livability and quality of development by increasing the proportion of usable open space to match the increase in the number of units due to tandem arrangement. 7) Reducing the risks associated with vehicle encroachment or overhanging on strata road by regulating the minimum width and depth of an attached garage and adding the requirement of a driveway apron for a tandem parking arrangement. PROPOSED REGULATIONS: Pursuant with Council's direction of May 28, 2013, Zone Amending and Off-Street Parking Amending Bylaws have been prepared. · i) RM-1 aownhouse Residential District) zone (refer to Appendix B): The following items are proposed for inclusion in the RM-1 zone and were previously discussed with Council: • Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other jurisdictions and the District's RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. This would help promote natural light and ventilation between the blocks thus offering a less monotonous fa9ade. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous fa9ade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulate9 facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light, ventilation and views. The Advisory Design Panel in the past has expressed concerns with the ramifications of having more than six (6) attached units in one block. • All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. This regulation is intended to improve the livability and quality of development by increasing the proportion of usable open space with the number of tandem units on a strata lot. ii) Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (refer to Appendix C): Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw# 4350-1990 requires amendment to add the following: • In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. -9- Townhouse units with a tandem garage are typically narrower (12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3 or 3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ significantly, one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller, narrow three-storey massing. A combination of tandem and double garage units have greater potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered units, driveway aprons and inter-linking green spaces. • All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. Under the current Parking Bylaw, the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. Requiring the driveway apron will provide an extra parking space per unit thus avoiding any encroachment or overhanging into the 6.0 metre wide strata road. If the internal tandem garage gets converted into a living space, the townhouse unit will still have two parking spaces, one within the garage and one on the apron. Following Council discussion, the Building Department have further recommended inclusion of minimum garage dimensions in the proposed Bylaw: • The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. Currently the bylaw specifies a parking space (width, height and length) applicable for all zones. It does not specify dimensions within a garage or underground parkade, where the space is beside a wall to permit unobstructed access and clearance to open the car doors. Neither does it specify dimensions of a tandem garage. For the RM-1 zone these amendments will help achieve minimum clear dimensions required to park a car inside an attached or detached garage to a townhouse unit. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department does not have any concerns with the proposed zone amendments. Fire Department: The Fire Department confirmed that parking on strata roads is a concern, and is supportive of the driveway apron requirement. Building Department: The Building Department supports the minimum clear width and depth for single, tandem and double car garage being added in the existing Parking Bylaw. -10- STRATAS, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND SIGNAGE IN THE RM-1 ZONE: Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures. The District cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property. Within existing developments it is observed that typically garages are used as storage area, forcing the cars to be parked on the driveway or along the streets. In a single family subdivision on-street parking is an option except when the access is through a lane. With a 6.0 metres wide strata road and no aprons for the driveways, this is a challenge on the townhouse sites. Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after the owner moves in. Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in the streets, after this happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful. Research indicates that requiring a Restrictive Covenant to restrict the tandem garage from being converted into a living space, is not a common solution. If Council directs, requirement of a Restrictive Covenant can be a condition of final reading, similar to the requirement for visitor parking stalls. Once the project is approved and built, the District would rely on the Strata to enforce it. Legal opinion sought on this confirms that Council can require a Restrictive Covenant as a condition of final reading, which can be informative to the unit owners, but the District enforcement on strata lot can be challenging. It should be noted that the District's solicitor confirmed that such a legal challenge is very expensive to prove in court and is not a necessarily practical solution. It is important to note that "No Parking" signs would need to be enforced by the strata, after the project is complete. The Building Permit drawings are required to show locations of "no parking" areas, on the drawings. The stratas are expected to enforce the "no parking" signage and zones. NEXT STEPS: Recognizing the implications that these bylaw amendments may have on townhouse developments in the RM-1 zone and the fact that amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw do not go to the Public Hearing, it is recommended that staff host an open house to seek input from the stakeholders. Following first reading to both the bylaws, an open house would be organized for late October or early November 2013. Representatives from the development industry will be invited by letter to comment on the proposed amendments. Advertisement will also be placed in the local newspapers. Council will be updated on the outcomes of this open house in the second reading report. CONCLUSION: As in other municipalities across the region, 100% tandem parking in townhouse projects has generated a variety of concerns. To help alleviate these concerns, Council considered a Discussion Paper, dated May 27, 2013 and endorsed regulation changes to the RM-1 zone and the Off-Street Parking Bylaw. These revisions include limiting parking to 70% tandem units; the provision of a -11- driveway apron for tandem units; increasing the amount of usable open space for tandem units and limiting the "block size" to six attached townhouse units. Numerous benefits of regulating the proportion of tandem units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone are described in this report. The Advisory Design Panel has commended Council for taking up this initiative and is supportive of the proposed amendments. The proposed open house will serve as an opportunity to seek input from the development industry. The graphic scenarios show that the density and unit count achieved is mildly impacted by restricting the tandem proportion to a maximum of 70% of the units. Additional usable open space and a driveway apron for tandem units are anticipated to improve the architectural quality and reduce parking concerns. In return a "low-density", pedestrian-friendly, multi-family housing form with a reasonable balance of tandem and double garages can be achieved. On sloping sites, creative design to take advantage of the grades, retaining walls, staggering and stepping of units will be required. The proposed bylaw amendments (Appendix B and C) are believed to strike a reasonable balance between tandem and double parking arrangement. The intention is to encourage architecturally desirable development proposals that are economically feasible as well, It is recommended that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013be given first reading and an open house be held to solicit input. Original signed by Rasika Acharya Prepared by. Rasika Acharya, 8-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner Original signed by Christine Carter Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Original signed by Frank Quinn Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services Original signed by Jim Rule Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Summary of scenarios Appendix B -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 Appendix C -Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 -12- TO: FROM: Otli!nrt1:111fo 1,~,iif~/~·i9t'N~. District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: FILE NO: AlTN: February 17, 2014 2013-096-RZ Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-Street Parking Open House Summary PURPOSE: On May 27, 2013 Council received a discussion paper on "Tandem Parking and the RM-1 zone", which laid out several scenarios and one preferred approach to regulate the proportion of tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. At the May 28, 2013, Council Meeting it was resolved that staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. Staff prepared the relevant bylaws which were considered at the October 7, 2013 Committee of the Whole meeting. In the first reading report the following amendments were proposed for inclusion in the Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 RM-1 zone: a) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. b) All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. In the first reading report the following amendments were also proposed for inclusion in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990: c) In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. d) All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. e) The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. It was also recommended that 100% tandem units in the RM-1 zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. At the October 8, 2013 Council Meeting, a resolution was passed that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be given first reading and referred to a public process for comments and feed back. Pursuant to Council's resolution of October 8, 2013, a Public Open House was conducted on Tuesday, November 13, 2013. The purpose of this report is to update Council on that session and discuss the implications and next steps. In response to the feedback received from the Public Open House a number of changes to the proposed bylaw are being recommended in this report. RECOMMENDATION: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013, be revised as per the staff report dated February 17, 2014. DISCUSSION: I. Background: In recent years, the District has seen an increase in the number of townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. Council and neighbourhoods have expressed concerns about the impacts of such developments. Council directed staff to review the use and impacts of tandem parking. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw permits both; a tandem garage or a single garage with a tandem parking space on the driveway apron, in certain single family zones, the duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The RM-1 zone is the only multi-family zone in the District permitting tandem parking. