gh ncp 5a m i n u t e s date: october 20, 2009 · minutes ncp 5a cac meeting october 20 2009 page 1...

Action Codes 1. Item Complete - meet with appropriate staff and explain decision or direction. 5. Obtain further input/information and bring back. 2. Communicate through Corporate Report. 6. Discussion only - No further action required. 3. Responsible for Corporate communication. 7. Other (explain). 4. Policy Approved - Insert in Policy and Procedures Manual.

Minutes NCP 5A CAC Meeting October 20 2009 of 12

M I N U T E S

File: GH NCP 5A Date: October 20, 2009 Time: 5:30 PM Location: South Surrey Rec Ctr:

Multi-Purpose Rm 1

Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Grandview Heights NCP 5A

Attendees:

HB Lanarc Consultant Team Don Crockett Sebastian Lippa City of Surrey Team Catherina Lisiak, P&D Greg Mitchell, P&D Tamara Wallace, P&D Hernan Bello, P&D Heather Kamitakahara, P&D Philip Bellefontaine, Engineering May Phang, Engineering

Sorina Mirea, Engineering Stephen Godwin, Engineering Ted Uhrich, PRC

CAC Members Janice Pardy Atvar Mann Jagdev Gandham Ben Creigh

Hugh Carter Linda Sale Dr. Dale Brooks

Viance Dominelli Charlie James Stephen Watts Tim Baillie Rupert Bullock Rusty Ward Observers Ranjit Rai

Manjit Chatha Bahadar S. Sandhu

Absent:

CAC Members Maria Hong Firoz Punjani Dave Moffatt

Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting Grandview Heights NCP 5A October 20, 2009



1. Light Dinner – 5:30 pm to 6:00 pm. 2. Meeting commenced at 6:00 pm.

Three non-CAC members were in attendance. They were asked to leave but refused.

Tamara Wallace brought this to the attention of the CAC and asked the CAC to vote on whether or not the non-CAC members should be allowed to stay.

Some CAC members expressed concern and opposition to allowing non-CAC members to attend the meeting. The concerns expressed included fairness since other property owners and neighbours had asked if they could attend the CAC meeting and were informed that it was not a public meeting and for the committee members only.

The CAC voted in favour of letting the non-CAC members stay but not to take part in discussions and to act as observers only.

3. Overview of Revised Concept – Catherina Lisiak / Tamara Wallace

Catherina Lisiak started off the meeting with introductions, an overview of the agenda, an update on the plan and other relevant information such as the recently completed studies relevant to Grandview Heights NCP 5A.

Studies Completed

Grandview Heights Commercial Market Analysis (Coriolis Consulting)

A market study by Coriolis Consulting was completed for the entire Grandview Heights area.

Study concluded that because of Grandview Corners, the large commercial development at 24 Avenue and 160 Street, there are limited opportunities for additional commercial development within Grandview Heights.

The study indicated that there are opportunities for some local commercial areas. One of the areas identified for potential local commercial development is at 24 Avenue and 168 Street.

Placemaking and Public Space Guidelines (Project for Public Spaces)

Document on placemaking and guidelines on creating great public spaces.

Key to this area: there are opportunities for placemaking within the parks, mixed-use commercial core and movement networks.

Heritage

Two heritage studies were completed for the Grandview Heights area.

The site was originally a logging area. After the trees were logged, it became an agricultural area. Subsequently, it became a rural residential area.

The original owner of the NCP 5A site was Royal City Planing Mills Company (logging company).

No heritage buildings were identified in the NCP 5A neighbourhood. Studies did recommend the use of historical road names and/or pioneer family names.




There are also opportunities to preserve historical landscapes, such as remnant orchards, windbreak trees, and specimen trees.

Feedback on Concept Plans

We have received a lot of feedback on the plans. Feedback has been broken up into categories based on what people liked, what people didn’t like and grey areas (where there were conflicting opinions).

People liked the commercial mixed use areas, the 26 Avenue interface, the densities proposed, tree preservation and the habitat corridor.

