Tuesday, August 1, 1989 - Surrey August 1, 1989 Committee Room Municipal Hall 14245 - 56th Avenue...

August 1, 1989 ELUC

file:///C|/Users/GB3/Desktop/bylaw%20project/All%20HTML%20Files/11378.html[05/06/2015 4:08:08 PM]

Tuesday, August 1, 1989

Committee RoomMunicipal Hall14245 - 56th AvenueSurrey, B.C.Time: 5:03 p.m.

Present: Chairman - Alderman McKinnon, Alderman Hunt, AldermanHigginbotham, Alderman Schrenk and Alderman Villeneuve.

Mayor Bose, Alderman Ralston, Alderman Higginbotham,Alderman Robinson and Trustee Shaffer entered the meeting asindicated in the minutes.

AlsoPresent: Manager of Planning & Development Services, Commercial/IndustrialPlanner; Assistant Municipal Engineer - Land Development; Mr. Skinner - SchoolBoard Planning Officer; and Marg Jones - Administrative Assistant.

CATEGORY 1 - SIMPLE APPLICATIONS

1.1 Umber Developments Ltd.

Coastland Engineering

19021 - 60 Avenue

From RS to R-F(R)

To permit subdivision into approximately

six single family lots

5689-0127-00

Mr. Greg Sewell of Coastland Engineering was in attendance concerning this rezoning application fromRS to R-F(R) to permit subdivision into approximately 6 single-family lots.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from thePlanning Department and noted the subject conditions and Engineering requirements.

Alderman Robinson entered the meeting at 5:06 p.m.

PROJECT HISTORY

Application Date: March 3, 1989

Engineering Comments Request Date: March 31, 1989

Engineering Comments Date: June 28, 1989

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Planning CommentsDate: June 29, 1989

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from RS to R-F(R) of a .4 hectare (1 acre) property located at 19021 - 60Avenue in Cloverdale to permit subdivision into 6 single-family lots.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application be approved to proceed for rezoning from RF to R-F(R) under Section963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:

1. Submission of a subdivision layout to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer; and

2. Solution of the concerns expressed by the Municipal Engineer.

DESIGNATIONS

Present plan designations for the site are as follows:

1. Official Community Plan (1985)

Designation Map: Urban

Cloverdale Plan: Urban Residential;

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site slopes moderately to the east. Vegetation is sparse.

A residence and accessory buildings exist on the site; the residence is intended to be retained.

The surrounding area is a mix of existing single family developments or in-process applications for singlefamily developments (see context map).

Other:

A 1/2 acre gross density development exists to the south-east of the site.

PROPOSED DESIGN/LAYOUT

The proposed layout indicates six single family lots fronting 60 Avenue. This layout and land use conforms tothe OCP and local area plan.

ENGINEERING COMMENTS

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Adequate Municipal road on 60 Avenue, storm drainage and water supply for fire protection exist at the site.

The site does not front a sanitary sewer. The nearest sanitary sewer is located at the east property line of 19077- 60 Avenue.

190 Street, classified as a through collector, is an existing surface-treated road and may not have sufficientstructure to support the construction and increased traffic of this development.

There are not funds allocated in the current year budget to potentially upgrade 190 Street and extend sanitarysewer to the site. However, should the applicant resolve these deficiencies, the Engineering Department couldsupport the rezoning from a servicing perspective.

DISCUSSION

As the proposal conforms to the OCP and is in keeping with proposals on the adjacent sites, the Planning andDevelopment Services Department supports this application.

ENVIRONMENT & LAND USE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

UMBER DEVELOPMENTS LTD. & COASTLAND ENGINEERING5689-0127-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0127-00 be approved to proceed for rezoning from "FamilyResidential Zone (R-F)" to "Restricted Single Family Residential Zone (R-F(R))" under Section 963 of theMunicipal Act, subject to:



CARRIED

1.2 Iqbal and Ranjit Gill

McElhanney Engineering Services

15344 - 82 Avenue

From RS to R-F(R)


13 single-family lots

5689-0124-00

Mr. Freeman of McElhanney Engineering Ltd. was in attendance on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Gill concerningtheir rezoning application from RS to R-F(R) to permit subdivison into 13 single-family lots.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from the Planning

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Department and noted the subject conditions and Engineering requirements.

PROJECT HISTORY




School Board Comments Date: July 24, 1989

Planning Comments Date: July 21, 1989

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from RS to R-F(R) of a 1.01 hectare (2.50 acre) property located at 15344- 82 Avenue in Fleetwood to permit subdivision into 13 single-family lots.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application be approved to proceed for rezoning from RS to R-F(R) under Section963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:

1. Input from the Federal Fisheries;

2. Submission of a subdivision layout to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer;

3. Solution of the concerns expressed by the Municipal Engineer; and

4. Approval from the Ministry of Environment.

DESIGNATIONS




Fleetwood Plan: Urban Residential; and

2. The site lies within the jurisdiction of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Ministry ofEnvironment.


The site slopes appreciably (7%) to the south-west. Vegetation is moderate and consists mostly of deciduousgrowth. A single-family dwelling exists on the site; this building is intended to be demolished.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Surrounding uses in the area are:

North: RS zoned lands designated for urban;

East: Lands currently zoned RS - these lands have a pending rezoning application for 120 single-family lots (by-law has 3rd reading);

South: Suburban residential; and

West: RS zoned lands designated for urban - adjacent property has a pending rezoning application for10 single-family lots (pre-ELUC).

PROPOSED LAYOUT

The proposed subdivision layout complies with the concept plan prepared for this area. 10 of the 13 lots arelocated internally and rely on access being provided via the development proposed to the east (i.e., Project5688-0442-00).

SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS

See attached report from School Board.


Adequate Municipal road and storm drainage exist at the site.

The nearest sanitary sewer main to which gravity service can be made is located at 156 Street and 76 Avenue. We note that off-site rights-of-way will be required to service to this location.

The nearest adequate water supply main is located at 8243 - 152 Street.

There are not funds allocated in the current year budget to provide sanitary sewer nor upgrade water supply tothe site. However, should the applicant resolve these concerns, the Engineering Department could support therezoning from a servicing perspective.

Development applications 5688-0442-00 and 5688-0514-00 are located immediately adjacent to this site. Theapplicant should be directed to contact the adjacent applicant in an attempt to arrange a joint resolution to theservicing concerns.

DISCUSSION

The proposed land use complies with the designations of the OCP and the Fleetwood Plan. The Planning andDevelopment Services Department supports this application.


August 1, 1989 ELUC


IQBAL AND RANJIT GILL & McELHANNEY ENGINEERINGSERVICES LTD.5689-0124-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0124-00 for rezoning from "Suburban Residential (RS)" to"Restricted Single Family Residential Zone (R-F(R)" be tabled for 60 days pending Council's deliberation ofthe Growth Management Report.

CARRIED with Aldermen Schrenk and Higginbotham against.

1.3 Guildford Place Holdings Ltd.

15327 - 104 Avenue

R-F

Temporary Use Permit to allow vehicle parking

for a period of two years

6889-0271-00

Arepresentative of Guildford Place Holdings Ltd. was in attendance concerning this application for a temporaryuse permit to allow vehicle parking for a period of two years.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from the PlanningDepartment and noted the subject conditions.

In response to a question from Alderman Hunt, the delegation advised there will be no access to the parking lotfrom 104 Avenue.

PROJECT HISTORY

Application Date: May 10, 1989

Engineering Comments Request Date: May 15, 1989

Engineering Comments Received: June 29, 1989


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a temporary use permit for a 0.35 hectare (0.87 acre) property located at 15327 -104 Avenue in Guildford to allow additional parking of vehicles on the site for the Guilding Medical Centre fora period of two years.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application for a temporary use permit be approved to proceed for a period of twoyears, starting May 10, 1989 subject to:

August 1, 1989 ELUC


1. Amendment of the OCP to declare the site a Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area; and

2. Applicant making provision for satisfactory landscaping fronting 104 Avenue.

CONTEXT AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located within the "Downtown" designation of the OCP and "Core Commercial" on the Whalley-Guildford Plan. It is within Development Permit Area VI(1).

To the south across 104 Avenue are two car dealerships (Freeway Chrysler, and Flag Chevrolet); to the west arevacant properties designated for downtown uses; to the north are the Guildford Medical Dental Centre, forwhich the temporary parking use is requested, and townhouses under construction; and to the east is a furniturestore (Grantree Furniture).

The site is relatively flat. A portion of the site is already being used for parking, as shown on the attachedsketch. The parking area is gravelled. The access to the parking is from the parking lot of the medicalbuilding. Vegetation consists of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees in the northeast area of the site. There are also few trees at the south side which screens the site somewhat from 104 Avenue. However, aportion at the southwest has no vegetation. The parking area is visible from here.

BACKGROUND

The Guildford Medical Dental Centre has been experiencing a shortage of parking for some time. Inaccordance with the Off-Street Parking By-law, 38 additional spaces were required on their property. Theowners have made plans for a multi-level parking structure at the rear of their property. However, for thereasons explained in their letter of June 12, 1989, it is not practical to proceed with construction of the parkingstructure at this time; hence the subject TUP application. Also, the Permits & Licenses Department advises thatan application has been made to create an additional 23 spaces on the property of the medical building whichwill reduce dependence on the temporary parking lot.

Guildford Place Holdings Ltd., the applicants and owners of the subject property, have advised that theproperty has been leased to the medical building for one year only. The lease will be extended only 3 monthsat a time.


The District of Surrey does not have plans to upgrade 104 Avenue at this location within the next 5 years. Therefore, protect a 27.0-metre wide road right-of-way in accord with Item 3 of our Acquisition Policy.

Adequate Municipal road, storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water supply for fire protection exist at the site. The Engineering Department can, therefore, support the Temporary Use Permit application from a servicingperspective.

The Engineering Department has reviewed the site design for the parking lot attached to this application and,provided the access to the site is from the adjacent medical building property, we have no objections to thislayout.

DISCUSSION

August 1, 1989 ELUC


The Planning & Development Services Department has no objection to the proposed temporary parkingextension for the Guildford Medical Dental Building. Given the location of the subject property within thedowntown designated area; it is unlikely that it will be tied up for longer term with parking; this is evident inthe short term lease signed by the property owners.

Subject to the applicant providing a reasonable landscape to screen the temporary parking lot from 104 Avenue,the Planning & Development Services Department supports this application.