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may be wider and longer to accommodate additional vehicles. In some cases, there is on-street parking as well. In contrast, tandem parking can be a concern in townhouse sites as driveway aprons are typically not provided or the ones proposed are not adequate to park on, while the 6.0 metre wide strata roads do not permit parking. The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities and reviewed concerns with tandem parking in the existing townhouse complexes in the District. It compared 18 scenarios, to help understand the impacts of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. This review resulted in one development scenario that resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem (70%) and double wide units (30%) which maximized of green space/useable open space, as well as creating a well-articulated, livable design; while maintaining a viable unit yield. The first reading report dated October 7, 2013, recognized that there would be implications that these bylaw amendments may have on townhouse developments in the RM-1 zone. Council instructed staff to proceed with a public process to seek input from the residents and the development industry. II. Open House update: Pursuant to Council's resolution at the October 8, 2013 meeting, a Public Open House was conducted on Tuesday, November 13, 2013 from 4:00 to 8:00 pm in the Council Chambers lobby. Approximately 15-20 people attended the open house and the attendees were a mix of Maple Ridge residents, realtors, developers and design professionals. -2- Prior to the Open House, advertisement for the open house was run in four consecutive editions of both the local newspapers dated November 1, 6, 8 and 12, 2013. Details of the Open House and all the background reports and presentations were posted on the District's website as of October 29, 2013 and questionnaires were available on the District's website from November 14, 2013 to December 2, 2013. Invitations were also emailed to all the stakeholders on October 29, 2013. The Advisory Design Panel members were also invited. The information panels displayed at the open house provided an overview of the definition, concerns, photos, graphic analysis on flat and sloping sites, and the proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, applicable to the RM-1 zone. These can still be found on our website, under the "Tandem Parking Section" of the Planning Department. Two separate questionnaires were provided at the open house: one for the general public (Appendix A) and the other for representatives from the development industry (Appendix B). Two separate questionnaires were drafted with an intention of capturing specific concerns from both the groups as buyers and sellers of townhouse units in the market. The questionnaire for the general public focused on capturing their preferences around choosing a tandem or double wide townhouse unit, site design, affordability, safety/emergency access, livability and feedback on proposed bylaw amendments. The questionnaire for the developers/consultants focused on site design, affordability from selling point of view and feedback on the proposed bylaw amendments. The responses received from both the questionnaires, including the two letters received from the development industry are attached as Appendix C to this report. Questionnaire Summary: As indicated earlier, approximately 15-20 people attended the open house, with 15 people signing the "sign-in" sheet and 16 responses (14 completed questionnaires and 2 letters) being received for a response rate of 80%. Appendix C attached to this report shows all the responses received. Out of the 14 completed questionnaires, 10 of them are from the general public; while 4 of them are from the developers/consultants. It is important to note that some of the attendees, who are residents (not developers), preferred to complete both the questionnaires, to be able to give feedback about all the questions. One of the developers (Portrait Homes Inc.) opted to send in a letter instead of completing the questionnaire, while the other letter is from the "Greater Vancouver Home Builder's Association". Summary of feedback from the general public: It is noted that only a small proportion of the residents of Maple Ridge attended this open house and those who attended are not residents of a townhouse complex. Based on this fact, the responses are not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge residents. Given the limited amount of feedback received from the attendees it appears that townhouse complexes with tandem units are not a favourable preference for buyers, especially seniors due to the size, form, on-site parking concerns and tandem garage conversions. It appears that a 2-car tandem garage with no driveway apron or inadequate apron size to park an additional vehicle is a concern for the public. The results also provide information on marketing of townhouse units which should be of interest to developers but is not necessarily a matter that the local government should concern itself with, assuming that the market will dictate form. The opinions expressed by those who attended the open house (attached to this report as Appendix C) may be summarized as below: · -3- a) with an enclosed 2-car tandem garage, the inner tandem garage is used for storage/living area. This will force a vehicle to be parked on the street or on a small driveway apron; b) tandem garages are not big enough to park a pick-up truck and a car; c) tandem units offer multiple levels with three flights of stairs; not senior-friendly; d) due to the narrow form of tandem units moving furniture up the stairways is a challenge; e) tall narrow townhouse units do not have a visually pleasing streetscape; f) there is general support for limiting the block to six attached units; and g) there is general support for the tandem form in the Town Centre Area. Summary of feedback from the development industry: It is noted that only a small proportion of development community representatives attended the open house. Concerns with the proposed regulations were expressed by Portrait Homes Inc, the Greater Vancouver Home Builder's Association and two other representatives of the development industry. The opinions expressed by this group at the open house and through a letter (attached to this report as Appendix C) may be summarized as below: a) there is opposition to the proposed 70% tandem restriction due to concerns about affordability (and selling) of the 30% 2-car double wide units with a bigger footprint. For a 2-car double wide townhouse unit, a greater proportion of land value must be assigned, making them higher in price. It was suggested that this will compete with smaller single family homes, making it more difficult to sell these townhouses. It was suggested that the 30% 2-car double wide garage requirement for any townhouse site, will reduce the total density and unit yield; b) there is support for 100% tandem developments as market seeks affordability. It was suggested that tandem units offer functional, livable homes with a smaller footprint. One developer building in Surrey noted that his tandem units sell for $30,000 to $50,000 less than the 2-car double wide units. There is overall support for the idea of townhouse developments having a variety of housing forms (tandem and double) but the flexibility be left to the project architect, to be assessed on a site-by-site basis rather than restricting tandem units to 70% in the RM-1 zone across the District; c) there is general opposition for requiring a full driveway apron for each tandem unit as this will result in 3 parking spaces per tandem unit which seems excessive and will increase the impervious surfaces on site. The driveway apron requirement will increase the parking required for tandem units but not necessarily discourage people from converting tandem garage space to living space. A Restrictive Covenant on all the parking spaces on site (enforced by the Strata Council) could be a measure to discourage owners from converting their enclosed parking spaces;there is general support for limiting the block size to six attached units, except one response recommending specifying the block length instead of number of attached units; d) there is general agreement that townhouse units with well articulated streetscape is an important selling feature; e) there is general support for the tandem form in the Town Centre Area; f) there is general agreement that increased useable open space/amenity area is a desirable selling feature, but general concerns that it will reduce the unit yield; g) there is general support for providing more on-site visitor parking on townhouse sites; and -4- h) there is general preference for the tandem arrangement shown below, i.e. single car garage with the second parking spot on the driveway apron. 0 (i., __::...-11~ffl!l""""-'IC:::.:~ Common themes from the open house feedback: • The narrow, 2-car fully enclosed tandem garage design can encourage some of the garage to be converted to habitable/ storage area which force a second car on the street. • Restricting tandem unit proportion and increasing amenity area on townhouse sites can negatively impact the unit yield and affordability for buyers and sellers. • Driveway apron requirement may address the parking concerns of a tandem arrangement. • Increasing visitor parking ratio may help resolve some parking concerns. • Limiting the block size is generally supported but some flexibility is required. • Tandem form is acceptable in the Town Centre Area with better fit for a dense form and better access to transit. Ill. Implications of open house feedback on the proposed bylaw amendments: The participation and feedback at the open house suggests that the proposed bylaw amendments need to be revised. While the few residents who attended the open house are in general support of the proposed bylaw amendments as worded in the first reading report, none of them live in a townhouse complex and due to the very small proportion of citizen participation, the responses received are not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge resi'dents. On the other hand, the development industry is concerned with project feasibility and reduction in unit yield if the 70% tandem restriction were to be adopted. The fear seems to be the competing price of a 2-car garage townhouse unit with a single family house. The development industry raises concerns about the negative economic impacts resulting from reduced unit yields. Countering this is Council's expressed concern that tandem parking places undue pressure ·on street parking resources. In an effort to seek a balance, it is proposed that the following changes be considered: i) RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone: In the first reading report of October 2013, the following items were proposed for inclusion in the RM-1zone: a) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. b) All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. -5- Item a) above, i.e. "Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block", is recommended to be revised as stated below: a) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block or 45 metres (147.5 feet) in length, whichever is less. The open house feedback suggests that there is general support for this amendment. Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other jurisdictions and the District's RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous facade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light and views. Smaller block sizes are also more sustainable as they could help save more trees due to a smaller footprint. One tandem townhouse unit is typically between 11.5 to 14 feet (3.5 to 4.26 metres) in width. A block of six attached tandem units ranges in length between 69 feet to 84 feet (21.03 to 25.60 metres). On the other hand, a 2-car double wide townhouse unit is between 22.0 to 25.0 feet (6.70 to 7.62 metres) in width. A block of six attached 2-car double wide towl'lhouse units ranges in length between 132 feet to 150 feet (40.23 to 45.72 metres). A block of six attached units, with four internal units as tandem units and two external units as 2-car double wide units, ranges in length between 90 feet to 106 feet (27.43 to 32.30 metres). The above stated revision provides flexibility to accommodate any of the combinations and to encourage a mix of both types of units in each block. In addition, Council could always consider a Development Variance Permit to this provision, on a site by site basis. Item b) above, i.e. "All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms", is proposed to be eliminated. The increased open/amenity space requirement proposed to be applicable to the tandem units, could impact the overall feasibility of a project, based on the feedback from the development community. If designed creatively, amenity areas can be functional and attractive, based on the existing ratios in the current bylaw, without making the project unviable. To discourage linear skinny areas to be included in the usable open space/amenity area calculation, the minimum width of a usable open space/amenity area needs to be at least 6.0 metres wide as per the current zoning bylaw. This will ensure functional and usable open spaces within the townhouse developments. Recognizing that multi-family uses require adequate usable open space/common activity area for the site, it is recommended that no variances be supported for the required usable open space/common activity ratios in the existing Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 RM-1 zone. ii) Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: In the first reading report of October 2013, the following items were proposed for inclusion in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: a) In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. b) All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area • • 6- c) The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. Item a) above, i.e. "In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area", is proposed to be eliminated. The development industry is concerned about project feasibility and affordability, if the 70% tandem restriction is adopted. On a site specific basis, a mix of tandem and double wide townhouse units are being encouraged in the RM-1 zone, without jeopardizing the feasibility of a project. Several projects have made an effort to provide for a reasonable mix of tandem and 2-car double garage units. It is important to note that a combination of a driveway apron requirement applicable only to the enclosed 2-car tandem garage unit and limiting the block size, along with some creative designing, may improve the overall site design and substantially resolve the parking concerns on a 100% tandem townhouse development. Council could .always choose to not support a 100% tandem townhouse development on a site by site basis. Item b) above, i.e. "All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area", is recommended to be revised as stated below: b) All the units with an enclosed 2-car tandem parking garage must provide a drivewayapron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. The feedback from the open house suggests that a tandem arrangement with a single garage and