District of Mission, BC€¦ · Created Date: 11/25/2011 10:06:54 AM

MDISTRICT CDF

ON THE FRASER #1,

Regular Council Agenda November 28, 2011 — 6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers

8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC

1. RESOLUTION TO ADD BYLAWS

MOTION: That the following sections be added to the agenda for November 28, 2011:

7. Bylaws 8. Development Permit Applications; and 9. Council Remarks

2. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

(a) Zoey Slater, Bear Aware Community Coordinator Page 4 (Update Report)

3. NEW BUSINESS

(a) Healthy Living Through Parks and Green Spaces Page 6

(b) Provincial Funding for Public Libraries 1

(c) 2012 and 2013 Fees and Charges Review Page 14 Kern Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector (Verbal Report)

(d) Economic Development "Open for Business" Signage Page 38

(e) Gaudin Creek Diversion Project Review Page 40

4. QUESTION PERIOD (on new business only)

5. PUBLIC HEARING

(a) i. District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5244-2011-4052(16) (R11-014 — Fraser Health Authority) — a bylaw to redesignate properties at 7338 and 7348 Hurd Street from Urban Compact — Multiple Family to Institutional

ii. District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5245-2011- 5050(54) (R11-014 — Fraser Health Authority) — a bylaw to add a Comprehensive Development Zone and rezone properties at 7324, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267 and 32299 Hurd Street from Institutional Care Zone (IC) to Comprehensive Development Zone 26 (CD 26)

Page 44

(b) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5251-2011-5050(56) Page 60 (R11-003 — Pavlov) — a bylaw to rezone property at 12411 Carr Street from Rural 36 Zone (RU36) to Rural Residential 7 Zone (RR7)

(c) i. District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5252-2011- Page 69 5050(57) (R11-021 — Deol) — a bylaw to rezone property at 32851 — 6th Avenue from Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) to Residential Compact 280 Zone (RC280)

2

ii. Development Permit Application DP11-013 (Deol) — 32851 6th Avenue

(d) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5254-2011-5050(58) (R08-004 — OTG Development Concepts) — a bylaw to rezone property at 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Zone (RR7)

6. OTHER BUSINESS

(a) Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on May 25, 2010 and February 28, 2011 with related Staff Report dated April 19, 2010 and January 24, 2011 (R10-013 — District of Mission)

Background for consideration of adoption of bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9)

(b) Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on July 25, 2011 with related Staff Report dated July 4, 2011 (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing)

Background for consideration of adoption of bylaws 5222-2011-4052(14) and 5223-2011-5050(44)

7. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION

Page 88

Page 97

Page 140

MOTION: That the readings of all bylaws listed below be considered for second and/or third reading following the public hearing.

(a) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw Second and Third 5244-2011-4052(16) (R11-014 — Fraser Health Authority) — a Reading bylaw to redesignate properties at 7338 and 7348 Hurd Street from Urban Compact — Multiple Family to Institutional

(b) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5245-2011-5050(54) Second and Third (R11-014 — Fraser Health Authority) — a bylaw to add a Reading Comprehensive Development Zone and rezone properties at 7324, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267 and 32299 Hurd Street from Institutional Care Zone (IC) to Comprehensive Development Zone 26 (CD 26

(c) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5251-2011-5050(56) (R11-003 — Pavlov) — a bylaw to rezone property at 12411 Carr Street from Rural 36 Zone (RU36) to Rural Residential 7 Zone (RR7)

(d) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5252-2011-5050(57) (R11-021 — Deol) — a bylaw to rezone property at 32851 — 6th Avenue from Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) to Residential Compact 280 Zone (RC280)

Third Reading

Third Reading

3

(e) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5254-2011-5050(58)

Third Reading (R08-004 — OTG Development Concepts) — a bylaw to rezone • property at 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Zone (RR7)

MOTION: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the November 28, 2011 regular council agenda be approved as listed:

(a) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw Adoption 5137-2010-4052(9) — a bylaw to incorporate new Industrial Development Permit Guidelines

(b) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw Adoption 5222-2011-4052(14) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) — a bylaw to redesignate property at 8352 Cedar Street and 32821 & 32835 Janzen Avenue from Seniors Congregate to Apartments

(c) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) Adoption (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) — a bylaw to rezone property at 8352 Cedar Street and 32821 & 32835 Janzen Avenue from Suburban 36 Zone (S36) to Multiple Family 135 Apartment Zone (MA-135)

(d) District of Mission Fees and Charges Amending Bylaw 5257- 2011 — a bylaw to amend various fees and charges within other District of Mission bylaws

8. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS

(a) Development Permit Application DP11-006 (Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) (for consideration of approval)

9. COUNCIL REMARKS

10. ADJOURNMENT

First, Second and Third Readings

Page 140

Black Bear Sightings Per Month

Fre

Mission Bear Attractants - 2011

Door to Door Visits

1,703 residents received either a brochure or door hanger Materials were distributed throughout the urban core of Mission

Garbage Tagging

• Garbage tagging was completed in the Red Sz Blue curbside collection zones

• These areas were targeted based on the numerous sightings reported, in each zone

11/25/2011

4

Bear Aware 2011 Mission, BC

Zoey Slater Bear ilre aware

1

Bear Sightings by Curbside Collection Zones - 2011

Garbage Tagging for Red & Blue Curbside Collection Zones

Bear Aware Display

Food Gleaning Project

• MEAN started a food gleaning project in Mission

• There were 4 picks in Mission in 2011 which produced 190 lbs.of apples and pears, 40 lbs of plums and over 6o lbs of a variety of vegetables

Special thanks to the following filmier, & supporter,.

vol Conservation Corps

BRITISH COLUMN CONSERVATION

FOUNDATION

11/25/2011

5

School Presentations

• .‘ppro‘irnatol■ -1,164 students were leached through Boar Aware presentations

• All olomontdryt,..econdanoshhools within Mission have tool bear sightings within 01 least a fors blacks of each ,eland

• There was a heal sighting It Silverdale Elementat:\ the clay „ ■11„,* the Boar Aware presentation

ScAnit, Aturviincv

1..ornwn

• *bd. It

2

Conummities i Collectivites in Bloom n flews

Healthy Living through Parks & Green Spaces

A Report on the National Symposium

on Parks & Grounds

Hosted by

The National Battlefields Commission Quebec City

October 26 - 29, 2011

by

Heather M. Stewart, MA

Councillor, District of Mission

at the

Annual General Meeting

of

Mission Communities in Bloom Society

Wednesday, October 16, 2011

6

2

Table of Contents

• List of Presentations 3

• Impressions

4

• Possible Mission Projects

5

• Suggestions For Mission's Attendance At Next National Symposium And Awards:

Edmonton

6

7

List of Presentations 3

Looking for art sculptures in parks and gardens Looks at how works of art play an important role in parks and landscaping, and at

criteria to consider balance to nature and sculpture and how to fully appreciate works and ideas expressed by the art.

School Garden Network - Growing Food, Growing Youth, Growing Education Discusses the work of the School Garden Network, a registered charitable

organization operating nationally, with a goal of youth education, and aiming to encourage scientific understanding of two vita...

Community Engagement in Public Art - A defining moment for Castlegar BC Looks at how Castlegar's Sculpturewalk program partnered with Communities in

Bloom to engage the community in an annual display of outdoor sculptures situated in the downtown core and how the city's c...

Growing Healthy Partnerships in Brampton Co-Presenter: Roberta Canning, Coordinator Chinguacousy Park, Community

Services, City of Brampton Presents the Scotts Miracle Gro's Community Garden and Green Space Program in Brampton.

Pentathlon des neicies This presentation looks at this unique event presented in an historical park, which is a perfect example that awareness and sustainable development can work perfectly with

mass gathering. X Recreational Pathways in the National Capital - An Evolving Legacy

Looks at the historical context and the design approach of the Capital Region's extensive network of multiuse pathways that allow several types of recreational

activities in a variety of environments. Rosemere, Our Health Vision

Looks at measures the municipality has taken to favour better lifestyles and environmental protection, including the choice to meet this objective by offering these

services to all citizens. Sinaapore - A City in a Garden

Looks at Community Gardens in Singapore, and their growth, as well as identifying champions of the movement. Presentation from the Communities in Bloom 2011

National Symposium on Parks & Grounds The Celestial Gardens of Fieurons du Quebec

This presentation looks at these theme gardens, located at the heart of 19 municipalities, which represent the planets of our solar system. This particularly

original journey leads to the local observatory.X Toda Urban Development and Green Flower

This presentation looks at examples of urban development in the Toda, such as recycling and composting, rooftop gardens, eco-energy, and volunteer involvement.

Tournament Capital Program Looks at Kamloops' Tournament Capital Program, which results in sport and

recreation facilities that are the best in all of Canada for similar-sized cities and citizens who believe they have an exceptional program...

Vibrant Communities - Vibrant Region - Growing Together- Edmonton Capital Region

Co-presenter: Greg Krischke, Mayor of the City of Leduc. This presentation shows bold images from the Edmonton Capital Region, which comprises 25 vibrant

municipalities along with descriptions of those participating.

8

IMPRESSIONS OF SYMPOSIUM AND AWARDS EVENT

At one of the first presentations, Mark Cullen, Home Hardware's Gardening Expert,

spoke of how C in B answers the questions: Why do we garden and why is C in B a good thing for Canada?

As he spoke, he alluded to the unifying aspects of the C in B program; e.g. we are

developing pride of community; we are acquiring many similar values (such as

environmental awareness and heritage); and we are gathering at events like this to

learn from each other and are inspired by one another's efforts.

Coincidentally, just that morning before breakfast I had been listening to John Turner

on TV in an interview by Peter Mansbridge. Turner has stated that Canada was a

difficult country to govern, and he cited geography and language differences as a

couple of factors.

However, he qualified his remark by saying that "...other things were unifying factors

for Canada; e.g. compromise, things of the heart, and feelings. I recalled his words the

next day as I heard witnessed the awards ceremony. I believe volunteering has a

unifying effect on a community as we work toward a common good and find we share

similar values, like tidiness, heritage, and a tidy city.

All this was so well illustrated in Quebec City. First of all, the 'language barrier" was

overcome with bilingual commentators and chairpersons or simultaneous, electronic

translations. Furthermore, despite differences in geography, each area of our country

has its own challenges. This was illustrated by communities who had entered the

National competition but who had suffered from one of a long list of natural disasters

such as flooding, tornado or hurricane. In Brandon, for example, they were able to

replace almost all the floral exhibitions before the judges arrived. In Ontario, a

community provided hanging basket replacements to town that was in their own

competitive category.

Two other words came to my mind as the gathering was nearing its end: RESPECT and

INCLUSIVENESS. These behaviours were illustrated in so many ways, as in respect for

language: I heard few complaints about the electronic translations or the repetition of

commentaries in two languages; respect for other countries: Scotland England, Ireland

Japan and the US were in attendance. The US program head of America in Bloom

thanked Canada for assisting them to get started. Even the entertainment highlighted

these two concepts. A trio of Aboriginal women sang, including a version of 0 Canada

that was soul-stirring! Three African drummers were accompanied by a bagpipe player.

Quebec itself is a stunning example of heritage values most of us cherish. One specific

example was our final venue, Theatre Le Capitole which is a restored performance

9

5

center providing visitors with an historic ambiance. For our event it was set up as

dinner theatre. After the awards, twenty Quebecois children played violins and three

Quebecois men entertained with guitar, bass, fiddle and song. A great "note" on which

to conclude the Quebec City Symposium and Awards event.

NOTE: I kept a daily diary of my time in Quebec City and will be happy to share more details of these presentations at the Society's regular meetings.

POSSIBLE MISSION PROJECTS

1. Murals (Trail, BC) 2. School Gardens (Brampton, Ontario) 3. Inter-Generational Community Gardens (Toda, Japan) 4. Public Art in Parks (Castlegar, BC)

SUGGESTIONS FOR MISSION'S ATTENDANCE AT NEXT NATIONAL SYMPOLIUM AND AWARDS: EDMONTON

1. Make sure two persons attend to meet heavy lifting and social needs.

2. Bear in mind there could be a prize for the display voted best by some National judges.

a. Book District of Mission (not "I Love Mission") pins well ahead of departure.

b. Have a participation activity at the table with a prize draw.

c. Pens are also well received handouts (see Economic Development)

d. Take brochures or similar information.

e. Some participants are looking for folders of information.

f. Book table space early with National organizers.

g. Electrical outlet is not necessary.

h. Make sure your luggage has space for the return trip in which to pack your collection of information/handouts from the event.

3. A District of Mission councilor or staff person ought to attend.

4. Be sure participants take a camera.

10

RL FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY

PROVINCIAL FUNDING: WHAT IT BUYS AND

WHY IT'S WORTH THE MONEY

11

Administrative Centre 134589 Road I Abbotsford, 13C I V2S SYI Tet• (44-859-7141 I Totl-free:1-888-668-4141 I Fax: 604-852-5701

Provincial Funding For Libraries: What It Buys

The Province of BC's infrastructure investments in BC's public libraries fund valuable collaborative, province-wide initiatives that benefit all libraries and all British Columbians:

1. BC One Card

A library card from customers' home public library qualifies them for BC One Card privileges, which allow them to check out materials and use library services at public libraries throughout BC.

2. Sitka Common Integrated Library System

Open-source software system that allows library customers to find library material and helps

libraries manage, catalogue and circulate those materials. This- is a provincial initiative and a

collaborative effort, creating tremendous economies of scale, opportunities for shared growth and

increasing access to library resources across the province. 3. BC's Summer Reading Club

Summer Reading Club is a family activity that boosts student literacy skills, helps develop a daily

reading habit, consolidates and improves on the students' reading skills, and encourages local library visits.

4. Support for Print-Disabled

Collection resources for the print-disabled

5. BC Libraries Cooperative

A non-profit corporate body strategically focused on the delivery of shared operational

infrastructure and resources to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and extend service delivery in libraries.

6. Coordination of Provincial Database Licensing

Ensures equitable access to a large suite of electronic resources which benefit students in every discipline throughout BC.

7. Six Library Federations

InterLINK, Kootenay, North Coast, North Central, North East, and IslandLink library federations

share resources, coordinate efforts to improve access to library service, work collaboratively, and

create training and professional development opportunities.

8. License for Internet Catalogue for BC's Public and Academic Libraries

Outlook Online is the Internet catalogue for BC's public and academic libraries (co-funded and administered with BC Electronic Library Network)

9. Websites for Small BC Public Libraries

Open-source content-management systems and websites for smaller public libraries are provided through the Public Libraries Online Templates (PLOT) program.

10. Support for Library-Related Associations BC Library Association and BC Library Trustees Association

77. Libraries and Literacy Branch of the Ministry of Education

The Libraries and Literacy branch of the Ministry of Education contributes a Community Librarian Training Program; topical webinars for library staff; professional consultancy outreach; province-wide Inter Library Loan brokering; and preparation of provincial library statistics - an invaluable tool for strategic library planning.

FVRL FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY

Administrative Centre I 34589 DeLair Road Abbotsford, BC i V2S 5Y1 604-859-7141 i Toll-fare: 1-388-66S-4141 Fax: 604-852-5701

PROVINCIAL FUNDING: WHAT IT BUYS AND

WHY IT'S WORTH THE MONEY

12

Provincial Funding For Libraries: Why It's Worth The Money

SUMMARY

Provincial funding for public libraries:

provides a tremendous "bang for the government buck" - a nominal investment with

rich returns for all British Columbians.

2. empowers all BC residents by giving them equitable access to information.

3. supports BC's literacy, economic growth, community development, and family life.

4. builds capacity throughout BC by enabling libraries to collaborate, share resources,

leverage mutual interests, and reduce costs.

> Provincial funding for libraries fulfills the Families First Agenda For Change:

• Builds capacity in our communities

• Upholds rural economies, community life, social and educational opportunities

• Ensures that all British Columbians can take advantage of province-wide initiatives.

• Provides equitable access to information that, in turn, empowers individuals and

develops communities.

• Enables libraries to support the citizens of British Columbia.

• Enables collaborative initiatives to:

o take advantage of economies of scale,

o reduce costs,

o extend service delivery in libraries,

o leverage mutual interests,

o enhance the stability of libraries by:

• improving organizational infrastructure and

• encouraging the broad sharing of resources.

• Helps British Columbians—urban and rural—pursue their dreams, strengthen their

communities, and contribute to a better, more prosperous British Columbia.

Provincial funding for libraries supports the Ministry of Education's Education Plan:

• Helps every learner realize their full potential and contribute to the well-being of our

province.

• Helps all learners improve their lives through lifelong learning and literacy

opportunities.

• Supports strong early and family literacy programs through the public library system.

• Builds greater connection and mutual support between public, K-12 and post-

secondary library systems.

• Ensures that every adult in the province has the 21st-century skills they need to

succeed.

13

PROVINCIAL FUNDING:

r'IRFVRL

RESOLUTION FOR FVRL

FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY

MEMBER COUNCILS Administrative Centre I 34589 D6Lair Road I Abbotsford, BC I V2S ST1 Tel: 604-859-7141 I Taub-free: 1-888-668-4141 I Fax: 604-832-5701

PROVINCIAL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES:

Resolution for Council of the District of Mission

WHEREAS the Province of BC's infrastructure investments in BC's public libraries fund

valuable collaborative, province-wide initiatives that benefit all public libraries and all British

Columbians;

AND WHEREAS provincial funding for public libraries empowers all BC residents by giving

them equitable access to information; supports BC's literacy, economic growth, community

development, and family life; and builds capacity throughout BC by enabling libraries to

collaborate, share resources, leverage mutual interests, and reduce costs;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the District of Mission send a letter to

the Provincial Government through the Minister of Education to encourage the Provincial

Government to maintain generous financial support for public libraries in British Columbia.

MDISTRICT OF

ON THE FRASER

Finance Department Memorandum

14

FILE: FIN.BUD.DOM Fees & Charges

To: Chief Administrative Officer

From: Deputy Treasurer/Collector

Date: November 21, 2011

Subject: 2012 and 2013 Fees and Charges Review

Recommendation

1. That the bylaws noted below have their fees and/or charges amended as follows:

Bylaw and Section Descri • tion 2011 Rate

Proposed R Rate

Effective January 1,

Rate

Proposed

Effective January 1

2012 2013

5040-2009 Penitentiary Sewage Life Station Catchment Area Fee Bylaw

As a condition of subdivision approval or connection of existing dwellings to the sewer, all property owners in the Penitentiary Sewage Lift Station Catchment Area shall pay to the Municipality a per lot fee of

$2,421.50 $2,494.00 $2,568.00

3823-2005 Holding Tank Sewage Discharge Bylaw 3 (d)

The fee payable prior to discharge of sewage at the facility described in section 3 (b) (ii) per tanker load

$45.00 $46.50 $47.90

3088-1997 Consolidated Soil Removal Bylaw 6. (b)

For each Permit there shall be payable by the Applicant to the Municipality a Permit fee as set out below, which Permit fee shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of a Permit.

$175.00 $175.00 $175.00

3088-1997 Consolidated Soil Removal Bylaw 6. (c) There shall be payable by the Permit

Holder to the Municipality a Soil Removal fee as follows:

Of Soil removed from Lands within the District of Mission during the term of the Permit.

$0.45 per cubic

meter (m3)

$0.241 per metric

tonne

$0.46 per cubic

meter (m3)

$0.246 per metric

tonne

$0.268

$0.50 per cubic

meter (m3)

per metric tonne

3550-2003 Consolidated District of Mission Soil Deposit Bylaw 7. (1) (e)

A non-refundable application fee payable as follows: $175.00 $175.00 $175.00

PAGE 1 OF 5

3550-2003 Consolidated District of Mission Soil Deposit Bylaw 8. (a)

In addition to the non-refundable application fee specified in Section 7(e), every permit holder shall, prior to the deposit of any soil on receiving land, pay to the District of Mission a volumetric soil deposit fee as follows:

of soil intended to be deposited.

0.45 per cubic

meter (m3)

$0.241 per metric

tonne

$0.46 per cubic

meter (m3)

$0.246 per metric

tonne

$0.50 per cubic

meter (m3)

$0.268 per metric

tonne

3550-2003 Consolidated District of Mission Soil Deposit Bylaw 8. (b)

Should a permit lapse or be revoked under the provision this bylaw it may be renewed by the Engineer upon application and receipt of a non-refundable fee of:

Plus the difference between the volumetric soil deposit permit fee amount previously paid and that of the current permit fee payable.

$160.00 $163.20 $163.20

2. That the following bylaw Fee Schedule(s) be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached new Fee Schedule(s):

Bylaw Descri • tion Schedule(s)

4029-2007 Administrative Fees & Charges Bylaw

2196-1990 Consolidated Water Bylaw "A" & "B"

1705-1987 Consolidated District of Mission Highway Access Bylaw

3590-2003 District of Mission Consolidated Building Bylaw

3612-2003 Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw

1500-1985 Subdivision Control Bylaw

1387-1984 Refuse, Collection & Disposal Bylaw

3. That the following bylaw have the date reference "2011" replaced with the date reference "Effective 2011" within the noted section:

Bylaw Bylaw Name Section

1662-1987 District of Mission Consolidated Sign Bylaw 8.2 (b)

4. That the following bylaw have the column reference "2011" replaced with the column reference "Effective 2011" within the noted schedule(s):

Bylaw Bylaw Name Schedule(s)

#2646-1993 Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,11,12,13,14,

15,16,17,18

FILE: FIN.BUD.DOM

PAGE 2 OF 5 Fees and Charges

15

Background

This is the sixth year the Staff Fees and Charges Working Group (Group) have met to discuss the District's user fees and charges. The Group has representation from Corporate Administration, Finance, Engineering, Library, Public Works, Inspection Services, Planning, Fire and RCMP. The Group was created to proactively review and adjust existing fees and charges on an on-going basis and to examine and implement other non-property tax based revenue sources. The goal is to lessen the reliance on property taxes to offset the increased cost of doing business.

This year, each department has reviewed their proposed 2012 and 2013 user fees and charges, and in some cases, are proposing a 4% increase to offset the increasing labour cost of providing the services (see recommendation #1 and recommendation #2). Other amendments include:

♦ Removing the column heading reference of "2011" from those bylaws where the rates/fees are not requesting an increase for 2012 and replacing it with the reference "Effective 2011".

♦ Introducing new fees (see table below)

♦ Minor changes (see table below)

♦ Changes to Bylaw 3612-2003 include fee increases, new fees, and restructuring of fees. The report from the Planning department (see attached) explains in detail, the changes they are proposing for the Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw.

New Fees Proposed for 2012

During this year's review, departments are requesting the following new fees;

Name of Fee Proposed Fee

Explanation

Fees effecting the General Operating Fund — see "Budget Impact on General Operating Fund" chart below.

Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003

Change of Owner $25.00 An administration fee to revise documentation.

Commercial and Residential Mixed Use Development Permit $5,125.00 To create a stand-alone category

Intensive Residential Development Permits (and sub-sections)

• Neighbourhood Form and Character DPs

• Intensive Residential Design Review

$2,200.00

$250.00

For Development Permits that run concurrently with rezoning and subdivision applications

For properties subject to a previously approved Neighbourhood Form and Character DP/Restrictive Covenant

Development Permit - Infill Residential $1,100.00 For properties within the OCP Infill Residential

Development Permit Area

FILE: FIN.BUD.DOM


16

Temporary Use Permit (TUP) Extensions and Renewals 00261. $2,261.00

The fee reflects half of the cost of a TUP since a significant portion of the work required to process these permit extensions/renewals will have been done by staff as part of the initial TUP review.

Bylaw Variance Requests $1,809.00 For applicants who would like to vary a bylaw other than the Zoning Bylaw

Legal Document Amendment/Discharge $375.00

To address requests such as the removal of a right-of-way/easement on a property which may no longer be required and/or applicable

Fees effecting the Waste Management Fund

Refuse, Collection and Disposal Bylaw 1387-1984

Soil, rocks, bricks, small concrete blocks, and sod (per tonne) $30.00

Currently these refuse items are being charged the refuse rate (($85) and staff are proposing to separate these items and charge a lower rate of $30/tonne for these specific refuse items

Contaminated Soil (per tonne) $7.00 The landfill would like to add a new category to the acceptable material list

Fees effecting the Forestry Enterprise Operations

Administrative Fees and Charges Bylaw #4029-2007

Section D — Forestry Services

Trees for Filming PUrposes

Various fees

(see attached)

There is an increased demand for trees, and limited supply of specific sizes by species.

Minor Fees and Housekeeping Items

Departments are requesting the following minor fee and housekeeping amendments:

Name of Fee Explanation of Change

Replace the two-tiered fee structure for single family residential rezoning applications to single fee structure

Created one category to simplify the fee structure for developers and residents. Housekeeping.

Exemption from Floodplain Management Bylaw Include this under the new Request for Council Resolution section. Housekeeping.

Liquor License Inquiries

To provide consistency between the District's fee for liquor license inquiries and the liquor license application categories used the Liquor Control and Licensing Board. Housekeeping.

Change of Owner/Applicant Reduce the fee from $348 to $100. Rare occurrence and can be performed quickly by administrative staff. No budget impact.

Downtown Façade Review

Change the name to Commercial Façade Review to include other commercial properties outside of the downtown area where a change in the façade may have an impact. Housekeeping.

17

FILE: FIN.BUD.DOM


Request for List of Property Owners/Addresses Deleting this fee as the District does not provide information on residents to protect the privacy of its residents. Department not budgeting for fee, no impact.