People had concerns about the amount of parkland proposed, fair development potential, respect for existing residents on 25A Avenue who have indicated that they are not interested in developing, concerns that the north-south streets intersecting 24 Avenue are not necessary, and confusion about stormwater corridors.

Issues of differing opinions include park distribution, orchard preservation and traffic calming.

Concept Plans

Crescent Concept

We are not considering the Crescent Plan, as it would be very difficult to implement because it requires large land assemblies, does not follow existing property lines or a linear road pattern, and does not recognize the existing community on 25A Avenue.

Revised Plan based on Central Green Concept

Key components of the plan have been maintained.

Foundation: General Land Use Plan (GLUP)

There’s already been a lot of work done and Council has already approved a plan that gives us direction on how to proceed with this NCP.

The GLUP designates areas along 26 Avenue and 168 Street as “Transitional Suburban” in order to provide sensitive interfaces and density transitions. This plan needs to respect that as much as possible.

The GLUP also identifies major greenways and establishes a road network that needs to be incorporated in any proposed land use plan.

Wider Context

We already have approved neighbourhoods (Morgan Heights, NCP #1 and Stage 1 for Sunnyside, NCP #2) and a major commercial area – Grandview Corners. Both Morgan Heights andGrandview Corners are mostly constructed.

There is an approved mixed-use area within NCP #2 for the northeast corner of 168 Street and 24 Avenue.

Land Use and Density

Land Use Breakdown: ¼ single family, ¼ townhouse.




Associated infrastructure and community facilities are needed to support the proposed density.

The estimated population at build-out is 2,700 residents. Eight (8) acres of parkland is required to serve this population.

Land Use and Density Changes

Townhouses fronting stormwater corridors have been included to increase visibility and safety.

The edge options have been clarified.

The commercial area has been reconfigured.

Densities have been adjusted so that the highest densities are surrounding park and where we are going to have transit (along 24 Avenue).

Translink has announced that we are going to have a bus route at ½ hour frequency along 24 Avenue.

Tree Preservation on Townhouse and Multi-family sites

Different types of tree preservation are possible on townhouse and multi-family sites. It is possible to preserve some trees through site design. Treed areas then become amenity spaces.

Land Use and Density: Edge Options

There needs to be a sensitive interface to the large lots north of 26 Avenue and on the east side of 168 Street.

Duplexes are proposed along 26 Avenue. Catherina illustrated an example of a duplex in Rosemary Heights.

Along 168 Street, either single family (10 upa) or townhouses are proposed. There is some flexibility to do either a townhouse development with significant tree preservation, or a single family development with less tree preservation.

Street network

The central north-south road has been straightened. It follows the property lines to make it as even and fair as possible to the property owners.

167 Street has been changed to a “green street” to allow for a sensitive interface with the two adjacent parks and to allow for tree preservation. It is important that we have a different cross section for this road so we can retain more of the trees and make it a more pleasant park experience.

For the higher density areas, streets have been added to improve circulation and access to these sites.

Stormwater utility corridors

Stormwater corridors have been tightened through the central area of the plan and within the northwest corner of 26 Avenue and 164 Street.

A stormwater corridor was added on 25A Avenue. It will function as stormwater corridor and also as a landscape buffer.

Parks and Walkways




The large park has been relocated to be adjacent to highest density housing in order to increase safety by providing more “eyes on the park”.

Parks and greenways also function as habitat corridors.

Parks and greenways are important placemaking areas.

In areas where we anticipate people to be walking, amenity connectors with enhanced sidewalks have been added. These amenity connectors accommodate a higher pedestrian load.

Reminders

This is a draft plan and is subject to change.

Be respectful of other people’s views and opinions.

All handout material and the presentation will be available online.

If you don’t have an opportunity to express all your opinions tonight, please contact Catherina.

Questions

Q (Hugh Carter): Is incorporating stormwater features in park areas something to consider? This would allow for a more efficient use of land.

A (Don Crockett): What is shown here is likely sufficient, but it depends on targets for green water capture.