a second parking space on the driveway apron would be most feasible. However, the design featuring a fully enclosed 2-car tandem garage seems to be problematic. This is because of the inner parking space having the potential to easily get converted to storage or habitable area. A driveway apron requirement for this specific unit type may help reduce parking problems. The development industry is concerned about every tandem unit requiring 3 parking spaces. The recommended revision will require a driveway apron only for the units having an enclosed 2-car tandem garage. With the proposed revision, the development will still have the flexibility of offering a proportion of both types of tandem arrangement .based on their marketing plan. Some 2-car double wide units will also be encouraged by staff. Item c) above, i.e. "The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below ........... ", is proposed to remain unchanged. This regulation is considering standard car sizes and the safe clearance required from the garage walls. The Building Department has confirmed these dimensions will work for most standard cars. The feedback from the open house suggests that these dimensions are not adequate for bigger vehicles. Any bigger vehicles like tow trucks, SUVs, etc. may be parked on the driveway apron. -7- iii) Definition of Tandem Parking: The definition of Tandem Parking is proposed to remain unchanged. In the first reading report of October 2013, Tandem Parking is defined as "the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road". The above definition allows both the arrangements of tandem parking, Le. a unit with 2-car tandem garage or a unit with one car garage and a tandem parking space on the driveway apron, as shown in the sketches below: JMJ l~ AND The regulation of a driveway apron for tandem units is proposed to be revised as stated above to avoid extra long driveway apron for the second option above. In other words, the second option above will not require an additional driveway apron because it already shows an adequate parking apron for the required second parking spot. IV. In-stream development applications rezoning to RM-1: It is recommended that any in-stream townhouse development applications that have not been presented at a Public Hearing, before final adoption of the proposed bylaws, be permitted to seek a variance if they do not comply. V. Next Steps: A second reading report with revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 will be brought forward to a future Council meeting. It is important to note that amendments to the Off-street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 do not go to the public hearing. CONCLUSION: The Public Open House was a good opportunity for residents and developers to understand Council's concerns with tandem parking and an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. Unfortunately the public turn out was low and none of them were residents of a townhouse complex. The feedback from these attendees are valid but given the low turn out, cannot be considered necessarily representative of all the citizens of Maple Ridge. However, the same can be said for the -8- development industry as their representation at the open house was low too. The development industry, however, did express concerns about project feasibility and affordability if forced to provide a proportion of 2-car double wide garage units. On a site-specific basis, staff is currently working through several townhouse projects that are making an effort to provide some reasonable proportion of 2-car double wide units (instead of 100% tandem units), e.g. The revised scheme of Portrait Homes on the townhouse proposal at 13260 236th Street now shows 70.49% tandem units and the rest of the units with a 2-car double wide garage. On a site-specific basis Council could choose not to support a 100% townhouse scheme. The proposed block size restriction and driveway apron requirement for all the enclosed 2-car tandem garage units may address Council's concerns about on-site and off-site parking. Based on the open house feedback, the proposed revisions to the bylaw amendments are recommended and will be brought forward with the second reading report at a future Council meeting. It is recommended that Council direct staff to draft the second reading report with the revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013, as described in this report. "Original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by. Rasika Acharya, 8-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by. Christine Garter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, P. Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. {Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Questionnaire for the general public Appendix B -Questionnaire for the developers/consultants Appendix C -Completed questionnaires and letters -9- TO: FROM: Oet!p !{11J:1ts l:ri::i11:::-,":'.:1gr,-t~ SUBJECT: PURPOSE: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Tandem Parking In the RM-1 Zone MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: March 17, 2014 2013-096-RZ cow Second Reading: Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Second and Third Reading: Off-Street Parking & Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 Following the Public Open House feedback and pursuant to Council's resolution of February 17, 2014, the proposed bylaws that were given first reading on October 8, 2013, have been revised as described in this report and are attached in Appendices A and B. The revisions include the following: clarifying that the driveway apron requirement is applicable to a 2 car enclosed tandem garage (not all tandem arrangements); ensuring some flexibility in the block size restriction; eliminating the 70% restriction on tandem parking; and eliminating the increased amenity area for tandem units. The proposed definition for 'Tandem Parking" and the internal clear garage dimensions remain unchanged. The report also provides alternatives for Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 as amended be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; and 2) That Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 as amended be given second and third reading. DISCUSSION: I. BACKGROUND: In recent years, the District has seen an increase in the number of townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. Council and neighbourhoods have expressed concerns about the impacts of parking from such developments. Council directed staff to review the use and impacts of tandem parking. The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities and reviewed concerns with tandem parking in the existing townhouse complexes in the District, including 18 scenarios of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. The first reading report dated October 7, 2013, recognized that there may be implications from these bylaw amendments and recommended that staff proceed with a Public Open House to seek input from the residents and the development industry. A Public Open House was scheduled on Tuesday, November 13, 2013. On February 17, 2014 Council was updated on the open house findings. At this meeting Council passed the following resolution: "That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street parking and Loading Amending bylaw No. 7025-2013 be revised as per the staff report dated February 17, 2014". While the few residents who attended the open house were in general support of the proposed bylaw amendments as worded in the first reading report, none of them live in a townhouse complex and due to the very small proportion of citizen participation, the responses received were not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge residents. On the other hand, representation from the development industry was also limited at the open house, however, they expressed concerns with project feasibility and reduction in unit yield if the 70% tandem restriction were to be adopted. The proposed bylaw revisions are an effort to balance the concerns expressed at the open house by both parties. There are also some existing projects that are at various stages of approval that still reflect 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. On a site-specific basis, staff is currently working through several townhouse projects that are making an effort to provide some reasonable proportion of 2-car double wide units (instead of 100% tandem units). 11. PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS (APPENDIX A): a) Definition of Tandem Parking: The following definition for tandem parking is to be added to the PART 2 INTERPRETATION section of the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985: TANDEM PARKING USE-means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road. The above definition allows two arrangements of tandem parking (i.e. a unit with 2-car tandem garage or a unit with one car garage and a tandem parking space on the driveway apron) as shown in the sketches below: -2- b) RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District> zone: Section 602, RM-1, TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT be amended by adding the following: g) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block, not to exceed a length of 45 metres (147.5 feet). The open house feedback suggests that there is general support for this amendment that provides flexibility to accommodate any combinations of units and to encourage a mix of unit types (tandem and double) in each block. Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other jurisdictions and the District's RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous fagade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades and end units, separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light and views. Smaller block sizes due to a smaller footprint, may assist efforts to protect more trees on development sites. Ill. PROPOSED OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING BYLAW AMENDMENTS1 {APPENDIX B): The Off-Street Parking design provisions of the Parking Bylaw for the RM-1 zone, are to be amended as follows: a) Driveway Apron: The bylaw contains an amendment to the design standards to require that a 2-car enclosed tandem garage be provided with a driveway apron. The proposed regulation reads: Section 4.1 (a) vii) Townhouse units with an enclosed 2-car tandem parking garage in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community plan, shall provide a minimum driveway apron of 5.5 metres in length and 3.0 metres in width. The feedback from the open house suggests that a tandem arrangement with a single garage and a second parking space on the driveway apron would be the most feasible option. However, the design featuring a fully enclosed 2-car tandem garage seems to be problematic. This is because of the inner parking space having the potential to be easily converted to storage or habitable area. A driveway apron requirement for this specific unit type may help reduce parking problems. The development industry is concerned about every tandem unit requiring 3 parking spaces if applied to both the tandem unit designs. The recommended revision will require a driveway apron only for the units having an enclosed 2-car tandem garage. With the proposed revision, the development will still have the flexibility of offering a proportion of both types of tandem arrangement based on their marketing plan. 1 11t should be noted that the amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw are not required to go to the Public Hearing. Section 890 of the Local Government Act requires that the Local Government must not adopt an Official Community Plan bylaw or a Zoning Bylaw without holding a Public Hearing. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw is exempt from this requirement. -3- b) Minimum internal clear dimensions for garages: The proposed bylaw amendment will establish the minimum internal clear dimensions for garages in the RM-1 zone. Section 4.1 c) Off-Street parking spaces within a garage, for a townhouse unit in the RM-1 zone, shall have internal dimensions of not less than the following: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. This regulation is based on standard car sizes and the safe clearance required from the internal garage walls. The Building Department has confirmed these dimensions will work for most standard cars. The feedback from the open house suggests that these dimensions are not adequate for bigger vehicles. Larger vehicles such as trucks, SUVs and extended vans may be parked on the driveway apron. It is also noted that these dimensions are minimums and a developer can make the garages larger should they prefer. IV. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department does not have any concerns with the proposed bylaw amendments. Fire Department: The Fire Department confirmed that parking on strata roads is a concern and they are supportive of the driveway apron requirement for a 2-car tandem garage unit. Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department: The Building Department supports the minimum clear width and depth for single, tandem and double car garage in the RM-1 zone, being added in the existing Parking Bylaw. Regarding parking concerns on strata property, the District relies on the Strata Council to deal with these issues. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful. Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures. The District does not enforce parking regulations on strata property. This responsibility falls to each Strata Council to enforce it's own bylaws and regulations, including the on-site parking restrictions. The Building Permit drawings are required to show locations of "no parking" areas, on the drawings. The Strata Council is expected to prevent tandem parking conversions and the "no parking" on site where posted. -4- V. IN-STREAM DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REZONING TO RM-1: It is recommended that any in-stream townhouse development applications that have not been presented at a Public Hearing, before final adoption of the proposed pylaws, be permitted to seek a variance if they do not comply. Each development application for the RM-1 zone will be considered by Council on its own merit. VI. CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 zone of the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 will be forwarded to a Public Hearing, while the proposed bylaw amendments to the Off-Street and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 are not required to be forwarded to a Public Hearing. The citizens will have an opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments at the Public Hearing. VII. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives were raised by Council at the February 17, 2014 Council Workshop. Alternatives to the recommendations made in this report are: Apron length: a) That the proposed Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (applicable to the RM-1 zone) be amended to increase the minimum apron length to 6.0 metres (instead of the proposed 5.5 metres), required for all the units with a fully enclosed 2-car tandem garage; The proposed 6.0 metre minimum driveway apron length (required only for a 2-car fully enclosed tandem garage) will likely prevent larger vehicles from encroaching onto a strata road, but may have an impact on the total unit yield. Visitor Parking: b) That the proposed Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (applicable to the RM-1 zone) be amended to increase the visitor parking ratio to 0.25 spaces (instead of 0.2 spaces per unit) required per tandem unit; The on-site parking concerns on townhouse sites are mainly due to lack of residential parking spaces due to maximizing tandem units on site, lack of driveway aprons and possible conversions of an internal tandem garage. The District relies on the Strata Council to enforce the visitor parking stalls. Increasing the visitor parking ratio may not adequately resolve lack of on-site parking concerns for the residents. -5- 70% Tandem Restriction: c) That the proposed Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw be amended to include a 70% restriction (or any other proportion restriction) on tandem proportion instead of 100% permitted currently, in the RM-1 zone, except in the Town Centre Area; This approach would likely help encourage a variety of tandem and 2 car double wide garage units within a townhouse complex. It does however; require some creative design, staggering and possibly the use of retaining walls on sloping sites. This requirement was in the Draft Bylaw that was presented at the open house and it was not supported by the development community and the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. Concerns noted included a resulting negative impact on affordability and/or project feasibility due to reduced density and unit yield for townhouse sites. Restrictive Covenants: d) That Council pass a resolution requiring registering a Restrictive Covenant on the tandem parking space in the RM-1 zone to prohibit conversion to storage/living space. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on strata property. A suggestion has been made that a Restrictive Covenant could be an effective tool in discouraging tandem garage conversions into storage/living space. Township of Langley requires a Restrictive Covenant for a tandem space, but the feedback tells us it is challenging to enforce. Enforcing parking regulations on strata property can be challenging for the District. Long-term preservation of tandem parking space cannot necessarily be secured through the use of a Restrictive Covenant. The District solicitor has noted that such enforcement can be very costly and is not a necessarily practical solution. If Council is looking to use a Restrictive Covenant as simply being a means of providing information, this approach may be feasible. However, if the use of a Restrictive Covenant is intended as an effective enforcement tool, this approach is not recommended. CONCLUSION: The Public Open House was a good opportunity for residents and developers to understand Council's concerns with tandem parking and an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. The proposed block size restriction and driveway apron requirement for all the enclosed 2-car tandem garage units could address concerns with on-site and off-site parking. Alternatives to the recommendations in this report are stated above, for Council consideration. Based on the open house feedback, it is recommended that the proposed revisions to the bylaw amendments be favourably considered. The proposed bylaw amendments are meant to achieve a balance for providing for additional space on townhouse sites without impacting the unit yield or project feasibility for the development community. The proposed amendments also introduce a maximum block size and minimum internal garage dimensions that was generally supportable by the community. On a site-specific basis, staff is currently working through several in-stream townhouse projects that are making an -6- effort to provide some reasonable proportion of 2-car double wide units (instead of 100% tandem units). It is recommended that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 as amended be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 as amended be given second and third reading. "Original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. {Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 Appendix B -Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 -7 - APPENDIX B The City of Maple Ridge is currently reviewing the bylaw regulations on permitting tandem parking within townhouse developments. Tandem parking is when one car is parked behind the other, and can be provided either with a two-car enclosed garage (see Diagram 1), or a single-car enclosed garage, with the second spot available on the driveway apron (see Diagram 2). (-STRATA ROAD ·1··-· ••. I : -: I -I I • I I I STRATA ROAD The City is seeking feedback from townhouse developments on the affordability and functionality of various tandem parking arrangements. Please note that although the development address is required to track the percentage of tandem parking units within the development, we are not requesting unit numbers to ensure anonymity. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. With your feedback, the information gathered through this survey will inform the regulations put forward to Council for their consideration. Please take the time to provide your responses and comments so that we can take your opinions into consideration. The survey can be completed online at: mapleridge.ca/635, or a hardcopy can be submitted/mailed to City Hall (11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge V2X 6A9). The survey will be available until October 18, 2019. A copy of the staff report that was presented at Council Workshop on this topic can be viewed here: www.mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter /View /23232/Staff-Report-2019-05-0 7 We thank you for your cooperation. 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. 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 purpose of planning and evaluating tandem parking 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 . • MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA 1. Which Townhouse Development do you live in? D 11548 207 Street D 11305 240 Street D 10151240 Street D 23986 104 Avenue 2. How many vehicles does your household own or lease? D 13260 236 Street D Other ________ _ Please include all cars, vans, or light trucks that are brought home and parked overnights, but not motorcycles, scooters, or bicycles. 0_1c~~~icl~--.---· ----_ o_~_v_e~i_c_lecsc -----------D 3 or more vehicles D We do not own or lease any vehicles 3. How many parking space(s) for your unit were included in the unit purchase price? D 1 parking space D 2 parking spaces D 3 or more parking spaces 4. How many parking space(s) for your unit were purchased for an extra fee? D 1 parking space D 2 parking spaces D 3 or more parking spaces D No parking spaces were available for an extra fee 5. What was the purchase cost of the parking space(s), if known? $ _____________________ _ 6. How many parking space(s) for your unit are/were rented for an extra fee? D No parking spaces are/were rented for an extra fee D 1 parking space D 2 parking spaces D 3 or more parking spaces 7. What is/was the cost per month for a rented parking space, if known? $ _____________________ _ 8. Do you use all of your designated parking spaces for vehicles? D Yes 0No 9. If you answered "No" to the previous question, please explain: .... MAPLE RIDGE « BRITISH COLUMBIA 10. Do you have another person in your household that needs/ prefers to park on the street? 0Yes 0No 11. If yes, how many vehicles from your household regularly park on the street? D 1 vehicle D 2 vehicles D 3 or more vehicles 12. Please explain why the vehicles park on the street: 13. Do you live in a unit with a tandem two-car enclosed garage (Diagram 1)? OYes ONo STRATA ROAD 14. Do you live in a unit with a single-car en-closed garage and the second parking spot located on the driveway apron (Diagram 2)? D Yes 0No STRATA ROAD 15. If you live in a unit with a tandem parking configuration (see Diagrams 1 and 2 above), what was the biggest factor in selecting that unit within the development: D Affordability D Availability ..... MAPLE RIDGE « BRITISH COLUMBIA D Location D Other 16. Would you have preferred a double-car, side-by-side garage? 0Yes 0Maybe 0No 17. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, would you have been willing to pay extra for the double-car, side-by-side garage? 0Yes 0No -. 48.-· 0Are you able to park your vehicle in your garage, and have room for storage (such as garbage/ recycling containers, bicycles, etc.)? 0Yes 0No 19. Why or why not? Please explain: 20. Typically, where do your visitors park? D Designated Visitor Parking stalls D On the street D In one of my designated parking spots D Other _________ _ 21. Please provide any other comments you may have on this topic or how to improve the functionality of tandem units: Thank You! We appreciate your feedback, 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 . .... MAPLE RIDGE « BRITISH COLUMBIA Survey Results 1. Which Townhouse Development do you live in# of Responses 11548 207 Street (100% Double Car) 1 10151 240 Street (100% Tandem Garages) 19 13260 236 Street (70% Tandem Garages) 9 11305 240 Street (60% Tandem Garages) 12 23986 104 Avenue (50% Tandem Garages) 6 2. How many vehicles does your household own or lease? 1 vehicle 17 2 vehicles 25 ----3 or morevehicles 5 -3. How many parking spaces for your unit were included in the purchase price? 1 space 1 2 2 spaces 3 or more spaces None Note: Questions 4 thorugh 7 were not applicable. 8. Do you use all parking for vehicles? Yes No 42 1 2 26 21 APPENDIXC Townhouse Development Respondents c 23986 104 Avenue (50% Tandem Garages) . ~ 0 1 D ~ :, 0 .c C " 0 >-11305 240 Street (60% Tandem Garages} 13260 236 Street (70% Tandem Garages) M 10151 240 Stre-et (100% Tar:de,m Garages} 11548 207 Street (100% Dcubie Car) ·11-4 I ill ll M IB IB ~ # of responses Number of Vehicles per Household m 1 vehicle ,: 2 vehicles :s: 3 or more vehicles How many parking spaces were provided with the unit? • l space ~= 2 spaces e 3 or more spaces • None Do you use all of your designated parking spaces for vehicles? E Yes =~ No 10. Does another person in your house park on the street? Yes 14 No 33 11. If yes, how many vehicles from your household regularly park on the street? 1 vehicle -----------------------10-2 vehicles 3 3 or more vehicles 13. and 14. What type of unit do you live in? Double-wide garage Two-car enclosed tandem garage One-car enclosed tandem garage 1 9 25 13 15. What was the biggest factor in selecting a tandem garage unit? Affordability 18 Location 5 Availability 16 Other 1 No Response 4 Does another person in your household park on the street? • Yes ti No Number of vehicles that park on the street l, 7% • 1 vehicle ti 2 vehicles ;: 3 or more vehicles Respondents' Type of Townhouse Unit • Doubie-wide ga!";;lge :e Two-car endosed tandem garage i! One-C<>r enclosed ta:ndern garage Biggest Factor in Selecting a Tandem Unit • Affordability ~ location i:o Availabiiitv • Other No Response 16. Would you have preferred a double-car side by side garage? Yes 25 Maybe 7 ~ 6 Would you have preferred a double-car, side-by-side garage? • Yes m r1.1aybe ~ No 17. If you answered yes or maybe, would you be willing to pay extra for a double-car, side by side garage? Yes 16 .. NO---No response 14-2 18. Are you able to park your vehicle in your garage and have room for storage? Yes 39 No 8 20. Where do your visitors park? Designated Visitor Stalls One of my designated parking stalls On the street near the building 41 3 22 1nireferred a double-car, slde-&isicle garage, would you be willing to pay more for it? 2, 6% • Yes ::: No lll No response Room for Vehicles and Storage? II Yes .