Subdivision 6-month extension

Change this to "Subdivision 12-month extension" as staff feel 12 months is a more realistic length of time for an extension. Budget impact included in Budget Impact General Operating Fund chart below.

Minimum charge for loads of refuse up to 58 kg for Mission and Electoral Areas C, F &G residents

Lower the kilogram weight amount from 58 to 54 kg.

Minimum charge for loads of refuse up to 73.5 kg for customers from outside Mission and Electoral Areas C F & G

Lower the kilogram weight amount from 73.5 to 72 kg.

Tires (passenger car & light truck tires only) Remove the charge for passenger and light truck tires only (from $2.00 to zero) and add the words "all other tires at garbage rates" -

Budget Impact General Operating Fund

The changes to the following bylaws affect the General Operating Fund. As indicated below, most of the fee increases are minor and have been built into the 2012 operating budget. The budget impact on the general operating fund from the new fees and the fee increases in Bylaw 3612-2003 and the fee increases in Bylaw 1500-1985 are listed below.

Bylaw Descri • tion Budget Impact

4029-2007 Administrative Fees & Charges Bylaw Included in 2012

Provisional Budget

1705-1987 Consolidated District of Mission Highway Access Bylaw Included in 2012

Provisional Budget

3590-2003 District of Mission Consolidated Building Bylaw Included in 2012

Provisional Budget

3612-2003 Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw $31,000 not

included in the 2012 Budget

1500-1985 Subdivision Control Bylaw $6,000 not

included in the 2012 Budget

Kerri Onken, CGA G:\ FINANCE\ BUDGET \Budget 2010\Fees & Charges Recommendation 2010-2011.doc

FILE: FIN.BUD.DOM


18

19 Schedule 1 (Administrative Fees & Charges Bylaw #4029-2007)

Description of Existing Fee/Charge GST/HST

to be Added

Proposed Rate Proposed Rate 2011 Rate Effective January Effective

1, 2012 January 1, 2013

Policy Reference

A CORPORATE SERVICES

1 Documentation Research Fees (a) Provide historical information (per hour) $35.00 $35.00 $35.00

2 Mailings

(a) Council Agenda Packages, mailed to recipients (per annum)

$160.00 $160.00 $160.00

(b) Mail-out for Public Information Meeting (per envelope - for the number of addresses information is mailed to)

$2.25 $2.25 $2.25

3 Maps (a) - Street Maps H $5.50 $5.50 $5.50

(b) - Full set of legal, address or assessment section maps (prepaid)

H $106.00 $106.00 $106.00

(c) - Zoning Map (each) H $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 LAN.41 (d) -.00P Map (each) H $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 LAN.41 (e) - OCP Map (colour print) (each) H $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 LAN.41 (f) - OCP Maps (set of 12) I-I $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 LAN.41 (g) - Zoning Maps (set of 5) H $32.00 $32.00 $32.00 LAN.41

(h) - Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan (report & maps)

H $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 LAN.41

(I) - Large Forestry Maps H $25.00 $25.00 $30.00 4 Maps - Digital (electronic) copy

(a) - Street Map H $156.00 $162.25 $168.75

(b) - Cadastral Base Map (1/2 section) H $20.80 $21.65 $22.50

(c) (c) (i)

- Overlays (1/2 section) each > Legal Inc! street names & plan #'2

H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25

(c) (ii) > Civic Addresses incl street names H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25

(c) (iii) > Roll numbers incl street names H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25

(c) (iv) > Topographical H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25 (c) (v) > Water System key plans H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25

(c) (vi) > Drainage/storm/sewer key plans H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25

(c) (vii) > Sanitary key plans H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25

(c) (viii) > Fibre Optic Cable key plans H $10.40 $10.80 $11.25

(d) - Cadastral Mosaic (entire District) incl legal

descriptions, civic addresses, and roll number layers

H $2,000.00 $2,080.00 $2,163.20

(e) - Water Overlays entire water service area - additional cost

H $1,200.00 $1,248.00 $1,298.00

(f) - Sanitary Overlays entire sanitary service area - additional cost

H $500.00 $520.00 $540.80

(9) - Storm Overlays entire District - additional

cost H $2,000.00 $2,080.00 $2,163.20

(h) - Storm Overlays with topography entire District - additional cost

H $3,000.00 $3,120.00 $3,245.00

(i) - OCP Maps - all including all cadastral base H $2,000.00 $2,080.00 $2,163.20

(j) - Zoning Maps A2, A3 (urban areas) each H $650.00 $676.00 $703.00

(k) - Zoning Maps (outer areas-two maps) each map

H $25.00 $26.00 $27.00

(I) - OCP maps and Zoning maps - all including

cadastral H $2,500.00 $2,600.00 $2,704.00

(m) - Gravel Pit Topographical Map - each H $500.00 $520.00 $540.80

20 Schedule 1 (Administrative Fees & Charges Bylaw #4029-2007)


to be Added


1, 2012 January 1, 2013

Policy Reference

5 Microfiche Copies

(a) - per copy (8 1/2 x 11) I H I $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 6 Photocopies or Computer Generated Copies

(a) - Property Owners - first five black & white copies

H $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

(b) - Property Owners six copies & up (per black & white copy) H $0.57 $0.57 $0.57

(c) - Non-Residents or Businesses (per black & white copy) H $0.57 $0.57 $0.57

(d) - Property Owners, Non-Residents or Businesses (per colour copy)

H $1.19 $1.19 $1.19

7 Paper Prints (a) - Al or 24"x36" (single original) H $5.75 $6.00 $6.25 (b) - Oversize (single original) H $5.75 $6.00 $6.25

8 Road Closure and Sale

(a) The applicant agrees to pay a non-refundable deposit of $2,000 or 10% of the purchase price, whichever is greater

STR.34

(b) The applicant agrees to pay an administration fee for the road closure and sale process. $155.00 $160.00 $160.00 STR.34

(c) The applicant agrees to pay all costs associated with advertising and to complete all legal documents and register them at the Land Title Office.

At Cost At Cost At Cost STR.34

B ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 1 Tender Documents for Municipal contract Incl. $104.00 $108.00 $112.25

2 Administrative Fee on Changing an Existing Civic Address

$105.00 $105.00 $105.00 FEE.2

3 Banner Installation Fee $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 4 Fire Hydrant Use (Customer Charges) $110.00 $115.00 $118.00 FEE.11 5 Fire Hydrant Flow Tests $340.00 $350.00 $360.00 FEE.12

6 Private Fire Hydrant Maintenance - to service and maintain private hydrants

$125.00 $125.00 $125.00

7 Film Permit Application Fee $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 (a) Refundable Damage Deposit $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00

8 Private Firm Parking in the Public Works yard - monthly fee Incl. $103.00 $106.10 $109.25

9 Rental Rates - Protective Devices (a) - Wooden barricades - per day each $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 HEA.5 (b) - Flasher barricades - per day each $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 HEA.5 (c) - Traffic cones - per day each $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 HEA.5 (d) - Traffic Bags - each (no return) $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 HEA.5 (e) - Sign stands - per day each $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 HEA.5 (f) - Signs - per day each $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 HEA.5 (g) - Fencing - per day per roll $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 HEA.5

21 Schedule I

(Administrative Fees & Charges Bylaw #4029-2007)


to be Added


1, 2012 January 1, 2013

Policy Reference

C FINANCIAL SERVICES

1 Service fee for N.S.F. & Dishonoured cheques (per returned payment) $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 FIN.2

Fee for Property Tax Listing for Mortgage 2 Companies $10.00 $10.00 $10.00

(per roll number or property)

3 Tax Statement Fees (Tax Certificates) for non-owners, per property" basis.

Manual hard copy maximum 2 business day (a) turnaround time $32.00 $32.00 $32.00

(b) Manual hard copy maximum 2 hour turnaround time $64.00 $64.00 $64.00

(c) Verbal confirmation of tax statement figures within 2 weeks of providing original figures $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Manual hard copy_ confirmation of tax statement (d) figures after 2 weeks of providing original figures $32.00 $32.00 $32.00

On-line services to BC Online (e) (Other online customers will have BC Online $25.00 $25.00 $25.00

Administration Fee added to this fee)

Non-compounding interest of 0.065753% per day (equivalent to 2% per month or 24% per annum) on fees that remain

outstanding after 30 days from the mailing date of the invoice. Rate of interest charged on all overdue municipal Interest will be charged on outstanding or unpaid amounts on

4 fees that are set and invoiced pursuant to District the 31st day from the invoice mailing date and thereafter until FIN.2 bylaws payment is received in full or until the unpaid amounts are

transferred to property taxes (only applies to certain property related fees), at which time legislative interest rates would

apply.

Accounts Receivable Adminstration Fee - 5 administrative cost recovery charge on certain

invoices 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% FIN.2

e

22 Schedule I

(Administrative Fees & Charms Bylaw #4029-2007)


to be Added


1, 2012 January 1, 2013

Policy Reference

D FORESTY SERVICES

1 Minor Forest Product and Activity Permit (a) - Commercial Permit fee per month $300.00 $300.00 $300.00 LIC.18

(b) - Botanical Products per month $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 LIC.18

(c) - Personal Permit fee per week (any product) $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 LIC.18

2 Trees for Filming Purposes

(a) Conifers (Fir, Hemlock, Cedar-less than 10%) under 15 feet (4.5 meters) N/A

$220 regular $220 regular pick up load OR

$12/tree pick-up load OR

$12/tree

(b) Conifers (Fir, Hemlock, Cedar-less than 10%) 1.5 feet to 25 feet (4.5 - 7.5 meters) N/A $55 / tree $55 / tree

(c) Conifers (cedars majority) Under 15 feet N/A

$385 regular pick. up load OR

$25/tree

$385 regular pick-up load OR

$25/tree

(d) Conifers (cedars majority) 15 feet to 25 feet N/A $165 / tree $165 / tree

(e) Large conifers (all species) over 25 feet N/A

Price on request, depending on

diameter, species and

other requirements

Price on request,

depending on

diameter, species and

other requirements

(f) Deciduous trees - any size N/A $110 / load $110 / load 3 Forestry Gate Keys

(a) Weekly charge (2 week minimum) for the duration that the gate key is outstanding (Non-refundable) $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 PRO.26

(b) - Deposit charge each key issued $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 PRO.26

(c) - Provided key(s) is returned by the date in the key loan agreement, the deposit will be refunded to the loanee.

-$60.00 -$60.00 -$60.00 PRO.26

(d)

- If the key is returned later than specificed return date in accordance with the key loan agreement or the use was not in accordance with the key loan agreement, there will be a reduction of the deposit issued, less key use fees or late fee charges, with a minimum refund amount of $20.00. Lost or damaged keys will not be issued any refunds.

-$20.00 -$20.00 -$20.00 PRO.26

E INSPECTION SERVICES

Utility Billing Exemption for Unoccupied Secondary ry Suites H $71.50 $71.50 $71.50 LAN.38

2 Status Letters

(a) - Commercial, Industrial or Multi-Family $114.00 $200.00 $200.00 (b) - Other $56.00 $75.00 $75.00

3 Land Title Fees (a) - Company Searches $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 (b) - Title Search $11.50 $11.50 $11.50

(c) - First Restrictive Covenant / RoW / Easement $27.50 $27.50 $27.50

(d) - Additional Restrictive Covenants /

RoW / Easements $11.50 $11.50 $11.50

Schedule (Administrative Fees & Charges Bylaw #4029-2007)


to be Added


1, 2012 January 1, 2013

Policy Reference

F LIBRARY

1 MEETING ROOM

Rentals

(a) - Non-Profit Organizations (per 3 hours) $25.00 $25.00 $25.00

(b) - For Profit Organizations (per 3 hours) $60.00 $60.00 $60.00

(c) - Rotary Seminar Room (per 4 hours) $10.00 $10.00 $10.00

Equipment

(a) - 48" TVNCR (per 3 hours) $12.50 $12.50 $12.50

(b) - Coffee Maker $2.50 $2.50 $2.50

(c) - Overhead Projector $7.50 $7.50 $7.50

(d) - Flip Chart/White Board $3.00 $3.00 $3.00

G PLANNING SERVICES 1 Copy of Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw H $94.00 $94.00 $94.00 LAN.41

2 Copy of Zoning Bylaw H $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 LAN.41

3 Community Heritage Register - Properties Protected by Heritage Designation

$330.00 $330.00 $330.00 LAN.44

4 Wireless Telecommunication_Towens,pay-aise la . - the District - compensation for public notification costs

$625.00 $625.00 $625.00 LAN.46

23

24 Schedule I

(Administrative Fees & Charges Bylaw #4029-2007)


to be Added


1, 2012 January 1,2013

Policy Reference

H RCMP SERVICES 1 Accidents

(a) Accident Report - MV6020 Inc' $54.00 $54.00 $54.00 (b) Field Diagram Ind $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 (c) Scale Drawing Inc' $46.00 $46.00 $46.00 (d) Traffic Analyst Report Inc! $690.00 $690.00 $690.00 (e) Mechanical Inspection Report Inc! $230.00 $230.00 $230.00 (f) Preliminary Analyst Report Inc! $115.00 $115.00 $115.00

2 Consent / Court Orders / Investigational Cases

(a) Administrative Charge - per 30 minutes (Court Orders/File Copies) Ind $34.00 $34.00 $34.00

(b) Police Report (brief synopsis of incident) not $65.00 $65.00 $65.00

(c) Packaging & shipping/mailing fee Inc] $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 (d) Photocopy (per page) incl $0.57 $0.57 $0.57

(e) Searching fee for multiple RCMP files (per hour rate) Incl $57.00 $57.00 $57.00

3 Criminal Record Searches (a) Volunteers Exempt $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (b) Recovery House tenants Exempt $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (c) Welton Tower Prospective Tenants -,Exempt - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (d) Students Exempt $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 (e) Employment (incl Recovery House employees) Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (f) Rental (Landlord/Tenant) Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (g) Adoption Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00

4 Other Services (a) Candian Police Certificate Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (b) US WaiversNisa Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (c) Pardon Application Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (d) Fingerprints Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (e) Canadian Citizenship/Immigration exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (f) Name Change Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00

(g) Private Investigator/Security Officer Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (h) Taxi Permits Exempt $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 (i) Special Occasion Permits Exempt $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 (j) Service of Subpoenas $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (k) Per hour per police officer Exempt $145.00 $145.00 $145.00

5 ICBC (b) Accident Report - CL59 (MV6020) - ICBC Exempt $49.00 $49.00 $49.00 (c) Accident Report - CL-152 requests - ICBC Exempt $57.00 $57.00 $57.00

6 Photographs (a) From negative Incl $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 (b) 3 x 5 Inc! $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 (c) 5 x 7 incl $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 (d) 8 x 10 Ind $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 (e) From slides Inc! $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 (f) Video tapes Inc' $42.00 $42.00 $42.00

7 Digital CD (a) (1 to 5 images) Ind $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 (b) (6 to 10 images) Ind $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 (c) (11 or more images) Ind $24.00 $24.00 $24.00

Bylaw No. 2196-1990 (Consolidated Water Bylaw)

Schedule "A"

2011 Rate

Proposed Rate Effective

January 1, 2012


January 1, 2013

Water Service Connection Fee

$1,018.50 $1,049.00 $1,080.00 19 mm diameter up to 1 meter length

Per meter beyond 1 meter $84.25 $86.75 $89.25

25 mm diameter up to 1 meter length - first meter or less $1,283.75 $1,322.25 $1,362.00

Per meter beyond 1 meter $84.25 $86.75 $89.25

All sizes exceeing 25 mm At Cost At Cost At Cost

Water connection made to a property line by developer but a riser has not been installed $56.50 $58.25 $60.00

Administration Fee (i) The administration fee for the initial application for a connection, irrespective of diameter, shall be:

(ii) The administration fee to complete the application for a connection, irrespective of diameter, shall be:

$50.00 $50.00

$140.25

$50.00

$144.50 $134.75

Meter Read System Prepayment Fee All services 19 mm diameter through 50 mm diameter inclusive $135.25 $138.00 $142.00

Water Connection Inspection Fee $73.65 $75.75 $78.00

Sprinkling Permit Fee May 1 to June 30 and September 1 to September 30: Daily sprinkling permitted from 6:00am to 8:00am for a week week period during Stage 2 only

July 1 to August 31: Daily sprinkling permitted from 6:00am to 8:00am for a two week period during Stage 2 only

• $50.00

$100.00

$50.00

$100.00

$50.00

$100.00

Reconnection Fee: To turn water back on after a temporary disconnection

$60.00 $60.00 $60.00

Deposit for Water Meter retrofit of existing service Where a water service exists to a vacant residential lot and does not have a meter installed a deposit is required for the District to supply and install a meter-box, setter and meter

$1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Bylaw No. 2196-1990 (Consolidated Water Bylaw) Schedule "B"

Miscellaneous Charges Proposed Rate

Effective January 1, 2012


January 1, 2013 Water Disconnection Fee Disconnection of the service at the main by municipal crews $562.28 $579.25 $596.50

Capping of service at property line by municipal crews $472.00 $486.25 $500.75

Capping of the water service at property line by municipal crews in conjunction with capping of either a storm or sanitary service capped $531.75 $547.75 $564.00

Capping of water service at property line by municipal crews in conjunction with capping of both of sanitary and storm sewer services $591.50 $609.25 $627.50

Capping of the service at property line by Owner under direct municipal inspection - each service $75.00 $77.25 $79.50

Water Pre-Service Connection Fee

The same charge as for Water Service Connections, with a 20% reduction to

applicable costs.

The same charge as for Water Service

Connections, with a 20% reduction to applicable

costs.

The same charge as for Water Service

Connections, with a 20% reduction to applicable costs.

25

Bylaw #1705-1987 (Highway Access Bylaw) Schedule "A"

Description of Existing Fee/Charge 2011 Rate

Proposed Rate Effective January

1, 2012


January 1, 2013

1. Permit & Inspection fee $97.25 $101.25 $105.30

2. (i) The administration fee for the initial building permit application for access shall be:

$50.00 $50.00 $50.00

(ii) The administration fee to complete the building permit application for access shall be: (a total of $233.00 [2012] & $242.00 [effective 2013])

$174.00 $183.00 $192.00

3. Standard culvert, up to and including 600 mm in diameter where culvert is installed by the District (includes design, engineering, materials, equipment, labour and other associated costs).

(a) Access Culvert Installation up to 600 mm in diameter and 9.0 meters in length

$1,612.50 $1,677.25 $1,744.30

(b) Access Culvert Installation per meter surcharge where culvert exceeds 9.0 meters in length:

- 300 mm diameter $180.00 $187.00 $194.50

- 450 mm diameter $205.50 $213.75 $222.30

- 600 mm diameter $232.00 $241.25 $250.90

4. Culvert over 600 mm in diameter or other work as required by the Municipal Engineer including design, engineering, materials, equipment, labour and other associated costs.

At Cost At Cost At Cost

26

Bylaw #3590-2003 (Building Bylaw) Schedule "A"

Description of Existing Fee/Charge 2011 Rate


January 1, 2012

1. Building Permit Fees

The fee payable for a permit for the construction of a building or part thereof shall be:

(a) Where value of construction does not exceed $1,000.00 $71.50 $71.50

(b) For each $1,000.00 of construction value or portion thereof, over $1,000.00 and up to $40,000.00 $14.50 $15.00

(c) For each $1,000.00 of construction value or portion thereof, over $40,000.00 and up to $100,000.00 $9.50 $10.00

(d) For each $1,000.00 of construction value or portion thereof, over $100,000.00 $7.40 $7.50

(e) For the removal, repair or alteration of a building envelope and the repair of damage to structures caused by building envelope failure for any residential building completed between 1985 & 1998, shall be charged a flat fee of

$500.00 $500.00

2. Plumbing Permit Fees .

(a) Plumbing, involving the installation of fixtures, for each fixture $18.50 $19.00

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the minimum fee payable for a plumbing permit shall be $71.50 $71.50

(c) Plumbing work involving the installation of sanitary sewers, storm sewers, or water service lines and related appurtenances for single or two family dwellings:

(i) sanitary sewer $36.50 $36.50

(ii) storm sewer $36.50 $36.50

(iii) water service $36.50 $36.50

(d) For other than single or two family dwellings:

(i) sanitary sewer $71.50 $71.50

(ii) storm sewer $71.50 $71.50

(iii) water service $71.50 $71.50

(iv) for each sump, oil or grease interceptor, catch basin, manhole, cleanout, inpsection chamber, fire hydrant, water meter or reducing station

$36.50 $36.50

(e) Fire sprinkler system:

(i) for the first sprinkler head $71.50 $71.50

(ii) for each additional sprinkler head $2.70 $2.70

(Hi) for each siamese connection $67.50 $67.50

27

28

Bylaw #3590-2003 (Building Bylaw) Schedule "A"

3. Equivalency Proposal Fees $150.00

$71.50

$150.00

$71.50

The fee to be paid at the time of submission of required information and documentation for an equivalency proposal, shall be

• Fee for each additional hour of staff time if the initial equivalency proposal is not acceptable and revisions are submitted, shall be (minimum payable)

4. Revision to Issued Permit Drawings $75.00 $80.00

The fee to check drawing revisions to issued permit drawings shall be

5. Change of Owner N/A $25.00

The administration Fee to revise documentation

6. Building Permit Renewal Fees $71.50 $71.50

The fee for renewal of a permit under the provisions of subsection 7(4) of this Bylaw shall be

7. Temporary Building Permit Fees $150.00 $150.00

The fee for a temporary building permit shall be

8. Demolition Permit Fee $150.00 $150.00

The fee for a demolition permit shall be

9. Re-Inspection Fees $67.00 $67.00 Where more than two inspections are required because the provisions of the Building Code or this Bylaw

have not been complied with, the charge for each inspection after the second inspection shall be

10. Special Inspection Fees

(a) Pre-site Inspection Fee $71.50 $71.50

(b) Pre-move Inspection Fee (per hour rate) $71.50 $71.50

(c) Geotech report review fee $50.00 $75.00

(d) Where an inspection requires special arrangements because of the time of the inspection, or the location or nature of the construction, the fee for each inspection shall be billed per hour, plus actual travelling expenses whee such inspection is not within the District of Mission. The hourly rate and minimum charge for a special inspection shall be:

$71.50 $71.50

11. Woodstove Permit Fee $75.00 $75.00

12. To assist in the cost of preparing permanent construction records:

(a) for all new single family dwellings: 0.02% of the construction value, subject to a minimun of $25.00 to a maximum of $60.00

Min $0.02%

$20.00 Max $50.00

Min $0.02%

$25.00 Max $60.00

(b) for all new and/or additions of commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family projects: 0.02% of the construction value, subject to a minimum of $60.00 to a maximum of $135.00

0.02% Min $50.00

Max $120.00 Min $60.00

0.02%

Max $135.00

(c) for all other permits (such as single family additions, accessory buildings, farm buildings, sign, plumbing, fire sprinkler, irrigation, tenant improvement permits, etc): 0.01% of the construction value, subject to a minimum of $15.00 to a maximum of $60.00

0.01% Min $10.00 Max $50.00

0.01% Min $15.00 Max $60.00

Bylaw #3612-2003 (Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw)

Schedule "A" Application fees for the purpose of recovering the direct costs of the processing, inspecting and advertising relating to the application shall be desposted at the time of application in accordance with the following schedule:

Application Type 2011 Rate

Proposed Fee Effective

January 1, 2012

Proposed Fee Effective

January 1, 2013

Rezoning

Multi-family Residential $4,405.00 $4,581.00 $4,764.00

Single Family/Two Family Residential $3,304.00 $3,436.00 $3,574.00

Commercial, industrial, institutional users $4,348.00 $4,522.00 $4,703.00

Commercial and Residential Mixed Use N/A $5,125.00 $5,330.00

Secondary Dwelling $870.00 $905.00 $941.00

All others (including text change) $2,898.00 $3,436.00 $3,574.00

Comprehensive Development $4,926.00 $5,123.00 $5,328.00

Rezoning Extensions $2,319.00 $2,412.00 $2,508.00

Official Community Plan Amendment

Official Community Plan (amendment only) $2,319.00 $2,412.00 $2,509.00

Official Community Plan (amendment with rezoning) $869:00 $1,163.00 $1,206.00

Agricultural Land Reserve Application fee

- Non-refundable portion $300.00 $300.00 $300.00

- Portion forwarded to the Province, or refunded to Registered Owner if application is not supported by council -$300.00 -$300.00 -$300.00

Land Use Contract Amendement

Major LUC Amendment $2,550.00 $2,652.00 $2,758.00

Minor LUC Amendment $1,740.00 $1,809.00 $1,881.00

Permits

Development Permit - (Industrial) $2,202.00 $2,290.00 $2,382.00

Development Permit - (Commercial) $2,202.00 $2,290.00 $2,382.00

Development Permit - (Downtown Façade Review - LAN.42) $464.00 $483.00 $502.00

Development Permit - (multi-family residential) $2,898.00 $3,014.00 $3,135.00

Development Permit - (commercial & residential mixed use) N/A $3,558.00 $3,700.00

Development Permit - (Intensive Residential) N/A

Neighbourhood Form & Character N/A $2,200.00 $2,288.00

Intensive Residential Design Review (review design of a proposed home for conformance with previously issued Neighbourhood Form & Character DP)

N/A $250.00 $260.00

Development Permit - (In-Fill Residential) N/A $1,100.00 $1,144.00

Development Permit - Hazardous Lands/Environmental $318.00 $750.00 $780.00

29

Bylaw #3612-2003 (Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw)

Schedule "A"

Application Type

Development Permit - Other $2,202.00 $2,290.00 $2,382.00

Development Permit (Minor Admendment - New) $232.00 $241.00 $251.00

Development Variance basic (Zoning Bylaw) $1,739.00 $1,809.00 $1,881.00

- plus per 2nd & subsequent requests $232.00 $241.00 $251.00

land title office fee $75.00 75.00 75.00

Temporary Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Use Permits $4,348.00 $4,522.00 $4,703.00

Temporary Use Permit Extension & Renewal N/A $2,261.00 $2,352.00

Request for Council Resolution

Bylaw Variance Request N/A $1,809.00 $1,881.00

Site Specific Exemption from Floodplain Management Bylaw $1,688.00 $1,756.00 $1,826.00

Miscellaneous Fees

Final Plan Approval Fee (*see also Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1985)

$87.00 $95.00

$91.00

Strata Conversion/Phase Strata Development $1,392.00 $1,448.00 $1,506.00

- plus per unit (estimated 16 unit average)

$87.00 $91.00 $95.00

Liquor Primary, new licence (exclusive of rezoning) $3,247.00 $3,377.00 $3,513.00

Liquor Primary Licence Amendment (change to existing licence, increased seating capacity, patio endorsement, hours of operation)

N/A $1,200.00 $1,200.00

Food Primary Licence Amendment (extension of Hquior service hours past midnight, or for patron participation)

N/A $1,200.00 $1,200.00

Municipal Site Information Form processing fee (Contaminated Site Profile) (cost per property)

$100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Provincial (MOE) Site Information Form (Contaminated Site Profile) processing fee (cost per property)

$100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Change of Applicant/Owner on a development application file $348.00 $100.00 $100.00

OCP Background Reports & Planning Studies (cost per each document) $46.00 $48.00 $50.00

Commercial Facade Review $232.00 $242.00 $252.00

OCP/Zoning Research Letters (cost per propoerty) $232.00 $242.00 $252.00

Legal Document Amendment/Discharge N/A $375.00 $390.00

Development Inquiry Fee (written comments provided following development meeting) $289.00 $301.00 $313.00

Request by Developer to have staff attend Public Information Meeting (cost per staff member/hour)

$174.00 $181.00 $189.00

Fee for copy of a legal plan $3.00 $3.00 $3.00

Refunds

1. For rezoning applications: a. Withdrawn in writing by the applicant within 30 days of submission, a refund of 50% of the application fee; b. Withdrawn in writing by the applicant 30 or more days after submission but prior to the public hearing notice being prepared or advertised, 20% of the application fee shall be refunded to the applicant; c. withdrawn in writing by the applicant after preparation or advertising ofthe public hearing notice, no refund.