GUILDFORD PLACE HOLDINGS LTD.6889-0271-00

It was recommended that Application 6889-0271-00 be approved to proceed for rezoning from "SuburbanResidential Zone (RS)" to "Restricted Single Family Residential Zone (R-F(R))" under Section 963 of theMunicipal Act, subject to:

1. Input from the Federal Fisheries;



4. Approval from the Ministry of Environment.

CARRIED

Trustee Priddy entered the meeting at 5:09 p.m.

1.4 Mr. Adam and Mr. Black

6856 - 124 Street

From R-S to R-F(R)

To permit subdivision into two single family lots

5689-0199-00

Arepresentative of Mr. Adam and Mr. Black was in attendance concerning this rezoning application from RSto R-F(R) to permit subdivision into two single-family lots.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from the PlanningDepartment and noted the subject conditions and Engineering requirements.

The Manager of Development Services commented that either the building should be relocated or adevelopment variance permit will be required as the applicant has not yet resolved concerns regarding the sitingof the existing house.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


In response to a question from Mayor Bose, the delegation advised the Committee members that it is not hisintention to move the existing house.

Alderman Higginbotham entered the meeting at 5:12 p.m.

PROJECT HISTORY

Application Date: April 16, 1989

Engineering Comments Request Date: April 18, 1989

Engineering Comments Date: July 6, 1989


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicants are requesting rezoning from R-S to R-F(R) of a 0.20 hectare (0.49 acre) property located at6856 - 124 Street in Newton.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application be approved to proceed for rezoning from R-S to R-F(R) under Section963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:



OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN CONTEXT

OCP Designation: Urban

Surrey Land Use Plan: Single Family Residential

Newton Area Plan: Urban Residential

This area is undergoing extensive redevelopment to urban single family with a number of rezoning applicationsbeing processed in the immediate vicinity

This application promotes the Residential, Economic and Social Policies of the Official Community Plan.


The site slopes gently westward with a two storey home centrally located on the property. The land is clearexcept for select ornamental trees and shrubs.

North: Urban single family residential;

August 1, 1989 ELUC


East: Urban single family residential and B.C. Hydro Right-of-Way;

South: Urban single family residential and suburban residential with a number of urban single familyapplications in process; and

West: Suburban residential with a number of urban single family applications in process.


The proposed layout divides the property into two large lots, one fronting 124 Street and the other 124A Street. The applicant has not yet resolved concerns regarding the siting of the existing house.


Adequate Municipal road, storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water supply for fire protection exist at the site. The Engineering Department can, therefore, support the rezoning from a servicing perspective.

The dedication and construction of 124A Street is identified within this site and should be addressed as part ofthis application.

DISCUSSION/SUMMARY

The Planning and Development Services Department supports this application, subject to the conditionsstipulated, for the following reasons:

The proposal meets:

1. The growth management objective by directing growth to designated urban areas (Policy #57).

2. The economic policies by maximizing the utilization of existing services (Objective #20).

3. The residential policies by contributing to the neighbourhood structure (Policy #20).


MR. ADAM AND MR. BLACK5689-0199-00




August 1, 1989 ELUC


CARRIED

1.5 Lawrence & Jeanette Orban

Mr. 'T' International Agencies

13505 - 84 Avenue

From RS to R-F(R)

To permit subdivision into three single family lots

5689-0106-00

Mr. Toor was in attendance on behalf of Lawrence and Jeanette Orban concerning this rezoningapplication from RS to R-F(R) to permit subdivision into three single-family lots.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from thePlanning Department and noted the subject conditions and Engineering requirements.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, Mr. Toor advised that he did not know how muchof Lot 2 is under the Hydro Right-of-Way.

In response to a question from Mayor Bose, Mr. Toor advised that Lot 2 meets the Planning Departmentrequirements with respect to the Hydro Right-of-Way.

PROJECT HISTORY

Application Date: February 22, 1989


Engineering Comments Date: May 22, 1989

Draft Planning Comments Date: July 1, 1989

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from RS to R-F(R) of a .40 hectare (1.00 acre) property located at 13505 -84 Avenue in Newton to permit subdivision into three (3) single family lots.

RECOMMENDATION


1. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways;


August 1, 1989 ELUC



BACKGROUND

This application continues urban development along 84A Avenue that was begun under application no. 6088-0094-00 immediately to the west of the subject site.

DESIGNATIONS




Newton Plan: Single family residential;

2. The site lies within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.


The site is relatively flat. Vegetation is sparse and consists mostly of deciduous trees and shrubs.

An existing older home exists on the site; this building is intended to be demolished. An existing Hydrooverhead power line right-of-way occupies the rear half of the site.


North: B.C. Hydro right-of-way and townhomes under LUC No. 214.

East: Existing suburban lots fronting both 84 Avenue and King George Highway.

South: Across 84 Avenue proposed urban development under rezoning application 5688-0376-00.

West: Existing urban development under rezoning application 5688-0094-00.


The applicant's layout conforms to the concept plan for the area. Lot 1 extends partly into the Hydro right-of-way and the remaining area will be acquired as open space to continue the linear park plan in the OCP. A lanefor alternate access has been provided to Lot 3.

The layout also provides for the future widening of 84 Avenue.


The District of Surrey does not have plans to upgrade 84 Avenue at this location within the next 5 years.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Therefore, protect a 27-metre wide road right-of-way in accord with Item 3 of our Acquisition Policy.


The applicant should be advised that direct access to R-F(R) zoned lots is not permitted from arterial roads. As84 Avenue is an arterial road, access to the proposed lot fronting 84 Avenue, including those with existingdwellings, will have to be from a lane or alternate roadway.

The continuation of 84A Avenue and the 84 Avenue lane are identified within this site and should be addressedas part of this application.

DISCUSSION

The subdivision layout complies with the concept plan for this area and the proposed single family useimplements the OCP, therefore, subject to the conditions noted in this report, the Planning and DevelopmentServices Department supports this application.


LAWRENCE & JEANETTE ORBAN5689-0106-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0106-00 for rezoning from "Suburban Residential Zone (RS)" to"Restricted Single Family Residential Zone (R-F(R))" be tabled and referred to the Planning Department toaddress the concerns of Lot 2, namely, the portion under the B.C. Hydro right-of-way and the buildable area.

CARRIED

2.1 South Surrey Ventures

8267/8283 - 160 Street

From RS to RT-1

To permit construction of 40 townhouses

5689-0109-00

Representatives of South Surrey Ventures were in attendance concerning this rezoning application from RS toRT-1 to permit the construction of 40 townhouse units.


The delegation advised the Committee members that they did try to assemble the property to the south but wereunable to do so.

Mr. Sales reviewed the project with the Committee members pointing out that 1,300 sq. ft. of recreation space

August 1, 1989 ELUC


is required under the By-law. It is intended to put in a badminton court and a recreation building. Mr. Salesadvised that the Design Review Committee's concerns have been addressed. The project consists of 3 unittypes ranging from 1,500 to 1,700 sq. ft. All of the units will be 3-bedroom units.

In response to a question from Alderman Hunt, the delegation advised that this is a family-oriented project andit is anticipated to have occupancy in approximately 14 months.

PROJECT HISTORY





PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from RS to RT-1 of a 2 lot site with a total of 1.81 hectares (4.47 acres)located at 8267 & 8283 - 160 Street in Fleetwood to permit the construction of a 40 unit townhouse project.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application be approved to proceed for rezoning from RS to RT-1 under Section963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:

1. Submission of a satisfactory design;

2. Submission of a consolidation plan to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer;

3. Solution of the concerns expressed by the Municipal Engineer;

4. Submission of a tree survey showing the trees to be preserved;

5. Issuance of a Development Permit;

6. Resolution of the concerns regarding the abutting single family lot.

It is also recommended that:

1. A resolution be passed authorizing the Planning & Development Services Department to draftDevelopment Permit 6789-0109; and

2. A resolution authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the permit.

DESIGNATIONS

August 1, 1989 ELUC





Fleetwood Town Centre Plan: Townhouse;

2. The site is within Mandatory Development Permit Area VI(3).


The site is relatively flat and slopes gently to the southeast. A row of mature fir trees lines the frontage of aportion of the site.

Both properties have existing homes which will be demolished.

The surrounding area is predominantly single family residential on acreage. However, with the implementationof the Fleetwood Town Centre Plan, there are several pending rezoning applications in the area for townhouseand single family urban subdivisions, as shown on the context map.


The proposed design is for 40 townhouse units on a net site of 3.7 acres with a density of 10.8 units per acre. The two storey, three bedroom units are arranged in groups of four and range in size from 1,500 to 1,700 squarefeet. Each unit has a two car garage. Visitors' parking has been provided throughout the site.

The plans have addressed Council's policy for the rear yards along 159 Street and 83 Avenue by providing reardoors, fencing and gateways.

The applicant has provided an indoor recreational area in the form of a recreation building in excess of the by-law requirements. However, the site plan does not provide for any improvements such as tennis courts,playgrounds, etc., in the open space areas.

The proposed development will provide for the dedication and construction of the south half of 83 Avenue andthe east half of 159 Street. Access to the development is off 83 Avenue.

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

The Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on July 6, 1989. It was recommended this project beapproved, subject to:

1. Extension of the fence for approximately the depth of the unit to form an entrance gate to both entrances;

2. Provision of pedestrian gates on 160 Avenue opposite the end of the internal driveway; and

3. Submission of detailed landscaping plans to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Further, the developer recognizes the requirement for all on-site electrical and telecommunications wiring to belocated underground.

SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS

See attached report.


Adequate Municipal road and storm drainage exist at the site.

The site does not front a sanitary sewer and fronts an existing water main which is inadequate to supply flowsrequired for fire protection. The nearest sanitary sewer is located at 82 Avenue and 162A Street. The nearestadequate water supply main is located at 84 Avenue and 160 Street.

There are not funds allocated in the current year budget to extend the sanitary sewer and upgrade the watersupply main to the site. However, should the applicant resolve these deficiencies, the Engineering Departmentcould support the rezoning from a servicing perspective.

The Engineering Department has reviewed a site plan for this proposal and provides the following comment:

(i) The Engineering Department has allocated funds under Roads Package R1/89 to pave and construct asidewalk on the west side of 160 Street at this location. To coordinate the location and elevation of proposeddriveways off 160 Street, the applicant is instructed to contact Mr. Pat Zoerb of the Engineering Department.