\\ No Where do Visitors Park? • Designated Visitor St.ails ;.: One of my designated parking stails z On the street near the building Table 1 -Why residents park on the street? 12 •• Pleaseexplain.why.'the•vehides park<>11 the·street: .:.·. : .. •••••••• • •• • ,,···: .. ··.:, ,'-·· ,.,, .. .·· .. · . ..... ; _-,-·-:-----· ,, ~------- --· .. . ;:·: .· ·. Too long to fit in the garage and or on the parking pad Only have 2 parking spots and our household has 4 vehicles. Drive a work truck and there's nowhere else to park it Garage can only accommodate 2 cars and driveway is too short for a vehicle Basically not enough room. I have two units in this complex. There is not enough room for the second vehicle in one unit. The second vehicle parks on 240th Street. The second unit has to park on 240th Street because their truck won't fit in the garage and the pad is too small to accommodate any vehicle. Because with the boat in the garage there's not enough room for my truck My partner's truck does not fit in the garage at all and since the garage cannot fit both my vehicle and storage, he parks on the street. We park on the street if we are doing a project in the garage. The back half of the garage is used for the storage of bikes, garbage cans and a deep freeze. Due to the fact our truck is too large (F150) to fit in the garage (width wise) and the fact we work opposite schedules, parking 2 cars in our garage is not feasible. This is not a choice we would choose to make -especially since 240th Street is losing all parking in a couple of years. One vehicle parks on the parking pad. It is too much of a hassle to move vehicles in and out of the garage. The garage is used for storage; one vehicle parks on the driveway, the other parks on the street. My mother provides childcare for my son 2 days per week. She stays here overnight as she lives in Vancouver, but our strata has a bylaw about overnight parking. If she exceeds the days per week, which she often does, then she could be fined for parking in our visitor spots, so she requires street parking on 240th Street. One of our two vehicles can't fit in the garage and the Strata does not allow other on-site parking for residents, only a few limited visitor spots. Will need to have a third car soon. There is no space for parking, may have to park third car on the street. This car is for our daughter. Not enough unit parking/ size of vehicles 1. Which Townhouse 18. Do you use all of Development do you your designated live in? parking spaces for vehicles? 11305 240 Street No 10151240 Avenue No 11305 240 Street No 23986 104 Avenue No 11305 240 Street Yes 10151240 Street Yes 13260 236 Street No 10151 240 Street Yes 11305 240 Street Yes 13260 236 Street Yes 13260 236 Street Yes 10151 240 Street Yes 13260 236 Street Yes 11305 240 Street Yes 18. Are you able to park your vehicle in your garage, and have room for storage (such as garbage/ recycling bins, bicycles, etc.) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Ha1F.taritjS.rT1 ga~g~, but n"~t··~nqUgh roo·m for a :second .VE!h'icle,: one car in double garage We have room bµt ifs.tight. If Our .car 'k.is" ~ny·~!g~~f_!t. ~qy)P .. ~e ~ :P.~~~I~~ Tandem units are cheaper then cars are In the road and envelope many envelopes are not l 1 arge enough so vehicles are parked sideways. It Is an Issue. Units owner~ try and park In the visitors unti! someone complains or they get a notice o~towed. Many use there tandem as work shops and storage and park bllt cars In the road. Wi~er units .iii:. i) .. I drive a very large Toyota Tundra Crew !Tandem parking Just doesn1t work. In order to get my motorcycle out I Max, It doesn't flt In the garage have to play muslca:I veh!des. Pull the truck out Into the roadway, pull the motorcycle out of the garage and then park the truck back In the The garage size can accommodate 1 car leaving very little room for storage driveway. And do J~ all over again when I return. Thls blocks traffic and !s Inconvenient. I was barely able to buy Into the last phase so took what I could get but woul~ have preferred a double side by side garage. !(WquJd ~~ tJ!#i"~. f4 1~Ct1ohapfgijf~~~ .~r.~ W!~er.~·rid Cfrlvew3Ys.~re. !P.rJg~r. ~h:P.~:.~~r,~~f,ay~ .! .t~:1nk~,~~:.n·9:t Siifei ~~ .~.1.~t~.rpw1~ l!~·l·t~d, ~,r~ .. ~.~:tS'~~f~~, .~.1?.~~!n~ .t~.~ ~~~~ta :J?..~9.f~).l.~. ~~r.,ki.~~ .. ~·~i~· p~!~!.~.~. ~u.~ ~~~.T ~~.e ,.a.~~[.'. .... · ....... u·., ., ....... · ... , ··.· .. ··, ......... ·.::·.·· .... · .. ··· 1. Which Townhouse ]B. Do you use all of Development do you I your designated live in? parking spaces for vehicles? 10151 240 Street No 11548 207 Street Yes 10151 240 Street No 10151 240 Street No 11305 240 Street No 11305 240 Street No 10151 240 Street No 23986 104 Avenue Yes 10151 240 Street No 10151 240 Street Yes 13260 236 Street Yes 13260 236 Street No J have two units ln this complex. :fhere is not enough room for the second veh ln one unit. The second veh parks on 240th. The second IThere Js not enough room for unit has to park on 240th becaus 1 e their truck the second veh !none unit. won't Fit ln the garage and the pad Is too small to accommodate any vehtde. The second veh parks on 240th. The second unit has to park on 240th because their truck won't flt ln the garage and the pad Is too small to accommodate any vehicle. Our garage does not fit storage a~.d a vehlcle. I My partner1s truck does not fit So we use the garage for storage as the flt Is In the garage at all and since very t!ght with the vehlcle In It. ! the garage can not fit both my vehlc!e and storage, he parks on the street. 18. Are you able to park your vehicle in your garage, and have room for storage (such as garbage/ recycling bins, bicycles, etc.) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes The question above Js yes or no not a why. Wh'( dO i have· spaC·e tO ·p~r:k and store fn ~.Y ga~ge?.That,iS i:he·s~h!M·stUprdest cflJeS:tr6~·1·have eVe/be~n·askect:..... '' beC·ause; there 1{foOirl')n·.my·garag~·t~?. When one buys preconstructlon, the buyer doesn't always see the 'modef1 of the complex. When I bought, the Ron Antalek team had a document that showed which units were st!II avallable and which ones sold. I had no idea what the driveway looked llke. A small parking pad is a waste of space. You can't do anything with it. My tenant parked their vehfcle with the backend hanging off the curb and Front bumper right up against the garage door and got a letter from the strata saying next time they would be towed. They were unloading their groceries vs. carrying them from 240th and forgot to move their vehicle. Plus, Maple Ridge needs to change their bu!ldlng code. Garages need to be higher to accommodate trucks and there are no shortages of trucks fl) MR. We've had owners move b/c the complex can't accommodate their truck and we can't rent them a visitor's spot and my tenants said they are tired of parking on 240th and are moving out at Christmas. MR needs to somehow change their bylaws or remove parking pads all together as they are a waste of space. p~tk.~.r~ ~tor~·~~~cli!"l~. P!11;·¢i;t.:: :·,:·((/l!fe1p·th]S :~~fVfY·.'.< Pm a real tor-this is an Investment property. Tandem parking Is used widely throughout the local area and wider region. The design Is popular & functional however lfmit!ng the number/ percentage of units is recommended since most people use the garage for storage vs parking & typically will park elsewhere In complex or on the street. Ma~V: pE!_o·p1~· frOITJ i-nY tonipje~ have·3 qr mOf~ c~rs. MOst qr these guys\. P~rk1rig onrv cin the·~treeL'f:v1ifnY t!ryl~s·_~hlS "guy _ti~e t~_e)~fe'E!f ~~ ~. ~·ar::i . St:~rage alld th'7Y dc:i nOt:inoV~ the Ca.i"S·fof inpnth$; If tliE!. ~jty'd~~ldf!~.f9 design/ate pa·r~1ntsPOts"Ori the·streetWiffi fveaf1y t~x (th1fli8ii theS~·.> giiY~ Y.,ii,1 lefrfo'J~·tie·1tu~~1~ss· Cars. There are Stor~·g~·iri. ~!t ~El~d~W~·t~r . sa:~~/~V'.f ~r-b9:~~. f~\ ~·r!Y'i~ $.··~?~~hi(·! .~o .not :~~~~:~~=~t t.~~~~ The.prqh!efO\.vith all Pc!rk!ng garages, tande'iii of'.doublei IS that OvJnifr~ fill the!/r.ga·~~es-~P. Y.,ith !~nk; .. w~ ~~e.th.\~ Wit~. ~in~I~ br "ctOG'bl~ ~~g~l ·:,;" . 1. Which Townhouse IS. Do you use all of Development do you I your designated live In? parking spaces for vehicles? 10151 240 Street No 13260 236 Street Yes 10151 240 Street No 10151 240 Street Yes 23986 104 Avenue No 10151240 Street Yes 23986 104 Avenue ·Yes 18. Are you able to ~!':~!J_t:=,?.~.~~~~:;; :·:\park your vehicle in The back half Is used for storage as there ls The back half of the garage Is zero storage space in the garage besides the used for the storage of bikes, space for vehicles. Due to the fact we work garbage cans and a deep opposite schedules, we park 1 car on 240th freeze. Due to the fact our to avoid the constantJuggllng of vehicles on a truck is to large (F150) to flt In narrow strata road. the garage {width wise) and the fact we work opposite schedules, parking 2 cars ln our garage Is not feasible. This Is not a choice we would choose to make-especlally since 240th Is loos!ng all parking in a couple of years. one. "'.~~.)c!.~, P.a~ ~11 the·.'..,,. , p~rk1ng p.id: :it,~ too mu~h o( a h~~S1e JO m(?v~\,~hid~{iil ang ~u·t of the garage:,:,.: your garage, and have room for storage (such as garbage/ recycling bins, bicycles, etc.) No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes We can barely flt 1 vehicle Jn the garage with Just enough space to walk side ways. There is approximately 1 foot of walkway on each side of our small car. Is almost none In our garages. Certain units In our complex have 3 parking spaces due to 2 In the garage and 1 on the drive way whlch w~s not an option ln our phase. Whlle tandems have provided affordablllty, they have caused excessive Issues with parking on 240th-wh1ch we a 1 re set to lose In a matter of years! We have witnessed fights between theislngle famlly home residences on the east side of 240th igardfng the lack of parking. We selected the unit we Had we had the addltlonal $170,000 required to buy !~,~d_ar:n -g~~~·ge~ ar~ (0~41~~rt_)·eht-.by.t a··n_ec~~~ity I~ ~~d~i~[ng._lCl~~t lnc~'!1~ -~-~~-sl~g:,;.1f iii ~-~c!j~,o .~urc~as~,ITI~ r~~t ~buse "V!t~. a ~i?~ bY·~!~~- garage 1-~o.u./tj. ~-e p<jiyin~ fr!C!r_~ f?.~ th~-fc;io~·p~i~~ .~.f,th~ .lio~~~-~~19. ~ Overall in-·my 'o"p!niJ'n th~fe·.sfi9Uld not be'a bylaw restrlcttiiB their'.Use 1r, ~~w de\le(9J:i_fn¢11~Jj :·. : .. ! ,.:::=::·:·:::::·):'.-'/:' : ::::··::>\:\:;:_; .. ,:/:'. : >=:==: / ·?=:::t 1. Which Townhouse 18. Do you use all of Development do you your designated live in? parking spaces for vehicles? 10151 240 Street No 10151 240 Street Yes 10151 240 Street Yes 13260 236 Street No 11305 240 Street Yes My tenant has 1 car only 18. Are you able to park your vehicle in your garage, and have room for storage (such e;;: \I as garbage/ recycling My mother provides childcare for my son 2 days per week. She stays here overnight as she llves in Vancouver but our strata has a bylaw about overnight parking. If she exceeds the days per week which she often does then she could be fined for parking !n our visitor spots so she requires street parking on 240th. one of our two Veh1ctes'"c:i0 1t fltln the garag~~ridihe stf.ta Qoes·nob~lloW other.-on~srte ... · P~.rkJhg torni~.l~.er~~;,_q~(y·~j f~.~Jirilrt~Ci"Y!~lt~~:.spo~s< :.: · bins, bicycles, etc.) Yes No Yes Yes Yes No, It's pretty narrow. Tk~"nli!l'!:Y~-~:miWith·~rn.a11.sf9f!3g~ .... , avaiiabi~· .. ,·p1e~ ·Gp trY~k d98S n·ot·ffr').ff::: we· ha·d:k Sfl1qllet=Sec:bhd\.eh1cle;'b·oth Would fit el)d to end; bUt\'le Woui~have rnln1m·~i.rpci; for·g~·fbage{6in~,:~~d n~ . _g9nigf!,:-:: .. :.:.· One car ls In this unit. 1f!~.Y~.rv-~~~~~~t.1~~ ,~~. ~~~~ ,~ Hn!:f~1.t~: ~~:·~=~r~:~.,~.t~~.:!.4~f~~.~.~~~,}?. ,:: .... ·~afK ~ ~~r:· ~MY._U~!.ti~.?.r,1.~~~a(1~· .. ~.~.1~ abo~t·~-~f.6/~~t:~~~.~·.': i~·~~.~i~ ~~ h~Jpful tq t"iay~ a dr1Vewa\, w.~~r~ ~~~,st.~ ca.n· p1:lr~ ~n~~e·qr ~o w~s~ mY. c~r, load/uh load items Into the house etc.; For the units that do have exterior · parkirig. d rlvew~yi;Jh~V .have ~eende~lgn.ed;jo srnall .\hat.ri1.ost cars .hahg ~.Y.~\th~ a.~':?.~ .. ~~~~ .o~.t.~ ~he ~~.~~~·-.r~~f),~· .. 1!'? ,OP!,~i.~~ ~~~' b~)l~.~rs ·'.\', ;-.. .' s_~oU1~. ~e~er h~~~ ~e~11.~1iOWed'. to;·~u.lld U~ii~.=V'.'·!t~a~~· a r~~sO~abi'{St~e.ct. dfiV~\'l.'..~Y-~~~-~~~~ Tiri'.~-t~at :c?Ul.~ ·-~~)eist ~~.i::o~~o~~tf~:s·riJ.a!I~/ ~a/':,""'. acteqyatelv,rn~re shou1dlb~·~ ;tand~rd ,iz~.,equ1rern~nt drlv~w~yfor~li • 0~ t~~. ~~!.t~::,.o~r~·c!S .srnar!. a~·HP~qa,. ~ly_l~{~~-n.?~·r~}(~!:tA~i~.orne ~(ihe.~~· '. drlyew~y~~):~f~ ~o.w.9,~:f~.~~s ~ ?at~W.lssµ~_~j~~. i~~'~r~ ~¢P~'..t~~~r:: ·=.·. ti:ylng .t~. r.ic!n~u.Y~~:J~~Ir l~r~.~ t~~k~.~rtr/~Jh~ ~ra:a:ro~~s ~h_e·r:i ~~rs .are overh~~~\~g ~.r.1v_~1_~y~ .. Y!.e h~v~ h.?9·.flre ~f\:l}~f.~e\/~~~l}!~~~.,~.-~~r. '· tqys,n~o.use ·corrip,lex>. w,e "Y.~r.~ t.~1~ w~ WOu[d ~e.f!n~~ ~y .th!=!llr'e : q~.P.ar:t,~~~t .1~ ~~~'/ ~o~!d ~~~:.~.~~ .~~·r?~g.~ ·~~-':.~~~~~/~.~~s ?:'~!.~~· <?[:~C)~~s.~. niake~ _~e~~.~ a.0.d .1.~ .. ve.rv· ~~.~~ern!n~ If ~~~Y:~a·~·~9·~,r~~.~~--~~.rne·y riit~· ...... : ~4:'~~JY 1(~~ .err.~~gen~v::·.P.~r:t.~.1.!~.f P~.'.!1~r~.tG. g~t·a~~y_"V"'.1tti,.t.hts for" .. f~t~r~ ~~Y~!~P~~~,~.~:·. . . . ·. This questionnaire ... most questions do not apply for our community and the product buJlt. -Different plans offer different garages at a different cost. -Townhouse developments don't charge for extra parking It's all about what the plan offers. -Bottom Hne, virtually no-one parks tandem, but the skinny units are cheaper than wider homes. 