2. For all other development applications: a. Withdrawn in writing by the applicant within 30 days of submission, a refund of 50% of the application fee; b. Withdrawn in writing by the applicant 30 or more days after submission but prior to consideration by Council, 20% of the application fee shall be refunded to the applicant;

kc. withdrawn in writing by the applicant after consideration by Council, no refund.

30

Bylaw #1500-1985 (Subdivison Control Bylaw) Schedule "D"

2011 Rate


January 1, 2012


January 1, 2013

Subdivision/Consolidation* *Fee based on number of original lots

Conventional and Bare Land Strata Phase 1 Up to and including 5 lots

$1,504.50

$1,391.00 $1,446.50

plus per lot (estimated 3 lot average) $87.00 $90.50 $94.00

Phase 1 Greater than 5 lots $1,739.00 $1,808.50 $1,880.75

plus per lot (estimated 10.6 lot average) $87.00 $90.50 $94.00

Major revisions to subdivision (Basic) 50% of the applicable

application fee

50% of the applicable application fee

50% of the applicable application fee

Engineering Administration Fee 5% of the total cost of the works, but not less than the minimum fee + GST (+HST July 1, 2010)

(When the whole of the installation of the service connection is carried out by the Municipality to connect to an existing Municipal sanitary sewer, storm sewer or watermain and the service connection fee is paid, the preparation of the service record card or cards and the Engineering Administration Fee shall be considered to be included in the service connection fee)

5% of total cost of works or

$2,272.00 minimum fee (whichever is

greater)

5% of total cost of works or $2,362.75

minimum fee (whichever is greater)



Subdivision 12-month Extension

Up to and including 5 lots $1,391.00 $1,446.50 $1,504.25

- plus per lot (1-5 lot subdivisions) estimated 1 application per year

$87.00 $90.50 $94.00

Greater than 5 lots $1,739.00 $1,808.50 $1,880.75

- plus per lot (6 and up lot subdivisions) estimated 1 application per year

$87.00 $90.50 $94.00

Engineering Administration Fee 5% of the total cost of the works, but not less than the minimum fee + GST (+HST July 1, 2010)

- Minimun fee for subdivision of 4 lots or less

- Minimun fee for subdivision of over 4 lots

5% of total cost of works or $566.00

minimum fee (whichever is

greater)

5% of total cost of works or $588.50


5% of total cost of works or $612 minimum fee

(whichever is greater)

5% of total cost of works or

$1,131.00 minimum fee (whichever is

areater)



5% of total cost of the works or $1,223.25


Final Plan Approval Fee *(also see Land use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003) Fee to be paid prior to registration of subdivision plan

$87.00 $90.50 $93.00

Site Information Form Processing Fee (Contaminated Site Prof le) (cost per property)

$100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Provincial (Ministry of Environment) Site Information Form Processing Fee (Contaminated Site Profile) (cost per property)

$100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Water Meter Read System Prepayment 19, 25, 38, and 50 mm services

$135.25 $138.00 $140.75

Signs - Combination Traffic Control & Road Name Sign

$274.00 $285.00 $285.00

- Single Traffic Control or Road Name Sign $165.00 $171.50 $171.50

31

Bylaw #1387-1984 (Refuse, Collection & Disposal Bylaw)

Schedule "A"

2011 Rate


January 1, 2012


January 1, 2012

Extra Garbage Bag Stickers $3.00 $3.50 $3.50

All refuse except as specified below (per tonne)

$85.00 $92.50 $95.00

Minimum Charge for loads of refuse up to 54 kg for Mission and Electoral Areas C, F & G residents (per load)

$5.00 $5.00 $5.00

Minimum charge for loads of refuse up to 72 kg for customers from outside Mission and Electoral Areas C, F and G - per load

$11.00 $10.00 $10.00

Surcharge for unsecured loads (any size) $10.00 $10.00 $10.00

Municipal collection contract refuse $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Gyproc - per tonne $140.00 $145.00 $145.00

Tires (passenger car & light truck tires only) - all other tires at garbage rate $2.00 $0.00 $0.00

Brush Waste - per/tonne $60.00 $55.00 $60.00

Residential recycling** for DoM & Electoral Areas C, F, G Residents $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

At the Engineer's discretion, loads with refuse received from outside the District of Mission or Electorial Areas C,F, G - per tonne

$150.00 $150.00 $150.00

At the Engineer's discretion, loads with refuse requiring special management practices, collected outside or within DoM or Electorial Areas C,F, G 7 per tonne

$150.00 $150.00 $150.00

Surcharge for unsorted loads arriving at the Misison Landfill (charged at the highest tipping fee of recyclable material not being sorted out)

50% 50% 50%

Commercial loads of asbestos waste from within Mission and other sources at the Engineer's discretion

$200 daily burial charge plus $200 per

tonne

$200 daily burial charge plus $200 per

tonne

$200 daily burial charge plus $200

per tonne

Soil, rocks, bricks, small concrete blocks, and sod N/A $30.00 $30.00

Contaminiated Soil - per tonne N/A $7.00 $7.00

Any mixed loads will be assessed at the higher tipping fee **Residential recyclables include only those items generated in dwelling units in the District of Mission or Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Areas C, F, or G and DO NOT include any materials generated through a commercial, industrial or institutional process. Recyclables include separated scrap metal and appliances (dishwashers, stoves, fridges, washers, and dryers) as well as other recyclablematerials as defined in the Collection, Removal, and Marketing of Recyclables Bylaw (2639-1993).

32

MDISTRICT OF

/40°, /1°°°#''' ON THE FRASER

Planning Department Memorandum

3'3

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON


From: Planner


Subject: Update to Land Use Application Procedures and Fees for 2012 and 2013

Recommendation

That the following report be received for information

Background

Schedule A of the District of Mission Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003 outlines the various application fee and charges for the wide range of services that the Planning Department provides to the public. As policies, bylaws, and procedures change over time, it is important to update this bylaw to keep it current with changing circumstances. Furthermore, based upon a review of the staff time and resources required to process various land use applications and provide other miscellaneous services, it is important that these fees be updated to reflect the department's costs.

Overview of Proposed Changes to Schedule A of the Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003

Rezoning

1. Delete the two-tiered fee structure for single-family residential rezoning applications and create one fee category for single family and two-family residential rezoning applications;

2. Clarify the wording for secondary dwelling unit applications (to add "s" to current zone where permitted); and,

3. Amend the fee for "all other" rezoning applications to be consistent with the fee for single-family and two-family residential rezoning applications.

Official Community Plan Amendment

4. Clean up the text for Official Community Plan amendments by including brackets for any explanatory notes; and,

5. Amend the fee for OCP amendments with rezoning to better reflect the costs for staff time and public notification.

Permits

6. Break out the fees for Development Permits by type;

7. Create a stand-alone category for Commercial and Residential Mixed Use Development Permits;

8. Create sub-categories under Intensive Residential Development Permits for:

o Neighourhood Form and Character DPs that run concurrently with Rezoning and Subdivision Applications

o Intensive Residential Design Review for those properties that are subject to a previously approved Neighbourhood Form and Character DP/Restrictive Covenant

9. Infill Residential DP for properties within the OCP Infill Residential Development Permit Area (Area "A" on OCP Map 5);

10. Increase fee for Hazardous Lands/Environmental to better reflect the staff time required for reviewing technical studies and the need for consulting with internal departments and outside agencies (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Environment);

11. Provide further clarification to the "Development Variance Permit — basic" category by specifying that this only includes variances to the Zoning Bylaw; and,

12. Add a new category for Temporary Use Permit Extensions and Renewals. The fee reflects half of the cost of a TUP since a significant portion of the work required to process these permit extensions/renewals will have been done by staff as part of the initial TUP review.

Request for Council Resolution

13. Add a new section for Bylaw Variance Requests where applicants would like to vary a bylaw other than the Zoning Bylaw (for example, the Subdivision Control Bylaw); and,

14. Include Site Specific Exemption from Floodplain Management Bylaw under the new Request for Council Resolution section.

Miscellaneous Fees

15. Add "Fee" to the title of this section in order to provide more clarification;

16. Provide consistency between the District of Mission fee for liquor license inquiries and the liquor license application categories used by the Liquor Control and Licensing Board (LCLB). For instance, distinguishing applications according to request for new Liquor Primary Licence Applications, Liquor Primary Licence Amendments, and Food Primary Licence Amendments;

17. Reduce the fee for Change of Owner/Applicant on a development application file from $348 to $100. Changing this information can be performed quickly by administrative staff and the departmental costs are substantially lower than the current fee;

18. Change Downtown Façade Review to Commercial Façade Review to include other commercial properties outside of the downtown area where a change in the façade may have an impact;

19. Provide a new fee category for Legal Document Amendment/Discharge. This would address requests such as the removal of a right-of-way/easement on a property which may no longer be required and/or applicable;

34

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON [Click here to type EFS File Folder Name]

20. Specify under the "Request by Developer for Staff Attendance at a Public Information Meeting" that the cost per staff member is hourly; and,

21. Remove the "Request for List of Property Owners/Addresses (cost per acre) since the DOM does not provide information on residents to protect the privacy of its residents.

All of the above-noted changes have been highlighted in Appendix A of this report. The far right column of Appendix "A" shows the corresponding item number as outlined above. Any proposed changes and/or additions are highlighted in bold text and any deletions are shown as strike-through text. The italicized text indicates a 4% increase in fees for 2012 and 2013 for those categories where no changes have been proposed. The fees indicated in bold have also been adjusted with 4% increases for 2012 and 2013 but are distinguished differently in order to highlight more significant changes that are proposed by staff for Schedule A.

In summary, these proposed changes will allow staff to continue to provide services to the public by having a fee structure that better takes into account District of Mission resources. Furthermore, the proposed changes will make it easier for the public to determine which services they require for their various development inquiries through a more simplified and straightforward fee structure.

Sharon Fletcher DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

G:\COMDEV\PINDER\2012 Fees and Charges Review\Report to Council - Proposed Updates to Land Use Application Procedures and Fees.docx

35

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON [Click here to type EFS File Folder Name]

APPENDIX A - PROPOSED CHANGES TO SCHEDULE A OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND FEES BYLAW

Application fees for the purpose of recovering the directed costs of the processing, inspecting, and advertising relating to the

application shall be deposited at the time of application in accordance with the following schedule:

APPLICATION TYPE

FEE

PROPOSED RATE Corresponding

Item # in Report

36

Multi-Family Residential

Single Family/Two Family Residential

Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Uses

Commercial and Residential Mixed Use

Secondary Dwelling Unit, prior to installation

(to add "s" to current zone where permitted)

All others (including text change)

Comprehensive Development

Rezoning Extensions

b50*03)-;: 45Lio4,470041-r Official Community Plan (amendment only)

Official Community Plan (amendment with rezoning)

Agricultural Land Reserve Application Fee

Non-refundable portion

Portion forwarded to the Province, or refunded to Regis-ered

Owner if application is not supported by council

LAND USE CONTRACT AMENDMENT

Major

Minor

RERNUTS

Development Permit - Industrial

Development Permit - Commercial

Development Permit - Downtown Fagade Review (LAN.42)

Development Permit - Multi-Family Residential

Development Permit - Commercial and Residential Mixed Use

Development Permit - intensive Residential

Neighbourhood Form and Character

Intensive Residential Design Review (review design of a proposed

home for conformance with previously issued Neighbourhood Form

and Character DP)

Development Permit - Infill Residential

Development Permit - Hazardous Lands/Environmental

Development Permit - Other

Development Permit - Minor Amendment (new)

Development Variance Permit - basic (Zoning Bylaw)

plus per second and subsequent variances requested

Land Title Office Fee

Temporary Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Use Permit

Temporary Use Permit Extension and Renewal

2010 2011 2012 2013

$4,277.00 $4,405.00 $4,581.00 $4,764.00

$3,304.00 $3,436.00 $3,574.00

$2,811.00 $2,898.00

$3,602.00 $3,710.00

$4,221.00 $4,348.00 $4,522.00 $4,703.00

$4,784.00 $4,928.00 $5,125.00 $5,330.00

$845.00 $870.00 $905.00 $941.00 2

$2,814.00 $2,898.00 $3,436.00 $3,574.00 3

$4,783.00 $4,926.00 $5,123.04 $5,328.00

$2,251.00 $2,319.00 $2,412.00 $2,508.00

$2,251.00 $2,319.00 $2,412.00 $2,509.00 4

$844.00 $869.00 $1,160.00 $1,206.00 4,5

$600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00

$300.00 $300.00 $300.00 $300.00

-$300.00 -$300.00 -$300.00 -$300.00

$2,476.00 $2,550.00 $2,652.00 $2,758.00

$1,689.00 $1,740.00 $1,809.00 $1,881.00

$2,138.00 $2,202.00 $2,290.00 $2,382.00 6

$2,138.00 $2,202.00 $2,290.00 $2,382.00 6

$450.00 $464.00 $483.00 $502.00 6

$2,814.00 $2,898.00 $3,014.00 $3,135.00 6

$3,558.00 $3,700.00 6,7

8

$2,200.00 $2,288.00 8

$250.00 $260.00

8

$1,100.00 $1,144.00 9

$318.00 $750.00 $780.00 10

$2,138.00 $2,202.00 $2,290.00 $2,382.00

$225.00 $232.00 $241.00 $251.00

$1,688.00 $1,739.00 $1,809.00 $1,881.00 11

$225.00 $232.00 $241.00 $251.00

$75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00

$4,221.00 $4,348.00 $4,522.00 $4,703.00

$2,261.00 $2,352.00 12

APPLICATION TYPE FEE

2010 2011

PROPOSED RATE Corresponding

Item # in Report

REQ9EST:fogxpuNak:RESOLUTION

2012 2013

Bylaw Variance Request $1,809.00 $1,881.00 13

Site specific exemption from Floodplain Management Bylaw $1,688.00 $1,756.00 $1,826.00 14

PMISEELLANEOUatES Is

Final Plan Approval Fee $84.00 $87.00 $91.00 $95.00

(*see also Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1985)

Strata Title Conversion/Phased Strata Development $1,351.00 $1,392.00 $1,448.00 $1,506.00

plus per unit (estimated 16 unit average) $84.00 $87.00 $91.00 $95.00

k-ki4ier--L-iee.Rc-e-14qtficy

$3,152.00 $3,217.00 16

Liquor Primary, new licence (exclusive of rezoning) $3,152.00 $3,247.00 $3,377.00 $3,513.00 16

Liqour Primary Licence Amendment (change to existing licence,

increased seating capacity, patio endorsement, hours of operation)

$1,200.00 $1,200.00

16

Food Primary Licence Amendment (extension of liquor service hours $1,200.00 $1,200.00 past midnight, or for patron participation) 16

Site Information Form processing fee (contaminated site profile) (cost

per property) $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00


Provincial (Ministry of Environment) $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Site Information Form processing fee (contaminated site profile) (cost

per property)


Change of Owner/Applicant on a development application file $338.00 $348.00 $100.00 $100.00 17

Official Community Plan Background Reports & Planning Studies (cost

per each document) $45.00 $46.00 $48.06 $50.00

Commercial Facade Review $225.00 $232.00 $242.00 $252.00 18

OCP/Zoning Research Letters (cost per property) $225.00 $232.00 $242.00 $252.00

Legal Document Amendment/Discharge $375.00 $390.00 19

Development Inquiry Fee (written comments provided following

development meeting) $281.00 $289.00 $301.00 $313.00

Request by Developer for Staff Attendance at Public Information $169.00 $174.00 $181.00 $189.00 Meeting (cost per staff member/per hour) 20

Request for List Property Owners/Addresses $112.00 $115.00 21 of (cost per area)

Fee for copy of a legal plan $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00

LEGEND

Italics- fee increase by 4%

Bold- new fees, major changes

Stc-ikethr-abigla--Fee

37

38 MDISTRICT OF2S,

ON THE FRASER Economic Development

Memorandum

File Folder: G:\Economic Development\Council\Open for Business Signage 11-24-11.docx


From: Economic Development Officer


Subject: Economic Development "Open for Business" Signage

Recommendation

No recommendation accompanies this report.

Background

As directed by Council on November 21, 2011, the following two scenarios outline potential locations, costs and sources of funds pertaining to the placement of a billboard sign(s) with the messaging that conveys Mission is "open for business":

1. Jim Pattison billboard sign locations: a. Location: Jim Pattison Signs has confirmed that there are two possible highway approved

billboard locations: i. Silvermere Lake: Three billboards (six facings: 3 east/3 west) approximately 700m

east of 287th St. that all offer a 10' x 20' illuminated billboard. ii. Abbotsford/Mission Highway: Three billboards (six facings: 3 east/3 west)

approximately 1km south of the Mission Bridge that all offer a 10' x 20' illuminated billboard.

b. Cost: The cost for a 1-year rental contract is $3,920/month plus signage production and installation, which is approximately $600. These costs are exclusive of taxes. Longer term pricing discounts apply for commitments greater than 18 months. A price of $2,632/month has been confirmed for a longer term commitment of 18 to 24 months for one sign. Should two signs be pursued (Abbotsford/Mission Hwy. and Silvermere Lake), a cost has been provided at $1,842/sign per month ($3,684/mth).

c. Funding Source: In discussion with the finance department, there are two potential funding sources identified for this initiative that are dependent on the duration and location of the billboard sign(s). The two sources are:

i. Operational: Should placement of a billboard sign(s) be pursued, placement of the signage for a period greater than 12 months would warrant consideration as an operational expense and would be forwarded for budget consideration.

ii. Gaming Reserve Fund: Placement for a period of less than 12 months would offer opportunity for consideration for payment under this reserve fund; however, this fund is limited in capacity due to existing commitments through 2012.

2. Custom signage production and private land placement and rental: a. Location: There is one private non-ALR land-owner on Highway 7 west of the RCMP office

that is willing to negotiate a billboard placement. There are currently no confirmed non-

Page 1 of 2

ALR locations along Highway 11; however, this is not to imply that sites have not been identified:

b. Cost: i. Space Rental: The cost for a 1-year rental contract is anticipated to be $500/month

per sign. These costs are exclusive of taxes. Longer term pricing discounts do not apply.

ii. Sign Production: Based on an estimate from a local sign manufacturer, the cost to professionally manufacture a 10' x 20' billboard sign frame will be $1,600. Foundation footings and install of the billboard frame would be approximately $3,100. Power connection is still somewhat uncertain, but is estimated at $1,500. Illumination (lighting) will be approximately $1,500. Ad design and placement is approximately $1,800. Total production and installation cost approximately $9,500. All figures exclusive of taxes. Ongoing maintenance is not factored into the figure.

c. Funding Source: In discussion with the finance department, there are two potential funding sources identified for this initiative that, as with the first option, are dependent on the duration and location of the billboard sign(s). The two sources are:

i. Operational: Should placement of a billboard sign(s) be pursued, placement of the signage for a period greater than 12 months would warrant consideration as an operational expense and would be forwarded for budget consideration.

ii. Gaming Reserve Fund: Placement for a period of less than 12 months would offer opportunity for consideration for payment under this reserve fund; however, this fund is limited in capacity due to existing commitments through 2012.

3. Summary a. MOTI will not allow billboard signage on agriculture land along the highway corridor. This

limits placement to private non-ALR land or spots currently approved (Pattison billboard signs).

b. The summary of Pattison Signs cost options (excluding taxes) for the above options are: i. One Year with Pattison Signs (1) = $3,920/mth + $600 ad production = $47,640 ii. 18 months with Pattison Signs(1) = $2,632/mth + $600 ad production = $47,976 iii. 18 months w/2 Pattison Signs(2) = $1,842/mth + $600 ad production = $67,512 iv. 24 months with Pattison Signs (1) = $1,842/mth + $600 ad production = $44,808 v. 24 months w/2 Pattison Signs (2) = $1,842/mth + $600 ad production = $89,616

c. The summary of private land placement and sign production (excluding taxes): i. Sign production & install = $7,700 + Ad production = $1,800 = $9,500 ii. Annual private landowner lease = $500/mth = $6,000/annum

1. First Year = $9,500 signage & ad production + $6,000 lease = $15,500 2. Second and subsequent years = $6,000 lease + $2,200 power* + $2,000

new/replacement ad = $10,200 per sign, or $20,400/annum for operation of two signs. Maintenance not included in estimate. *Power for illumination is subject to location and may not be available, thus reducing operational cost.

Stacey Crawford — Economic Development Officer

39

Page 2 of 2

MDISTRICT OF

ON THE FRASER Corporate Administration

Memorandum

40


From: Deputy Chief Administrative Officer


Subject: Gaudin Creek Diversion Project Review

Recommendation

That Council receives and endorses the recommendations contained within this report

Background

At the regular council meeting on October 24, 2011 a report by the Chief Administrative Officer was received that advised Council that a review of the Gaudin Creek Diversion Project would be undertaken by the Deputy CAO to identify how and why there were project budget overruns without prior approval of Administration and Council.

The review was immediately initiated and was conducted by an examination of contract documents, policy analysis, financial analysis, best practices guidelines review and a series of staff interviews over the past 3 weeks.

I will premise this review by saying the financial findings for the Cedar Street project are deliberately presented in the form of a range as my confidence factor in the tracking of project costs is extremely low. At the time of writing this report the estimates of costs on one project changed daily by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Project Overview:

The Gaudin Creek Diversion Project is identified as a much needed capital project for the District as it opens up significant development opportunities that would otherwise be delayed and it utilized the remaining federal and provincial funding of the Cedar Street widening project. The consideration and design of the project started off in a much hurried manner in order to seize a funding opportunity that had a limited window. This funding opportunity was the underutilized grant funding of the much larger project known as the Cedar Street Widening project which had a deadline of October 31, 2011.

In an effort to get the project up and running in this short period the draft design by the consultant was taken in house and an updated design was produced. Given the tight timelines, the design reviews was not extensive nor were the design assumptions confirmed. The hurried pace continued with the development of the tender documents and with key personnel on annual vacation normal checks and reviews were not completed in the same manner.

The bid review and contract award was again hurried and any potential "red flags" identified in the bid review process were overlooked. In addition, key personnel that would normally be there, were not involved with this process.

Project start up and construction proceeded as most projects do and a variety of onsite challenges began to manifest themselves. The discovery of the water commission's regional high pressure 400mm water main, which was inaccurately detailed on as built drawings, was only part of one of the many construction

Page 1 of 4

issues discovered that were inaccurately detailed. While discrepancies between design and actuals are expected the number and severity were significantly higher than normal.

Despite these discrepancies the project continued as solutions were employed as quickly as possible. If Council recalls, it was at this time that this project was brought to light over concerns of timing as Cedar Street was now closed and worked had come to a standstill.

Again the project was in hurry up mode as business and residents were being increasingly affected as the project construction lagged behind schedule. The project had now become very visible in the public eye and the urgency to open the road added to the cost challenges.