DISCUSSION

The proposed use is in accordance with the land use designation as shown on the OCP and the Fleetwood TownCentre Plan. Therefore, the Planning & Development Services Department supports the proposed rezoning. However, there is an existing single family residence on an urban lot which abuts the property in the southeastcorner. If the area to the south is also developed for townhouses as designated in the Town Centre Plan, itwould leave an isolated single family lot incompatible with the surrounding developments. Therefore, thedeveloper should attempt to acquire the lot or amend the layout to show how a similar use can be proposed onthis small property.


SOUTH SURREY VENTURES5689-0109-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0109-00 for rezoning from "Suburban Residential Zone (RS)" to"Restricted Single Family Residential Zone (R-F(R))" be tabled and referred to the Planning Department toaddress the concerns of Lot 2, namely, the portion under the B.C. Hydro right-of-way and the buildable area.

CARRIED

2.2 Sheraton Intercontinental Development Ltd.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Lubor Trubka Assoc.

17711, 1725 Barnston Drive East;

9974, 10010, 10042 - 196 Street;

9959 Lyncean Drive

From RS to C-D

To permit consolidation into one parcel for a phased

comprehensive commercial development consisting of an

8-storey hotel, motel and associated tourist commercial uses

5685-477-02

Mr. Trubka, Architect, and Mr. Russin of Sheraton Intercontinental Development Ltd. were inattendance concerning this rezoning application from RS to C-D to permit consolidation into one parcelfor phased comprehensive commercial development consisting of an 8-storey hotel/motel and associatedtourist commercial uses.

Mr. Trubka described the site, noting that it is approximately 20 hectares. Barnston Drive will have tobe relocated. Land has been dedicated for the Ministry of Highways cloverleaf and a trans-mountainpipeline easement crosses the site. As well, a portion of the site is required for a fire hall.

In describing the project. Mr. Trubka pointed out that there will be a tourist information centre at theentrance to the site. The hotel will consist of two major buildings. There will be a free-standingrestaurant, a small RV Park area and a small convenience store. Mr. Trubka displayed plans of theindoor play park, the hotel facility centre, the hotel tower, the motel component, the restaurantcomponent, the gas station and car wash and convenience store. Mr. Trubka pointed out that there willbe a 60 ft. buffer screening the site. As well, there will be a miniature golf course in the centre of thesite.

In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Trubka advised that they have submitted a letterexplaining that it is difficult to establish which will be constructed in Phase 1, the hotel or the motel. Phase 1 will consist of either the hotel or motel, combined with some of the auxiliary buildings. Hefurther commented that possibly at second reading they may be in a position to advise which will gofirst.

The Assistant Land Development Engineer pointed out that a Traffic Impact Study has not yet beensubmitted.

The delegation advised that soils tests have been done and submitted to the Planning Department.

In response to a question from Alderman Higginbotham, the delegation advised that one tower of thehotel will contain 152 rooms. The Convention facility will have a capacity for 300 people. The motelcomponent will be an 82-unit motel.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, Mr. Trubka commented that they may have aproblem with being required to construct the hotel first as construction of either the hotel or moteldepends on which negotiations get completed first. The delegation further commented that they are

August 1, 1989 ELUC


willing to sign a Restrictive Covenant prohibiting the establishment of a casino in the hotel.

In response to a question from Alderman Villeneuve, Mr. Trubka advised that the facilities have beendesigned to be support facilities to the hotel and the motel.

In response to a question from Alderman Schrenk, the delegation advised that the RatepayersAssociation is aware of this application and further commented that they are prepared to hold a PublicInformation meeting.

In response to a question from Alderman Hunt concerning the five residential lots accessing Barnston orLysean Drive will be buffered.

PROJECT HISTORY


Engineering Comments Request Date: June 6, 1989


Design Review Cttee. Comments Date: June 13, 1989


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from RS to C-D consisting of C-L, C-G(2), C-T(2) and P-R zones of a7.93 hectare (19.6 acre) site made up of six lots, located on the east side of 176 Street immediately to the northof the freeway interchange in the Fraser Heights area, to permit consolidation into one parcel for theconstruction of a phased comprehensive commercial development consisting of a hotel, motel, associatedtourist stores, RV parking, gas station and convenience store. A portion of the site is to be subdivided into a lotfor a fire hall.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application be approved to proceed for:

I. Rezoning from RS to C-D comprised of C-L, C-G(2), C-T(2) and P-R zones for Lots 29, 30, Rem. 40, 1,2 (but excluding the fire hall site) and Lot 3 under Section 963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:

1. Amendment of the Official Community Plan (1985);

2. Amendment of the Fraser Heights Local Area Plan;


4. Input from Trans Mountain Pipeline;

5. The area be declared a Development Permit Area;

August 1, 1989 ELUC


6. Submission of a satisfactory design;

7. Submission of a subdivision (consolidation) plan to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer;

8. Solution of the concerns expressed by the Municipal Engineer;

9. Submission of a tree survey showing the trees to be preserved;

10. Issuance of a Development Permit; and

11. Permitted uses to include the following:

C-T(2) - PERMITTED USES

1. Hotel and motel2. Tourist trailer park3. Restaurant provided that such a use is incidental to the aforesaid uses.4. Sales of day-to-day convenience items solely for the use of occupants of the site.5. Non-profit tourist information booth.

C-G(2) - PERMITTED USES

1. Self and full serve gasoline station.2. The following uses which shall be clearly incidental to the sale of gasoline:

(a) General automotive repair;(b) The sale of confectionery goods such as tobacco, soft drinks, prepackaged snackfoods and candies; and(c) car wash facility.

C-L - PERMITTED USES

1. Grocery store, not to exceed 380 square metres (4,000 sq. ft.).

P-R - PERMITTED USES

1. Golf course, limited to pitch and putt.2. Other private or public recreation uses not operated by a government authority.

13. Amendment of the Zoning By-law to permit non-profit tourist information centres in the C-T(1)and C-T(2) zones, and to amend the definition of hotel to include customary associated commercialuses to be located in the same building as a hotel.

II. Rezoning of Lots 39 and 40 from RS to R-1 under Section 963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:

August 1, 1989 ELUC



2. Input from the Federal/Provincial Fisheries;



It is also recommended that Council approve in principle the exchange/closure of 100 Avenue between 176 and177A Streets and a portion of Barnston Drive East to allow for the realignment of Barnston Drive East asshown on the attached sketch, which was approved by Council on February 20, 1989. The roads closed will besold at market value to the applicant and consolidated with the adjacent lands.

BACKGROUND

The original application on this site for a comprehensive commercial development centering on a hotel wasgiven approval to proceed by Council on December 1, 1986. The proposal, however, required modification toaccommodate the redesign of the 176 Street interchange with Highway No. 1, relocation of Barnston Drive andthe creation of a lot for the proposed 176 Street satellite fire hall. These issues have been resolved and arevised application has been submitted by the applicant.

DESIGNATIONS



Designation Map: Suburban

Fraser Heights Local Area Plan: Suburban

Residential;

2. The site lies within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the FederalDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Ministry of Environment.


The site slopes moderately to the north and east. The property is about 10 metres (30 feet) lower than HighwayNo. 1; therefore the impact on the highway of the proposed development would not be severe. The site hassufficient visibility to permit a successful commercial operation without the installation of an excessive numberof signs.

The site has been cleared of most mature growth. Some pockets of mature evergreens remain. There is a smallcreek flowing through the lots on Lyncean Drive.

Anumber of homes exist on the site; these buildings are intended to be demolished. The site is bisected by theTrans Mountain Pipeline right-of-way.

August 1, 1989 ELUC



North, East

and West: High quality suburban residences on larger lots.

South: Existing Barnston Drive (east) right-of-way and Highway No. 1/Pacific Highwayinterchange.

Other: In the northwest part of the site, a .436 hectare (1.08 acre) lot is to be created to house asatellite fire hall.


The proposed design is for a comprehensive tourist commercial development on one lot. The proposed usesinclude: a hotel complex with initially one eight storey tower and a second tower of the same height in a futurephase, two three-storey motels, restaurant, indoor fun park (recreation building), hotel-related commercialfacilities in buildings next to the hotel, a gasoline service station with a travel information centre, aconvenience store and recreation vehicle trailer park. A total of 511 parking spaces are located on the site, andaccess is by way of one driveway on 176 Street and two from Barnston Drive East.

The site is made up of six lots to be consolidated into a single lot for the development, and one separate lot isto be created for a future fire hall facing 176 Street. The two lots on Lyncean Drive are to be subdivided intohalf-acre parcels.


The Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on June 13, 1989. It was recommended that the siteplanning for this proposal be given an approval in principle, pending:

1. Receipt of a complete submission which includes all elevations, as previously required on the April 11,1989 Design Review Committee recommendation.

2. Submission of description of all finishes and materials; and

3. Elimination of parking in the triangular portion of the site across Barnston Drive.


The District of Surrey does not have plans to upgrade 176 Street at this location within the next 5 years. Therefore, protect an additional 7.0 metres of road right-of-way on the east side of 176 Street in accord withItem 3 of our Acquisition Policy.

The dedication and construction of the proposed realignment of Barnston Drive and the proposed extension ofLyncean Drive is a requirement and must be addressed with this application.

Adequate Municipal road on 176 Street and Lyncean Drive and adequate Municipal storm drainage exist at thesites.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


The sites collectively do not front a sanitary sewer or water mains which adequately supply flows required forfire protection. The nearest sanitary sewer to which a gravity extension can be made is a 750mm diametermain located at 10230 - 176 Street. the nearest adequate water supply is a 300mm diameter main located on179 Street north of Lyncean Drive.

We note that the Surrey Fire Department is committed to the extension of a 300mm diameter water main fromthe existing 200mm diameter water main on Lyncean Drive to the new Barnston Drive alignment, alongBarnston Drive to 176 Street and south on 176 Street to the site of the future Fire Hall. To provide for adequatewater supply for fire protection at these sites collectively, the developer will be required to extend additional300mm diameter water mains on 176 Street and on Barnston Drive, and he will be required to upgrade the off-site water supply on Lyncean Drive to 179 Street.

There are not funds allocated in the current year budget to construct the Barnston Drive realignment and theLyncean Drive extension, and extend adequate sanitary sewer and water supply to the sites. However, shouldthe applicant resolve these deficiencies, the Engineering Department could support the rezoning from aservicing perspective.

As Highway #1 adjacent to these sites is a Provincial Highway, the applicant should be advised that priorapproval from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is required for any construction within the roadallowance, including driveway accesses and all service connections.