1 W~ .. hi:lV'e a. ~TX-of't~.ri~.ef!1.and ~icle~~y-si~~-par_~ing Wlth.~n .. ~ur ~·o:fi:i.#1~( ~ide~by'-side'_~ai a·4·ef1rlit~ sei!ing feat'ure f9~. LiS. Ta~~em ·pa:r~ing·1~· . iri~oriV~h.le!rit ~-~~~PPihg for Wh6e·v~_r _ieav~~ ·first, ·ert.,::·= · (21 ·· ... . .. · .. · ......... · .. ·· ..................... ' 1. Which Townhouse J s. Do you use all of Development do you 'your designated live in? parking spaces for vehicles? 11305 240 Street Yes 13260 236 Street No 10151 240 Street No 11305 240 Street Yes 10151 240 Street Yes 23986 104 Avenue No 23986 104 Avenue Yes 11305 240 Street Yes 11305 240 Street Yes r 0,ity o·wr (?h~ ':'eh1de,l.do though, have a tee~3ge h·~Vo/.'dr·Jyer'-."Jby·wlJl.~~?li. ha~~ ~ls awn.vehi~fo:is w~I!. · Not ·en~ugh ·unit p~rkfng/ si?.e · of yehit::l~S · · 18. Are you able to park your vehicle in your garage, and have room for storage (such as garbage/ recycling bins, bicycles, etc.) Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No eXtra Jong. Too squeeze. :._h.~~e .. i''t.~rid.e_~_gifage ~-~'til .tne.~atk.s ~-k!-~s l~_~(~.~~'~gh.t? :~.~ ~~1e .tC?_: .. :. · also l)ark on the dTweway skirt as well. . · · ·· ..... :: '.· ·. ; 4) • . · • ''111.·, :· . · .· .. · ."... ·c:c .. - {Double Garage} ta,kes up more space so prices would be more making It unaffordable for many. Finding parking caj be a challenge so I encourage my visitors to carpool or A parking permit card to each townhouse then can use for visitors or extra car parking. 11 Anne McMullin, CEO lt-1)\ 1100 -1050 West Pender St. Vancouver, BC V6E 3S7 September 9, 2019 Dear Madame, APPENDIX D The City of Maple Ridge is currently reviewing the bylaw restrictions on allowing tandem parking within townhouse developments. Tandem parking is when one car is parked behind the other, and can be provided either with a two-car enclosed garage, or a single-car enclosed garage, with the second spot available on the driveway apron. · . We are seeking feedback from your association on the liveability,· affordability, and functionality of townhouse developments with various percentages of tandem parking arrangements. Please see the attached proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, and provide any comments or feedback you may have on the proposed amendments and/or on tandem parking arrangements in general. We expect to be reporting back to Council in November, so if you have comments, please provide them by early October. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, /Jf dd..)(}vy(_, Michelle Baski Planner mbaski@mapleridge.ca 604-467-7330 Encl. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Canada • Tel: 604-463-5221 • Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca • www.mapleridge.ca 100% Recycled Paper CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7564-2019 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019". 2. This Bylaw provides a definition for Tandem Parking with restrictions around the percentage of tandem parking allowed, and conditions to regulate building block size requirement for townhouse units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly: a) PART 2, INTERPRETATION, is amended by the addition of the following definition in correct alphabetical order: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. b) PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 602, RM-1 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, subsection 8, Other Regulations, is amended by adding the following after f) as follows: g) A townhouse use shall be limited to six (6) attached units in one block, not to exceed a length of 45 metres (147.5 feet). h) A tandem garage unit shall be limited to one enclosed single-car garage, with a driveway apron length to accommodate a second vehicle, as specified in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, No. 4350 -1990, as amended. Two-car enclosed tandem garages shall not. be permitted. i) The maximum percentage of single-car tandem garage units within a townhouse development shall be limited to 30%. 4. Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510-1985, as amended, is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 2019. READ a second time the day of , 2019. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 2019. READ a third time the day of , 2019. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , 2019. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7565-2019 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking Bylaw No. 7565-2019". 2. Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading By-law No. 4350-1990 is amended as follows: PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1(a), is amended by adding the following after vi): vii) Townhouse units with an enclosed single-car parking garage in a tandem configuration in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan, shall: a) Provide a minimum driveway apron of 6.0 metres in length and 3.0 metres in width; and b) Have an enclosed single-car garage with internal finished dimensions of not less than 3.8 metres in width, 6.7 metres in length, and 2.1 metres in height. viii) Townhouse units with an enclosed double-car parking garage, in a side-by-side configuration, in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan, as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan, shall: a) Have an enclosed double-car garage with internal finished dimensions of not less than 6.5 metres in width, 6.7 metres in length, and 2.1 metres in height. 3. Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of READ a third time the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the PRESIDING MEMBER , 2019. , 2019. , 2019. day of , 2019. CORPORATE OFFICER .I. • • I British Columbia Neil Moody, CEO O\!l.>AJk..-400 -6400 Roberts St. Burnaby, BC V5G 4C9 September 9, 2019 Dear Sir, The City of Maple Ridge is currently reviewing the bylaw restrictions on allowing tandem parking within townhouse developments. Tandem parking is when one car is parked behind the other, and can be provided either with a two-car enclosed garage, or a single-car enclosed garage, with the second spot available on the driveway apron. We are seeking feedback from your association on the liveability, affordability, and functionality of townhouse developments with various percentages of tandem parking arrangements. Please see the attached proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, and provide any comments or feedback you may have on the proposed amendments and/or on tandem parking arrangements in general. We expect to be reporting back to Council in November, so if you have comments, please provide them by early October. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, m0(!.LJJ~ Michelle Baski Planner mbaski@mapleridge.ca 604-467 -7 330 Encl. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BCV2X 6A9 Canada , Tel: 604-463-5221 , Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca , www.mapleridge.ca 100% Recycled Paper Ron Rapp, CEO HAVAN Suite 1011 -7 445 132 Street Surrey, BC V3W 1J8 September 9, 2019 Dear Sir, The City of Maple Ridge is currently reviewing the bylaw restrictions on allowing tandem parking within townhouse developments. Tandem parking is when one car is parked behind the other, and can be provided either with a two-car enclosed garage, or a single-car enclosed garage, with the second spot available on the driveway apron. We are seeking feedback from your association on the liveability, affordability, and functionality of townhouse developments with various percentages of tandem parking arrangements. Please see th~ attached proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, and provide any comments or feedback you may have on the proposed amendments and/or on tandem parking arrangements in general. We expect to be reporting back to Council in November, so if you have comments, please provide them by early October. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration .. Kind Regards, ,/Jf~,&.d:: Michelle Baski Planner mbaski@mapleridge.ca 604-467~7330 Encl. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BCV2X 6A9 Canada • Tel: 604-463-5221 • Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca • www.mapleridge.ca 100% Recycled Paper Antonio Gioventu Executive Director Condominium Home Owners' Association of BC Suite 200-65 Richmond Street New Westminster, BC V3L 5P5 info@choa.bc.ca tony@choa.bc.ca September 9, 2019 Dear Sir, The City of Maple Ridge is currently reviewing the bylaw restrictions on allowing tandem parking within townhouse developments. Tandem parking is when one car is parked behind the other, and can be provided either with a two-car enclosed garage, or a single-car enclosed garage, with the second spot available on the driveway apron. The City is seeking feedback from your association on the liveability, affordability, and functionality of townhouse developments with various percentages of tandem parking arrangements. Please see the attached proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, and provide any comments or feedback you may have on the proposed amendments, or on tandem parking arrangements in general. We expect to be reporting back to Council in November, so if you have comments, please provide them by early October. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, /lft,__,UL,_ ,(),.~-Michelle Baski · Planner mbaski@mapleridge.ca 604-467-7330 Encl. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BCV2X 6A9 Canada • Tel: 604-463-5221 , Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca • www.mapleridge.ca 100% Recycled Paper Board of Directors British Columbia Real Estate Association Suite 1425, 1075 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3C9 September 9, 2019 Dear Sir/Madame, The City of Maple Ridge is currently reviewing the bylaw restrictions on allowing tandem parking within townhouse developments. Tandem parking is when one car is parked behind the other, and can be provided either with a two-car enclosed garage, or a single-car enclosed garage, with the second spot available on the driveway apron. We are seeking feedback from your association on the liveability, affordability, and functionality of townhouse developments with various percentages of tandem parking arrangements. Please see the attached proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, and provide any comments or feedback you niay have on the proposed amendments and/or on tandem parking arrangements in general. We would be interested to know if tandem parking units are more or less difficult to sell than the typical double-car garage. We expect to be reporting back to Council in November, so if you have comments, please provide them by early October. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, Mte4/t-£-L: Michelle Baski Planner mbaski@mapleridge.ca 604-467 -7330 Encl. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Canada • Tel: 604-463-5221 • Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca , www.mapleridge.ca 100% Recycled Paper ,'~ ··~~ ! • • I British Columbia · sunders· FOrum September 9, 2019 Dear Sir/Madame, The City of Maple Ridge is currently reviewing the bylaw restrictions on allowing tandem parking within townhouse developments. Tandem parking is when one car is parked behind the other, and can be provided either with a two-car enclosed garage, or a single-car enclosed garage, with the second spot available on the driveway apron. We are seeking feedback from builders and developers on the liveability, affordability, and functionality of townhouse developments with various percentages of tandem parking arrangements. Please see the attached proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, and provide any comments or feedback you may have on the proposed amendments and/or on tandem parking arrangements in general. We expect to be reporting back to Council in November, so if you have comments, please provide them by early October. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, '· /Jf~/3~ Michelle Baski Planner mbaski@mapleridge.ca 604-467-7330 Encl. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Canada • Tel: 604-463-5221 , Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca , www.mapleridge.ca 100% Recycled Paper APPENDIXE Michelle Baski Subject: FW: Effect on Townhomes Value with Change to Tandem Garage Parking Rules From: Mark Sakai Sent: November 14, 2019 1:59 PM To: Christine Carter Cc: Jeff Fisher; Richard Demkiw Subject: FW: Effect on Townhomes Value with Change to Tandem Garage Parking Rules Hi Christine; At the DLC meeting, we made reference to some work that Polygon had done back in 2014 regarding the impact upon sales prices of reducing tandem parking units in a townhouse complex. If you scroll down to the end of this emajjth_f"e~g, --voo'llsee-tf1etalc:T.ilatfons: -Please note the caveats on the calculations, and the fact that the market values are five years old. What counts is the differential between the options, and the fact that a lower tandem percentage means that the cost of the land must be borne by fewer units, thus increasing the average cost of all units. The greatest impact, of course, is the reduction of lower priced tandem units, in favour of higher priced side-by-side parking units. MARK SAKAI Director of Government Relations Homebuilders Association Vancouver direct 778-373-9784 / cell: 604-928-8126 #1011, 7 445 132 Street, Surrey, BC V3W 1J8 @Mark_HAVAN www.havan.ca ... P.