A (Catherina Lisiak): Although we are showing areas as stormwater corridors, they have multiple purposes. For example, the north-south connector is a major habitat connector, as well as an enhanced amenity connector.

4. Drainage – May Phang

May Phang gave a presentation on the importance of stormwater management.

The Hydrological Cycle

Rainwater doesn’t just disappear. It goes through many natural processes. If stormwater doesn’t get managed or handled in one area, it’s going to get managed or handled downstream.

Development Impacts & Natural Processes

Infiltration, evapotranspiration, runoff.

With development, there is a higher percentage of runoff, and a lower percentage of infiltration and evapotranspiration.

How much impact?

RF-9 and RF-12 lots have 75 to 100% impervious surface. That means there is an additional 45% runoff that we have to somehow manage downstream.

An increase in runoff means higher peak flow rates, and a higher volume of runoff.

How do we manage stormwater runoff?

Put in a pipe, storm drains, curbs and gutters, detention ponds, ditches and creeks.




Factors we look at:

Peak flow rate.

Volume.

Groundwater.

Water quality.

What happens when we don’t manage stormwater properly?

Flooding of transportation corridors.

Damage to properties.

Erosion in our creeks.

Pollution enters our drainage system.

What are we trying to protect?

Wildlife, fish and safety of property.

What have we learned about managing stormwater?

Recognizing goals for better design.

Promote methods that provide multiple environmental benefits.

Sustainable Stormwater Management

Trying to mimic nature so we can reduce our impact.

Best management practices (BMPs).

Low Impact Development (LIDs).

For a large lot, there are a lot of LIDs that can be implemented on-site. This is something property owners can do on their own.

LIDs on medium to high density lots may include incorporating a nice landscape feature.

Stormwater management features are multi-functional – we can create amenities that also serve a drainage function.

Green Streets and Drainage Corridors

For severe events we still need to handle peak flows and protect people from flooding.

We are trying to put in well built engineered structures so we can properly handle the storm water.

Examples of green streets and drainage corridors: o Bioswales. o Rain gardens.

In summary, we can’t ignore stormwater; it has to be managed. We want it to be multi-functional. We need to provide properly designed BMPs and LIDs to manage the impacts of stormwater downstream.

Questions




Q (Hugh Carter): When the GLUP was put together this area had potential for large detention pond downstream. Are the stormwater features going to replace the detention pond downstream?

A (May Phang): We are trying to look at what we can implement along these drainage corridors so that we don’t have build a detention pond. The necessity of a detention pond is still under analysis. We feel that we can find a better way to manage the stormwater.

Q: When the water gets filtered and cleaned, what happens to it?

A (May Phang): Stormwater doesn’t go through a lot of water quality treatment. So, we try to implement things that help the water quality. If we can increase source controls, it will help with water quality.

A (Catherina Lisiak): Remember that stormwater is a DCC item. So, everyone contributes to the stormwater features through DCCs. We are always thinking about costs to the city and to the end user – we want to make sure each neighbourhood can be self-contained.

Q (Tim Baillie): Why not make the stormwater features community gardens?

A (May Phang): That’s what we want to do. We want to create stormwater features that are multi-functional.

Q (Avtar Mann): Recently, the City of Surrey made a presentation on how they can make the best use of developable land. In that presentation, they have a different way of achieving the things that you are presenting on. There is a lot of pressure to reduce the DCCs. Your presentation is based on how you can develop the land. The availability of developable land has an affect on housing affordability. The main issue is saving developable land.

A (Tamara Wallace): We will look into the issue and try to speak with whomever gave the presentation (Mr. Mann did not indicate who from the City gave the presentation).

A (Don Crockett): The increased density frees up the open space. The point May is making is that you can’t ignore the stormwater.

5. Stormwater, Edges and Placemaking – Don Crockett

Edges and Placemaking

We are trying to make this a memorable place.

The edges respond to the form and character that is across the street, so that there is not an abrupt change in land use from one side of the street to the other.

At the corners, there are opportunities for tree retention. Stands of trees could act as identifiable markers.