We note a gas right-of-way exists through the sites. The comments of the appropriate utility should beobtained prior to finalization of this application.

We note that a 30-metre wide watercourse preservation boundary has been identified near the east side of thesesites at Lyncean Drive. The developer should be advised to contact the Ministry of Environment, Water RightsBranch, and determine the impact of this development on the aforementioned natural watercourse.

The Engineering Department has reviewed the site design (Lubor Trubka and Associates) and provides thefollowing comments:

(i) a traffic impact study is required;

(ii) due to the topography of the sites, a soils report by a geotechnical soils consultant is required. It is toassess soil and groundwater conditions, slope stability, site preparation, road section design and the need forengineered foundations.

DISCUSSION

Council has previously approved this concept and the applicant has submitted revised plans that take intoaccount Barnston Road and freeway ramp realignments.

Given the adjacent residential uses, the need for phasing and the issue of "municipal image" at this majorentrance to Surrey, the Planning and Development Services Department recommends that this site be declareda Development Permit Area. Two phasing schemes (letter attached) have been indicated by the applicant. Both are acceptable to Planning and Development Services Department, but the applicant will need to selectwhich scheme is to be incorporated into the development permit. Landscaping plans that adequately bufferresidential uses and the issue of image will be addressed as part of this permit.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


The proposed commercial uses are all reasonable in conjunction with a hotel. However, the Zoning By-law hassome shortcomings because the Highway Commercial Zone, which would allow these commercial uses, is notpermitted on land designated Suburban in the OCP. Since commercial redesignation would be inappropriate,the Planning and Development Services Department recommends that the Zoning By-law be amended to allownon-profit tourist information centres of limited size in the C-T(1) and C-T(2) zones, and that the definition ofhotel be modified to allow sales and services customarily associated and ordinarily located in hotel lobbies. These changes would be in accordance with industry practices and would accommodate this proposal.

We have also been advised by the Property Department that a resolution is required to permit road closure andexchange related to Council's approval on February 20, 1989, of the realignment of Barnston Drive East. Thismatter can then be handled concurrently.

The Planning and Development Services Department supports this application, subject to resolution of citedconcerns.


SHERATON INTERCONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. &LUBOR TRUBKA ASSOC.5685-477-02

It was recommended that Application 5685-477-02 be tabled, pending the applicant holding a PublicInformation Meeting.

CARRIED

2.3 David & Avtar Johl Gordon

Carol Fairfoull Clement

Carol Greenidge

Modar Developments Ltd.

12415, 12445 & 12463 - 64 Avenue

From RS to R-F(R)

To permit subdivision into 31 single-family lots

5689-0089-00

Arepresentative of Modar Developments Ltd. was in attendance concerning this rezoning application from RSto R-F(R) to permit subdivision into 31 single-family lots.


In response to a question from Alderman Schrenk, the delegation advised that this project will be compatiblewith the existing area and design guidelines will be provided similar to those of the development south of 64Avenue.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, the delegation advised that they intend to proceed with theproject as soon as possible.

PROJECT HISTORY




School Comments Date: June 6, 1989

Planning Comments Date: June 30, 1989

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicants are requesting rezoning from RS to R-F(R) of a 2.96 hectare (7.31 acre) property located at12415, 12445 and 12463 - 64 Avenue in West Newton to permit subdivision into 31 single-family lots.

RECOMMENDATION




DESIGNATIONS




Newton Plan : Urban Residential


The site - is relatively flat, slopes moderately to the west. The south portions of the lots are cleared andlandscaped. The rear portions are forested with mature trees.

Aresidence exists on each site and are intended to be retained.

North/East: Undeveloped Suburban lands, B.C. Hydro Right-of-Way.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


South/West: New single family development, Suburban lands under active development applications.


The applicant is proposing a 31 lot single family subdivision. The proposed subdivision layout follows theconcept plan for the area. Alternative access for the lots fronting 64 Avenue is provided by a lane as per OCPPolicy 39.

SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS

Please see attached school comments.

PARK REQUIREMENTS

The concept plan for the area does not indicate a park site. Therefore pursuant to Section 992 of the MunicipalAct, the applicant will be required to pay an amount equivalent to 5% of the market value.

The Municipality has purchased property to the east of this proposal for a future park site.


Adequate Municipal road on 64 Avenue, storm drainage and water supply for fire protection exist at the site.

The site does not front a sanitary sewer main. The nearest sanitary sewer is located on the south side of 64Avenue at the newly constructed lane approximately 150 metres east of 124 Street. (A sewer main exists on124 Street south of 64 Avenue; however, it is not deep enough to service this entire site with gravity service.)

124 Street, adjacent the site, is an unopened roadway (excepting a gravel driveway to a residence on the westside of the road at 64 Avenue) and would have to be constructed to Municipal standards, should access beproposed to this road.

There are not funds allocated in the current year budget to extend sanitary sewer nor potentially construct 124Street to service the site. However, should the applicant resolve these concerns, the Engineering Departmentcould support the rezoning from a servicing perspective.

The applicant should be advised that direct access to R-F(R) zoned lots is not permitted from arterial roads. As64 Avenue is an arterial road, access to all proposed lots fronting 64 Avenue, including those with existingdwellings, will have to be from a lane or alternate roadway.

DISCUSSION

The proposed rezoning is in accordance with the Official Community Plan and conforms to the local area plan,therefore, the Planning and Development Services Department supports this application.


August 1, 1989 ELUC


DAVID & AVTAR JOHL, GORDON & CAROL FAIRFOULL ANDCLEMENT & CAROL GREENIDGE5689-0089-00




CARRIED with Aldermen Robinson, Villeneuve and the Mayoragainst.

2.4 Robert Bontkes and Cambridge Homes

K. G. Developments (Peter Reizebos)

13665 - 68 Avenue

From C-R(1) & R-F(C)

to C-D, C-R(1) and C-H uses

To permit additional uses to be added

5690-0015-00

A representative of K.G. Developments was in attendance concerning this rezoning application from C-R(1) &R-F(C) to C-D, C-R(1) and C-H uses.

The Chairman advised the delegation that the Planning Department is not recommending approval of all therequested additional uses.

The delegation discussed the current uses with the Committee members, pointing out that when the Ring Roadis completed, this project will be in the Newton Town Core. The uses are existing and it is requested that theybe retained. When the C-D By-law becomes effective, the existing uses would not be included in the By-law. The delegation requested that there application be approved for all of the requested uses.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

BACKGROUND

This application to rezone the site at the northeast corner of King George Highway and 68 Avenue from C-R(1) and R-F(C) to C-D (selected uses from the C-R(1) and C-H zones), was given third reading on June 13,1989 (By-law No. 10039) following a public hearing on July 5, 1989. The applicant has requested that moreuses be added to this C-D zone (letter attached).

RECOMMENDATION

August 1, 1989 ELUC


It is recommended that:

I. Third reading of By-law 10039 be rescinded and a new public hearing be scheduled to consider adding thefollowing uses to the C-D zone schedule:

1. Add to C-R(1):

A. Retail uses:

Book and stationary storesHobby brewing storesPet shops

B. Office Uses:

Loans office and associated financial services (Note: Loan's office already allowed)Medical therapy officeInterior decorators, designers and architect's offices.

2. Add to C-H permitted uses

A. Retail uses

Home improvement, building supplies and garden supplies

B. Services

Animal hospitalsPost office box rental and related services

C. Industrial

Assembly of doors, windows, partitions and similar buildingcomponentsFurniture assembly, refurbishing and upholsteryHome improvements and decorating productsPhotographic and processing storePrinting and publishing

II. All subject conditions in the attached previous Rezone Report continue to apply.

DISCUSSION

August 1, 1989 ELUC


The applicant has asked for a number of retail, service, office and industrial uses to be added to the list ofpermitted uses in the proposed C-D zone.

The Planning and Development Services Department supports the applicant's request for additions to the retail,service and industrial categories but not to the office category as this would be contrary to the OfficialCommunity Plan policy to encourage offices to be located in town centres.

The Planning and Development Services Department, however, supports the inclusion of the following officeuses within the permitted use list of the proposed C-D zone as adjustments to existing use:

1. "Associated financial services" in conjunction with a loans office;

2. "Medical therapy centre" to broaden the chiropractor category; and

3. "Designer's and architect's office" because of similarities with engineer and surveyor offices.

The applicant also proposed to allow other existing offices that are classified in the zoning by-law as generaloffices (e.g., appraisal office, farm equipment, and transportation office and accountants office). The Planningand Development Services Department does not support these particular additions. The established generaloffices can continue to operate as legally non-conforming uses once the proposed C-D zone is approved. Thisseems to be reasonable since the OCP office location policy would not be compromised and the establishedgeneral offices would be treated fairly.


ROBERT BONTKES AND CAMBRIDGE HOMESK.G. DEVELOPMENTS (PETER REIZEBOS)5689-0015-00

It was recommended that:

I. Third reading of By-law 10039 be rescinded and a new public hearing be scheduledto consider adding the following uses to the "Comprehensive Development Zone (C-D)"zone schedule:

1. Add to "Retail Commercial Zone One (C-R(1))":

A. Retail uses:

Book and stationary storesHobby brewing storesPet shops

B. Office Uses:

Loans office and associated financial services

August 1, 1989 ELUC


(Note: Loan's office already allowed)Medical therapy officeInterior decorators, designers and architect's offices.

2. Add to "Highway Commercial Zone (C-H)" permitted uses:

A. Retail uses

Home improvement, building supplies and garden supplies

B. Services

Animal hospitalsPost office box rental and related services

C. Industrial

Assembly of doors, windows, partitions and similarbuilding componentsFurniture assembly, refurbishing and upholsteryHome improvements and decorating productsPhotographic and processing storePrinting and publishing

II. All subject conditions in the attached previous Rezone Report continue to apply.

CARRIED

2.5 CanLan Investment Corporation

13343, 13353 & 13389 - 20 Avenue

From RS to R-H(G)

To permit subdivision into approximately 22 half-acre

gross density lots

5688-0662-00

There was no delegation in attendance concerning this application for rezoning from RS to R-H(G) topermit subdivision into approximately 22 half-acre gross density lots.