· HAVAN Homebuilders Assoclation Vanc.oi.Ner Proudly affiliated with CHBA BC and CHBA From: Jeff Fisher Sent: November 12, 2019 2:35 PM To: Hodgson, Emma Cc: Simms, Craig; Richard Demkiw; Mark Sakai Subject: RE: Effect on Townhomes Value with Change to Tandem Garage Parking Rules Thanks Emma l Jeff Fisher, M.PL., CAE, MCIP, RPP Vice-President and Senior Policy Advisor Urban Development Institute Suite 1100, 1050 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6E 357 Canada Tel 604 661-3031 I Fax 604 689-8691 Cell 604 340-8019 I E-mail jfisher@udi.org 1 Web www.udi.bc.ca :We have moved. Please update your records with our new address. · · ' , ".': ~uite 1100~ 1050 West Pender Street · · :~ Vancouver, BC V6E 357 Canada . · · 1', -~ ~ 'Email addresses and phone numbers have remained the same. · · . · · · · -~-, From: Hodgson, Emma Sent: November 12, 2019 11:46 AM To: Jeff Fisher Cc: Simms, Craig Subject: FW: Effect on Townhomes Value with Change to Tandem Garage Parking Rules Good morning Jeff, -----------Followrng up On the Maple Ridge UDI Liaison meeting, below is Kevin's breakdown that was provided to the City of Surrey regarding townhomes with tandem vs. side by side garages. The numbers would have to be updated to reflect current pricing but this shows the overall effect on affordability. In addition, the restriction to tandem parking using single car garages and apron stalls should be reviewed in more depth as it will potentially lower the density of site further. Thank you, Emma Hodgson Development Manager Assistant email: ehodgson@polyhomes.com tel: 604.871 .4252 From: Shoemaker, Kevin Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:15 PM To: Cc: Jeff Fisher Subject: FW: Effect on Townhomes Value with Change to Tandem Garage Parking Rules Jean, As promised I have done a quick study of the impact on the average price of a town home when the new tandem bylaw is applied. For the study I assumed a 1 acre site in South Surrey purchased with the allowable density being 20+ upa (all tandem). The serviced site cost is assumed at $1,500,000, there would likely not be any adjustment in the land price for this bylaw change. Town home prices in this area are approximately $369,000 for a 15' wide, 1250 sf tandem town home and $479,000 for a 20' wide, 1750 sf town home with side by side parking Worthy of note the 15' town home has the flexibility of the having the front door on either side of the home, the 20' can only have it on the opposite side ofthe garage, this significantly limits the site planning flexibility/density. All Tandem (20 upa) -Average Price = $369,0000 2 70% Tandem/30% Side x Side (18 upa} -Average Price= $414,000 (12% price increase per home over all tandem project) $369,000 X 12 = $4,428,000 $479,000 X 6 = $2,874,000 Avg price $406,000 + $8,000/unit (land cost increase for lower density assuming land at $75,000/unit for a 20 upa project*) 50% Tandem/SO% Side x Side (16 upa) -Average Price = $443,000 (20% price increase per home over all tandem project) $369,000 X 8* = $2,952,000 $479,000 X 8 = $3,832,000 Avg price $424,000 + $19,000/unit (land cost increase for lower density) .*This simplistic approach of just adding in the land cost significantly underestimates that actual cost of not building out the full density. There are other items such as finance carrying costs, site servicing, fronting roadworks etc. that are real costs no matter how many units are built; However demonstrating that this change will impact housing-prites-byT2%-~ -20% is probably dramatic enough. As we have noted there are instances that 100% tandem project are both appropriate and desirable. As such having a hard cap at 70% may be problematic, especially as the city gets denser in the coming years. In addition there will be a number of builders that will have purchased land with the expectation of building it out at 20upa that will not be achievable without tandem parking. As such there needs to be a delay in the application of the bylaw or at the very least a grandfathering for applications in stream. Please let me know if you have any questions POLYGON HOMES LTD Kevin Shoemaker Vice President Development kshoemaker@polyhomes.com 900 -1333 West Broadway Avenue Vancouver, BC V6H 4C2 Tel: 604-871-4283 Cell: 604-619-6223 www.polyhomes.com The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended _recipient, please delete it immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other alteration of this e-mail is prohibited and may be unlawful. It is assumed that the content of this message is correct -if there are any errors or omissions, please contact the sender as soon as possible. Kevin 3 October 16, 2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 · -------Attention:-Michelle-Baski------A tradition of quality and t>alue. Re: Response to Letter dated September 9, 2019 I Bylaw Restrictions to Tandem Parking in Townhouse Developments This letter is in response to your letter dated September 9, 2019 seeking feedback from builders and developers on the livability, affordability and functionality of townhouse developments with tandem parking arrangements. We feel that tandem parking is a critical component in providing product choice and floor plan variation to new ground-oriented projects in Maple Ridge. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input with respect to the potential change in policy as we feel these adaptations will challenge affordability and introduce new design limitations that could burden our ability to provide diverse floor plan options for prospective and future homebuyers. In no particular order, we offer the following points for further discussion: 1. What is the rationale behind the limitation on a townhouse Block to six (6) attached units? The majority of townhouse blocks are typically designed with six units or fewer in each structure. The ability to increase blocks beyond 6 units or 147.5 feet allows design flexibility to adapt to sites with awkward geometry or constraints. For example, if a location had the ability to accommodate a seven-plex and it was no longer permitted, the alternative would be to split the units into separate building which would result in the loss of one unit to accommodate required setbacks between structures. The combination of the yield loss and the higher construction costs to build two separate structures will impact the overall affordability of the remaining six dwellings; 2. One size does not fit all. As builders, it is our goal provide product diversification that includes variations in floor plan design and unit type for customer choice. Tandem garages provide design flexibility to create narrow and deep units that provide different sightlines and layouts that appeal to different demographics of buyers. For instance, the main floor of a tandem unit provides separation between the living area and the kitchen. This cannot be achieved in a double car garage home if we are trying to maintain similar square footages and price points; 3. A complete restriction on tandem units will have a standardizing effect on the type of floor plate being offered. The only variation capacity will be to increase the size of a double car garage unit or introduce single car garages with exterior parking space. While we have never built single car garage product, we feel this will be perceived as inferior to have two enclosed parking spaces in a unit; 4. Single Car Garages Help. These will be a minor substitute for tandem garages, albeit they will minimize overall site yields since the parking pad is on the exterior of the building and requires additional space. As tandem garages are completely enclosed, thereby allowing livable space to be built directly above both units; 5. Changes to the dimensions of interior garages. Effective townhouse design and construction involves stacking walls on top of one another to avoid unnecessary undulations and steps that add costs to the construction process. As most town homes are three stories with the garage on the basement level, any 201 -20050 Stewart Crescent, Maple Ridge, BC, V2X OT4 I www.epichomes.info I 604-465-6886 increases to the size of the garage will add square footages to the main and upper floor plates. Larger floor plates are more expensive to construct than smaller ones and add to the overall cost of the finished product. For instance, a single car townhome with driveway apron or carport is typically 16' wide and -32' deep. If the interior dimensions of the garage go from 10'2" to 12'6", you are adding another 177sqft to the floor space above (assuming we are keeping to economical construction standards with limited stepping from one floor to the next). If construction costs are $140/ft, that could add close to $25,000 to the cost of a townhome. Similar thought process if going from 6.0m wide double car garage to a 6.Sm or a 20' deep garage to a 22' deep. Typical planning standards and Maple Ridge parking requirements call for a space of 2.Sm x 5.Sm for parking. Is the cost/benefit analysis to future homeowners worth the change 7 In recent communities, we have had strong demand for tandem product from families or single person households that only have one car or want the additional depth for trucks or large SUV's. Some comments that we have received include additional storage space for gear or accessory items like boats, motorcycles and recreation equiprTie-nt (bikes/ camping gear~-e-tc)~--- ------------ - ----------------------------------------We would be happy to provide additional details or information to assist with any of the discussion points above. I trust the above to be in order. Yours Truly, Epic Homes Cole Lambert 201 -20050 Stewart Crescent, Maple Ridge, BC, V2X OT4 I www.epichomes.info I 604-465-6886 Michelle Baski Subject: FW: Proposed Tandem Parking Bylaw From: Robert Grimm Sent: September 25, 2019 9:40 AM To: Michelle Baski <mbaski@mapleridge.ca> Cc: Chuck Goddard <cgoddard@mapleridge.ca> Subject: RE: Proposed Tandem Parking Bylaw Michelle, Thank you for your response and the video link. After watching the debate I do have a few additional comments; -size of parking-stalls; • It was mentioned that there should be 3' around all sides of the vehicle, that is very excessive. The last project we built in Surrey was mostly master on the main townhomes where had had 20' x 20' wide garages. Overwhelmingly we got comments of how spacious the garages were. • Tandem garages are typically on three level townhomes, so wheel chair access is not needed. From our experience; • Purchasers choose particular homes in a community based on their vehicles. At Brighton we had a few home owners that had 1 ton crew cab pickups with dual wheels, they chose homes where the apron could accommodate their vehicle. • Again, going by memory but I believe Brighton had a 0.5 visitor parking per home, maybe that helped the issue in that complex. Next steps; • When interviewing home owners about their preference please make sure that they know there will be a price difference between tandem and double car garages. Most purchasers would like a single family home with 4 bedrooms a double car garage and a picket fence but they can't afford that, so affordability is a deciding factor in their purchasing decision. Thanks you! Rob Grimm, Principal T: 604-242-1658 C: 604-813-5826 rob.grimm@phfventures.ca #270 -21320 Gordon Way Richmond, BC V6W 1J8 ~··· H '\I' : .• P ,F ventures• ••••• With the change in ownership of Portrait Homes, please note my new email address is rob.grimm@phfventures.ca From: Michelle Baski Sent: September 25, 2019 8:34 AM To: Robert Grimm Cc: Chuck Goddard Subject: RE: Proposed Tandem Parking Bylaw 1 Hello Mr. Grimm, Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your letter will be included in the report back to Council. In response to your question regarding whether or not this is a staff-driven or Council-driven initiative, this is a Council-driven initiative, and we as staff also have reservations. We have provided Council a copy of the past letter from Portrait Homes which clearly outlined your concerns the last time we had a review of this matter. Mr. Goddard also raised attention to this letter when the update report was presented to Council on May 7, 2019. You can view the discussion around it here: http://media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Play/f7a5973e0170408492f00751dbfa5edb1d (item 4.2). We agree that the affordability side is a concern and will try to protect tandem parking as a useful tool. Regards, Michelle Baski Planner -MAP-[E RIDGE--BRITISH COLUMBlA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7330 Fax: 604-466-4327 Web Open Government Portal This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt ofthis message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. From: Robert Grimm Sent: September 23, 2019 2:42 PM To: Michelle Baski <mbaski@mapleridge.ca> Cc: Homebuilders Association Vancouver <mark@havan.ca> Subject: Proposed Tandem Parking Bylaw Michelle, Please see attached letter and forward to Mayor and Council. Thanks Rob Grimm, Principal T: 604-242-1658 C: 604-813-5826 rob.grimm@phfventures.ca #270 -21320 Gordon Way Richmond, BC V6W 1J8 •• :" .. PHF Ventures• ., •• 'it 2 September 23, 2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Attn: Michelle Baski Re: Bylaw# 7565-2019 Although I am no longer a home builder, I felt compelled to write to you to oppose this proposed bylaw regarding the tandem parking. Throughout the Lower Mainland we are in a housing affordability crisis and a bylaw of this nature will only make homes less affordable by decreasing density on a site. We built an Award Winning 145 townhome community named Brighton at 13819 -232nd Street and although I no longer have access to the plans, if memory serves me correctly there were only 5 homes out of the 145 that had side by side parking. All the other homes had tandem parking whether it be one in one out or a 2 deep enclosed garage and there were no challenges with parking in this community. When this topic came up a few years ago I took Councillor Bob Massey on a tour of the site to demonstrate how well the parking worked there. He even spoke to some of the homeowners and they confirmed there was no issue with parking. Please go see the community and talk to the homeowners, you will see there is no problem. I am not sure why this topic keeps coming up in an attempt to curb affordability, is it staff driven by some misguided ideology or is it Council driven? Either way, it will make homes less affordable, which is something we don't need. Sincerely, Rob Grimm Formerly of Portrait Homes. Michelle Baski Subject: FW: Maple Ridge -Townhome Block size and Tandem parking From: wayne jackson Sent: September 25, 2019 10:06 AM To: Michelle Baski <mbaski@mapleridge.ca> Subject: FW: Maple Ridge -Townhome Block size and Tandem parking Hi Michelle, Why don't I ever get information like this? Is my opinion not important© or am I just not on a list of builders and developers. For what it is worth I find limiting tandem to 30 percent has worked well without a driveway apron on projects I have done. I think you should consider enclosed tandem garages on units facing a public street. Hope all is well with you Wayne From: Lilian Kan [mailto:lilian@nourahomes.