On October 24, 2011 a report was presented to Council identifying the additional costs and challenges that had to be overcome to complete the project.

Review Findings:

1) Project timing. This project had a high probability of construction and cost challenges as there were unrealistic timelines from inception, design, review, tender, through to award. The construction phase however was well within a realistic time period despite the concerns otherwise (effective communication would have addressed many of the timing issues raised). It is not uncommon for projects to have short timelines and be delivered on budget and timelines if there is a proper project management system in place. There is no project management structure or charter utilized consistently within the district.

2) Limited staff involvement. The involvement of key engineering staff in capital projects is essential; especially with in house design. While this project was on an accelerated time frame, many projects do not utilize district expertize. The use of a "Project Team" that is made up of designers, inspectors, managers and financial representatives at the project inception is a best practice.

3) Project risk assessment. This project did not have a risk assessment undertaken to determine what the likelihood of cost management challenges could be reasonably expected. The contingency assigned to this project was not representative of the project potential challenges and as such quickly ran into budget issues.

4) Project accountability. This project was not effectively assigned to a project manager and the perception was that someone else was looking after the costs and managing the budget. Although I am quite confident there was a project manager responsible the individual did not agree that was their role.

5) Project management. This is the most critical finding of this report. There is no one project management system being employed within the district. Each project has its own system and is, in my opinion, fragmented and subjected to unreliable results. While the daily tracking of costs and general project administration (tracking of change work orders, daily logs and correspondence) is very good, the understanding of the overall budget tracking and implications is unacceptable and unreliable. There is no system in place that will permit the tracking of project budgets at given milestones. The project management system currently being used or lack of system has been extremely challenging in reviewing this project as it took several days to get up to date budget information (it should be noted that this was not the case in previous years as had other systems that worked quite well). In addition it is my opinion that a proper project management system would also address many of the issues raised in this report. The challenge of not utilizing project initiation checklists as well as other project check and balances was a key reason this project was challenging.

6) Other projects. It became apparent quite quickly that the lack of an effective project management system in place raised concerns on other projects that were underway or not finalized and as such the review went beyond this one project.

41

Page 2 of 4

a. Railway Avenue. This project is for the most part complete and is expected to have an approximate 10k surplus from the last update budget presented to Council.

b. Silverdale. This project is proceeding reasonably well and is expected to be within budget, at this time, other than the acquisition of land for right of ways. The works that are anticipated by this project are not completely within a secured right of way and as a result additional funding will be required to obtain that right of way. The estimate is approximately 40k and will be taken from another reserve. It is not that unusual to come across unsecured right of ways in older communities as formalization of old trails into roads occurs over a long period. Thus older roads are never properly dedicated.

c. Clegg Street. This project update has been presented to Council at a regular meeting. Engineering staff had found technical issues after further field survey work which resulted in the need for additional funds in the order of 186K. It must be stressed that this project did follow the proper procedure and a report was sent to Council with options for consideration before it proceeded further.

d. Cedar Street Widening. This is the parent project for which the remaining grant funding was intended to be used to undertake the Gaudin Creek Diversion project. The review of the current status of this project has been exceedingly frustrating.

i. In late October engineering staff indicated there were change orders received that had not been included in the remaining budget calculation for the overall project. Engineering staff were instructed to determine what if any of these change orders claims had on the overall Cedar Street budget. Over the course of the next two weeks the Engineering staff met with the contractor and the external project consultant several times and just prior to November 10 had concluded there was likely a minor 8k overrun.

ii. In this last week to 10 days the project budget has gone from an increase in reported costs of 8K, just prior to November 10 (the long weekend), to 120k on November14, with a further increase to 340K on November 17, to 435k late Friday afternoon on November 18. At the time of writing this report I am still not confident as to the final budget other than to say we will be looking at other options related to project accountability in this regard. Having said that, this lack of budget clarity speaks to the serious issues we have with our project management program. A report by the Director of Engineering and Public Works on the final costs will come forward once a detailed review has definitively verified the final costs.

In my review it is apparently clear that there was a lack of understanding of budget management and how we track, approve and report project costs at the project management level in the Engineering Department.

My review also identified a number of procedural issues such as communication with affected parties, project referrals and safety considerations in and around the project. I did not specifically list all of these findings as I feel the recommendations, if followed, will address those findings.

Recommendations:

1) Initiate a structural change to the engineering department whereby reporting and accountability is clear. Under the current organizational structure the accountability lines for project management is unclear. In addition the current structure does not facilitate full involvement of engineering staff without overstepping lines of authority.

42

Page 3 of 4

a. Immediately initiate a staff team to research, develop, institute (includes educate) a project management program for the district. This staff team should be led by the manager of Environmental Services and include representatives from Finance, Public Works and Engineering.

b. Change the Engineering Department structure to facilitate the inclusion of key engineering staff in all capital projects. Add responsibilities to qualified engineering staff to undertake the development of project management procedures along with other special projects as needed to improve operational certainty and efficiency

c. Develop a policy and procedure for project management

d. Establish a series of special projects beginning with the development of a draft project management program. Develop and prepare a draft tendering and bidding procedure. Develop and prepare standardized project checklists.

2) Assignment project management responsibilities on each capital project and the appropriate authority to manage those projects.

3) Develop a project risk assessment matrix with appropriate contingency guidelines

4) Develop and establish a project reporting procedure that provides regular updates for Finance and Administration.

Conclusion:

I have completed a moderately in-depth review of the Gaudin Creek Diversion Project and partial review of other capital projects being managed by the Engineering department. In my findings I believe there is a lack of accountability and awareness of expect municipal project management practices. I would like to emphasize that the engineering department has some very talented and dedicated employees and with effective leadership and processes, the likelihood of a repeat of this situation is extremely low.

Paul Gipps

42

Page 4 of 4

BUECKERT AVE. DIAMOND AVE.

7410

t

7 O/ 4(K,

tt z vw

;SUBJECT PROPERTIES

HILLCREST AVE

FOR OCP RE-DESIGNATION

7,24

3213b

HURO ST FLETCHER AVE.

*493

,282

•

iSUBJECT PROPERTIES

1. DISTRICT OF MISSION OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING BYLAW 5244-2011-4052(16) (R11-014 — Fraser Health Authority)

This bylaw proposes to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan 4052-2008 for the following legally described properties:

Parcel Identifier: 010-207-911 Lot "A" Section 20 Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 16383

Parcel Identifier: 010-207-945 Lot "B" Section 20 Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 16383

from Urban Compact/Multiple Family to Institutional.

The location of the subject properties is 7338 and 7348 Hurd Street and is shown on the following maps:

44

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate Institutional uses.

2. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5245-2011-5050(54) (R11-014— Fraser Health Authority)

This bylaw proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legally described properties:

Parcel Identifier: 011-930-942 Lot 3 Except: Part Subdivided by Plan 16383, Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 905

Parcel Identifier: 010-207-945 Lot "B" Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 16383

Parcel Identifier: 010-207-911 Lot "A" Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 16383

Parcel Identifier: 005-543-363 Lot 4 Except: Firstly: Part Road on Plan LMP12762, Secondly; Part on Plan BCP 17333 Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 905

Parcel Identifier: 006-487-289 Lot 36 Except: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 32175); Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 30073

Parcel Identifier: 006-457-215 Lot 38 Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 30364

from Institutional Care (IC) zone to Comprehensive Development 26 (CD26) zone.

The location of the subject properties is 7324, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267 and 32299 Hurd Street and is shown on the following maps.

Dp

HILL CREST AVE.

"i•

HURD sr FLETCHER AVE,

45

N

7,14 NVE

,t

SUBJECT PROPERTIES -

SUBJECT PROPERTIES FOR REZONING

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate a Community Health Centre (Commercial Building) and a 200-bed residential care facility operated by the Fraser Health Authority.

46

ON THE FRASER FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON R11-014



From: Planner

Date: September 19, 2011

Subject: Rezoning Application R11-014 (Fraser Health Authority) 7324, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267 and 32299 Hurd Street

Recommendation

1. That the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008 to allow for a new Mission Community Health Care Centre by redesignating the properties located at 7348 and 7338 Hurd Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 010-207-911 Lot "A" Section 20 Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 16383

Parcel Identifier: 010-207-945 Lot "B" Section 20 Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 16383

From Urban Compact/Multiple Family to Institutional

2. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R11-014, (Fraser Health Authority) the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

a) adding Section 1226 CD26 Zone as outlined in Appendix 1 attached to a report from the Planner dated September 19, 2011 and renumbering applicable sections accordingly to reflect the new zone and

b) rezoning the properties located at 7324, 7338, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267 and 32299 Hurd Street and legally described as

Parcel Identifier 011-930-942 Lot 3 Except: Part Subdivided by Plan 16383, Section 20, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 905

Parcel Identifier 010-207-945 Lot "B" Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 16383

Parcel Identifier 010-207-911 Lot "A" Section 20 Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 16383

Parcel Identifier 005-543-363 Lot "4" Except: Firstly: Part Road on Plan LMP12762, Secondly; Part on Plan BCP 17333 Section 20, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 905

Parcel Identifier: 006-487-289 Lot 36, Except: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 32175); Section 20, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 30073

Parcel Identifier: 006-457-215 Lot 38, Section 20, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 30364

from Institutional Care zone to Comprehensive Development 26 zone (CD 26);

3. That the bylaws be considered for 1st reading at the Regular Council Meeting on September 19, and

PAGE 1 OF 13

4. That following such reading, the bylaws be forwarded to Public Hearing on October 24, 2011.

5. That upon due consideration of Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act, consultation referrals go forward to:

School District No. 75 Fraser Health Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection.

6. That in accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has considered District of Mission Official Community Plan amending bylaws in conjunction with the District of Mission's Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan) and Waste Management Plan.

Summary of Proposal

The proposal from the Fraser Health Authority is to develop two new facilities on the site (Map 1).

The two facilities to be developed include:

1) A Campus of Care for seniors with 200 beds for people with complex 24/7 care needs and a day program for older adults. This facility will add 25 per cent more residential care beds, replacing out of date buildings with a modern facility with single occupancy room and several "neighbourhoods" which allow residents close access to essentials services including meals, amenity space and clinical staff.

2) A Community Health Centre that, at a minimum, will be a 2500 m2 (27,000 sq. ft.) facility with programs including primary care, a diabetes and senior clinic, public health, home health, mental health and substance abuse, and lease space for community partners such as physicians and retailers. This building may also include commercial retail space and the ability to include a residential component.

It is proposed that the Campus of Care will replace the existing residential facility and the Community Health Centre will be a new facility on the site. The successful proponent will provide preliminary drawings and locations chosen for the facilities by the public hearing date.

To facilitate development of these two facilities, a new comprehensive development zone will be created that will be based on the existing Institutional Care Zone. The applicant is planning to consolidate all six parcels into one lot; however, depending on the plans of the successful proponent, a new lot may be created for the Community Health Centre.

Background

The proposed community health project is a major achievement for the Community Health Plan that was developed in 2008 between Fraser Health Authority, Fraser Valley Regional District and the District of Mission and is a realization of two of the 15 Recommended Options for Implementation of the Plan.

The proposal is a combination of Option 7 (Multi-Purpose Interdisciplinary Health Centre) and Option 8 (Campus of Care for Seniors Living) identified in the Community Health Plan. The goal of these projects is to improve access to health care services in the Fraser Valley by locating a range of services in one geographic area adjacent to Fraser's Health's Mission Memorial Hospital.

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 13 R11-014

47

Site Description

The subject site compromises six (6) parcels owned by the Fraser Health Authority, totalling 8.13 hectares (20.08 acres). The existing uses on the property include the Mission Memorial Hospital, an ambulance station, a 76 bed residential care facility, parking and open space.

Map 2 shows the topography and location of watercourses on the site. The majority of the eastern portion of the site is encumbered with steep slopes and watercourses, thus, the applicant was required to submit reports to address the geotechnical and environmental setbacks. Reports received from Golder Associates and from Scott Resource Services Inc. recommended a setback from the crest of the slope and as well as environmental setbacks for the watercourses. Although both reports recommend setbacks, the impact on the buildable area is limited and does not encroach into the existing building site.

Official Community Plan Designation

Four of the six properties are designated Institutional in the Official Community Plan and therefore do not require an Official Community Plan amendment. However, two properties, 7348 and 7338 Hurd Street (Map 3) (currently used for parking), are designated Urban Compact/Multiple Family and therefore require re-designation to Institutional to be consistent with the proposal of the remainder of the site.

Zoning

The new Comprehensive Development 26 zone (CD26), (Appendix 1) is based on the existing Institutional Care Zone. The intent of the existing zone is to accommodate care facilities for people requiring specialized healthcare. The new Comprehensive Development zone will include the same institutional uses but will also include further commercial and residential uses as part of the principal uses. The intent of this is to allow as much flexibility as possible for the design proponents to create a Community Health Care facility that serves the needs of Mission residents in one centralized location and to complement the site and neighbourhood in general.

Analysis of Proposal

Site Description

The subject site currently consists of the Mission Hospital, a 76 bed care facility, an ambulance station, parking and open space. This area has a gentle slope ranging from 5%-9% as per the geotechnical hazard assessment report from Golder Associates.

There is a large ravine and watercourse on the eastern edge of the property requiring a setback from the crest of the slope and from the top of bank of the watercourses.

Geotechnical Setback

The geotechnical report dated May 26, 2011 from Golder Associates identifies a 10-15 metre setback from the crest of the slope. The recommended setback should not constrain the proponent's ability to locate and design the facilities as there is significant land available beyond the recommended setback.

The geotechnical report will be registered on title with a Hazardous Lands Development Permit, covenant and reference plan.

Section 108 Zoning Bylaw Compliance


48

The report from Scott Resource Services Inc. dated July 8, 2011 provides recommendations for protection of the watercourses. As all of the watercourses have been identified as permanent, a 30 metre setback is required from the top of bank. Due to the location of the watercourse 1, 1A and 2, the required 30 metre setback will not impact the location of the development. However, the recommended setback from the top of the bank extends beyond the ravine crest for watercourse 2A; therefore, it is recommended that any development not encroach into the 30 metre setback. The location of the setback must be identified with a reference plan and covenant prior to adoption of the zone amending bylaw.

Community Amenity Contribution

Community Amenity Contributions are not requested for application for Institutional zoning.

Tree Retention and Replanting

Tree planting will be addressed as part of the landscape plan that will be submitted as part of the building permit requirements.

Sections 879 and 881 Referrals

When an amendment is proposed to an Official Community Plan, the District of Mission will refer the proposed amendment to the organizations listed below following first reading of the bylaw, subject to provisions set out in Council Policy LAN.47.-Official Community Plan Referral. The organizations identified in the policy are as follows:

• Fraser Valley Regional District • District of Maple Ridge; • City of Abbotsford; • First Nations; • School District No. 75; • Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection; • Fraser Health Region; • Ministry of Transportation; • Department of Fisheries and Oceans; • Land Reserve Commission; • Utility Companies and the; • Canadian Pacific Railway.

In accordance with the provisions of the policy, Council is to consider the requirement to make referrals on a case-by-case basis and adopt a resolution to clarify that the referral requirements have been considered. Considering the referral criteria detailed in Policy LAN.47, referrals needed for this bylaw amendment will go to:

• School District • Fraser Health • Ministry of Transportation • Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection

Internal Comments

The application was reviewed at the Pre-application meeting with the developer, Planning and Engineering Departments. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with comments outlined in the Engineering Department Rezoning Comments attached as Appendix 2.


49

External Referrals There are watercourses located at the bottom of the steep slope. The applicant has submitted a report from Scott Resource Services Inc. identifying the required setbacks from the top of bank based on Section 108 of District of Mission zoning bylaw. In addition, the usual external referrals will be made to the various utility agencies as part of the rezoning process.

Impact of Application under Section 882 of Local Government Act

The Local Government Act requires that when Council is considering adopting or amending an Official Community Plan, it must consider the implications of the change to the Official Community Plan on the District's:

• Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan); and

• Waste Management Plan.

This Official Community Plan amendment allows for the re-designation of two smaller lots from multiple family/compact to Institutional to facilitate a new Campus of Care and Community Health Centre. The District collects development cost charges (DCCs) from development in order to pay for the additional capital infrastructure that becomes necessary as a result of the cumulative impact of growth. The District also relies on property taxes and user fees from growth overall to fund the added operating costs that are associated with growth. This plan is also to fund the eventual replacement of growth-related capital infrastructure from reserves that have been built up from the property tax base. Considering above the, it is recommended that council pass the necessary section 882 resolution to facilitate this Official Community Plan change.

Development Permit Application DP11-008

Due to the steep slopes on the property a Hazardous Lands Development Permit is required to ensure the land is safe for the use intended. The applicant has submitted a site specific report from Golder Associates that meets the District of Mission's requirements for hazard acceptability thresholds. The geotechnical report will be registered on the title of the properties with a covenant and reference plan identifying the required setback from the top of bank.

Public Hearing Information Package

In accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION PACKAGES, a package will be produced containing material related to the development application.

50


Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw

• Comments from referrals regarding the proposed OCP amendment;

• Engineering requirements;

• Approval of Development Permit DP11-008 will be considered as part of the same Council agenda as the Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaws are considered; and

• Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council consideration of the application.

Staff recommends that the rezoning application and Official Community Plan amendment proposals proceed to Public Hearing on October 24, 2011, or on another date to be determined pending the outcome of the proponent selection process and finalization of project details.

51

Marcy Bon PLANNER

I have reviewed the financial aspects of this report.

Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance

GACOMDEMARCYVkPPLICATIONSTraser Health \CoW.docx


32112

111 0 0 TT

3322:

SOL

321133 1 751

COTTONWOOD ST

3:1413 ";112 P3:1E5A51 A :74T56:1,

3257

COTTONWOOD

▪ 32164 32185

I

32138 32140 ?) 32143

32116

(M4CLu9E Si 4 32138 • 32140

32146 32150

32121

32155

32131

32148 32141

32130

32162

32171 3218013

32210

S

32252

32262

32330

32349

32354

32364

MARTEN PL

LEE Sr LE

32400

32416

2432

HIGHWAY #11

32372

32378

32394

32404

32410

32420

32436

E 32476

32104

32114

32126

32132

32142

32336

32352

m F m 0 •

O 0 m N O

El. JO

L 2O

Vd

Map 2

WATERCOURSES / TOPO

53

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 8 OF 13 R11-014

Two Properties to be re-designated-Institutional

Map 3

OCP

54

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 9 OF 13 R11-014

Appendix 1

A. Zone Intent

1. This zone is based on the Institutional Care (IC) zone. The intent of the zone is to accommodate care facilities for people requiring specialized healthcare and allow for complementary uses to the health care facilities, including residential and commercial uses.

B. Permitted Uses

1. The following Principal Uses and not others shall be permitted in the CD26 zone:

a. Institutional limited to:

i. Care Facility, ii. Congregate Care, and iii. Hospital. iv. Residential Apartment

b. Food and Beverage limited to:

i. Café ii. Coffee Shop, and iii. Restaurant

c. Office limited to: i. Government Services, ii. General Office Use iii. Administrative Office Use

d. Personal Service limited to: i. Barber Shop ii. Cleaning and Repair of Clothing iii. Hair and Body Salon iv. Medical Clinic v. Medical Offices and vi. Spa

e. Retail limited to i. Convenience Store ii. Medical Related Retail Store iii. Pharmacy iv. Retail Store v. Specialty Food Store vi. Video Rental

f. Service limited to: i. Community Service ii. Financial, Insurance and Real Estate iii. General Service Use

55

PAGE 10 OF 13

Appendix 1

SECTION 1226 CD26 Zone

g. Storage limited to: i. Enclosed Storage.

h. Recreation limited to: i. Indoor Recreation Facility

i. Residential limited to: i. Apartments provided they:

a. Forms an integral part of a commercial Building on the lot, b. Are not located on the 1st storey, and c. Are the only use in a storey and in all other storeys above the Residential

Use.

C. Lot Area 1. The minimum Lot Area created through subdivision be a minimum of 0.2 ha (0.5 ac)

2. Notwithstanding Section 1226, Part C.1, where a Lot contains an Undevelopable Area, that area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area

3. Notwithstanding Section 1226, Part C.1 and C.2, where a Lot contains natural slopes greater than or equal to 33%, that sloped area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area.

D. Density 1. N/A

E. Setbacks 1. All Buildings and Structures shall be sited in accordance with the following minimum

Setbacks:

Front Rear Interior Side Exterior Side Principal Building 3.0m 6.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m

(9.8 ft.) (19.7 ft.) (19.7 ft.) (19.7 ft.) Accessory 7.5m 4.5 m 4.5m 4.5 m Building/ (24.6 ft.) ( 14.8 ft.) ( 14.8 ft.) (14.8 ft.) Structure

2. Notwithstanding Section 1226 Part E.1 all Buildings shall be sited a minimum of 6.0 m (19.7 ft.) from all Undevelopable Areas as defined in the Bylaw.

56

PAGE 11 OF 13

Appendix 1

SECTION 1226 CD26 Zone

F. Lot Coverage 1. Buildings shall together cover not more than the Lot Area as noted in the

following table:

Zone:

Lot Coverage CD26

40%

G. Floor Space 1. The floor space shall not exceed the ratio as listed in the follow table:

Zone: Floor Space Ratio CD26

0.50

H. Height of Buildings 1. The Height of the Principal Building and Accessory Buildings shall not exceed the

heights outlined in the following table:

Principal Building Accessory Building/ Zone Structure CD26 20.0 m 4.5 m

(65.6 ft.) (14.8)

2. A Principal Building having more than 2 floors for residential purposes shall have a firefighter elevator installed.

I. Indoor Amenity Space 1. Developments that contain 15 units or more shall provide Indoor Amenity Space

at a rate of at least 1.39 sq. m (15 sq. ft.) per unit.

J. Outdoor Amenity Space 1. N/A

K. Off Street Parking 1. Off Street Parking shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 109.

57

PAGE 12 OF 13

Deputy Director of Engineering

En eering Technologist

7 -- INV, Salem • • shawashi Sterlin han

Appendix 2

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTS

FILE: R11-014

August 25, 2011

CIVIC ADDRESS: 7324, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267, 32299 Hurd St

1. DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:

Municipal water is available on Hurd St. The system was analyzed by a consulting engineer using a hydraulic model and it was determined that no further upgrades are required.

2. SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:

Municipal sanitary sewer available on Hurd St. The system was analyzed by a consulting engineer and it was determined that no further upgrades are required.

3. STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:

Municipal storm sewer is available on Hurd St. The developers engineering consultant shall be responsible for proving that the existing municipal storm system has the capacity to provide adequate service for their proposed design. If the system is found to not have capacity then the developer shall be required to volunteer to upgrade the offsite storm sewer or will be required to find an alternate storm water egress.

It is brought to the attention of the Developer that at the Subdivision stage, the Developer will be required to provide for onsite storm water management.

4. ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:

Hurd St. provides paved access to the site; however, the Developer shall be required to provide a traffic impact analysis study to prescribe any required upgrades. The exact nature and extent of the aforementioned upgrades shall ultimately be at the digression of The District of Mission's Engineer.

RECOMMENDATION

From an engineering point of view the rezoning application may proceed to first reading.


58

M

i sioOF

,ON THE FRASER

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

FILE: PRODEVZON R11-014

November 16, 2011

Dear Owner/Occupant:

Re: Public Hearing Notification

As a neighbouring resident or property owner to the subject properties located at 7324, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267, 32299 Hurd Street, you are invited to attend the Public Hearing and make known any comments that you may have.

The Public Hearing will be held as part of the Regular Council meeting on the evening of Monday, November 28, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC at 6:30 p.m.

Reference should be made to Items # 1 and 2 in the enclosed Public Hearing notice for more specific information regarding the proposal.

Additional information may be obtained by contacting the District of Mission Planning Department at (604) 820-3748.

Yours truly

Sharon Fletcher DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

End.

G: CONIDEV \ PUBLIC HEARINGS & PUBLIC INPUT WIGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION LETTERS \ R11-014 DV11-005 (FHA) NOTN OWN OCC.DOCX

59

P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. 112V 4L9 Phone (604) 820-3748 Fax (604) 826-7951 fp (604) 8203715 Web Site: www.mission,ca [email protected]

00.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

3. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5251-2011-5050(56) (R11-003 — Pavlov)

This bylaw proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legally described property:


from Rural 36 (RU36) zone to Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone.

The location of the subject property is 12411 Carr Street and is shown on the following maps:

60

SUBJECT PROPERTY

IIERG

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into four (4) lots of a minimum 0.7 hectare (1.73 ac.) lot size.

MDISTRICT OF

ON THE FRASER 4/g/'


61

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON R11-003


From: Planning Technician


Subject: Rezoning Application R11-003 (Pavlov) — 12411 Carr Street

Recommendation

1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R11-003 (Pavlov), the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property located at 12411 Carr Street and legally described as:


from Rural 36 (RU36) zone to RR7 Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone;

2. That the bylaw be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting on November 7, 2011 and that following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to Public Hearing on November 28, 2011.

3. That the five percent parkland provision in Section 941 of the Local Government Act be applied as cash-in-lieu of parkland to subdivision file S11-002.

Summary of Proposal

The applicant is proposing to rezone the property located at 12411 Carr Street from Rural 36 (RU36) zone to RR7 Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into four (4) lots of a minimum 0.7 hectare (1.73 ac.) lot size. The subdivision draft plan is attached as Appendix 1.