PROJECT HISTORY

Application Date: December 19, 1988

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Engineering Comments Request Date: December 21, 1988

Engineering Comments Date: March 21, 1989

Revised Engineering Comments Date: June 30, 1989


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from RS to R-H(G) of a 5.38-hectare (13.29 acre) site located at 13343,13353 and 13389 - 20 Avenue in South Surrey to permit subdivision into approximately 22 half-acre grossdensity lots.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application be approved to proceed for rezoning from RS to RH(G) under Section963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:

1. Amendment of the Semiahmoo Peninsula Plan (Local Area Plan 1985);



4. Submission of a tree survey showing the trees to be preserved.

The proposed subdivision will complete the 3rd and final phase of a gross density development established inprevious stages.

The entire subdivision lies between Dogwood Park on the east side and a recently completed half-acredevelopment on the west side, known as Huntington Park.

DESIGNATIONS


1. Official Community Plan (1985) - Designation Map: Suburban; and

2. Semiahmoo Peninsula Plan: Suburban Residential (1/2 acre fronting 20 Avenue) and (1 acre further northof 20 Avenue).


The site slopes moderately to the northeast. Vegetation is moderate and consists mostly of deciduous growthalong the northern and eastern perimeter of the site. Preservation of this natural amenity will form part of the15% open space.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Homes, garages and ancillary structures exist on the site. These buildings are intended to be retained.


North: Larger undeveloped suburban residential parcels presently zoned RS.

East: Dogwood Equestrian Park.

South: An existing half acre gross density subdivision known as Amble Greene.

West: Previous phases of this subdivision, already approved.


This proposal will develop this last remaining pocket of undeveloped land, and complete an Open Spaceconnection to Dogwood Park on the concept plans.

The proposed layout continues an established half-acre gross density concept for this area, and completes aloop road which will ultimately connect back onto 20 Avenue.

It should be noted that the Concept Plan for this area has recently been amended by Council, eliminating adirect through road connection to 24 Avenue. The Subdivision Plan, as submitted by the applicant, conforms tothe latest Concept Plan amendment.

PARK REQUIREMENTS

The applicant has proposed a series of trails and walkway improvements to connect to Dogwood Park as part ofthe 15% Open Space provisions under the R-H(G) Zoning By-law.


Adequate Municipal road and water supply for fire protection exist at the sites.

Municipal storm drainage exists on 20 Avenue; however, due to the topography of the sites, the north portionof the sites must drain to the north requiring a statutory right-of-way through adjoining properties.

These lands front Municipal sanitary sewer on 20 Avenue at the west and east boundaries of the site. Thecurrent GVS & DD sanitary sewer catchment boundary permits approximately the southerly 50 metres of theselands to connect to the 20 Avenue sewers. The rear portion of the land which lies outside the catchmentboundary cannot presently be serviced.

Under the previous application to the west of these sites, by the same applicant, the district boundary wasamended to include areas north of 20 Avenue. This was completed on the premise that gravity service could berouted to the north along the future 133 Street alignment to an existing sewer on 24 Avenue at 132 Street. Forthe purpose of this application, the applicant has provided a proposed plan/profile for gravity sanitary sewerservice prepared by IMC Consulting Group Inc., which has been amended to follow the proposed road pattern. The northern control plan road alignment has also been amended to suit the sanitary sewer design.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


There are not funds in the current year budget to extend sanitary sewer or storm drainage to this site. UntilCouncil support for the proposed zoning has been indicated, this Department is not prepared to approach theGVS & DD for amendment to their catchment boundary and, as such, does not support the rezoning from aservicing perspective.

DISCUSSION

The proposed subdivision of these lands, which extends beyond the existing sewer catchment boundarypresently established by the GVS&DD, will require an amendment to this boundary.

The applicant has provided a proposed servicing plan for this development, and has confirmed that servicing ofthis site to complement the adjustment of this catchment boundary can be achieved through appropriatemeasures.

The Engineering Department has indicated that they cannot support this application from a servicing viewunless the sewer catchment boundary is moved, and that they are not prepared to approach the GVRD to movethe boundary until Council indicates support for the zoning by granting this project approval to proceed.

CONCLUSION

The Planning Department has no objection to fine tuning the boundary of half-acre development in this locationas the amendment to this catchment boundary would complete the easterly extent of this development andwould not create an adverse effect on the community.

As the development of this site conforms to the Concept Plans established for this area, the Planning andDevelopment Services Department, therefore, supports this application.


CANLAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION5688-0662-00

It was recommended that Application 5688-0662-00 for rezoning from "Suburban Residential Zone (RS)" to"Half-Acre Residential - Gross Density Zone (R-H(G))" be tabled for a delegation.

CARRIED

2.6 Bruce Robinson

2332/42/52/62 - 152 Street

From R-F to C-H

To permit construction of a single storey

commercial building

5689-0241-00

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Mr. Robinson was in attendance concerning his rezoning application from R-F to C-H to permit theconstruction of a single storey commercial building.

The Chairman advised the delegation that the Planning Department is recommending that the applicationbe denied as commercial development outside of the local commercial node would negatively impactthe adjoining residential community and promote strip development a long 152 Street.

The delegation advised the Committee members that they have resubmitted a second set of plans withchanges to the building designs. There are four single-family homes approximately 20 ft. from 152Street. The properties are rented out and it is very difficult to keep tenants. As well, there is badingress/egress to the site. The existing homes are obsolete for the location. The delegation, inreviewing the application, advised that they looked at four other development proposals which includednew single family homes, townhouses, rental apartments, apartments/condominiums and reviewed thereasons why they would not work. The delegation pointed out that there are numerous policingproblems in the rented homes. In reviewing the project, the delegation pointed out that the site coveringis 29%. There will be a 6 ft. cedar hedge along the north, south and rear property lines.

In response to a question from Alderman Villeneuve, the delegation advised that there will be parking inthe front, on both sides and to the rear.

In response to a question from Mayor Bose, the delegation advised that two of the existing homes are invery poor condition.

PROJECT HISTORY





PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from R-F to C-H of a .28-hectare (.68 acre) property located at 2332 to2362 - 152 Street in South Surrey, to permit the construction of a single storey commercial building.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application not be approved.

BACKGROUND

The intersection at 24 Avenue and 152 Street has been the recent focus for several major rezoning proposalswhich include Schroeder Properties at the northeast corner (denied by Council November 9, 1988), andBorder/Neustaeder on the northwest site (approved November 16, 1987). Both projects proposed a combinationof commercial and multi residential uses.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


The remaining corner sites on this intersection have now been rezoned to commercial and include a full andself-serve gasoline station on the southwest corner (Application No. 5687-094) and a single storey commercialbuilding on the southeast site (Application No. 5687-152). A previous attempt to rezone the four residentialproperties south of this commercial site to C-H (Application No. 5687-464) was denied by Council onNovember 30, 1987.

DESIGNATIONS




Overall Land Use: Urban

Semiahmoo Peninsula Plan: Urban Residential.


The site is made up of four small properties, each containing a single family residence. The site is relativelyflat and has limited vegetation.


North: Recently constructed single storey commercial building (Millbrook Investments - 5687-152);

East: Urban Residential;

South: Urban Residential; and

West: Urban Residential; a full and self-serve gasoline station has been proposed on the southwestcorner of 24 Avenue and 152 Street.


The applicant has submitted building plans and site layout for a single storey commercial building whichproposes ten independent tenants. The building is to be located on the east perimeter of the subject site andwill be set back to the same depth as the commercial building to the north.

The proposed building and layout are in keeping with the requirements of the C-H zone, with respect tobuilding setbacks, height and site coverage. Parking is, however, insufficient in relation to the number ofcommercial tenants proposed. No spaces have been allocated for handicapped parking.

In addition to the above, no consideration has been made with respect to screening of the adjoining residencesto the south and east of the subject property.


August 1, 1989 ELUC


The Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on June 27, 1989. It was recommended that this project berejected.


The District of Surrey is currently upgrading 152 Street at this location. Land acquisition for the upgrading hasbeen achieved to the 27.0-metre standard. The need for an additional servicing corridor along the front of thesesites has been identified. A 3.0-metre wide right-of-way should be provided to accommodate for the ultimateservicing corridor.


The Engineering Department has reviewed the accompanying site plan and comments as follows:

(i) A 6.0-metre distance is required from the property line to the nearest stall located within the site.

(ii) The shape of the driveway entrances must conform with Surrey Standard C-1.

DISCUSSION

The recent review of the Semiahmoo Peninsula Plan, approved by Council, does not include additionalcommercial areas between 22 Avenue and 24 Avenue, on 152 Street. While the 24 Avenue/152 Streetintersection is now recognized as a local commercial node, commercial development outside of this area wouldnegatively impact the adjoining residential community and promote strip development along 152 Street.

The Planning and Development Services Department, therefore, recommends that this application be denied.


BRUCE ROBINSON5689-0241-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0241-00 for rezoning from "Family Residential Zone (R-F)" to"Highway Commercial Zone (C-H)" be denied.

CARRIED

2.7 Mr. D. Toor

Civic Consulting Group, Ltd.

12134 - 99 Avenue

From R-F to R-F(R)

To permit subdivision into two duplex lots

5689-0132-00

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Mr. Toor was in attendance concerning this rezoning application from R-F to R-F(D) to permit subdivision intotwo duplex lots.

The Chairman advised the delegation that the Planning Department is recommending that the application bedenied and advised the delegation the reasons for denial.

Mr. Toor noted that the area is surrounded by duplexes. There is a demand for duplexes in the area and theyare accepted by the community. The owner is prepared to propose a design acceptable to Council. Mr. Tooradvised that they are proposing R-F(R) and two R-F(D) lots.

In response to a question from Alderman Villeneuve, Mr. Toor advised that a neighbourhood survey was notdone.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, Mr. Toor advised that they are prepared to submit designguidelines and prepared to have the project subject to the submission of a suitable non-convertible duplexdesign.

PROJECT HISTORY





PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting rezoning from R-F to R-F(D) of a 24.0 metre portion at the west side of theproperty located at 12134 - 99 Avenue in South Westminster to permit subdivision into 2 duplex and 2 single-family lots.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application not be approved.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN CONTEXT

OCP Designation: Urban

Surrey Land Use Plan: Single Family Residential

South Westminster Area Plan: Urban Residential

This is an established single family neighbourhood with large lots. Prior to December 1987, the area's R-Fzoning permitted duplexes. This has resulted in over 30 duplexes within 1/2 mile radius of the site.

Other Pending Applications:

August 1, 1989 ELUC


1. 5688-0614-00 - Local Convenience - Tabled; and

2. 5689-0161-00 - Family Residential (Duplex) - Pre-ELUC.