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:36 PM To: Wayne Jackson/ Pivotal Development Consultants Ltd Subject: Maple Ridge -Townhome Block size and Tandem parking Are you aware of this? https://havan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Tandem-Parking-Letter.pdf Looks like they are changing the block size and limiting tandem parking in Maple Ridge. Lilian Kan Error! Filename not specified. #201 -3387 David Ave, Coquitlam, BC V3E OK4 Office: 778.285.0503 Email: Lilian@NouraHomes.com Web: www.Nourahomes.com 1 TO: FROM: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: May 12, 2020 01-0540-30-04 Workshop SUBJECT: Website and E-commerce Development Grant Program for Local Businesses EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a profound impact on local businesses and the economy in Maple Ridge. All personal service businesses are currently closed, many retail stores are shuttered, and any restaurants that are open are reduced to offering take-out/pick-up service only. According to a recent province-wide survey conducted by the BC Chamber of Commerce, approximately half of all businesses surveyed report that they have experienced revenue decreases of 75%. The same survey revealed that only 53% of businesses expect to re-open once COVID-19 related restrictions have been removed. In order to support businesses that have closed or reduced their services to deal with the impact of COVID-19, the Economic Development Department is recommending the City allocate $150,000 in grant funding to support businesses in developing or updating their web and/or e-commerce technology platforms, and/or to attend a training program that can support the successful development and implementation of an e-commerce channel for their business. The grant program will reimburse businesses 50% of the costs incurred during the development of any website/e-commerce platform or the cost of attendance at an e-commerce training course, up to a maximum of $800. The focus of the grant is to assist with recovery and build resiliency into our local business community. RECOMMENDATION: That implementation of a $150,000 grant program, to be funded from accumulated surplus, to support local businesses in developing enhanced websites and e-commerce platforms be authorized. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The Economic Development Department is working with the Economic Development Committee (EDC) to develop a Business Recovery and Resiliency Action Plan help local businesses to not only recover from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic but also to help prepare them for the effects of similar disasters in the future. Doc #2446887 Page 1 of 4 4.7 One of the action plan tactics recommended by the EDC is for the City to develop a program that helps local businesses improve their online presence and e-commerce capabilities, which will help them continue to generate some revenue in the current "restricted" climate and to grow their businesses with an additional revenue stream in the future. Developing more robust e-commerce infrastructure will also help prepare these businesses if there is a "second wave" of COVID-19 infections in the fall, as well as to be more resilient to any similar situations in the future. The growth of e-commerce in the retail and restaurant industries is well documented and many traditional retailers have fully integrated e-commerce operations. Marks Work Wearhouse, Walmart, and Save-on Foods are good examples of larger retailers that have successfully combined their "bricks" and "clicks" operations. Similarly, many restaurants have developed their own e-commerce platforms or have partnered with companies such as Skip the Dishes, DoorDash and Uber Eats. Many local restaurants and stores are now offering curbside pick-up as well. While e-commerce was growing steadily before the current pandemic, BNN Bloomberg reports that Canadian e-commerce sales have doubled since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. Now more than ever, it's critical for retailers and restaurants to have robust websites with e-commerce capabilities to attract and retain customers. It seems likely that some form of social distancing will remain in place for some time or until there is a COVID-19 vaccine. Many health experts are concerned by the possibility of a "second wave" of coronavirus infections in the fall. The grant funding being proposed is designed to support businesses in Maple Ridge in developing their online and e-commerce platforms. The grants will reimburse businesses up 50% of the costs incurred during the development of any website/e-commerce platform or towards the cost of an e-commerce training course, up to a maximum of $800 per business. Payment will be issued to the business upon provision of a completed application form and a paid invoice confirming the work and/or training program has been completed. A simple application process has been developed and a sample form is attached (Appendix 1). The program will ask applicants of the program to "Shop Local" and "Support Local" by encouraging the use of local vendors to help with their web improvements. The Economic Development Office will work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Maple Ridge Business Improvement Association to develop a list of local website and e-commerce development vendors and consultants. The Economic Development Department can help applicants connect with post-secondary institutions, and will encourage applicants to consider hiring a local student to work with their business on these projects. The Economic Development Department will commence the program upon approval from Council and report back on the final results of the grant program once it is complete. Doc #2446887 Page 2 of 4 Eligibility Criteria: 1. Applications will be submitted through an online form that will be available on the City of Maple Ridge website. 2. Applications will be processed based upon the order in which completed submissions and all required documentation are received. 3. The applicant must have a valid Maple Ridge Business Licence. 4. The applicant cannot obtain additional federal or provincial funding through any other grant, program or support initiative. 5. Applicants can only apply once to this grant program. 6. Applicants can only submit one training program for reimbursement. 7. To be eligible for reimbursement, the applicant must submit a completed application form along with a paid invoice for the completed website development, e-commerce platform development, or training program, or any combination of these three components. 8. All completed applications must be submitted prior to the program expiry date of midnight March 31, 2021. Submissions can be made electronically. 9. Funding will be reimbursed for 50% of the total of all eligible invoices up to a maximum of $800 per business. 10. Once the total fund of $150,000 has been dispersed, the program will close to applications. A notice will be added to the website and the application form will be removed. b) Desired Outcome: The goal of this funding program is to help build stronger, more resilient local businesses by encouraging the development of more robust e-commerce and online platforms. This program will help businesses develop new revenue streams, expand their market reach and better prepare them for resiliency in future emergencies. c) Strategic Alignment The goals of this grant program align with Council's strategic focus on supporting economic growth and development, diversifying the local economy, and building partnerships with the local business community. d) Citizen/Customer Implications The grant program will help create a stronger, more resilient business community that is better positioned for future growth, more competitive, and better prepared to deal with similar situations in the future. It will encourage businesses to invest in essential technology now. The program will also provide opportunities for local technology businesses and consultants to grow their businesses and potentially provide summer employment opportunities for local students. e) Interdepartmental Implications The Economic Development Department will work with Information Technology Department to develop an on line application process and with the Communications Department to assist with promoting this program to the local business community. Doc #2446887 Page 3 of4 -=~--------------•. -.-.-----~-------.}-:---.,..-~-,-------·------r f) Business Plan/Financial Implications The funding for the grant program is not currently available within the Economic Development Department's previously approved 2020 budget and Work Plan. This is unplanned expenditure in unprecedented times. The funding for the program has been identified to come from Accumulated Surplus. g) Policy Implications The Legislative Services Department has reviewed the grant program with the Provincial Government to ensure that it complies with the Community Charter. h) Alternatives The Economic Development Department could work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement Association to research and publish a listing of web development and e-commerce businesses and post-secondary education programs in the region. Businesses would be encouraged to connect with these service providers on their own. CONCLUSION: One of the most profound global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the retail and hospitality industries has been an acceleration of the growth of e-ecommerce. It is likely that, even as restrictions on businesses ease, some form of social distancing-whether legislated or not-will continue in the foreseeable future. These behaviours will restrict the volume of clients through the doors of our businesses, which, in turn, will limit their ability to generate revenue. The proposed grant program is designed to encourage local retailers and restaurants to develop the robust websites and e-commerce abilities that they need in order to generate an additional revenue stream, stay in business and employ staff in this dynamic economic environment. Prepa~Bruce uv.'gstone, BBA Business Retention and Expansion Officer Reviewed by: Director of Economic Develop Approved by: ~ Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: (A) Application Form Doc #2446887 Page 4 of 4 All businesses in Maple Ridge are eligible to apply for this one-time grant funding program. This will be available until a total of $150,000 has been allocated or until the program expires on the 31st of March 2021. Application Date 2020-04-29 Business Name Business Address Main Contact Main Contact Email Grant Type r, Costs related to web site and platform upgrades Business License# Website Main Contact Phone Confirm Email 0 Costs related to education. Only one training program can be submitted Did you use a local business for this work? r, Yes r, No Did you use a student for this work? 0 Yes (j No Has other Federal Funding of this type been received? 0 Yes (j No Please provide us with a copy of your receipt of a paid invoice. Ensure you name your file with your business name. Upload HERE Once all uploads are completed, close that tab and return here to complete the claim. • All complete applications must be submitted prior to the expiry date of midnight March 31, 2021. • Applications will be received through an online form and will be processed based on order received. • Payment will be issued to the business upon provision of a completed application form and an invoice confirming the IM:lrk that has been completed. For more information, please contact the Economic Development office at invest@mapleridge.ca or 604-467-7320. ' -,·_·