The commercial area at the southeast corner of the site will act as a landmark for people to identify with the neighbourhood.

There will be special treatment along 24 Avenue.

Along 26 Avenue, the duplex housing will accommodate similarly sized dwellings to what is across the street. We get increased density but the street experience is matched to what is across the street.




Along 168 Street, there is an opportunity to cluster the homes, and to protect the vegetation at the corner of 26 Avenue and 168 Street. Alternatively, there could be single family dwellings with coach houses in the back.

Consider preserving some of the historical uses in the neighbourhood, such as the orchard. There have been suggestions for preserving some of the orchard trees, or re-establishing them by transplanting them in other locations within the neighbourhood.

The plan calls for higher density along 24 Avenue.

The roundabout is a focal point in the neighbourhood. There is an opportunity for a high quality expression that will be memorable and contribute to placemaking goals.

We can create a sense of place through a high quality built environment.

Integrating Stormwater, Parks and Green Space

We are trying to integrate engineering functions into other objectives (social and ecological).

We are aiming to create an open space network that also serves a stormwater management function.

Parks: o Opportunity to protect significant habitat in a park. o Protect existing trees. o The central park provides a great opportunity for placemaking. Higher density

areas front onto the park.

One-acre Neighbourhood Park – wrapped with development. o There is potential to integrate some of the stormwater functions into the park.

However, there is some concern that the major park site is in a location where the land is higher. If it was in a lower area, there would be more opportunity for the integration of stormwater management into the park. But, there are still some opportunities.

Examples of Source Controls

Promote infiltration and sourcing of water.

Pervious paving system.

Trying to create original forest sponge.

Trying to delay the effects of the water going into the pipes.

Stormwater detention integrated with habitat and park amenities.

Infiltration bio swales. 6. Transportation – Philip Bellefontaine

Philip Bellefontaine attended the meeting on behalf of Mirjana Petrovic.

Three broad areas of discussion: 1. Introduction to some of the main street characteristics surrounding the area. 2. Discussion of how this NCP is connected to the broader road network. 3. Comment and discussion on the internal roads.

Development brings traffic – walking, cycling, and auto traffic.




Main Street Characteristics

24 Ave is an Arterial road. 24 Avenue has been identified as a significant route for this area. It has been identified by looking at development in South Surrey, the traffic generated, and modelling. Modelling helps us to develop the broader road network and to look at laning and how many lanes are required. 24 Avenue is an important east-west route. We are protecting for 6 lanes. This is something that has been modelled as needed in 2031. The widening of the road will be driven by need. The protection of a wide corridor will allow for more flexibility in the future.

164 Street is a Major Collector road. Major Collectors commonly have 2 lanes with bike lanes, sometimes with on street parking.

168 Street is an Arterial road.

26 Avenue is a Local road. This road will have uninterrupted frontage because of the proposed lanes (no accesses from 26 Avenue for driveways).

Connections and Broader Road Network

There are key connection points. Our expectation is that the intersections of 164 Street/ 24 Avenue and 166 Street/24 Avenue will be signalized, full-movement intersections. These intersections provide connections to the south. The other accesses on 24 Avenue are right-in, right-out and are not anticipated to be signalized.

Internal road network

When you increase densities, you need to provide for movement, and create good connections for the area.

“Green Street” – when the tree locations and value are pinned down we will be looking at modifying the cross section accordingly.

Questions

Q (Hugh Carter): What percentage of the land area is taken up by roads? What would be the percentage normal for an area like this?

A (Philip Bellefontaine): The roads make up one quarter of the plan area. The question of what is normal for an area like this is difficult to answer. In East Clayton, we have a robust road network, and something in the order of 35% of the area is road allowance (exact amount would need to be confirmed). You need a robust network to be able to distribute traffic.

A (Greg Mitchell): When looking at percentages, it is key to remember that the percentage is the road right-of-way; only about half of that would be paved.

Q: Could some of the roads be private so that they could meet private road standards instead of public road standards?