This proposal does not promote the OCP's objectives and policies on high design standards, community imageor neighbourhood stability.


The site is in the Cedar Hills neighbourhood, east of Scott Road and south of the B.C. Hydro Railroad. Theslope of the land increases to approximately 8% just north of the site offering a panoramic view of NewWestminster and the northshore mountains. A limited number of mature coniferous and deciduous trees areclustered along the property's boundaries. The house on site will have to be moved to accomodate thesubdivision.


North: Single family residential and approximately 1/2 dozen duplexes within 2 blocks;

East: Single family residential and approximately 8 duplexes within 2 blocks;

South: Single family residential and approximately 1 dozen duplexes within a few blocks; and

West: Single family residential.


The proposed layout provides for two back-to-back duplex lots aside two single family lots. The duplexdesigns are mirror images of each other, but their floor plan inhibits fourplex conversion.

PARK AND SCHOOL SITE REQUIREMENTS

Council has not identified a need for parkland at this location; therefore, pursuant to Section 992 of theMunicipal Act, the owner of the land being subdivided will be required to pay to the Municipality an amountthat equals 5% of the market value of the land.



The continuation of 96A Avenue is identified within this site. The dedication and construction of this roadshould be addressed as part of this application.

DISCUSSION/SUMMARY

August 1, 1989 ELUC


The Planning and Development Services Department does not support this application. The R-F(D) zone wascreated to lessen the impact of duplexes in single family neighbourhoods. This neighbourhood already has adisproportionately high concentration of duplexes and the proposal fails to meet the design guidelines ofavoiding mirror images to lessen the impact. Nor is the site at a corner where a revised design couldcomplement surrounding single family homes. This proposal does not promote the OCP objectives to provideimage neighbourhood stability (Policy #55) or a cohesive community image (Policy #22).


MR. Z. TOOR & CIVIC CONSULTING GROUP LTD.5689-0132-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0132-00 for rezoning from "Family Residential Zone (R-F)" to"Family Residential - Duplex Zone (R-F(D)" be tabled, pending the applicant holding a Public InformationMeeting.

CARRIED

2.8 Thomas Y. Jung

10522 King George Highway

C-R(1)

To permit a minor addition to the existing building

and to upgrade the roof facade at the rear of the

subject property

6789-0217-00

Mr. Jung was in attendance concerning his development permit application to allow a minor addition toan existing building and to upgrade the roof facade at the rear of the subject property.

The Chairman advised the delegation that the Planning Department is recommending tha the applicationbe tabled until sufficient parking can be demonstrated.

Mr. Jung advised the Committee members that he has come to an agreement with B.C. Tel to use theirparking lot during the evening hours and on the weekends.

In response to a question, the delegation advised that they were willing to have a joint parkingagreement and proceed with the rezoning of the property as well.

PROJECT HISTORY




August 1, 1989 ELUC



PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a development permit to permit a minor addition to his building and to upgrade theroof facade at the rear of the subject property.

The development permit will also relax provisions of the C-R(1) zone with respect to:

the site coverage to be increased from 50% to 59.04%;

the rear yard setback to be reduced from 7.3 metres to .3 metres.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application for a development permit be tabled until the applicant can demonstratesufficient parking is available.


The applicant is proposing to upgrade the existing roof facade at the rear of the subject property and toconstruct a minor addition to the building. Total floor area proposed for the addition is 211 square metres(2275 square feet). The proposed addition and upgrading will be achieved through the restructuring of theexisting parking area at the rear of the subject property.

With respect to the conformity of the C-R(1) zone, the proposed building modifications will require relaxationof the rear yard setback and maximum site coverage.

As the proposed changes will eliminate 18 existing parking stalls on site, additional parking spaces arerequired. The applicant has suggested that parking will be accommodated on an adjoining property.


The Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on June 6, 1989. It was recommended that this project betabled pending advice from the applicant whether the project will meet required standards.


Adequate Municipal road, storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water supply for fire protection exist at the site. The Engineering Department can, therefore, support the Development Permit application from a servicingperspective.

As King George Highway is a Provincial Highway, the applicant should be advised that prior approval from theMinistry of Transportation and Highways is required for any construction within the road allowance, includingdriveway accesses and all service connections.

The Engineering Department has reviewed a site plan (Janax Design and Drafting Services Ltd.) and provides

August 1, 1989 ELUC


the following comments:

(i) there is no magazine at the driveway entrance on King George Highway;

(ii) we are unable to determine if there is adequate on-site parking.

DISCUSSION

The applicant has applied for a development permit as the proposed building addition and upgrading of the rooffacade is within Mandatory Development Permit Area VI(1). The proposed modifications are in keeping withthe design guidelines for this area and will improve the appearance of the commercial structure.

The proposed building additions will require an increase in available parking due to the relocation of existingstalls, as 18 on-site parking spaces are taken by the new building. Although the applicant has provided plansshowing the provision of 22 additional spaces on an adjacent residential property, an application to rezone thissite to C-R(1) (to permit parking as principal use) will be first required. No application has yet been receivedto rezone this site to C-R(1).

Therefore, the Planning and Development Services Department recommends that this application be tableduntil the applicant can demonstrate that sufficient parking is available.


THOMAS Y. JUNG6789-0217-00

It was recommended that Development Permit Application 6789-0217-00 be approved subject to resolution ofparking.

CARRIED

2.9 Can Hong Development Ltd.

1B1 Group (Gordon Easton)

10440 East Whalley Ring Road

C-C

To allow construction of an 18-storey building

with about 325 sq.m. (3,500 sq. ft.) of

commercial area and 100 adult-oriented apartment units

6789-0242-00

Mr. Thom of the IBI Group was in attendance concerning this development permit application to allowthe construction of an 18-storey building with a commercial area and adult oriented apartment units.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


The Chairman advised the delegation that the Planning Department is recommending that thedevelopment permit be approved and noted the subject conditions and Engineering requirements.

Mr. Thom, in reviewing the application, pointed out that there will be covered enclosed parking. Mr.Thom commented that the 100 unit apartment building is viable due to the ALRT. This projectconforms to the Core Commercial guidelines. There will be a recreation area opening out onto the roofgarden and terrace. As well, there will be an 1,800 sq. ft. indoor area, but no specific function has beendecided at this point in time.

In response to a question from Alderman Higginbotham, Mr. Thom advised the apartment units wouldrange from 715 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. It has not been determined if the project will be strata titled orrental units.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, the delegation advised that it would be possible toprovide a swimming pool if it was made a requirement.

In response to a question from Mayor Bose, the delegation advised that one level is underground and2.5 levels are above ground.

In response to a question from Alderman Villeneuve, the delegation advised that the commercial portionis intended to serve the tenants. A shadow study has been done and there will be no impact on anyresidential homes.

In response to a question from Alderman Hunt, the delegation advised that there will be no soilsproblem for this project.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the delegation advised that they have only had generaldiscussions with the Planner and have not yet resolved the concerns of the Design Review Committee. The delegation advised that their engineer has submitted sewer calculations to the EngineeringDepartment. The visitor parking has been provided in compliance with the Zoning By-law.

PROJECT HISTORY



Engineering Comments Date: May 30, 1989

Design Review Comm. Comments Date: July 19, 1989


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a development permit on a .29-hectare (.74 acre) property located at 10440 EastWhalley Ring Road in Whalley to permit the construction of an 18 storey tower with about 325 sq.m. (3,500sq. ft.) of commercial use on a portion of the first two floors and 100 units of adult-oriented apartments in theupper storeys.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council pass:

1. A resolution authorizing the Planning and Development Services Department to draft a developmentpermit; and

2. A resolution authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the permit subject to:

(a) Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways;

(b) Submission of a satisfactory design;

(c) Solution of the concerns expressed by the Municipal Engineer; and

(d) Approval of landscape plans from Parks and Recreation.

DESIGNATIONS



Designation Map: Downtown

Whalley-Guildford Plan: Multiple Density (Highrise);

2. The site is within a Mandatory Development Permit Area;

3. The site lies within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.


The site is vacant and is relatively flat at the eastern end and slopes down to the street grade of the EastWhalley Ring Road. Vegetation is a mixture of young coniferous, cedar and deciduous trees and some bush.



North: Cabaret

East: Fenced storage compound and Western Cablevision facility.

South: Bank

August 1, 1989 ELUC


West: Retail shops, office and auto service facility.


The proposed design is for an eighteen storey structure with all concealed parking. One level of parking isbelow grade; the balance is in the first and second storeys which also contain commercial uses and recreationalfacilities. The upper storeys in the tower are used exclusively for residential suites.

The first 2 storeys form a podium that covers 90% of the lot; a horseshoe shaped driveway provides access tothe site for drop off and entry into underground parking.


The Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on July 19, 1989. It was recommended that this project beapproved and that although the massing was considered improved and the addition to the roof of the podiumalso considered improved, the Design Review Committee expressed concerns that the presence of the podiumto the pedestrian scale on the street is acceptable on the south side of the west elevation, but imposing on thenorth side of the west elevation and therefore suggest:

1. That a similar treatment be considered for the north part of the west elevation on 137 Street which mightconsist of awnings and perhaps more glazing.

2. The applicant to consider further definition of the entrance, both to the satisfaction of the Manager ofDesign Services.

Note: For the Manager of Design Services that the Committee discussed the abrupt change in the facade to afloor line and queries if a more integrated approach is possible in order to express verticality.


SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS

Since this is an adult-oriented development, the impact on school attendance should be minimal.


Adequate Municipal road, storm drainage and water supply for fire protection exist at the site.

The site fronts a sanitary sewer main on the East Whalley Ring Road which may be inadequate. A capacityproblem in the sanitary sewer system downstream from this site has been identified. The applicant is requiredto provide the Engineering Department with sewer flow calculations anticipated for this proposal in order todetermine further the potential inadequacy of the sanitary sewer.

We note that the Municipality has allocated funds in the 1989 budget under Project S853 to upgrade a sectionof sanitary sewer west of King George Highway on 105A Avenue. However, this improvement may notresolve the potential inadequacy of sanitary sewer at this site.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


There are not funds allocated in the current year budget to potentially upgrade the sanitary sewer to the site. However, should the applicant resolve this potential deficiency, the Engineering Department could support thedevelopment permit application from a servicing perspective.

The Engineering Department has reviewed a site plan for this proposal and provides the following comments:

(i) Parking should be as per the Zoning By-law.