Site Description

The subject property is 3.99 hectares (9.86 ac.) in area and is located on the north side of Berg Avenue between Powell Street and Carr Street in Stave Falls (refer to Appendix 2). There is one existing log home and an approximate 46 square metre (500 sq. ft.) secondary dwelling unit (guest cabin) on the property. A secondary dwelling unit is not a permitted use in the RR7 zone; however, the applicant has advised that the guest cabin will be removed prior to subdivision approval. The removal of the guest cabin will be met through the subdivision approval process.

Access to proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 would likely be from Berg Avenue and proposed Lot 4 could be accessed from either Carr Street or Berg Avenue. Proposed Lot 1 slopes slightly to the west and the centre portion of this lot is relatively flat. Propose Lot 2 slopes to the west, southwest and also has a large flat portion to the west. Proposed Lot 3 contains the existing home and yard and drains predominantly to the south through a series of man-made ponds and channels. Proposed Lot 4 slopes primarily to the west and drains to the ponds located on Lot 3.

PAGE 1 OF 7

Neighbourhood Context

The majority of properties in the immediate area are zoned RU16 and RR7 (refer to Appendix 3). As this is an emerging area of rural residential properties, the proposed RR7 zone (minimum 0.7 ha/1.73 ac.) allows for lot sizes compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area.


The subject proposal is in conformance with the Official Community Plan; therefore, an OCP amendment is not required.

Zoning

The current RU36 zone has a minimum parcel size of 3.6 hectares (8.9 ac.). The proposed RR7 zone has a minimum parcel size of 0.7 hectares (1.73 ac.). The subject property is 3.99 hectares (9.86 ac.) in area and therefore allows a four-lot subdivision under the RR7 zone.


In accordance with District of Mission Policy LAN. 40 — Financial Contributions for Community Amenities Policy, the applicant has submitted a letter volunteering to contribute $8,040 (for 3 new lots) which is payable prior to the adoption of the zone amending bylaw.

Environmental Protection

There are a number of watercourses, channels and man-made ponds present on the subject property. An environmental assessment was initially completed in November 2010. In July 2011, the applicant's environmental consultant submitted an application to the Ministry of Environment for authorization to remove the manmade ponds on the subject property and restore the channel to its original condition. Information from the environmental consultant advises that completing this work would remove the downstream barrier (steep slope) to fish movement and provide 368 square metres (3,961 sq. ft.) of functioning fish habitat.

This application (commonly called a Section 9 application), was referred to the District of Mission and the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO) for review and comment. The District's Environmental Services Manager has advised the Ministry of Environment that the District is supportive of the proposed works. To date, DFO has not provided their comments. It is noted that prior to any of the proposed alterations or works taking place, authorization from the Ministry of Environment is required.

In addition, a restrictive covenant will be required to protect the environmentally sensitive areas as part of the subdivision approval process.


The applicant's surveyor identified 336 significant trees on the subject property. The applicant has indicated that approximately 97 significant trees will be removed as part of the proposed development. In accordance with District of Mission Policy LAN. 32 — Tree Retention/Replanting Policy, the applicant will be required to replant all 97 of the significant trees removed or provide cash-in-lieu ($250 per tree) for each significant tree removed and not replanted. In addition, the applicant is required to plant two additional trees per lot (8 trees in total). As part of the subdivision approval process, the applicant will be required to provide written confirmation confirming the number of trees replanted on-site.


62

Donna-L Lakes

Planning Analysis

The proposed subdivision will create four (4) rural residential lots; the proposed lot areas of each exceed the 0.7 hectare (1.73 ac.) minimum lot area requirement. This rezoning proposal is supported by planning staff as it is in accordance with the OCP and provides for compatible development in the Stave Falls area.

Parkland

A referral was sent to the Parks, Recreation & Culture Department and their recommendation is to accept cash in lieu as this property is within walking distance to the Stave Falls Elementary School green space.

Internal Comments

The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal; these comments are outlined in Appendix 4 — Engineering Department Rezoning Comments.

External Referrals

The standard referrals will be made to the various utility agencies as part of the subdivision process.


In accordance with District of Mission Policy LAN.50 — Pre-Public Hearing Information Packages Policy, a package will be produced containing material related to the development application.


• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $8,040;


Recommendation

Planning staff recommends that the rezoning proposal be supported by Council and proceed to Public Hearing on November 28, 2011.

aAtet

G:\COMDEV\DONNA-LEE\COW REPORTS \2011 REPORTS \ R11-003 (PAVLOV) 12411 CARR ST 2011-11-07 COW.DOCX

63


APPENDIX 1 — SUBDIVISION DRAFT PLAN

;i .'2 D: '. ',4 4'

2

R

.L 11411T —

11.1,1,1.9 .,,,';4.!.,Po? 4, ri'l ;11 ! : - fiT.;-.. .,,:T. ,

$.1, 12kr!.p/nan§aut.ptkori ...

I.1..■ ..-...

11.3,,,,I, ,:.7..7 ii F' .

T.11?. ■ ■J

,,„.„, ..

... • .•

,„,,,„,....,. — .• •

,„0„, • I! •• • •• '

1,5,014,, . -

' f ii;

•

1..nR•tit i i 4I'l'il :I I :" ...ttt , •ii Pi i 0 ai,

. Hai ailtriatt

..... • , ' 'a...1JF 11,

i7,

1

is

,?.' •

,i.1Ak.ur

.::, ,,,,•,,,

i 1;11 i ■im

,r;J :11!17.4711!1

ml,t1;: ,—

:.r., e1 ii.

.; . '4.1

, . .

''..; .. rr• 71 .

'1 .i..;P: :4;r: • 1.,;,••• ■.i., 1 1 , ... ,

1,1 1, ,,,,,, .rle■.1 ■ i...i. . ...1.1.,, 1111(.13.111 .11111 . 71

,• ,•, 44 IA '11

Za• IT:ii 44ii I .41 •: a riiii t rt 4114

---__ ''''''—' Powell Street (--\,

•-,•;

I I

1. :

I '

.,,,, ,...,,,,,,•., '' '''''<:.•

. , -._

i

1

ii

%a.

?

7

5'-:-

S A

—

_ .., ....... ,

Eg 5,4..

• /->i,

,1 <

7

, / ,a., -- ,,

i

•

C .

a t

, na

t

i

k• U

43 F 't

i ,,' ;ti

:

k ; ?t,

' ! , , ; •

ti 4! 4 II

11

,

Ii

— ----1---rt- - --

.

,,

c?--,-2,•:-',-L,..... ,,,,

‘,,I, ••••.,,it s.a; . I. V't

■ t . -.., - , .., ,

' kt 4'•tia

• ,.. -.. ti •

A \ ---

1 .

/7

i".•!" ft i "• •• •'I- „•• '

.

1 ,

, :., ,•". ,:'

..„: 7.: .,, ;

i'. ' ' " :,..

; ' .; , • '

I • T I

,,..;

' '' ',

a.

o.o..,,,,uri.,,c E.•$■ 5

.4•1441tal• ,,, 1 1, , .... . . ',it

!

...

:

4 .."..".... COrr Street

64

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 4 OF 7 R11-003

12302 12265

12225 O

O 29659

29575

MAP 1 HUDSON AVE,

12638 12631

12600 12609

12584 12595

12550 12537

12476 12477

12411

BERG AVE.

12383 12391

SUBJECT PROPERTY 12361

12646

12629 12610

ti

12577 12588

12551 12468

12460

12451

12442

12436

2387

12370

12334

29530 29584 29582 12358

12335

12311

12289

12238

12231 12241 12268

12224 12223

12168

TAISE PLACE

An

29510

APPENDIX 2 - LOCATION MAP 1

65

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 5 OF 7 R11-003

APPENDIX 3 - ZONING MAP

66

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 6 OF 7 R11-003

APPENDIX 4 - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTS


FILE: R11-003 April 04, 2011.

CIVIC ADDRESS: 12411 Carr Street

DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:

No municipal water available. Developer to provide potable water for each parcel and a hydrogeology report to confirm that the well/s meet the requirements of the Subdivision Control Bylaw.

SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:

No municipal sanitary sewer available.

STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:

No storm sewer works required.

ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:

Carr Street and Powell Street provide paved access to the site, no further upgrading required.

RECOMMENDATION

From an engineering point of view the rezoning application may proceed to final adoption.

67

F: Engineer/Devor/RezoningComments/12411 Carr Street Engineering Rezoning Comments


A/DISTRICT OF

lssion ON THE FRASER

PLANNING DEPARTMENT


November 16, 2011


Re: Public Hearing Notification for Rezoning Application R11-003 (Pavlov) — 12411 Carr Street

As a neighbouring resident or property owner to the subject property located at 12411 Carr Avenue, you are invited to attend the Public Hearing and make known any comments that you may have.

Reference should be made to Item # 3 in the enclosed Public Hearing notice for more specific information regarding the proposal. Details of the Public Hearing time and location are stated at the top of the Public Hearing notice.


Yours truly

S ron Fletcher DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

End.

GACOMDEVNPUBLIC HEARINGS & PUBLIC INPUT MTGS1PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION LETTERS\ R11,003 (PAVLOV) NOTN OWN OCC.DOCX

68

P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9 Phone (604) 8203748 Fax (604) 826.7951 8 (604) 8203715 Web Site: www.mision.ca [email protected]

ORCHID DR (EASI I

A t CHARNLEV

OR 129, AVE

AVE

SWAN

CRANE

64

SHIKAZE tIe

Cr* tel 10th AVE

91h AV

SUBJECT PROPERTY

s Is

C, AVE

irti

2

1st ism

4. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5252-2011-5051(57) (R11-021 — Deol)


Parcel Identifier: 011-602-686 Lot 11 Block 2 Section 21 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 332

from Residential Two Unit (RT465) zone to Residential Compact 280 (RC280) zone.

The location of the subject property is 32851 6th Avenue and is shown on the following maps:

69

7642 7635 7634

32785 7624 7625 7624

7813 7616 32815

32833 SUBJECT PROPERTY

7TH AVE.

z,3 a; P,'' 13' ■ 2

7581 l'" r4 p. ;7, ,,, ?,;' e% EutO ;.'2 P-,' 0 ,..- cr)

CC L1.1

0 g, 75E I uj

0 z i R ct p

6TH AVE.

7543 A .2 7531 7533

n gs

5TH AVF

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property and facilitate the construction of a new single-family residence.

70

Missio ON THE FRASER


FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON R11-021/DP11-013


From: Planner


Subject: Rezoning Application R11-021 and Development Permit Application DP11-013 32851 6th Avenue (Tingy Deol) — Proposed Infill Single Family Residential Development

Recommendation

1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R11-021 (Tingy Deol), the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property located at 32851 6th Avenue and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 011-602-686 Lot 11, Block 2, Section 21, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 332

from Residential Two unit Zone (RT465) to Residential Compact 280 Zone (RC280);

that the bylaw be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting on November 7, 2011; and

that following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on November 28, 2011.

2. That Development Permit Application DP11-013, in the name of Tingy Deol, to provide conformity to the Official Community Plan guidelines respecting building form and character for a proposed compact single-family residential development on the property located at 32851 6th Avenue be forwarded to Council for public input on November 28, 2011.

Summary of Proposal

The applicant intends to rezone and then subdivide the subject property in order to facilitate the construction of a new infill single-family residence. Since the property lies within a development permit area, the design of the proposed home, and modifications to the existing home, need to be in accordance with the Intensive Residential development permit area guidelines of the Official Community Plan (OCP).

Background

The subject property is located at 32851 6th Avenue, is 785 square metres in size, and is owned by Tajinderpal (Tingy) and Navjot Deol. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two parcels — 504.63 square metres (5,431.79 square feet) and 400.75 square (4,313.64 square feet) respectively — see Appendix 1. The rezoning and subdivision, if approved, will facilitate the construction of a new single family residence on the property in accordance with the OCP infill residential development permit guidelines. The carport and sundeck for the existing home will need to be removed in order to meet the minimum side yard setbacks of the target RC280 zone. The applicant will be required to build a detached garage with two parking spaces for the existing home in addition to updating the building façade.

PAGE 1 OF 17


The site is located in the Urban Compact/Multiple family designation of the OCP — see Appendix 2.

Section 2.4 Infill Development of the Official Community Plan outlines and highlights objectives for infill development. Specifically to

"Encourage a variety of infill residential development forms in conjunction with the application of Smart Growth development principles."

Where infill development is proposed, Policy 2.4.1 outlines the compatibility criteria:

Compatibility Criteria for Infill Development

Policy 2.4.1. Evaluate proposals for infill residential development, based upon their degree of compatibility with the character of the immediate neighbourhood, with particular attention to:

• The height, size, scale and massing of buildings • Harmonious integration of the building in terms of setbacks, window placement, privacy, design

and materials • Retention of locally significant landscaping and addition of new landscaped areas; • The upgrading of existing dwellings

The height, size, scale, and massing of the home is compatible with surrounding homes and will not adversely impact the character of the neighbourhood. The street consists of an eclectic mix of different housing styles and heights within the neighbourhood and this proposal would add to this diversity. The proposed building design and height will be discussed in further detail within the Planning Analysis section of this report.

The applicant will be retaining the existing trees along the 6th Avenue frontage but will need to remove 6 trees that are located within the rear of the site in order to accommodate the construction of the proposed new home and detached garage. As per the Tree Retention Policy (LAN.32), the applicant will be required to replant trees in order to achieve no net loss in addition to planting two trees per lot. The shrubs along the front façade of the existing home will be retained — see Appendix 3.

The existing home on the property will be upgraded in order to complement the design of the proposed new home and the duplex that was recently approved on the property to the west (Northwest corner of Maple and 6th Avenue). The scope of these improvements includes repainting the trim on the house so that it provides greater contrast with the white siding, repainting the front door, and adding brick to the lower portions of the building in order to cover the concrete — see Appendix 3.

Overall, the planning department is satisfied that this proposal fits within the criteria for infill development as outlined in the Official Community Plan.

Zoning

The subject property is currently zoned Residential Two Unit (RT465) Zone — see Appendix 4. The applicant wishes to rezone the property to RC280 in order to facilitate a proposed subdivision of the property into two parcels. One parcel would contain the existing home while

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

71

the other lot would be for the proposed new home. The size of the parcels would be 504.63 square metres (5,431.79 square feet) and 400.75 square (4,313.64 square feet) respectively.

Since the applicant is pursuing single-family residential zoning, a site inspection will be required by the Building Department to ensure that there are no secondary suites within the existing home. The applicant has agreed to arrange for an inspection and to decommission any suites in accordance with District of Mission requirements prior to final approval of this rezoning application.

The carport and sundeck for the existing home need to be removed in order to achieve the minimum side yard setback requirements of the RC280 zone should the concurrent subdivision application be approved. In order to meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Bylaw, the applicant will be required to build a two-car detached garage for residents of the existing home off of the rear lane — see Appendix 1. The construction of the detached garage will be a requirement of subdivision approval.

Planning Analysis (Development Permit Review)

Applicability

The application is subject to a development permit due to its infill nature and location within the Urban Compact/Multiple Family designation of the Official Community Plan. In this regard, the application is subject to the requirements of the Intensive Residential Development Permit Guidelines.

DP Guidelines

A few of the objectives of the Official Community Plan Intensive Residential Development Permit Guidelines include the following:

• To facilitate a high standard of building design, site compatibility, and site aesthetics;

• To minimize the impact of new single family infill residential development on existing neighbourhoods (Appendix 5 - Neighbourhood Context)

• To provide a mix of housing forms, choices and affordability opportunities for residents in the urban area and at the same time provide for more interesting and varied urban neighbourhoods;

• To provide for a form of sustainable development in Mission through the economic efficiencies gained by capitalizing on existing infrastructure and services in the urban area by increasing single-family residential densities; and

• To provide a neighbourhood environment that focuses on pedestrians and away from an automobile dominated streetscape.

To this end the design proposed by the applicant is consistent with the guidelines and fits within the surrounding neighbourhood (Appendix 6 and 7 — Development Permit Elevations, Appendix 8 — Site Plan). This is achieved through limiting the gross floor area of the upper floor to 80% of the main floor to minimize the building "box" effect, the use of peaked roofs, front yard porch to encourage interaction with the street, use of different surfacing elements, landscaping to soften the facade, and the use of different building elements and colours (vinyl shingles, wood trim, wood posts, cultured stone, and earth tone colours).


72

The height of the proposed home is 8.51 metres which is below the maximum permitted height of 9.5 metres for the RC280 zone. The height of the existing home on the property is 8.32 metres which is within very close proximity to that proposed for the new home. There is a vacant lot to the west of the property for which a duplex was recently approved with a height of 9.21 metres — see Appendix 1. The surrounding area consists of established homes ranging from one to two storeys in height. Hence, the height of the proposed home will be similar to what already exists, or has already been approved, for this neighbourhood and will not create any adverse impacts. For images of surrounding homes on the street, please refer to Appendix 4 —Neighbourhood Context.

This home will be built on an infill residential lot that will capitalize on existing infrastructure and services (roads and utilities). Furthermore, the home is also located within walking distance to commercial services, transit, and parks/open space. Hence, this project fits in with the sustainability criteria of the Official Community Plan.


In accordance with the District of Mission's LAN 40 Land Use Policy, the applicant has agreed to provide a community amenity contribution of $2,815.00 for the proposed single family lot.


There are a total of 9 trees on the subject property that fall under the definition of a "significant tree" as per the Tree Retention/Replanting Policy. The applicant has indicated that they will retain the 3 trees along the 6th Avenue frontage. There is a single tree along the east property line and a stand of 5 trees in the NE corner of the site. The applicant has indicated that these trees need to be removed in order to facilitate the construction of the proposed new residence and detached garage.

In order to achieve no net loss of trees and to satisfy the requirement of planting two trees per new lot, the applicant has agreed to plant 10 trees on the site and provide a security to the District. The security amount will be $2,500.00 ($250.00 per tree). The trees that will be retained will be protected by fencing as per specifications of the Tree Retention/Replanting Policy prior to any construction activity on the site. The applicant has provided a tree retention plan showing the approximate location of trees to be retained, removed, and planted — see Appendix 9.

Internal Comments

The application was discussed at a preliminary application review meeting and no concerns were raised regarding this proposal. Since the existing home on the property once contained a secondary suite, the applicant has agreed to decommission the suite and to arrange an inspection with the Building Department in order to provide assurance that the secondary suite has been removed.

The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and their comments have been attached to this report — see Appendix 10.


73

External Referrals

No external referrals are required as part of the rezoning and development permit process for this proposal.


In accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION PACKAGES, a package will be produced containing material related to the development application.

Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw and Approval of Development Permit DP11-013

• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $ 2,815.00.

• A security in the amount of $2,500.00 to cover the planting of 10 trees as per the Tree Retention/Replanting Policy (LAN.32).

• Decommissioning of any secondary suites within the existing home and an inspection by the Building Department.

• Modifications to the existing home as per Appendix 3.

• Engineering requirements for extending the storm sewer on 6th Avenue to the site.

• Approval of Development Permit DP11-013 will be considered as part of the same Council agenda as the Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaws are considered. The development permit shall be subject to prior approval of the concurrent rezoning and subdivision applications.

• Construction of, or security to construct, a detached garage for the existing home in order to provide for two off-street parking spaces as per the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw.


In summary, staff recommends that the Rezoning and Development Permit proposal proceed to Public Hearing and Public Input meeting on November 28, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

Rupinder Basi, MCIP PLANNER

GACOMDEV\PINDER\R11-021 and S11-015 and DP11-013 (Deol) - 32851 6th Ave


74

):o 7673

-4 CO C) Cn

-4 CO

C 0) -4 0) C1)

Co 01 a) rn co

0) Cro C11

-4

Cn -4 ca

-4 CA 0)

Co

-4 cy) cr1

A1.

13d

02:Id

io3

ren

--4 0) 0) 0)

0) rn rn

CA

0

C)

'No

CEDAR ST 32807

32811 32810 32811 32810

32819 32818 32819 32818

32829 7489 32829 32828

MAPLE ST.

32847 7482 7490

32847 32846

32855 32854 32855 32854

32865 32862 32861 32864

32873 32872 32873 32870

32883 32882 32883 V 01

-4 ww

CJI CO 7457

7467 32890 32891

ALDER ST.

co 0

z

1.rrl

7536

32910

32920

32928

32936

N.) co 0

32920

32924 32926 -4 LAJ 4 N.)

CD 00

32901

32911

32921

32929

32937

32907

32915

32921

32929

32933

32901

32911

32921

32929 32931

P?

'3/W

1119

7590

32914 %.1

32920

36 32928B m

ft;

32818

32830

32821

32801

132851 I

32861

32869

32879

7567 7577

7584 7586

32854

3 3286

32868

32878

32886

CEDAR S

JUNIPER ST

32763

32771 &B 32773

32787

32762 &B 32764 &B

32774

(31 (31 C) CO

D & D Design La DESIGN • PLANNING • DRAFTING

MAPLE 4 6th AVE., MISSION

3242 BEVERLY CR. p1dva • 604451-13175 ABBOTSFORD, B.C. for 604-B54-3125

PPLEUMMIAIK LIGTOECR Ott

7:2;Ife sa■ Wir 4

)1010.1.142810 Lareovemse•zuou

IMMINI41.11110.1106.2•JMI MEM NEWT •110tin

WM& 11:0190 Lorcememee•41zni MR • 11110171110112,912 WPM 17.0014TVIN 14.001l • WOO 62PrIt,71211101Ph

1,41911MOIS SPINICIS= 44.22% 11111•LZ FAMILY 111510R.INPIM "Willtlf9011,49.

Appendix 1 Existing Home and Proposed New Lot

Note: Detached garage for existing home to be built prior to subdivision approval of S11-015

77

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 8 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

Appendix 2

OCP

Subject Property is designated Urban Compact/Multiple Family Residential

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 9 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

78

Contrasting Trim (Black) — to be applied to all facades

Front door to be re-painted (burgundy)

Concrete to be covered with brick vaneer

Appendix 3 Modifications to Existing Home

79

Colour/Material Palette

Painted Trim

Door

Brick Vaneer

Notes: Landscaped shrubs along front façade to be retained


Appendix 4

ZONING

CL 1--

R558s

378-1974

IE

7TH AVE.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

CI

Q

5TH AVE.

AVE.

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 11 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

80

Appendix 5 Neighbourhood Context

Existing home (1) and surrounding homes on 6th Avenue between Alder and Maple (2-6)

81

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 12 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

A4.14:11

111Wisan . L

ri MINN N

11 ERNI r91' llIMI111111k. 4:1111

°Tr.=

PRONT ELEVATON

a

ry

iiii-__1 11111111111111111 SF 4

A.

11

" 4EL

Appendix 6 Development Permit Elevations - Proposed Home

Front

Rear

Right

Left

82

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 13 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

R

ki

....P.001,107•1{ -10.4111t

ttL -1•312M•30.1.19

-1,0.7•M MOM")

t•••••i7.114/

• VNYLI•01.1.1/• R

FRONT ELEVATION

REAR ELEVATION

RI&HT ELEVAllON

R

Appendix 7 Development Permit Elevations — Proposed Detached Garage

Front

Rear

Right

Left

83

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 14 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

MW LANE

YOI 11.01/111P

ttan0

6th AVENUE

ECNINOt RC2R2 1.0T COO:RAM .41.12% PAR • 9R/0% OR 2.201CIPT IRGR PLOONMAN FLOOR -woo IIMPT/1,272

IMPERVIOUS OURISIGD3 • 4922% SNORE FAMILY M.6141" • DOVE %ARNIE %BMW •412%

D & D Design Ltd. DESIGN • PLANNING • DRAFTING

LOT 2b 6th AVE.

3242 BEVERLY CR. ft.:eat-am-an

AEBO1SFOR1), 604-154-3125

Appendix 8 Site Plan for new lot

84

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 15 OF 17 R11-021/DP11-013

T N

Appendix 9 Tree Retention Plan

LANE

85

tte ?ergs 43/. t?-44-D

11 —S 6i- amovg:D

- Ck As-orc9

Note: - Approximate locations shown

Species to be determined as per Tree Retention Policy (LAN.32) - Retained trees to be protected with fencing as per Tree Retention Policy (LAN.32)


Appendix 10


FILE: R11-021

August 24, 2011

CIVIC ADDRESS: 32851 6th Avenue


Municipal water is available on 6th Avenue, no further upgrading required.


Municipal sanitary sewer is available on 6Th Avenue, no further upgrading required.


Municipal storm sewer is not available on 6th Avenue fronting the property. The Developer will be required to volunteer to extend the storm sewer on 6th Avenue to the site prior to the rezoning proceeding.


None.

RECOMMENDATION

From an engineering point of view the rezoning application may proceed to final adoption when the storm sewer requirements have been met.

N

Salem Abushawashi Deputy Director of Engineering

Sterlin' han Engi ering Technologist

86


PAGE 17 OF 17

DISTRICT OF

ON THE FRASER fr PLANNING DEPARTMENT

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV R11-021/DP11-013

November 16, 2011


Re: Rezoning Application R11-021 & Development Permit Application DP11-013 (Deol) — 32851 6th Avenue

Please be advised that Rezoning and Development Permit applications have been received from Mr. T. Deol for a proposed new development in your neighbourhood. Enclosed is a Public Hearing Notice describing the proposed rezoning within Item 4.

This Bylaw amendment seeks to rezone the property from Residential Two Unit (RT465) zone to Residential Compact 280 (RC280) zone. The purpose of this rezoning is to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property and facilitate the construction of a new single-family residence.