A (Philip Bellefontaine): It is desirable for the roads to be public. Roads also have an important function to serve street activity.

Comment: there is a need for more traffic calming measures throughout the community.




7. Parks – Ted Uhrich

Ted Uhrich provided information on how we determine park space and how the neighbourhood park will function.

The provision guideline for parks when we are planning new areas is 4.2 hectares per 1,000 population. The higher the density, the more open space we need to provide for the neighbourhood residents.

There are 4 different kinds of parks: Destination Parks, City Parks, Community Parks and Neighbourhood Parks. Within the 4.2 hectares per 1,000 population guideline, we take into account City and Community Parks as well as Neighbourhood Parks. City and Community Park needs for future NCP 5A residents will be met outside of the NCP area. In the future, we need to identify larger park locations (City and Community Parks) within Grandview Heights. We are trying to provide approximately 7-8 acres of Neighbourhood Park in the NCP 5A neighbourhood.

Neighbourhood Parks

Neighbourhood parks are multi-functional parks.

There are opportunities for habitat value enhancement and tree preservation.

The larger park in the neighbourhood is about 4 acres. It will include an open lawn area and a playground. There will probably not be a programmed sports field. On the other side of street is the habitat and tree preservation area. This area is about 2 acres in size, which creates a viable natural area for habitat.

The smaller (1 acre) park provides park space for the surrounding neighbourhood.

We want to make sure that there is a good north-south linkage between existing parks to the north and future parks to the south.

The parks proposed are small but will provide a lot of opportunities for people in the neighbourhood to get out and enjoy recreational activities.

Questions

Q: Is the green street car friendly?

A (Ted Uhrich): Yes.

Q: Will there be paths to the commercial area from the treed park area?

A (Ted Uhrich): Yes, there will be gravel paths through the area. 8. Questions/Comments

Catherina Lisiak facilitated a larger question/comment and answer period on all of the material discussed.

Comment (Tim Baillie): NCP areas are horrible for emergency vehicle access. Also, does not like duplexes along 26 Avenue. Duplexes are not going to be able to match the culture across the street.

Q (Hugh Carter): Concern about the aesthetics of coach houses. From an urban design standpoint, should look at not having row upon row of coach houses. The street edge




should be varied so that there is some variation. Suggestion that instead of every house having a coach house, consider every third house.

A (Catherina Lisiak): This is something we will have to look at. We could look at special treatments for coach houses. We don’t want to create something that people are having a bad reaction to.

Q (Hugh Carter): Would like to see the City of Surrey consider design guidelines that break the rule in terms of upper floor restrictions, and look at establishing design guidelines so you could get more efficient forms of housing but not have the negative elements.

A (Greg Mitchell): The restriction is meant to mitigate the block on block look. Maybe in this neighbourhood there is some opportunity for a different set of restrictions.

9. NCP 5A Names

The Original Owner – 1892/1910 – Royal City Plaining Mills Co.

Historical Road Names: o Blake or Homes road became 164 Street (originally Blake and then became

Holmes). o Constable Road became 26 Avenue (named after the Constable family). o Coast Meridian became 168 Street (Coast Meridian Highway – ran down to

border). o Sunnyside Road became 24 Avenue (NCP 2).

Pioneer Families: o George Figg. o John Oliver. o John Arthur Stayt. o Benjamin Welsher.

Wildlife o Columbia Black-Tailed Deer.

If you think of any names, contact Catherina and let her know.

When we hold the Public Open House, we will discuss further.

Comment: Name could relate to the history of orchards. Orchards were a predominant land use found when historical research was conducted.

o Sunny Grove o Orchard Park




10. Next Steps

The Public Open House will be held on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, starting at 6:00 pm, at Elgin Hall in South Surrey. CAC members attending the Public Open House will be identified. There will be a brief presentation at 7:00 pm.

We are hoping to have a Stage 1 Report to Council in early 2010. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.

gh ncp 5a m i n u t e s date: october 20, 2009 · minutes ncp 5a cac meeting october 20 2009 page 1...

Documents