(ii) What provision is there for customer and visitor parking.

DISCUSSION

The Planning and Development Services Department supports issuance of this development permit subject toresolution of the design concerns, landscaping approval and solution of Engineering concerns.


CAN HONG DEVELOPMENT LTD. & IBI GROUP (GORDON EASTON)6789-0242-00

It was recommended that Application 6789-0242-00 be denied and the applicant be requested to reconsider theapplication with a view to improving social amenities and consideration of two levels of underground parking.

CARRIED with Alderman Robinson, Higginbotham and theChairman against.

2.10. Fonnie International Investments

14830 - 104 Avenue

P-A to C-C

To permit development of Phase I of a high

density commercial and residential complex

6789-0303-00

Mr. Chang, architect, was in attendance on behalf of Fonnie International Investments concerning thisdevelopment permit application to allow the construction of Phase 1 of a high density commercial andresidential complex.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from thePlanning Department.

The delegation displayed a rendering of the original proposal. The delegation commented that theypropose Phase I to consist of retail development on the street level and smaller scale townhouses and alandscaped courtyard. The delegation described the second floor amenity space and described theaccess to the townhouse units. The townhouse units will be two bedroom units of approximately 1,100sq. ft.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


In response to a question from the Chairman, the delegation advised that they have dealt with theconcerns of the Design Review Committee. All of the parking is underground. The apartment towerwill consist of 92 apartment units and the townhouse component will provide 4 units.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, the delegation advised that visitor parking is ongrade. Secure underground parking will be provided for the residents.

In response to a question from Alderman Villeneuve, the delegation advised that the units will be stratatitled units.

In response to a question from Alderman Hunt, the delegation advised that levels of undergroundparking have been provided.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, the delegation advised that they are looking at awhirlpool and swimming pool for Phase 2 of the development.

In response to a question from Mayor Bose, the delegation advised that there may be families in thetownhouse units.

In response to a question from Alderman Villeneuve, the delegation advised that a shadow study hasbeen done and the project will not impact on the area.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, the delegation advised that they have commissioneda marketing study, and the project will be marketed locally.

The Assistant Land Development Engineer advised the delegation that the Engineering Department hasnot commented on the latest design.

PROJECT HISTORY


Planning Comments Date: June 21, 1989

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a Development Permit to permit construction of Phase 1 of a high densitycommercial and residential development.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council pass the following resolutions:

1. A resolution authorizing the Planning and Development Services Department to draft a DevelopmentPermit document; and

August 1, 1989 ELUC


2. A resolution authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the permit, subject to:

a. Submission of the revised building plans to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee; and

b. Submission of a detailed landscape plan.

BACKGROUND

A development permit application has been submitted in conjunction with Rezoning Application No. 5684-469,which received third reading on November 18, 1985. The purpose of this rezoning was to redesignate a .72-hectare (1.77 acre) property from P-A to C-C, to permit construction of a high density commercial andresidential complex.

Adevelopment permit is required prior to final adoption of the rezoning by-law, as the property is now locatedwithin Mandatory Development Permit Area VI(1).


The applicant is proposing Phase I of a commercial and residential complex that will consist of one 18-storeytower and a continuous 2-storey commercial building along the frontage of 104 Avenue and 148 Street. Thefrontage along 103A Avenue will be used to accommodate a row of four townhouses.

Phase 1 of the project will comprise 980 square metres (10,550 square feet) of commercial development and10,614 square metres (114,259 square feet) of residential development incorporating 96 apartments and 4townhouses. One hundred and sixty five parking spaces are to be provided for the residential units, with thirtyparking spaces allocated for the commercial component.


The Design Review Committee reviewed the amended plans on June 21, 1989. It was recommended that thisproject be approved, subject to:

1. The architect providing additional detail to show treatment of the west elevation facing the interior roadsystem.

2. Noting the Committee's concern that the parking garage facility behind the colonnades is not clearlyvisible and that an attractive interface between the service areas and the public domain be achieved; speciallandscaping is required.

3. Applicant to clarify access to the deck-level townhouses.


DISCUSSION

The applicant has applied for a Development Permit as the proposed complex is within Mandatory

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Development Permit Area VI(I). The proposed development is in keeping with the proposed developmentguidelines for this area and would be a significant step in achieving the goals of the Official Community Planand recent recommendations of the Patti Rao report.

The Planning and Development Services Department, therefore, recommends that this application be approved,subject to the recommendations above.


FONNIE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD.6789-0303-00

It was recommended that Council pass the following resolutions:

1. A resolution authorizing the Planning and Development Services Department todraft a Development Permit document; and

2. A resolution authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the permit, subject to:

(a) Submission of the revised building plans to the satisfaction of the Design ReviewCommittee; and

(b) Submission of a detailed landscape plan.

CARRIED

2.11 Cicuto & Sons Contractors Ltd.

12664/12682/12712/12740 Highway 10

From RS to R-1

To permit subdivision into 13 half-acre lots

5689-0004-00

Representatives of Cicuto & Sons were in attendance concerning this rezoning application from RS to R-1 topermit subdivision into 13 half-acre lots.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from the PlanningDepartment and noted the subject conditions.

The delegation advised the committee members that they are prepared to donate the property under the right-of-way as public open space.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

BACKGROUND

August 1, 1989 ELUC


This application was tabled until the Panorama Ridge Servicing standards were considered by Council. Council also wanted a review of the subdivision layout. As the servicing standards for Panorama Ridge havebeen reviewed, the application is referred back to ELUC for further consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this application be approved to proceed for rezoning from RS to R-1 under Section 963of the Municipal Act, subject to:




4. Registration of Restrictive Covenant to prohibit the cutting of trees within the north 15 metres of the siteabutting Highway 10.

DISCUSSION

The subdivision layout has been revised as shown on Plan 1. The layout has been amended so that 57A Avenuedoes not extend to 128 Street but is terminated in a cul-de-sac west of the Hydro right-of-way. The plan hasalso been changed so that the lots do not extend into the right-of-way. The lot yield has been reduced from 15to 13 lots.

The revised layout and the proposed amendment to the concept plan for the area do not adversely affect thedevelopment potential of adjacent properties. Therefore, the Planning and Development Services Departmenthas no objections to the changes and supports this application.


CICUTO & SONS CONTRACTORS LTD.5689-0004-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0004-00 be approved to proceed for rezoning from "SuburbanResidential Zone (RS)" to "Residential Zone one (R-1)" under Section 963 of the Municipal Act, subject to:




4. Registration of Restrictive Covenant to prohibit the cutting of trees within the north15 metres of the site abutting Highway 10.

CARRIED

August 1, 1989 ELUC


2.12 Mr. P. Mattu

13911, 13923, 13931 - 16 Avenue

From R-F & RS to RT-1

To permit construction of 30 townhouses

5687-528

Representatives of Mr. Mattu were in attendance concerning this rezoning application from R-F and RSto RT-1 to permit the construction of 20 townhouse units.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from thePlanning Department.

MANAGER'S REPORT

Item R316

RECOMMENDATION

That Council reconsider its decision to file By-law No. 9938.

INTENT

The purpose of this report is to comment on the application, the concerns of the community and therequest that the bylaw be reconsidered.

DISCUSSION

The applicant proposed to rezone the properties to RT-1 to permit the construction of 30 adult-orientedtownhouse units as shown in the attached plans.

This department supported the project because it would provide an appropriate transition from theapartment-type buildings of the personal care facility on the north and east sides to the urban singlefamily lots on the south and west sides.

At the public hearing on April 17, 1989, local residents expressed opposition to the project, citingdensity, height of building and location of the driveway among their concerns. Following th publichearing, rezoning By-law No. 9938 was filed.

On June 5, 1989, the applicant spoke as a delegation to Council-in-committee, responding to theconcerns expressed at the public hearing, and requested that By-law No. 9938 be reconsidered.

This department continues to support this project because of the transitional use reason stated above,and because, with restricted access of 16 Avenue, it is not practical to develop the properties for single

August 1, 1989 ELUC


family lots. In addition, while there may be opposition to the location of the driveway on the east sideof the site, it was placed there so that the beautiful trees on the west side could be preserved. Furthermore, because the one and two bedroom units are directed at the seniors' market, similar to thatof the seniors' facility next door, it is expected that it will have no greater impact on the need for schoolsthan the seniors facility did. This department, therefore, feels that the decision to file the rezoning by-law should be reconsidered.


MR. P. MATTU5687-528

It was recommended that Council reconsider its decision to file by-law No. 9938, that the application beapproved; and that a public hearing be held.

CARRIED

It was further recommended that a public information meeting be held by the applicant, prior to the applicationgoing to public hearing.

CARRIED with Alderman Hunt and the Chairman against.

2.13. Amherst Estates

Rudy Triffo

12237 - 88 Avenue

From I-G to R-F(R)


76 single family lots

5688-0110-00

Arepresentative of the Amherst Estates was in attendance concerning this rezoning application from I-G to R-F)R) to permit subdivision into 76 single family lots.

The Chairman advised the delegation that this application has a positive recommendation from the PlanningDepartment.

The delegation advised that they are requesting reconsideration of Council's denial of this rezoning application. Plan "C" has the support of the Planning Department. This plan consists of 76 residential lots. As well, thisplan went to the public hearing on the Official Community Plan/

The delegation distributed letters from the residents in the area supporting the application. The delegation thenreviewed Plans "D, E and F" as well.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, the delegation advised that prior to 1986 the land wasdesignated industrial. The delegation further commented that the homes in this proposal will not exceed the

August 1, 1989 ELUC


size of the existing homes in the area. The delegation advised that they are willing to provide a buildingscheme. The homes will not exceed 3,000 square feet of living space.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council consider approving this development without further change.

DISCUSSION

On March 13, 1989 Council referred this application to the Environment and Land Use Committee for furtherconsideration. The proposed layout set aside the 111m (359 feet) deep portion of the site along 88 Avenue forindustrial purposes. This was proposed by the applicant on the basis of discussions with municipal staff, inorder to maintain an industrial street frontage on both the north and south sides of 88 Avenue. Also, theOfficial Community Plan amendment approved by Council on November 28, 1988 did not amend this portionof the site from Industrial to Urban.

The applicant has submitted two options for the development of this portion of the site as requested byCouncil. As this portion of the property remains designated Industrial it is recommended that Council approvethe original layout.