The purpose of the Development Permit is to provide conformity to the Official Community Plan guidelines respecting building form and character for a proposed compact single-family residential development.

This letter is to serve as notice to all adjacent property owners and occupiers of land that the District of Mission Council will consider the Rezoning and Development Permit applications at the November 28, 2011 Regular Council meeting. The Regular Council meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC. An opportunity will be given for any interested parties to comment on the Rezoning and the Development Permit applications at the Regular Council meeting.

Yours truly

Sharon letcher DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

End.

GACOMDEV \PUBLIC HEARINGS & PUBLIC INPUT MTGSIPUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION LETTERSAR11-021 DP11-013 (DEOL) NOTN OWN OCC.DOCX

87

P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4 L 9 Phone (604) 820.3748 Fax (604) 826.7951 (604) 820.3715 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: [email protected]

xPKYArRIGY. AV

FERNDALE AYE

Pflrem•or .,' ERDNE..

1._ 9 1 ,,

RICHARDS AVE

SUBJECT PROPERTY 9703

9719

91E

999,

9676

%ES

9311 39959

:9199

94221 3T2S5

KIRKPATRICK AVE

5. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5254-2011-5050(58) (R08-004 - OTG Development Concepts)



from Rural 16 (RU16 ) zone to Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone.

The location of the subject property is 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue and is shown on the following maps:

88

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two (2) lots of a minimum 0.8 hectare (1.73 ac.) lot size.

89 1,0030, MDISTRICT OF

4, ON THE FRASER




From: Planner


Subject: Rezoning Application R08-004 (OTG Developments) — 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue.

Recommendation

1. That first and second reading of zone amending bylaw 5189-2010-5050(31) be rescinded;

2. That in accordance with Rezoning Application R08-004 (OTG Developments), the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property located at 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue and legally described as:


from Rural 16 (RU16) zone to Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone;

3. That the bylaw be considered for first and second reading at the Regular Council meeting on November 7, 2011; and

4. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to Public Hearing on November 28, 2011.

Background

The applicant initially proposed to rezone two properties located 34159 and 34221 Kirkpatrick Avenue (Map 1) to allow for a four lot subdivision. The rezoning application entailed rezoning the site from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone.

A public hearing was held on February 28, 2011 and a number of questions were raised about rainwater run-off affecting the western neighbour and the potential effect on local water quality/quantity created by secondary dwellings within the RR7s zone. Since that time, the owner of 34221 Kirkpatrick Avenue withdrew from the application due to personal reasons. The applicant has requested to move forward with an application for 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue only (Appendix I). Given the wishes of the applicant, the previous zone amending bylaw's first and second readings must be rescinded in order for Council to consider the revised rezoning application. Recognizing the concerns raised by Council in respect to secondary dwellings allowed within the RR7s zone, the applicant wishes to revise the target zone and pursue the RR7 zone which does not permit secondary dwellings.

Site Description

The subject property is located east of the intersection of Stave Lake Street and Kirkpatrick Avenue (Map 1). 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue falls gently towards the north and contains a watercourse flowing westward along the northern property line. The property currently has a single family dwelling and three out buildings. The single family dwelling, chicken coop and barn are to be retained within proposed Lot 1 and the shed is slated for removal (Appendix I). The northern portion of the property adjacent to the watercourse is mostly vegetated while the interior of subject property is predominantly clear of vegetation. A row of trees also exists along a section of the southern property boundary which will remain undisturbed.

PAGE 1 OF 7

Neighbourhood Context

The majority of the properties in proximity to the subject property are zoned RU16 and RR7 (Zoning Map). The Ferndale neighbourhood has experienced an increase in rural residential development over the last five to ten years. The proposed RR7 zoning allows for lot sizes compatible with the existing land uses and densities in the immediately surrounding area.

Official Community Plan (OCP) Designation

The proposed density and target RR7 zone is in accordance with the OCP and its overall objectives.

Zoning

The current RU16 zone has a minimum parcel size of 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres). The proposed RR7 zone has a minimum parcel size of 0.7 hectares (1.73 acres). Lot 1 is slated to be `oversized' at 1.31 hectares (3.23 acres) and Lot 2 will be 0.7 hectares (1.73 acres). The RR7 zone does not allow for a secondary dwelling (i.e. secondary suite, garden cottage or coach house).

Community Amenity

In accordance with Council Policy LAN.40 — FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR COMMUNITY AMENITIES POLICY, the applicant has submitted a letter volunteering to contribute $2,680.00 for each additional lot.

Section 108 Compliance (Environmental Protection)

The 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue property has been identified as containing a single watercourse (Appendix I) flowing east to west along the northern property line. Section 108 of The District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009, requires a 30 metre set back and protected area for this watercourse. A restrictive covenant is to be placed on the title and permanent barrier fencing with signage is to be installed to protect these areas from disturbance.


Vegetation removal is not required for the proposed development as suitable building areas free of vegetation already exist for all new dwellings and accessory structures. The applicant is required to provide two trees per new lot created in accordance with the District of Mission's Tree Retention Replanting Policy, LAN.32. This requirement will be met through the subdivision approval process.

Access

Both lots will be accessed from Kirkpatrick Road; the covenant to protect the watercourse on the north side of the property would preclude any access from Stave Lake Street.

Planning Analysis

The rezoning application is supported by planning staff as it will lead to development compatible with the existing surrounding land use pattern and provide development that is in accordance with the District of Mission Official Community Plan.

Parkland

As fewer than three additional lots would be created, Section 941 of the Local Government Act (Provision of Parkland) does not apply.


90

Internal Comments

The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with comments outlined in the Engineering Department Rezoning Comments attached in Appendix II.

External Referrals

The usual referrals will be made to the various utility agencies and Department of Fisheries and Oceans as part of the subdivision process.


In accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION PACKAGES, a package will be produced containing material related to the development application which can be viewed by any interested party. Furthermore, notification letters are sent via mail to all owners/occupants of properties within 500 metres of the development in order to inform them of the scheduled public hearing date.


• Receipt of the Community Amenity Contribution in the amount of $2,680.00; and


Erik Wilhelm Planner G:\COMDEV\ERIK\Working Development Planning Staff Reports \KIRKPATRICK OTG FINAL CHANGES.doc

91


R08-004 S08-007

_1 I MAP 1

I I I

RICHARDS AVE.

9703

9671

34221 5

K/RKPA ICK AVE.

/9570 34184 34196

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Property previously

included within the

development

application

9538

DLUGOSH AVE

9539

92

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 4 OF 7 R08-004

Shed to be removed

Lot 2 0.7 hectares

PLAN 6658

Lot 1 1.31 hectares

Appendix I Draft Plan of Subdivision

93

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 5 OF 7 R08-004

RICHARDS AVE

KIRKPATRICK AVE

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 6 OF 7 R08-004

Appendix II


FILE: R08-004

CIVIC ADDRESS: 34159 and 34221 Kirkpatrick Avenue


No municipal water available. Developer to provide, at subdivision stage, potable water for each parcel and a hydrogeology report to confirm that the well/s meet the requirements of the Subdivision Control Bylaw.


No municipal sanitary sewer available. Developer to provide, at subdivision stage, professionally prepared septic field design for Lot 2.


None.


None.

RECOMMENDATION

From an engineering point of view the rezoning application may proceed to final adoption

95


r S T R C T OF ssMi on

0ON THE FRASER PLANNING DEPARTMENT


November 16, 2011


Re: Public Hearing Notification for Rezoning Application R08-004 (OTG Development Concepts) — 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue

As a neighbouring resident or property owner to the subject property located at 34159 Kirkpatrick Avenue, you are invited to attend the Public Hearing and make known any comments that you may have.

Reference should be made to Item 5 in the enclosed Public Hearing notice for more specific information regarding the proposal. Details of the Public Hearing time and location are stated at the top of the Public Hearing notice.


Yours truly

(0/Sharon Fletcher DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

End.

GACOMDEV1PUBLIC HEARINGS & PUBLIC INPUT MTGS \PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION LETTERS1R08-00,1 (OTG) NOTN OWN OCC.DOCX

96

P.O, Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V21/ 4 L 9 Phone (604) 820-3748 Fax (604) 826-795 I 6, (604) 82037 15 Web www.mission.ca E-mail: planning mission.ca

Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on May 25, 2010

97

PH10/030 MAY 25/10

District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) (R10-013 — District of Mission) — a bylaw to incorporate new Industrial Development Permit Guidelines Barclay Pitkethly, deputy director of planning, provided information regarding District of Mission official community plan amending bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) (R10-013 -District of Mission), which proposes to amend the text of District of Mission official community plan bylaw 4052-2008 by:

• deleting all text within "Area K Industrial Business Park Development Permit Area" in its entirety from Part IV — Development Permit Areas;

• deleting "0 (i) and 0 (iii)" in their entirety from Schedule 1, Part IV -Development Permit Areas; and

• inserting a new "Industrial Development Permit Area" section after Development Permit Area J and before Development Permit Area L.

The deputy director of planning stated that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to incorporate new industrial development permit guidelines into the official community plan in order to improve the streetscape and built environment within industrial areas of Mission.

The deputy director of planning stated that the objectives of the industrial development permit guidelines are as follows:

• to encourage a high visual design and functional standard of industrial development;

• to improve the street level appearance of industrial development and encourage business façade recognition;

• to create industrial developments oriented to pedestrians while maintaining efficient vehicle access;

• to incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to provide a safe industrial environment;

• to minimize the overall impact of new industrial developments on adjacent industrial and non-industrial uses; and

• to incorporate rainwater management techniques to maximize onsite rainwater retention.

Mr. Pitkethy also stated the following will be exempt from requiring a development permit:

• new buildings or an addition to an existing building less than 111.5 square metres;

• existing signage; • internal renovations; • site improvements; • lot consolidation, lot line adjustment, or a road widening; and • exterior building envelope repairs.

The deputy director of corporate administration stated that no correspondence was received regarding this application.

Lila Raul expressed concern for wildlife and vegetation along the waterfront and stated her opposition to industrial development in the area. She also expressed her belief that there was insufficient information on the proposal provided in the public hearing announcement that appeared in the newspaper.

Jeannette Smith expressed her opinion that developers should be required to install large trees rather than small or mid-sized ones.

On page 35 of the agenda, in Schedule A, Area K. 5 under Parking and Loading Areas, Councillor Horn questioned the strength of the word "encouraged" in the sentence "The strategic use of permeable parking pavers at entrances and pedestrian corridors is encouraged to improve surface drainage and to create visual interest within parking areas." He stated that he would like staff to consider alternate language that would specify acceptable materials and practices and offer stronger alternatives to the word "encouraged".

Councillor Scudder stated that he too believes it is important to achieve surface permeability but questioned whether or not adding specifics with regard to materials and practices is necessary.

Councillor Stevens requested that staff consider alternative language that would place the onus on the developer to either provide a permeable surface or explain why this cannot be achieved.

In response to questions from Councillor Plecas, the deputy director of planning confirmed that signage is regulated by the signage bylaw and the proximity to the street is regulated by the setbacks in the zoning bylaw.

Councillor Stewart expressed a desire for a stronger environmental focus.

The deputy director of planning stated that there is another development permit that was recently introduced within the Local Government Act that would promote energy and water conservation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that, through council initiative, this could potentially be developed within the development permit guidelines.

Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission official community plan amending bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) R10-013 — District of Mission) closed.

Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

RESOLVED: That staff be asked to provide council a brief report describing the new development permit guideline possibilities around environmental features with some information as to expected time and staffing needs to bring these forward.

CARRIED

98

Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on February 28, 2011

99

PH11/009 FEB 28/11

District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) (R10-013 — District of Mission) — a bylaw to incorporate new Industrial Development Permit Guidelines

Erik Wilhelm, planner, provided information regarding rezoning application R10-013, in the name of the District of Mission, which proposes to amend the text of District of Mission Official Community Plan 4052-2008 by:

a) deleting all text within "Area K Industrial Business Park Development Permit Area" in its entirety from Part IV — Development Permit Areas;

b) deleting "0 (i) and 0 (iii)" in their entirety from Schedule 1, Part IV -Development Permit Areas; and

c) inserting a new "Industrial Development Permit Area" section after Development Permit Area J and before Development Permit Area L.

The planner stated that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to incorporate new Industrial Development Permit Guidelines into the Official Community Plan to improve the streetscape and built environment within industrial areas of Mission.

The deputy chief administrative officer stated that no written correspondence was received regarding this application.

Councillor Stewart asked why industrial development was addressed before commercial development.

The planner explained that the creation of industrial development permit guidelines was a high priority within the Official Community Plan.

Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) (R10-013 — District of Mission) closed.

fission

ON THE FRASER


100

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON Industrial Development Permit Guidelines-April 2010


From: Planner

Date: April 19, 2010

Subject: Industrial Development Permit Area Guidelines — OCP' Amendment

Recommendation

1. That the Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008 to:

a. delete all text within "Area K - Industrial Business Park Development Permit Area"

in its entirety from Part IV — Development Permit Areas; and

b. delete "0 (i) and 0 (iii)" in their entirety from Schedule 1, Part IV — Development Permit Areas; and

c. insert "Industrial Development Permit Area" in its entirety after Development Permit Area J and before Development Permit Area L.

that the bylaws be considered for 1St reading at the Regular Council Meeting on April 19, 2010; and

that following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on May 25, 2010.


a. School District No.75.


Purpose of Proposal

To incorporate new Industrial Development Permit Guidelines into the OCP in order to improve the streetscape and built environment within industrial areas of Mission:

Background

The OCP's action plan prioritizes various policy items that require completion. The action plan stipulates that revision to the Development Permit Area Guidelines for industrial areas is a high priority. Accordingly, the Development Permit Area Guidelines included herein aim to provide for comprehensive design guidelines that will improve the overall design, reduce the environmental 'footprint' and improve the functional aspects of industrial areas in Mission.


The development permit area guidelines are attached as Schedule A. The design guidelines were created with the input of Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services Staff. The guidelines cover a wide range of form and character aspects that will provide for improved

PAGE 1 OF 10

industrial development within Mission. All new industrial development will have to adhere to the guidelines in order to allow approval from Council and aid planning staff in the assessment of development proposals. Additionally, the improved guidelines will allow developers and designers to have a clear understating of industrial development requirements in Mission. The following provides an overview of design elements that will be included within the OCP:

Site Planning

Improved diagrams and text will encourage all buildings to be oriented to the street and to buffer loading, parking and unsightly areas through site design. Visually prominent street corners have been identified and will require 'gateway' landscaping' and façade design to anchor the corners.

Building Form and Character

All buildings are to be designed to account for the high visibility of industrial areas and create a visual relationship between building and streetscape. 'Active' ground floors will create a positive public image and promote more pedestrian friendly streets. The overall design requirements will move away from 'boring and box like' industrial buildings to incorporate varying roof designs, protruding features, articulation and incorporation of architectural elements.

Lighting and Signage

Improved lighting guidelines will encourage lighting of architectural features while limiting the 'light pollution' or glare from industrial developments. Simplified signage guidelines will create uniformity of development and provide for more streamlined and modernized signage.

Landscaping

The guidelines encourage all landscaping to buffer blank walls, storage, fencing, loading areas and waste facilities. In addition to beatification of an industrial site, landscaping will be utilized for rain water management and will utilize drought resistant native species.

Parking and Loading

The majority of parking and all loading facilities will not front roadways and will be buffered from the streetscape. Improved site planning and buffering provisions will provide for better industrial development,

Universal Access

Guidelines will improve universal access and safety for mobility challenged persons.

Waste

Refuse receptacles will be stored away from pedestrian view and buffered with the use of landscaping and fencing.

Outdoor storage

Outdoor storage will be minimized and not be visible by the street level pedestrian. Storage will be located between or behind buildings and designed in an unobtrusive manner.

Environmental Sustainability

Landscaping will be encouraged to be designed as a rain water management tool and impervious surfaces will be minimized. Additionally, green roofs are encouraged as a viable rain water management option. Lifestyle improvements such as end of trip facilities (lockers and shower), bike racks and outdoor amenity spaces will be encouraged in all industrial developments.

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 10 industrial Development Permit Guidelines-April 2010

101

Sections 879 and - 881 referrals

When an amendment is proposed to an Official Community Plan, the District of Mission will refer the proposed amendment to the organizations listed below following first reading of the bylaw, subject to provisions set out in Council policy LAN. 47 Official Community Plan Referral. The organizations identified in the policy are as follows:

• Fraser Valley Regional District; • District of Maple Ridge; • City of Abbotsford; • First Nations; • School District No.75; • Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection; • Fraser Health Region; • Ministry of Transportation; • Department of Fisheries and Oceans; • Land Reserve Commission, • Utility Companies; and the • Canadian Pacific Railway.

In accordance with the provisions of the policy, Council. is to consider the requirement to make referrals on a case-by-case basis and adopt a resolution to clarify that the referral requirements have been considered. Considering the referral criteria detailed in the LAN 47 policy, the only referral needed for this bylaw amendment is to the District of Mission School District No. 75. While it could be said that adjacent municipalities could be affected by an OCP text amendment generally, this proposed bylaw amendment in this case relates to form and character of industrial land use designations, none of which are over lands situated adjacent to neighbouring municipal boundaries.

Recommendation

The industrial development permit area guidelines will improve the form and character of industrial development within the District of Mission; accordingly, planning staff recommends inclusion of the industrial development permit guidelines, attached as Schedule A,' be inserted into the OCP. As staff, developers and Council familiarize themselves with the guidelines, a delegation of authority bylaw will be forwarded to Council for consideration to streamline Industrial development applications.

Erik Wilhelm, Planner



G:\COMDEV\ERIK\Working Policy Planning Staff Reports\Industrial Development DPG Staff Report,doc

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OF 10 Industrial Development Permit Guidelines-April 2010

102

Schedule A

Area K - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA

1. Category

• 919.1(1)(f) of the Local Government Act (form and character of industrial development)

2. Intent

To achieve a high quality built form for industrial development within the District of Mission. The Industrial Development Permit Area promotes development design that meets the needs of industry through attractive design. The site design, aesthetic improvements and building form will not compromise the function of industrial developments. The Industrial Development Permit Area establishes guidelines for the general form and character of future industrial developments and expansion of existing developments within industrial areas.

3. Objectives

• To encourage a high visual design and functional standard of industrial development.

• To improve the street level appearance of industrial development and encourage business facade recognition,

• To create industrial developments oriented to pedestrians while maintaining efficient vehicle access.

• To incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles to provide a safe industrial environment.

• To minimize the overall impact of new industrial developments on adjacent industrial and non-industrial uses.

• To incorporate rainwater management techniques to maximize onsite rainwater retention.

4. Applicability

The Industrial Development Permit Area is identified as all areas designated Industrial on OCP Map 1.

5. Guidelines

Site Design and Planning

Buildings on corner sites should front both street edges. These buildings should strongly define the corner and exhibit visually prominent 'landmark' architecture.

Buildings on corner sites should also be oriented to the street and locate the office/showroom component to the forefront or corner of the building with facades that are easily identifiable and visible from streets.

Overhead service doors and loading bays should be located at the interior or rear of buildings and should not face a street. Service doors should be designed to fit with the overall design of the building.

Most parking should not directly front onto streets and should be located at the interior or rear of the development. All parking readily visible from the roadway should be buffered visually by berms, vegetation or low-rise rockwork walls.


103

Mature trees, shrubs, berms and landscaping should provide inviting entrance and be utilized to screen large blank walls

`Active' ground levels, with public uses, should face the street and be finished with prominent facade treatment and glazed windows

All buildings should front the roadway and all corner structures should exhibit visually prominent architecture

Parking lots, loading areas and outdoor storage areas should be located behind or between buildings

Limit parking between buildings and streets; all parking facing streets should be significantly buffered

All development should provide a street presence with entrances and architectural interest in building designs fronting public streets.

Fundamental design and site planning ideas are summarized in the

following standard illustration:


All buildings shall provide an appealing visual appearance using high quality materials, tin or metal buildings will be discouraged in Urban Industrial areas.

Roof edge designs should incorporate varying architectural treatments, articulation, elevations, textures, colours and improvements.

Design consideration must create an appealing visual relationship between buildings and streetscape. Specific design consideration should also extend to the Mission Bridge, all highway bypass traffic, trails and commuter rail

Rooftops should demonstrate varying elevations, treatments and colour

104

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 5 OF 10 Industrial Development Permit Guidelines-April 2010

Where appropriate, all buildings should provide impression of two stories with the use of spandrel glass

Rooftop appurtenances should be visually buffered with lattice work or vegetation

Service bays and loading docks should be recessed while incorporating varying rooflines interest to create architectural

Streetside signage for multitenant buildings should be uniform and architecturally coordinated with the building

viewscape corridors.

Single story construction is not encouraged on public street frontages.

All remaining frontage space not utilized by the public should be treated with architectural and/or landscaping features to maintain a definite and attractive street edge.

Building faces that front streets and corner locations should be developed with 'active' ground floors to create a positive

public image and identifiable businesses, while promoting a more pedestrian friendly streetscape.

Extended blank walls along streets should be avoided; exposed surfaces of buildings are encouraged to be finished with murals, painted grooves or dyed concrete block with varied textures and colours to improve blank wall surfaces.

Main building entries should be located and designed to be clearly identified from streets and entry driveways. Include glazing as a major component of street-facing facades.

105

Rooftop appurtenances such mechanical units, venting, air conditions, rooftop heaters, satellite dishes etc. should be grouped and buffered, to reduce noise and visual intrusion to reduce the visual impact from surrounding uses. The use of lattice work, vegetation or combination thereof is encouraged. A sufficient perimeter around objects should be given for maintenance purposes.

Manufactured mobile structures are not deemed as an appropriate building form.

Service areas, bay doors, loading docks should be recessed to minimize visual impact as well as conflicts with pedestrians.


External lighting should be used to enhance safety of persons on the site after dark.

Pedestrian lighting is encouraged along all pedestrian pathways.

Lighting should be designed so as to have no direct source of light visible from the street or adjacent property. Care should be taken to ensure that lighting glare does not pose a nuisance to pedestrians or motorists.

External and signage lighting should utilize Light-Emitting Diode (LED) technology where appropriate.

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 6 OF 10 industrial Development Permit Guidelines-April 2010

Landscaping can be incorporated as part of the onsite rain water management system

Up lighting and down lighting is supported to enhance the architectural features of the building.

Signage is to be architecturally co-ordinated with the overall design of the building and should be integrated with the building facade through colour and graphic style.

In multiple tenant buildings signs should be designed to present a unified appearance and should not significantly differentiate in size.

Non-illuminated or directly and indirectly illuminated projecting signs are encouraged to protrude perpendicularly from the façade wall of multi tenant buildings,

Landscaping

Appropriate entrance design and attractive site landscaping at the perimeter of the site, especially at the front and toward adjacent streets, should form an integral part of the site development design.

Frontage of lots will be encouraged to maintain a landscaped area that utilizes street trees, flowering shrubs and landscaped berms. A defined and attractive street edge should be the goal of all landscaping along public streets.

Larger industrial projects and all prominent corner projects should incorporate useable public and private open space, or 'gathering' areas, into their landscaping designs. The use of high quality landscaping and functional (seating friendly) cement/rockwork is encouraged to be incorporated within the streetside landscaping.

All planted shrubs used for landscaping should incorporate mature, low growing and weather resistant species. The extensive use of bark mulch without plantings should be minimized.

All vegetation used for landscaping should compliment a building's architectural features.

Landscaping should screen parking areas and outdoor storage from street view with the use of vegetation, berms and low-rise rockwork walls.

Where applicable, trees and landscaping should be used to buffer interior parking from any barren walls of pre-existing neighbouring industrial buildings

Vegetation or trees should not impede vehicular sight distances from entrance and exit points.

To limit required maintenance, all landscaping should incorporate native plants and/or drought resistant species and utilize xeri-scape principles. Where practical, the use of evergreen and colourful deciduous plantings should be employed to promote seasonal greenery.

In order to encourage energy efficiency and conservation, all trees utilized, at mature height, should not impede winter daylight into buildings and provide shade in summer.

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 'r OF 10 Industrial Development Permit Guidelines-April 2010

106

Strategic use of permeable pavers is encouraged throughout parking areas

Parking & Loading Areas

Loading facilities should be located away from public streets and into the interior or rear of a site.

The majority of parking and all loading areas should be located between or to the rear of buildings, with access from internal circulation of the site.

The strategic use of permeable parking pavers at entrances and pedestrian corridors is encouraged to improve surface drainage and to create visual interest within parking areas.

Surface area parking should be divided into smaller sections to avoid a monotonous appearance. Intermittent use of landscaping strips, trees, building edges, pedestrian pathways and pavement treatment between parking stalls will enhance the visual appearance of elongated parking areas.

Parking areas adjacent to public roadways should provide low-level landscaped buffer between the parking and the public realm.

Parking areas should facilitate convenient and safe pedestrian access between building entrances, parked cars and sidewalks of adjoining streets. Features such as distinct paving should be incorporated where appropriate and pedestrian movement should be designed to avoid any obstruction by parked vehicles.

Crosswalks should be clearly designated through the use of pavement markings, stamped concrete, paving stones and signage where appropriate.

Where appropriate, use of pavement markings, stamped concrete and paving stones is encouraged

Universal Access

All parking allocated for mobility challenged people should be located as close as possible to the main entrance to the building.

All pedestrian pathways should be fully accessible to mobility challenged people, Sidewalks and pathways should be wide enough for wheelchairs and scooters and should include a tactile strip where appropriate. Gradual slope curb-cuts and curb let-downs should be provided in appropriate locations to facilitate safe, direct and convenient access from parking areas.

Waste and Recycling

Waste management facilities are to be completely screened by landscaping vegetation and/or wood fencing and/or by a constructed enclosure with similar features of the building for which it serves.

Refuse receptacles should be located indoors or within service areas out of view from pedestrian access. Garbage and waste material should be stored in containers that are weather and animal resistant,

Consideration should be given to provide access for large garbage collection vehicles during site design and waste facilities should be stored at the rear of buildings.

Waste management areas should provide room for recycling and composting


107

Where appropriate, bioretention areas should be incorporated into the landscaping and parking design

Recycling and compost containers should be provided as part of disposal area facilities. Accordingly, industrial facilities should provide an area applicable to at least four (4) conventional sized dumpsters to provide for recycling and compost containers.

Outdoor Storage

Outdoor storage areas are encouraged to be located at the rear or side of the building, and designed in an unobtrusive manner.

Outdoor storage is encouraged to be minimized, and where present, be visually buffered by landscaped berms, trees and substantial site landscaping.

Security lighting of outdoor storage areas is not to illuminate adjacent or nearby properties to intensity greater than existing street lights adjacent to nearby impacted sites.

Privacy slates may be utilized as screening alternatives provided they are similar in colour to the building's façade.

Environmental Sustainability Design Principals

Rainwater Management;

New developments are encouraged to maintain pre-development rainwater runoff conditions where landscaping should be included as part of the onsite rainwater management system.

Techniques such as:

• bioretention areas,

■ rain gardens,

■ infiltration trenches,

• vegetated swales,

■ directing rainwater from drain pipes into

vegetated areas, or

rain barrels for irrigation use later,

• pervious paving materials, and

■ green roofs

are all encouraged to be incorporated as part of the overall design of the site and buildings.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction:

Developments are encouraged to provide end-of-trip facilities such as showers and lockers within the development for the convenience of employees.

All buildings should provide exterior bike lock apparatuses and secure indoor bike storage for employees.

Interior office, public or display areas should have a southern orientation with ample windows for natural light.


108

For industrial developments with multiple tenancies, outdoor amenity spaces with lunch benches and southern exposure located near the street are encouraged for the convenience of employees.

5. Exemption

A development proposing to construct a new building(s) or an addition to an existing building(s) less than 111.5 sq. m. and existing signage alterations will be evaluated by staff 'in-house' to ensure consistence with the intent of Development Permit Area Guidelines and will be exempt from requiring a Development Permit.

109


Mission

' to#000

ON THE FRASER,


110

FILE. PRODEV.ZON R10-013


From: Planner

Date: January 24, 2011

Subject: Third Reading Report (R10-013) District of Mission Industrial Development Permit Guidelines

Recommendation

1. That Official Community Plan Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) be further amended by inserting the following text within the proposed Industrial Development Permit Guidelines, before the `Exemption' heading:

"Sustainability Initiatives

All industrial proposals must submit a sustainability statement which provides an overview of sustainability initiatives incorporated within the development. Items to be addressed within the statement must be verifiable and relate specifically to:

• Rainwater Management (Impervious Surface Reduction, green roof treatment, rain barrels or cisterns, etc.)

• Recycling and Composting Facilities

• Water Use Reduction (Low consumption fixtures, grey water systems, rainwater recycling, water efficient landscaping etc.)

• Energy Efficiency (High performance envelopes, low energy consumption appliances, passive solar gain, renewable energy systems or pre plumbing for solar panels etc.)

• Materials and Resources (Locally obtained building materials, recycled content, construction waste management etc.)

• Social Sustainability (End of trip facilities, bike storage, landscaped gathering places, light pollution reduction etc.)"

2. That Official Community Plan Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) be forwarded to a Public Hearing on February 28, 2011, given that new information and requirements will form part of the bylaw.

3. That planning staff be instructed to modify LAN. 41 "Guide to Land Development" to require all industrial development applicants to submit a "Sustainability Statement" with all Development Permit, Industrial Temporary Use Permit and Rezoning applications.

Background

Council received a report from the planning department on April 19, 2010 (Schedule 'A') which proposed to incorporate improved `form and character' development permit area guidelines for

PAGE 1 OF 15

industrial developments within the OCP. The OCP amending bylaw was provided 1st reading and forwarded to Public Hearing on May 25, 2010; whereby, Council and, residents raised a number of questions related to guideline text ambiguities.

Planning Analysis

The majority of questions were not related to the 'form and character' and site planning guidelines put forward by staff; rather, comments were mainly focused on overall environmental concerns and issues associated to rainwater management. The issues raised are summarized below and have been extracted from the minutes of the May 25, 2010 Public Hearing:

Impervious Paving

Council wished to incorporate stronger language within the development permit guidelines in order to ensure that all new industrial developments utilize permeable paving materials.

'Form and character' development permit guidelines are implemented within the OCP to direct developers as to what type of development is envisioned within a community. These same guidelines also assist Council and to staff assess development projects and whether the development proposal meets or exceeds the development permit area guidelines. Guidelines purposefully do not use prescriptive words or regulatory language, such 'must' or 'require'; rather, guidelines often utilize words like 'should' and 'encourage' in their place. Language that is more advisable than obligatory within the development permit guidelines will provide the developer, staff and Council flexibility in the application of the guidelines.

Upon instruction from Council, planning staff can readily insert prescriptive words throughout the industrial development permit area guidelines. However, if a certain development cannot meet all the prescribed requirements, a development proposal would have to be denied or necessitate an OCP amendment. Compulsory requirements may not be feasible on all development sites due to physical or economic reasons. As compulsory language would provide inflexibility in the application of the development permit guidelines, planning staff recommends that the proposed 'advisory' language remain unchanged.

It must be noted that planning staff currently works with developers to redesign facades, alter landscape plans, and encourage sustainable building technologies in order to minimize any environmental impacts and decrease each development's 'ecological footprint'.

Environmental Focus

Council also expressed a desire for a stronger environmental focus within the guidelines. Planning staff have already incorporated a number of environmental sustainability design principals into the proposed development permit guidelines which mainly address rainwater management, recycling and landscaping. Planning staff suggest that the proposed advisory guideline language remain unchanged; however, in an effort to ensure all developments incorporate sustainable design principals, planning staff suggest that a "Sustainability Statement' be submitted by all developers. This statement must outline all sustainability initiatives that will be incorporated within a development proposal. All improvements must be verifiable to the planning and building departments and must address:




111




• Social Sustainability (End of trip facilities, bike storage, landscaped gathering places, light pollution reduction etc.)

The proposed "Sustainability Statement", which will be required by the developer as part of a development application, is presented in Appendix 1. The sustainability statement will offer the developer and staff flexibility while still effectively gauging a development's sustainability initiatives. This sustainability statement will be required at the beginning of the development process and may be used to determine whether the proposal has incorporated fundamental improvements that provide a more sustainable development.

It is also noted that this type of sustainability statement may be extended to all types of development (commercial, multi-family, compact residential) to better consider the environmental effects of various developments. Eventually environmental services, with the assistance of the planning department, will put forward a "Sustainability Checklist" for Council's consideration. As an initiative outlined within the OCP, the "Sustainability Checklist" will effectually allow staff and Council to score major developments on all aspects of environmental standards (materials, permeability, land use, density etc.).

Recommendation

Planning staff recommends that advisory text within the industrial development permit guidelines remain unchanged; yet amend guideline text which will require developers to submit a sustainability statement with all industrial development applications. The guidelines will ultimately provide developers, planning staff and Council flexibility in the application of the industrial development permit guidelines and incorporate sustainability initiatives within all future industrial developments.

Erik Wilhelm

Planner G:\COMDEVERIK1Working Policy Planning Staff Reports■DPG_Follow-Up January_24, 2011.doc


112

Schedule 'A' Copy of Initial Staff Report April 19, 2010

Mission

ON THE FRASER




From: Planner


Subject: Industrial Development Permit Area Guidelines — OCP Amendment

Recommendation






that the bylaws be considered for 1st reading at the Regular Council Meeting on April 19, 2010; and




3. That in accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has considered District of Mission Official Community Plan amending bylaws in conjunction with the District

1 1 3

PAGE 4 OF 15

of Mission's Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan) and Waste Management Plan.

Purpose of Proposal

To incorporate new Industrial Development Permit Guidelines into the OCP in order to improve the streetscape and built environment within industrial areas of Mission.

Background



The development permit area guidelines are attached as Schedule A. The design guidelines were created with the input of Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services Staff. The guidelines cover a wide range of form and character aspects that will provide for improved industrial development within Mission. All new industrial development will have to adhere to the guidelines in order to allow approval from Council and aid planning staff in the assessment of development proposals. Additionally, the improved guidelines will allow developers and designers to have a clear understating of industrial development requirements in Mission. The following provides an overview of design elements that will be included within the OCP:

Site Planning

Improved diagrams and text will encourage all buildings to be oriented to the street and to buffer loading, parking and unsightly areas through site design. Visually prominent street corners have been identified and will require 'gateway' landscaping and fagade design to anchor the corners.




Improved lighting guidelines will encourage lighting of architectural features while limiting the 'light pollution' or glare from industrial developments. Simplified signage guidelines will create uniformity of development and provide for more streamlined and modernized signage.

Landscaping



114

Parking and Loading

The majority of parking and all loading facilities will not front roadways and will be buffered from the streetscape. Improved site planning and buffering provisions will provide for better industrial development.

Universal Access

Guidelines will improve universal access and safety for mobility challenged persons,

Waste


Outdoor storage




Sections 879 and 881 referrals



In accordance with the provisions of the policy, Council is to consider the requirement to make referrals on a case-by-case basis and adopt a resolution to clarify that the referral requirements have been considered. Considering the referral criteria detailed in the LAN 47 policy, the only referral needed for this bylaw amendment is to the District of Mission School District No. 75.


115

While it could be said that adjacent municipalities could be affected by an OCP text amendment generally, this proposed bylaw amendment in this case relates to form and character of industrial land use designations, none of which are over lands situated adjacent to neighbouring municipal boundaries.

Recommendation

The industrial development permit area guidelines will improve the form and character of industrial development within the District of Mission; accordingly, planning staff recommends inclusion of the industrial development permit guidelines, attached as Schedule A, be inserted into the OCP. As staff, developers and Council familiarize themselves with the guidelines, a delegation of authority bylaw will be forwarded to Council for consideration to streamline Industrial development applications.

Erik Wilhelm, Planner.



G:\COMDEV\ERIK1Working Policy Planning Staff Reports \Industrial Development DPG Staff Report.doc

116


Schedule A


1. Category


2. Intent


3. Objectives


• To improve the street level appearance of industrial development and encourage business façade recognition.





4. Applicability

The Industrial Development Permit Area is identified as all areas designated Industrial on OCP Map 1

5. Guidelines



Buildings on corner sites should also be oriented to the street and locate the office/showroom component to the forefront or corner of the building with facades that are easily identifiable and visible from streets.


117




Parking lots, loading areas and outdoor storage areas should be located behind or between buildings








118

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 9 OF 15 R10-013






119


Design consideration must create an appealing visual relationship between buildings and streetscape. Specific design

consideration should also extend to the Mission Bridge, all highway bypass traffic, trails and commuter rail viewscape corridors.



Building faces that front streets and corner locations should be developed with 'active' ground floors to create a positive public image and identifiable businesses, while promoting a more pedestrian friendly streetscape.


Main building entries should be located and designed to be dearly identified from streets and entry driveways. Include glazing as a major component of street-facing facades.













Signage is to be architecturally co-ordinated with the overall design of the building and should be integrated with the building facade through colour and graphic style.


Non-illuminated or directly and indirectly illuminated projecting signs are encouraged to protrude perpendicularly from the facade wall of multi tenant buildings.

Landscaping







FILE PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 11 OF 15 R10-013

120


Where appropriate, use qfpavement markings, stamped concrete and paving stones is encouraged




In order to encourage energy efficiency and conservation, all trees utilized, at mature height, should not impede winter daylight into buildings and provide shade in summer. •









Universal Access


All pedestrian pathways should be fully accessible to mobility challenged people. Sidewalks and pathways should be wide enough for wheelchairs and scooters and should include a tactile strip where appropriate. Gradual slope curb-cuts and curb let-downs should be provided in appropriate locations to facilitate safe, direct and convenient access from parking areas.


121


Waste and Recycling


Refuse receptacles should be located indoors or within service areas out of view from pedestrian access. Garbage and waste material should be stored in containers that are weather and animal resistant.

122




Outdoor Storage



Security lighting of outdoor storage areas is not to illuminate Privacy slates may be utilized as screening adjacent or nearby properties to intensity greater than alternatives provided they are similar in existing street lights adjacent to nearby impacted sites. colour to the building's facade.


Rainwater Management:


Techniques such as:

• bioretention areas,

• rain gardens,

• infiltration trenches,

• vegetated swales,

• directing rainwater from drain pipes into


• vegetated areas, or

• rain barrels for irrigation use later,

• pervious paving materials, and

• green roofs







5. Exemption


123

FILE: PRODEV.ZON PAGE 14 OF 15 R10-013

Appendix 1 Sustainability Statement

ON THE FRASER Sustainability Statement

Industrial Development

Introduction

The purpose of this sustainability statement is to identify and evaluate attributes of an industrial development prior to consideration by District of Mission staff and Council. The District of Mission uses the sustainability statement to clearly identify the environmental initiatives proposed within an industrial development. As a benefit to the developer, the sustainability statement consolidates information early in the design process and provides the developer's designers, architects and engineers an opportunity to showcase the environmental initiatives undertaken by each industrial development.

Required Information

Please provide information that relates to the various points below. All claims must be provided for within the building elevations, site plans or engineer's drawings and must be submitted prior to Council consideration. This sustainability statement must be completed by a professional engineer or architect and all aspects of the sustainability statement will be ensured through the building permit process. Although all industrial buildings within the District of Mission are not required to be LEED certified, the LEED Canada Project Checklist provides an extensive list of environmental initiatives that should be undertaken within your development proposal. The list below may be expanded depending on your development proposal and should be provided upon company letterhead as part of your development submission package.







FILE PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 15 OF 15 R10-013

124

125

MisISTsiel'i - ON THE FRASER

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON R1O-013

Nanning Department Memorandum


From: Planner

Date: January 24, 2011

Subject: Third Reading Report (R10-013) District of Mission Industrial Development Permit Guidelines

Recommendation

1. That Official Community Plan Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) be further amended by inserting the following text within the proposed Industrial Development Permit Guidelines, before the 'Exemption' heading:

"Sustainability Initiatives

All industrial proposals must submit a sustainability statement which provides an overview of sustainability initiatives incorporated within the development. Items to be addressed within the statement must be verifiable and relate specifically to:






• Social Sustainability (End of trip facilities, bike storage, landscaped gathering places, light pollution reduction etc.)"

2. That Official Community Plan Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) be forwarded to a Public Hearing on February 28, 2011, given that new information and requirements will form part of the bylaw.

3. That planning staff be instructed to modify LAN. 41 "Guide to Land Development" to require all industrial development applicants to submit a "Sustainability Statement" with all Development Permit, Industrial Temporary Use Permit and Rezoning applications.

Background

Council received a report from the planning department on April 19, 2010 (Schedule 'A') which proposed to incorporate improved 'form and character' development permit area guidelines for

PAGE 1 OF 15

industrial developments within the OCR The OCP amending bylaw was provided 1st reading and forwarded to Public Hearing on May 25, 2010; whereby, Council and residents raised a number of questions related to guideline text ambiguities.

Planning Analysis

The majority of questions were not related to the 'form and character' and site planning guidelines put forward by staff; rather, comments were mainly focused on overall environmental concerns and issues associated to rainwater management. The issues raised are summarized below and have been extracted from the minutes of the May 25, 2010 Public Hearing:

Impervious Paving

Council wished to incorporate stronger language within the development permit guidelines in order to ensure that all new industrial developments utilize permeable paving materials.

`Form and character' development permit guidelines are implemented within the OCP to direct developers as to what type of development is envisioned within a community. These same guidelines also assist Council and to staff assess development projects and whether the development proposal meets or exceeds the development permit area guidelines. Guidelines purposefully do not use prescriptive words or regulatory languaje;IUW5Tuie- or 'require'; rather, guidelines often utilize words like 'should' and `encourage' in their place. Language that is more advisable than obligatory within the development permit guidelines will provide the developer, staff and Council flexibility in the application of the guidelines.

Upon instruction from Council, planning staff can readily insert prescriptive words throughout the industrial development permit area guidelines. However, if a certain development cannot meet all the prescribed requirements, a development proposal would have to be denied or necessitate an OCP amendment. Compulsory requirements may not be feasible on all development sites due to physical or economic reasons. As compulsory language would provide inflexibility in the application of the development permit guidelines, planning staff recommends that the proposed 'advisory' language remain unchanged.

It must be noted that planning staff currently works with developers to redesign facades, alter landscape plans, and encourage sustainable building technologies in order to minimize any environmental impacts and decrease each development's 'ecological footprint'.

Environmental Focus

Council also expressed a desire for a stronger environmental focus within the guidelines. Planning staff have already incorporated a number of environmental sustainability design principals into the proposed development permit guidelines which mainly address rainwater management, recycling and landscaping. Planning staff suggest that the proposed advisory guideline language remain unchanged; however, in an effort to ensure all developments incorporate sustainable design principals, planning staff suggest that a "Sustainability Statement' be submitted by all developers. This statement must outline all sustainability initiatives that will be incorporated within a development proposal. All improvements must be verifiable to the planning and building departments and must address:




126


• Energy Efficiency (High performance envelopes, low energy consumption appliances, passive solar gain, renewable energy systems or pre plurhbing for solar panels etc.)



The proposed "Sustainability Statement", which will be required by the developer as part of a development application, is presented in Appendix 1. The sustainability statement will offer the developer and staff flexibility while still effectively gauging a development's sustainability initiatives. This sustainability statement will be required at the beginning of the development process and may be used to determine whether the proposal has incorporated fundamental improvements that provide a more sustainable development.

It is also noted that this type of sustainability statement may be extended to all types of development (commercial, multi-family, compact residential) to better consider the environmental effects of various developments. Eventually environmental services, with the assistance of the planning department, will put forward a "Sustainability Checklist" for Council's consideration. As an initiative outlined within the OCP, the "Sustainability Checklist" will effectually allow staff and Council to score major developments on all aspects of environmental standards (materials, permeability, land use, density etc.).

Recommendation

Planning staff recommends that advisory text within the industrial development permit guidelines remain unchanged; yet amend guideline text which will require developers to submit a sustainability statement with all industrial development applications. The guidelines will ultimately provide developers, planning staff and Council flexibility in the application of the industrial development permit guidelines and incorporate sustainability initiatives within all future industrial developments.

Erik Wilhelm

Planner Ge\COMDEV\ERIK\Working Policy Planning Staff Reports\DPG_Follow-Up_January_24, 2011.doc


127

Schedule 'A'

Copy of Initial Staff Report April 19, 2010

/030., MDISTRICT OF

4, ON THE FRASER




From: Planner


Subject: Industrial Development Permit Area Guidelines — OCP Amendment

Recommendation






that the bylaws be considered for 1st reading at the Regular Council Meeting on April 19, 2010; and




3. That in accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has considered District of Mission Official Community Plan amending bylaws in conjunction with the District

128

PAGE 4 OF 15

of Mission's Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan) and Waste Management Plan.

Purpose of Proposal

To incorporate new Industrial Development Permit Guidelines into the OCP in order to improve the streetscape and built environment within industrial areas of Mission.

Background



The development permit area guidelines are attached as Schedule A. The design guidelines were created with the input of Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services Staff. The guidelines cover a wide range of form and character aspects that will provide for improved industrial development within Mission. All new industrial development will have to adhere to the guidelines in order to allow approval from Council and aid planning staff in the assessment of development proposals. Additionally, the improved guidelines will allow developers and designers to have a clear understating of industrial development requirements in Mission. The following provides an overview of design elements that will be included within the OCP:

Site Planning

Improved diagrams and text will encourage all buildings to be oriented to the street and to buffer loading, parking and unsightly areas through site design. Visually prominent street corners have been identified and will require 'gateway' landscaping and façade design to anchor the corners.




Improved lighting guidelines will encourage lighting of architectural features while limiting the `light pollution' or glare from industrial developments. Simplified signage guidelines will create uniformity of development and provide for more streamlined and modernized signage.

Landscaping



129

Parking and Loading

The majority of parking and all loading facilities will not front roadways and will be buffered from the streetscape. Improved site planning and buffering provisions will provide for better industrial development.

Universal Access

Guidelines will improve universal access and safety for mobility challenged persons.

Waste


Outdoor storage




Sections 879 and 881 referrals



In accordance with the provisions of the policy, Council is to consider the requirement to make referrals on a case-by-case basis and adopt a resolution to clarify that the referral requirements have been considered. Considering the referral criteria detailed in the LAN 47 policy, the only referral needed for this bylaw amendment is to the District of Mission School District No. 75.


130

While it could be said that adjacent municipalities could be affected by an OCP text amendment generally, this proposed bylaw amendment in this case relates to form and character of industrial land use designations, none of which are over lands situated adjacent to neighbouring municipal boundaries.

Recommendation

The industrial development permit area guidelines will improve the form and character of industrial development within the District of Mission; accordingly, planning staff recommends inclusion of the industrial development permit guidelines, attached as Schedule A, be inserted into the OCP. As staff, developers and Council familiarize themselves with the guidelines, a delegation of authority bylaw will be forwarded to Council for consideration to streamline Industrial development applications.

Erik Wilhelm, Planner



GACOMDEVERIK\Working Policy Planning Staff Reports\Industrial Development DPG Staff Report doc

131


Schedule A


1. Category


2. Intent


3. Objectives


• To improve the street level appearance of industrial development and encourage business façade recognition.





4. Applicability

The Industrial Development Permit Area is identified as all areas designated Industrial on OCP Map 1.

5. Guidelines



`Buildings on corner sites should also be oriented to the street and locate the office/showroom component to the forefront or corner of the building with facades that are easily identifiable and visible from streets.


132




Parking lots, loading areas and outdoor storage areas should be located behind or between buildings '








133

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 9 OF 15 R10-013


134


Design consideration must create an appealing visual relationship between buildings and streetscape. Specific design

consideration should also extend to the Mission Bridge, all highway bypass traffic, trails and commuter rail viewscape corridors.



Building faces that front streets and corner locations should be developed with 'active' ground floors to create a positive public image and identifiable businesses, while promoting a more pedestrian friendly streetscape.


Main building entries should be located and designed to be clearly identified from streets and entry driveways. Include glazing as a major component of street-facing facades.















135



Signage is to be architecturally co-ordinated with the overall design of the building and should be integrated with the building façade through colour and graphic style.


Non-illuminated or directly and indirectly illuminated projecting signs are encouraged to protrude perpendicularly from the façade wall of multi tenant buildings.

Landscaping







FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

PAGE 11 OF 15 R10-013


Where appropriate, use of pavement markings, stamped concrete and paving stones is encouraged




In order to encourage energy efficiency and conservation, all trees utilized, at mature height, should not impede winter daylight into buildings and provide shade in summer.









Universal Access


All pedestrian pathways should be fully accessible to mobility challenged people. Sidewalks and pathways should be wide enough for wheelchairs and scooters and should include a tactile strip where appropriate. Gradual slope curb-cuts and curb let-downs should be provided in appropriate locations to facilitate safe, direct and convenient access from parking areas.


136



Waste and Recycling


Refuse receptacles should be located indoors or within service areas out of view from pedestrian access. Garbage and waste material should be stored in containers that are weather and animal resistant.

137



Outdoor Storage



Security lighting of outdoor storage areas is not to illuminate Privacy slates may be utilized as screening adjacent or nearby properties to intensity greater than alternatives provided they are similar in existing street lights adjacent to nearby impacted sites. colour to the building's façade.


Rainwater Management:


Techniques such as:

■ bioretention areas,

■ rain gardens,

■ infiltration trenches,

■ vegetated swales,

■ directing rainwater from drain pipes into


• vegetated areas, or

• rain barrels for irrigation use later,

■ pervious paving materials, and

■ green roofs







5. Exemption


138


Appendix I Sustainability Statement

MDISTRICT OF

lsslon ON THE FRASER

Industrial Development

Sustainability Statement

Introduction

The purpose of this sustainability statement is to identify and evaluate attributes of an industrial development prior to consideration by District of Mission staff and Council. The District of Mission uses the sustainability statement to clearly identify the environmental initiatives proposed within an industrial development. As a benefit to the developer, the sustainability statement consolidates information early in the design process and provides the developer's designers, architects and engineers an opportunity to showcase the environmental initiatives undertaken by each industrial development.

Required Information

Please provide information that relates to the various points below. All claims must be provided for within the building elevations, site plans or engineer's drawings and must be submitted prior to Council consideration. This sustainability statement must be completed by a professional engineer or architect and all aspects of the sustainability statement will be ensured through the building permit process. Although all industrial buildings within the District of Mission are not required to be LEED certified, the LEED Canada Project Checklist provides an extensive list of environmental initiatives that should be undertaken within your development proposal. The list below may be expanded depending on your development proposal and should be provided upon company letterhead as part of your development submission package.