AMHERST ESTATES & RUDY TRIFFO5688-0110-00

It was recommended that Application 5688-0110-00 be denied.

CARRIED

It was then recommended that this application be included in the next Official Community Plan Review forredesignation to Industrial.

CARRIED

2.14 Daljit S. Toor

12392 - 100 Avenue

R-F

From R-F to C-L

To permit construction of a local

convenience store and residence

5688-0614-00

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Mr. Toor was in attendance concerning this rezoning application from R-F to C-L to permit theconstruction of a local convenience store and residence.

The Chairman noted that this application had been tabled for a public information meeting which hasnow been held by the applicant.

Mr. Toor advised that a survey was taken at the public information meeting and submitted to theMunicipal Hall. Mr. Toor pointed out that most of the responses will be negative. Mr. Toorcommented that he has no plans to go against the residents' wishes.

Mr. Toor commented on the application, pointing out that the site meets all of the guidelinerequirements. Mr. Toor noted that the school is not in favour of the project and suggested that theconvenience store guidelines be amended to reflect convenience stores not being permitted in front ofschools. Mr. Toor noted that this is a duplex sized lot with an existing up and down duplex. Mr. Toorrequested that the application be amended to R-F(D) under Council initiative.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this information be received.

BACKGROUND

The applicant has proposed the rezoning from R-F to C-L for a local convenience store and second floorresidence for a site at the south west corner of 100 Avenue and 124 Street in Cedar Hills. The Environmentand Land Use Committee, at its meeting on March 21, 1989, recommended that the application "be tabled for apublic information meeting held by the applicant, similar to the North Vancouver procedure, and advised thecommittee members of the date of the public information meeting." Council on April 3, 1989 adopted thisrecommendation.

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING

The applicant held a public information meeting on June 20, 1989, at the Prince Charles Elementary School(12405 - 100 Avenue) which is across the street from the subject site (copy of notice attached). This meetingwas attended by about 100 people and following a presentation by the applicant and his architect, asurveyquestionnaire was distributed to those in attendance. Sixty-one surveys were returned to the Clerk'sDepartment. The residents' reaction to the proposal was negative. All of the survey questionnaires returnedindicated opposition to the rezoning. The major reasons for opposition are summarized as follows:

1. Traffic safety (Children crossing 100 Avenue to get to the store);

2. Other stores nearby (they are greater than a half mile radius from this store);

3. Potential hangout for teenagers;

4. Area would require additional policing and street clean up;

August 1, 1989 ELUC


5. Too close to the Prince Charles Elementary School;

6. Increased noise and litter (more vehicular and pedestrian traffic into the area); and

7. One staff member from the school indicated that there would be supervision problems with children off ofthe school ground.

DISCUSSION

The applicant, in recognition of local opposition to this proposal, wishes to discuss the withdrawing of thisrezoning application and possible alternate development proposals for the site with the Environment and LandUse Committee.


DALJIT S. TOOR5688-0614-00

It was recommended that Application 5688-0614-00 be amended to R-F(D) subject to side inspection by thePermits and Licenses Department and the standard subject conditions for Council initiated R-F(F) rezonings.

CARRIED

It was further recommended that locating convenience stores in front of junior secondary schools be deletedfrom the convenience store guidelines and that the guidelines include that convenience stores not be located inclose proximity to a school.

Before the recommendation was put:

It was recommended that the recommendation be tabled and referred to the School District for comment.


B. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

3.1 Dr. J. Olafson

Paul Merrick, Architect

King George Hwy. & Crescent Road

100,000 sq. ft. of commercial

space, 340 high-rise & townhouse

units and community services

6289-0313-00

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Dr. Olafson and Mr. Merrick, Architect, were in attendance concerning this development proposal toallow 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 340 high rise and townhouse units and community services.

Dr. Olafson commented that the project property has been assembled over 13 years. The site is at thesouthwest corner of Crescent Road and King George Highway. There has been a 25 acre propertyassembly. Dr. Olafson advised the Committee members that this project has been discussed with theEngineering Department and their concerns, which are mainly traffic, can be addressed.

Mr. Merrick displayed site plans of the project and outlined the site boundaries. Mr. Merrick noted thatthe proposal develops around a village square and it is proposed to have a residential complex around acommercial centre. Approximately 1/5 of the density is in the apartment building on the north side ofthe square. This proposal will allow the retention of substantial blocks of existing vegetation. Mr.Merrick displayed a sketch view of the proposal and described how Semiahmoo Trail would behandled.

In response to a question from Alderman Villeneuve, the delegation described the area that is existingcommercial. Alderman Villeneuve then asked if the delegation would be willing to eliminate the towercomponent.

The delegation pointed out that the apartment tower gives focus to the project. There will be no shadoweffect from the tower.

In response to a question from Alderman Robinson, the delegation advised that this project basicallylooks at an "empty nester" market. Amenities for this proposal will be seniors oriented.

In response to a question from Mayor Bose, the delegation advised that there will be a 12 to 15 footstorey tower.

In response to a question from Alderman Higginbotham, the delegation advised that the density will be15 units per acre. The delegation further commented that they envisage a 45-50 room hotel.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the delegation advised that one overall corporation will behandling the project.


R. J. OLAFSON & PAUL MERRICK, ARCHITECT6289-0313-00

It was recommended that the proponents be encouraged to proceed through the formal approval process and,further, that the matters of road realignments and transfer of commercial development rights in generalagreement with the conceptual plans presented be further pursued.

Before the recommendation was put:-

It was recommended that the above recommendation be tabled for a report from the Planning Department.

CARRIED

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Item CR17 Development Permit Areas in the Vicinity of 104 Avenue/160 Street

The Municipal Manager submitted a report from the Director of Planning & Development Services concerningDevelopment Permit Areas in the vicinity of 104 Avenue/160 Street.

The Municipal Manager commented that at the Regular Council meeting held on April 24, 1989 after dealingwith 5688-0466-00, the Municipal Council passed the following resolution:

"That the Planning Department research projects instream in the vicinity of 104 Avenue and 160 Streetwith respect to the absence of a Mandatory Development Permit Area and the problem of designcontrol and report back to ELUC as soon as possible."

The Director of Planning and Development Services was recommending:

1. Mandatory Development Permit Areas in the vicinity of 104 Avenue and 160 Street be established only inconjunction with individual rezoning applications;

2. In conjunction with Rezoning Application 5688-0466 and 5685-362 and 363, the declaration of theattached Development Permit Area XXXIII be approved to proceed; and

3. The authorizing by-law be introduced, given two readings and a date be set for Public Hearing to includethe attached text in the OCP under Subsection 2, Designation of Development Permit Areas, Section C, ChapterIV, What We Should Do: Implementation.

The Municipal Manager concurred with the recommendation of the Director of Planning and DevelopmentServices.


It was recommended that:

1. Mandatory Development Permit Areas in the vicinity of 104 Avenue and 160 Streetbe established only in conjunction with individual rezoning applications;

2. In conjunction with Rezoning Application 5688-0466 and 5685-362 and 363, thedeclaration of the attached Development Permit Area XXXIII be approved to proceed;and

3. The authorizing by-law be introduced, given two readings and a date be set forPublic Hearing to include the attached text in the OCP under Subsection 2, Designationof Development Permit Areas, Section C, Chapter IV, What We Should Do: Implementation.

CARRIED

ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL:

1. C & R Cherry, E. Humphries & M & M Ayotte

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Rodger Gregory

7839, 7855, 7871 & 7887 King George Highway

From R-F(R) to C-HTo permit consolidation of the site for the

construction of a 1,536 sq.m. automotive

repair centre

5689-0139-00

At the July 17, 1987 Regular Council meeting, a motion to deny application 5689-0139-00 was tabledand referred back to ELUC for discussion.


C & R CHERRY, E. HUMPHRIES & M & M AYOTTE ANDRODGER GREGORY5689-0139-00

It was recommended that Application 5689-0139-00 be denied and the applicant consider consolidation ofproperties to allow the feasibility of a townhouse project.


2. "Surrey Zoning By-law, 1979, No. 5942, Amendment By-law, 1988, No. 9752"

5688-0168-00 - Steve & Ann Gibson

A-1 to R-H(G) - 10187 & 10223 - 161 StreetTo permit a subdivision of approximately 9 half-acre gross density lots.

The above noted by-law was not considered for final adoption at the July 31, 1989 Regular Councilmeeting as the application was subject to the applicant describing how stream preservation would bedealt with.

Mr. & Mrs. Gibson were in attendance concerning this rezoning application from A-1 to R-H(G) topermit subdivision into 9 half-acre gross density lots.

The delegation advised the Committee members that a large portion of the creek areas has beendedicated to the Municipality. Thee will be a restrictive covenant on the lots along the creek to protectthe bank area. This proposal has been accepted by the Department of Fisheries.

3. Sweet Investments

& ITC Ventures Ltd.

8815 Harvie Road

August 1, 1989 ELUC


Development Variance Permit 6989-0063-00

Development Variance Permit 6989-0063-00 was referred to the ELUC Committee to review theobjection to the development variance permit raised at the July 31 Regular Council meeting.


SWEET INVESTMENTS & ITC VENTURES LTD.6989-0063-00

It was recommended that Development Variance Permit 6989-0063-00 be approved and the Mayor and Clerkbe authorized to sign the permit.

CARRIED

4. Mr. D. Toor

6759 King George Highway

6987-468

This development variance permit was referred from the July 31, 1989 Regular Council meeting fordiscussion. The development variance permit is to relax the requirement that 50% of the requiredparking be underground or within a structure and to permit 100% surface parking on the site.


MR. D. TOOR6987-468

It was recommended that the Development Variance Permit be approved and the Mayor and Clerk beauthorized to sign the permit.

CARRIED

It was further recommended that the appropriate road exchange by-law be drafted.

CARRIED

OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS:

1. Advisory Design Panel & Design Review Committee

Terms of Reference

Referred by the Chairman for discussion.

This item was not dealt with.

August 1, 1989 ELUC


2. Regional Marketing of Large Scale Projects


It was recommended that the feasibility of regulations for regional marketing of large scale developments bereferred to the Solicitor for Comment.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT:

The Environment and Land Use Committee meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

3976y

Tuesday, August 1, 1989 - Surrey August 1, 1989 Committee Room Municipal Hall 14245 - 56th Avenue...

Documents

Transcript of Tuesday, August 1, 1989 - Surrey August 1, 1989 Committee Room Municipal Hall 14245 - 56th Avenue...