139

SUBJECT PROPERTIES OffitRYJIVAG

Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on July 25, 2011

140

PH11/051 JULY 25/11

(i) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5222-2011-4052(14) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) — a bylaw to redesignate property at 8352 Cedar Street and 32821 and 32835 Janzen Avenue from Seniors Congregate to Apartments

(ii) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) — a bylaw to rezone property at 8352 Cedar Street and 32821 and 32835 Janzen Avenue from Suburban 36 Zone (S36) to Multiple Family 135 Apartment Zone (MA-135)

Dayle Reti, Senior Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5222-2011-4052(14), in the name of Mission Association for Seniors' Housing, which proposes to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan 4052-2008 by redesignating the following legally described properties:

Parcel Identifier: 008-043-604, Lot 44, Section 28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 26403

Parcel Identifier: 007-208-537, Lot 43, Section-28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 26403

Parcel Identifier: 011-431-750, Parcel "D" (Explanatory Plan 17245), Lot 5, Section 28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 9302

from Seniors Congregate to Apartment.

Ms. Reti also provided information regarding District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing), which proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the preceding legally described properties:

from the Suburban 36 (S36) zone to the Multiple Family 135 Apartment (MA-135) zone.

The Senior Planner stated that location of the subject properties is 8352 Cedar Street, 32821 Janzen Avenue and 32835 Janzen Avenue, as shown on the following map:

Ms. Reti explained that purpose of the proposed amendments is to accommodate a seniors' apartment building.

The Senior Planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior to adoption of the bylaw:

• Engineering Department requirements and Fire Department Requirements;

• Easements (access);

• Right of way for public access to the park; and

• Resolution of Development Permit details.

The Deputy Director of Corporate Administration stated that the following written correspondence was received regarding this application:

• Letter dated July 24, 2011 from residents of 32794, 32796, 32798, and 32800 Hood Avenue — opposed due to concerns about increased noise in the area.

• Email dated July 25, 2011 from Fortis BC — no objection to the proposed development

Ian Waters said that the Cedar Valley Seniors Housing Society is strongly in support of this development, noting that they donated two of the three lots to the Mission Association for Seniors' Housing for this project.

Abe Neufeld said that the Cedar Valley Mennonite Church congregation is very much in support of this project.

Don Lobb said he is in support of adding this type of affordable housing option for people in Mission and asked council to support it.

Judith Ray Commented that she thinks the noise impact on the surrounding area will be minimal, but assured council that the Mission Association for Seniors' Housing will take the concerns into consideration as the building and landscaping plans are developed. She commented that having seniors remain in Mission as they age will be a benefit to the community in terms of legacy.

Councillor Gidda asked for clarification about the location of access to the property.

The Senior Planner replied that the primary access will be off Cedar Street, but there will also be access via an easement from Cherry Avenue.

Councillor Gidda asked if the extra access from Cherry would cause problems with extra traffic.

Ms. Reti replied that the traffic impact study indicates that it will not.

Councillor Scudder asked what would be done to ensure maintenance of the building is kept up.

Judith Ray replied that there would be monthly fees assessed to residents to cover on-going maintenance costs, noting that re-lease fees would never increase more than 50% of the average property value increase for other properties in the area. She said that the aim is for the housing units to remain affordable for seniors.

Hearing no further questions or comments the acting mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending. Bylaw 5222-2011-4052(14) and District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) closed.

141

142

Mission ON THE FRASER


FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV R11-009/DP1I-006


From: Senior Planner

Date: July 4, 2011

Subject: Rezoning Application R11-009 & Development Permit Application DP11-006 (Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) - 8352 Cedar Street and 32821 Janzen Avenue & 32835 Janzen Avenue

Recommendation

1. That the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008 by re-designating the properties located at 8352 Cedar Street, 32821 Janzen Avenue and 32835 Janzen Avenue and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 008 043 604, Lot 44, Section 28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 26403


Parcel Identifier: 011 431 750, Parcel D (Explanatory Plan 17245) Lot 5, Section 28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 9302

from Seniors Congregate to Apartments.

2. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R11-009 (Mission Association for Seniors' Housing), the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the properties located at 8352 Cedar Street, 32821 Janzen Avenue and 32835 Janzen Avenue and legally described as:



Parcel Identifier: 011 431 750, Parcel D (Explanatory Plan 17245) Lot 5, Section 28, township 17, New Westminster District Plan 9302

from S36 zone (Suburban 36 Zone) to MA-135 zone (Multiple Family 135 Apartment Zone);

that the bylaws be considered for 1st reading at the Regular Council Meeting on July 4, 2011; and

that following such a reading, the bylaws be forwarded to a Public Hearing on July 25, 2011.

3. That upon due consideration of Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act, consultation referrals go forward to Telus, BC Hydro and Fortis.

4. That Development Permit Application DP11-006, in the name of Mission Association for Seniors' Housing, to provide conformity to the Official Community Plan guidelines respecting building form and character for a proposed apartment development on the properties located at 8352 Cedar Street, 32821 Janzen Avenue and 32835 Janzen Avenue be forwarded to Council for public input on July 25, 2011.

PAGE 1 OF 6

5. That the Community Amenity Contribution (LAN.40 — FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR COMMUNITY AMENITIES POLICY) not be applied to Rezoning Application R11-009 (8352 Cedar Street, 32821 Janzen Avenue and 32835 Janzen Avenue).


Background

An application has been received from Mission Association for Seniors' Housing (MASH), to rezone the properties located at 8352 Cedar Street, 32821 Janzen Avenue and 32835 Janzen Avenue from the S36 zone to the MA-135 zone and the subject site is shown on Map 1, The proposed development is for a 42 unit seniors' apartment and the property size is approximately 1 acre (.4 ha.) once the lots are consolidated.


The Official Community Plan designation for the site is Seniors Congregate and the applicant has requested an Official Community Plan change from Seniors Congregate to Apartment. This is due to the proposal having individual kitchens within the units rather than a congregate format, where, for example, meals are provided in a common dining room. Thus, this type of seniors' apartment development falls within the Apartment designation rather than the Seniors Congregate designation. It is noted that both designations result in similar densities.

Impact of Application under Section 882 of Local Government Act

The Local Government Act requires that when Council is considering adopting or amending an Official Community Plan, it must consider the implications of the change to the Official Community Plan on the District's:

• Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan); and

• Waste Management Plan,

Since the proposed development is part of an existing Waste Management route and development of this area is included in the current long-range plan, there is no impact to the Waste Management Plan.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed amendment will not have an adverse impact on the District's Financial Plan, which includes the Capital Expenditure Plan and Operation Expenditure Plan, and Waste Management Plan and accordingly, recommends that Council pass the above recommendation.

Zoning

The subject property is zoned S36, the Suburban 36 zone. The rezoning application is to rezone the property from the S36 zone (Suburban 36 zone) which allows single family home development to the MA-135 zone (Multiple Family 135 Apartment zone) which allows for apartment development.

FILE• PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 6 R11-009 and PRO.DEV.DEV. DP11-006

143

Neighbourhood Character

The neighbourhood character is a mixture of institutional, residential and commercial uses. Adjacent to the subject property is the Cedar Valley Mennonite church and single family houses, To the north is Albert McMahon Elementary School, to the east is Griner Park, to the west is the Cherry Hill Corner Store, single family houses, and two other churches (north-west) and to the south are also houses,

Housing Affordability and Accessibility

The applicant, MASH, has been instrumental in housing initiatives in Mission, including the Cedars seniors' housing located on Hurd Street. This apartment proposal for the subject property is also for the purpose of affordable seniors' housing and representatives of MASH have met with staff a number of times regarding the affordable and accessibility aspects of this proposal.

The form of tenure that MASH is proposing for the apartment units is life lease housing. Life lease housing is a cross between owning and renting. For details about life lease housing, please see the attached Appendix A. MASH is a non-profit organization and will own the building .and then lease out the units. In addition, it is noted that MASH plans to market the units at cost.

Accessibility/universal access is provided, firstly, in a general way in that apartment units are one floor of living space, unlike most townhouse units that have two or three floors. Secondly, in a more detailed.way, accessibility is provided in this development in the form of three units that are adaptable to full wheelchair accessibility at the time of construction or as retrofit in the future, depending on demand. It is noted that unit sizes range from approximately 700 square feet to 927 square feet.

Subdivision and Road Closure

The subdivision of the property involves the consolidation of the three parcels of land that are the subject properties of this rezoning application. Janzen Avenue is substandard due to road width and is utilized more as a driveway than a municipal road. Thus, MASH requested the closure of Janzen Avenue and the road closure process is proceeding. It is noted that when Janzen Avenue is closed, the land area (former road) is to be consolidated with the three parcels. It is also noted that an easement is required over the land area to provide access for the Cedar Valley Mennonite Church and a right-of-way for pedestrian access from Cedar Street to Griner Park. Representatives of the Cedar Valley Mennonite Church have also agreed to give an easement to MASH over their driveway from Cherry Avenue, thus providing a second access to the MASH site.

Internal Comments

The Engineering Rezoning Comments are attached and Fire Department comments are forthcoming.

A traffic impact assessment was provided by the applicant's engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department. A traffic impact assessment with amendments has since been requested by the Engineering Department.

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OF 6 R11-009 and PRO.DEV.DEV. DP11-006

144

Prior to consideration of adoption of the zone amendment bylaw, the Engineering Department requirements will need to be met and it is noted that all the engineering requirements have not been determined due to the need of further information from the applicant's engineer.

Time is of the essence for this much needed seniors' housing project and staff has determined to move forward with this application before all the engineering information has been received. It is noted that all the engineering requirements will be determined at a later date and will need to be resolved before consideration of adoption. It is also noted that the applicant is aware that engineering requirements will need to be met prior to consideration of adoption.

Staff believes that there is minimal risk to proceed further without all the engineering requirements being resolved at this time. This is an effort to move this application forward so that the applicant can market the development and secure the monies to pay for the engineering works and other development costs.

External Referrals

The only external referral for this application is to the utility companies of Telus, BC Hydro and Fortis BC.

Access and Parking

It is staff's understanding that access is to be from Cedar Street (right in and right out) and also from Cherry Avenue (over the Cedar Valley Mennonite Church property via an easement). As noted previously in this report, a traffic impact assessment with amendments has been requested by the Engineering Department to address the access details.

There are 42 parking spaces provided — one per apartment unit — and these parking spaces are underground (gated). This parking ratio is more than what is required for seniors' congregate housing, which would equal 32 parking spaces for 42 units but less than required under the multi-family apartment zone. Staff supports the one parking space per unit for this site because it is a seniors' apartment building and a seniors' building will generate less parking needs. There are also 8 visitor parking spaces provided at the front of the building adjacent to Janzen Avenue (Drawing A).

It is noted that there is ample parking on the adjacent church property and it is anticipated that if there are special events at the seniors' apartment this church parking may be able to be utilized by the seniors' guests (when there are no church services or events on-going). This agreement is to be more fully developed with the representatives of the Cedar Valley Mennonite Church.

Setbacks and Height

The setbacks all meet the zoning bylaw minimum of 7.5 metres (24.5 ft.) and the siting of the building is shown on Drawing A. The proposed apartment building is four storeys (with underground parking) and the height of the building is approximately 52 feet.


145

Indoor and Outdoor Amenity Space

There is indoor amenity space of approximately 135 square metres (1453 sq. ft.) provided in the form of an amenity room with kitchen facilities and a separate lounge area on the main floor and smaller lounge areas on the 2nd and 3rd floors. There is also a lobby that is approximately 66.8 square metres (720 sq. ft.).

The outdoor amenity space includes a common patio, sifting areas, pathways, garden plots, lawn and a gazebo. The total area equates to 2802 square metres (30,163 sq. ft). In addition, there are patios for units on the ground floor. It is noted that the indoor and outdoor amenity spaces exceed the zoning bylaw requirements.


"Consider incentives for seniors housing rezoning applications, on a case-specific basis, where community housing goals are being met" is Policy 2.5,13. of the Official Community Plan. The Mission Association for Seniors' Housing proposal for a seniors' apartment with a life lease housing tenure meets a community housing goal as determined by staff and through Mission's Affordable Housing Strategy. Therefore, an incentive as outlined below should be supported.

A letter from the Mission Association for Seniors' Housing requesting the waiving of the Community Amenity Contribution is attached as Appendix B. Please note that this request is in keeping with the same type of requests by other seniors' housing developments in the past such as both phases of Carrington House on 7th and 6th Avenues, the Cedars on Hurd Street, and Cedarbrooke Chateau (Kingsway Arms) on 7th Avenue. Those developments received Council support to waive the Community Amenity Contribution.

The current Community Amenity Contribution for multi-family developments is $2,815 per unit and therefore, a 42 unit apartment would equate to a waiver of $118,230.

The waiving of the Community Amenity Contribution will help keep the costs down for the development of the units. If the housing project costs less, then in turn, there is less cost to the seniors who would be leasing the units because MASH has advised that they will be marketing the apartment units at cost.

Staff supports the waiving of the Community Amenity Contribution for this rezoning application.

Development Permit Application DP11- 006 (Form and Character)

The building materials, colours and architectural design complements the neighbourhood character and existing landscape. The apartment building is four storeys with one level of underground parking. The style of the architecture is quite traditional in a general sense, with some "craftsman" touches. The architect's statement is as follows:

"The primary objective in the design was to reduce the perceived scale of the building, both in terms of length and height. This was achieved by avoiding long continuous facades through floor plan articulation, addition of bay windows and generous balconies. The perceived vertical scale of the building was reduced through the introduction of secondary roofs and porch-like elements at ground floor level, bay windows at second and third floors and use of colour differentiation and a variety of materials. Sloping roofs with expressed gables were also used to further reinforce the residential character and scale of the project".


146

Materials for the apartment building include hardi-plank lap siding, hardi-panel, and colour coated stucco, There is also wood trim and wood fascia boards included. In addition, the roof material is asphalt shingles. The elevation drawings are attached as Drawing B and Drawing C. Colours are dark taupe, beige, cream, off-white and a natural wood stain.

Landscaping

Attractive landscaping has been incorporated into the design of this multi-family development. Landscaping includes a variety of trees (dogwood and fir) and bushes (roses and hydrangea), and daylilies, bluebells, and groundcovers. They are retaining approximately 14 trees, removing 6 smaller trees due to health and location of the trees, and planting approximately 40 trees. Garden plots are being provided along with seating areas (benches), pathways around the apartment building and a common patio area. It is noted that a 6 foot high wood fence is along most of the east, north and west property lines. The landscaping plan is attached as Drawing D. The landscaping estimate is approximately $90,000.


In accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFO. PACKAGES, a package will be produced containing material related to the development application.


• Comments from Referrals regarding the proposed OCP amendment

• Engineering requirements

• Easements (for access) between MASH and the Cedar Valley Mennonite Church (Cedar Street and Cherry Avenue) and a right-of-way for pedestrian access to Griner Park

• Approval of Development Permit DP11-006 will be considered as part of the same Council agenda as the Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaws are considered.


In summary, staff recommends that the rezoning amendment, the Official Community Plan amendment, and the Development Permit proceed to Public Hearing and Public Input meeting on July 25, 2011.

Day e Reti SENIOR PLANNER


Kris :oland, Deputy Director of Finance

G:COMDEV/Dayle/C0Wrepori(MASH)Janzen&CedarR 11-009

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 6 OF 6 R11-007 and PRODEVDEV. DP11-004 and DP11-005

147

T 326 3270

32699 3270

32701 3271

3271

.32661- rn 03 CO

CO (33 C3) 423

co co c/3 ' c°

32707 32702

32713 32708

O vJ

wI G3 •-4 a) I a)

32688 -4 CD

32699

Z

PARK

co 32687 C)

C) 32699 co

rn TANAKA 32692

32704 8230

; to to 0,1 co

32707 32707 32702 2709 03

N3 NJ NJ

0 rn

rn 'Alf

_LS

3E1

32714 / fy

32709 1 ', 4". 32711

3272

32721 3272

32713 2715 32717 32712

32723 32726 327(

PARK 327'

32716 0,1-

W

32723 32724

32733 32734

32743

2723 Co

COUll

CO N3 CO CO

CO N3

CO

1 2727 32737 32738 32728 32731

32741

32751

32761

32769

32729 327;

FUJINO ST. 2731 32747 327", 32744

CO V • 1 °3 NJ

CO NJ ,

•

CO °3

CO • I") CO r.)

32750

32752

2741 32749 CO

O

NJ NJ NJ GT, (3')

327

327

327

32751 32750 2749 32755

32758 3276 32763 2755 NJ N3

▪

CO 03 -.I -4 NJ . NJ 03 m -4 • -.4 ▪ CO (0 I CO

03 h.

32758 rn CO

N3

CO N0

(33 NJ

CO O

CO NJ

NO NO

32777 32762 32759 32767

11-I Cal

03-4

CO 32770 rn 32783 32770 327 32769 32800

32801

32799

32776 32780 03

-4

CO

CO 113)

G3

co O

03

CO CS

co N.) ,

21 I

a) al CcoT

GO

32784 GO N3

CO 03

N3CO

8423 N.3

CO 01 32794

8185

CEDAR ST. CEDAR ST

32811 03 CO03 (3) CO 0) -4 03 0

CO

NJ 00 03 NJ

O t•i tri

la

N3 32821

32835

32839

N3

32836 32835 32832 D3

0) 32848 C

w m C)

-o 0

Cr)

m

841 NJ C33

rn

32834

32845 0

18183

/ 32857 8195

32877 8200 t::1 I oc,

32879 8202

Wco 8181

N3CO

03

N3 (11

3A

V (P

UZZ

) A

de:1

3HO

McINTYRE ST. oo Cn O

CO 00

O

(mid

AV

1S38

co Too

ST.

32909 32910 32908 Co NJ CO

03 N3

03 N3

Co

-4 Co

32918

32927

32933

32941

32957

32963

32971

32919 G3 N3

N3

32928 BOWYER DR.

cot"' 1 co rn

CO N3 32939 CO

01 N3

32944 C.11 03

, N3

CI) 57 c,, i 32966 0,

c~J v"), 32978 1-`

32982

32953 32952

32969

32959 32956 32955 56 32967 32960 32967 32968 62

to >a 32965 32977 32974 32973 (0

(0

8262 .74 32988


FILE: R11-009 June 29, 2011.

CIVIC ADDRESS: 8352 Cedar Street, 32821 & 32835 Janzen Avenue

That in accordance with the District of Mission Subdivision Control Bylaw No. 1500-1985, the Developer shall provide the following.

DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:

Municipal water is available on Cedar Street. The Developer shall provide to the District of MisSion the following information;

1. A pre servicing plan for the proposed development is required showing and supporting the following;

a) Water servicing requirements showing location, size, etc. In addition the Developer shall have their engineering consultant prove that the existing municipal water system has the capacity for providing adequate peak hour demand flows and maximum daily demand plus fire flow for this proposed land use.

SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:

Municipal sanitary sewer is available on Cedar Street/Avenue. The Developer shall provide to the District of Mission the following information;


a) Sanitary sewer servicing requirements showing location, size, etc. In addition the Developer shall have their engineering consultant prove that the existing municipal sanitary sewer system has the capacity for this proposed land use.

STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:

Municipal storm sewer is available on Cedar Street The Developer shall provide to the District of Mission the following information;


a) Storm sewer servicing requirements showing location, size, etc. In addition the Developer shall have their engineering consultant prove that the existing municipal storm sewer system has the capacity for this proposed land use.

b) Onsite Rain Water Management Plan meeting the objectives of the current Cedar Valley Area Storm Water Management Plan. For more information on this, their consultant should contact Hirod Gill at 604-820-3713.

149


ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:

The Traffic Impact Assessment that was submitted along with the application requires amendments to reflect the following;

a) Janzen Avenue will now be a private access. Traffic movement at this Cedar Street intersection shall be limited to only right in and right out movements.

b) In addition, D.C. Dean Associates Inc., need to be made aware of the existing Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development -Plan and the support guidelines document that has information regarding traffic assessment for this area. This information should be factored in and considered when preparing the traffic impact assessment this this proposed development. This report shall be submitted to the Engineering Depart for review.

c) Access for both onsite and offsite depending on the findings of the traffic impact assessment report for this proposed land use.

FEES:

"Note; Development Cost Charges will be collected at the building stage for this proposed development.

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT WATER MAIN TIE-INS To be determined WATER METER INSTALLATION To be determined SANITARY SERVICE CONNECTIONS To be determined STORM SERVICE CONNECTIONS To be determined TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE To be determined 100% CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT To be determined 5% ADMINISTRATION FEE To be determined HARMONIZED SALES TAX (HST) 12% To be determined

RECOMMENDATION

From an engineering point of view the rezoning application is NOT to proceed any further than third reading until the owner has provided all of the foregoing information, has volunteered to install all deficient works identified and is prepared to enter into a secured development agreement for the above mentioned services prior to adoption of the zoning amendment bylaw.

Salern.Abushawashi

150

Tony ci Deputy Director of Engineering neering Technologist

Apper)d/ >< A

terra lumina life lease inc.

151

Life Lease Housing

Life lease is a form of tenure that works very well for non-profit organizations that want to build and operate good quality housing for seniors in their communities.

Many people are unfamiliar with life lease housing although it has been around for 30 years in Canada. In Manitoba, where the first life lease housing project in Canada was built in the early 1980s, it is an extremely common form of tenure for 55+ consumers. In Saskatchewan, life lease housing is just as common as it is in Manitoba. There are fewer life lease projects in BC, although more and more are being developed every year. They have been very successful too—for example, the two Maple Ridge Legion life lease projects have waiting lists that are five to eight years long. Cascade Court, a life lease in Abbotsford, has more than 100 people on its waiting list

That is because of the high level of satisfaction among life lease residents. A recent report published by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation found that every one of the life lease residents involved in the study were extremely happy with their housing choice and would recommend life lease to their friends.

Basic Nature of Life Lease Housing

The basic nature of a life lease is that it is a cross between owning and renting. People buy their units and their leasehold interest is registered on title. Leases are 30 years less a day because leases under 30 years in BC are not subject to Property Transfer Tax. When people move out, they get their money back less a small deduction for refurbishing and remarketing. Ownership of the building remains with the not-for-profit organization. MASH has created a separate housing society to own and operate its life lease, the Cedar Valley Manor Life Lease Society.

Affordability

Once a unit is returned to the Society, the Society then resells the leasehold interest at no more than 50% of the increase that has occurred in the local housing market since the unit was bought initially. For example, if the unit was sold for $200,000 ten years ago and market values had increased by 50% over that time period (meaning a $200,000 condo would now be worth $300,000) the resale price of the life lease unit would only increase by 25%, to $250,000. Over time, the life lease units will become more and more affordable compared to the local housing market

Benefits to the Community

It is not just life lease residents who benefit from the creation of good quality affordable housing in their communities. The communities themselves benefit as well—housing units that are frequently occupied by one or two people can be freed up for new families, people who sell their houses and buy a less expensive life lease unit have more money to spend in the community, and the development of new and appealing housing units makes the community more attractive to prospective residents.

IRECE \TED MAR 2 9 2011

A-101

1, IWO. Ground Floor 1, 101Y

E

A DIrctuu 1!"1

5— / le_ Nee ri

Oleo i_awc

5111

1,3 77./. Or 17-177

VI 1 t

JANZENAVENUE 10028

ED

ARCHITECTS

777.7.'117 • 777.777,771

s.,.

Seniors Housing 32821 Jensen Aye, Mission, BC

xe.

emend Floor

/419p€711/X

MISSION ASSOCIATION FOR SENIORS HOUSING 7380 Hurd Street

Mission, BC V2V 3H5

March 28, 2011

Dayie Reti, Planner District of Mission Mission, BC

Dear Ms. Reti:

Re: Amenity Fees

The Mission Association of Seniors Housing (MASH) has submitted a Rezoning Application for a new project for affordable seniors housing.

We believe our life lease project will add a significant amenity to the community, increasing the options for seniors to remain in Mission, and potentially to attract some back who may have left due to such an option not being available to them earlier.

We also believe that seniors housing does not represent the same level of burden on the various municipal amenities that other forms of residential developments bring.

Therefore, we are requesting consideration for the waiving of the amenity fees for this project. Such a waiver will assist in increasing the affordability of the units since our plan is to market them at cost, and this will be one less cost we need to recover from the seniors.

153

Yours truly,

• • -

J,Udith Ray, President vBoard of Directors REC[EVED

MAR 2 9 2011

tela.rns

South Elevation 1, 100"

ARCHITECTS

Seniors Housing 32821 Janzen Ave, Missio, BC

Elevations

East Elevation 1, 107 West Elevation 1, 101Y 1002e

1,10, Ste.- A-201

East Elevation 1'‘= 100"

North Elevation 10'0r sto

ARCHITECTS

:417r,

kart

Seniors Housing 32021 Joraen Ave. Mission. BC

North Elevation Cross Section

10024 s a

-.- • A-202

gib.ropervaomfawlevaP.Oxfsfiet. mogetras.a....1.1.111.1. rag..

tot 111111111MM

srafel-41■Onitaeal.• ...r.6101111}1.016

,itoqeoaff aforn

FZ ASV -1/41111,"

nywancon-615.0,7, T151M

SENIOR'S HOUSING a2821 JANZEN AYE

MISSION S.C.

OIV#100171.

PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN

fl•flEIC

CIMMe Li Of

ammummumm 11-002

CY)

DMG ION

landSOMpe alttibldf

DOC ?guff, WOW, 1,0.

OMR 'cm OHM in.

District of Mission, BC€¦ · Created Date: 11/25/2011 10:06:54 AM

Documents

Transcript of District of Mission, BC€¦ · Created Date: 11/25/2011 10:06:54 AM