WELCOME TO THE G HEIGHTS NCP #3 - surrey.ca Heights NCP 3 CAC Meeting... · with the existing 1...

GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3 GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3

1

GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS NCP AREA #3

Feb 1, 2018

WELCOME TO THE

CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING #6

For more information visit the city of surrey webpage at: www.surrey.ca/gh3ncp

CAC Meeting

http://www.surrey.ca/gh3ncp

GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3

MEETING AGENDA

GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3 CAC Meeting

Agenda Outline

1. What we’ve heard at Public Open House? 2. Questions & Comments about Survey 3. CAC & NCP Next Steps 4. Questions & Comments about next steps

2


Grandview Heights NCP #3 – Community

Survey Summary

The results of this survey, conducted between November 27, 2017 and January 3 2018, are not weighted to the City of Surrey’s population. The

results are based on 464 survey responses of which 242 where completed Surveys.

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #2 - SURVEY RESULTS


Profile of Survey Participants

Age Range Neighbourhood Area

DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics are provided as background on

the composition of survey respondents. Please note these results are not weighted to

the City of Surrey’s population.

3%

15% 20% 19%

28%

12%

3%

19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ PreferNot to

Answer

9%

49%

12%

10%

5%

6%

8%

2%

In Study Area

Other part of South Surrey

Cloverdale

Fleetwood

Guildford

Newton

City Centre/Whalley

Outside Surrey


Rating Priorities

Q: In early consultation with the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), nine draft planning priorities were developed to help guide the creation of future land use concepts for this neighbourhood. Help us rate these priorities in preparation for the next steps of the planning process. Total participants: 464

58%

55%

53%

43%

52%

40%

41%

12%

12%

33%

35%

31%

39%

28%

38%

37%

38%

32%

6%

7%

12%

14%

11%

17%

15%

30%

38%

2%

2%

2%

3%

6%

3%

5%

13%

12%

2%

2%

3%

2%

2%

7%

5%

Provide For Community Amenities & Schools

Provide Parks &Recreation Opportunities

Ensure Healthy, Protected & Well-Maintained Ecosystems & Biodiversity

Ensure Appropriate Servicing, Financing and Infrastructure Improvements

Limit Urban Impacts on the Agricultural Land Reserve

Provide Appropriate Housing

Ensure Multimodal Road Design encouraging a Transit Oriented Community

Include opportunities for Neighbourhood Serving Commercial Uses

Consider Viewscape Opportunities

Very Important Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Unimportant Very Unimportant


Other Priorities

Q: Are there any other planning priorities you would suggest? Total participants: 142

“Most importantly, Surrey needs to improve walkability of neighborhoods to amenities. Surrey has not done well with this creating a city that requires cars which is the most unhealthy. We need better transit to connect out of the way residential neighborhoods with other services.”

“Create an appropriate mix of single family and townhouses with sufficient density to ensure cost of providing community services can be justified.”

“A disc golf course in a park in this area.”

“Ensure developers pay for infrastructure upgrades required and not Surrey tax payers.”

“Any new development initiative that gets considered seems to always negate roadside parking space. Good example is Clayton Heights. Homes get built with suites (legal or illegal) but not enough consideration is ever given to where will people park or where will service vehicles park.”

“No more housing developments until schools have been built, especially another high school….”

“Plan the neighborhoods properly, too much housing, and not enough doctors, dentists, daycares, grocery stores: these need to be in walking distance!”

“Incorporating public art in common public spaces.”


Habitat Corridor between Darts Hill Park and Redwood Park Q: We need to plan for a habitat corridor between Darts Hill Park and Redwood Park. Highlight on the map the best location for a wildlife corridor. Use your cursor to highlight the map. Based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.


New Parkland Q: New parkland for people is also important. Highlight on the map the best locations for new parkland. Use your cursor to highlight the map. Based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.


New Active Parkland

Q: The amount of new active parkland will be based on the number of new residents in the area. Assuming a set amount of new parkland, how do you think it should be provided? Total participants: 291

Consolidate new parkland into one or two larger sites 44% Spread out several smaller sites across the plan area 56%

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiD2srZ84LZAhUUTGMKHQWtD0QQjRwIBw&url=https://thenounproject.com/term/park/32603/&psig=AOvVaw2xsLGjBVYk-DiXIBYsq5kD&ust=1517512210370023






Best Location for a Village Node and/or Commercial Area(s)

Q: Highlight on the map the best location(s) for a village node and/or commercial area(s). Based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.


Neighbourhood Village

Q: A neighbourhood village or commercial areas can take a variety of forms and support different uses. Each contributes differently to a neighbourhood. Which form of commercial building do you feel is suitable for this area? Total participants: 279

8%

46%

37%

9%

1%

Highway Oriented Commercial

Neighbourhood Commercial

Mixed Use Commercial

No Commercial

Other


Neighbourhood Village/Commercial Area by Age Range

5% 6% 11% 7% 11% 8%

71%

24% 34%

39% 43%

21% 36%

29%

65% 53% 37% 39%

57% 47%

5% 6% 13% 10% 11% 9%

19-29* 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Overall

Highway Oriented Commercial

Neighbourhood Commercial

Mixed Use Commercial

No Commercial

*Caution: Low base n<10


Mix of Housing Appropriate to this Area

Q: What mix of housing do you think should be provided is appropriate in this area (by percentage)? Note, some areas may not redevelop so this balance would apply only to those areas that do. 100% must be assigned to move to the next question. Total participants: 266

37

24 21 19

30 25

20 17

Detached Single Family Townhouse Semi-Detached Apartment

Mean Median


Residential Concepts

Q: Example locations of potential housing types are illustrated above in Concept A & B, for discussion purposes. Given the ideas about where housing could be provided, do you have any additional comments about the location and type of housing for this neighbourhood? Total participants: 118

“The area should be single family and some townhomes/rowhomes. The amount of density should be driven by only having to provide one school in the area. Getting two school sites in this area will be prohibitive. Also, services and transit are not in this area so density should remain low. Higher density areas exist near 24th and 160th and in Area 2. This should be urban single family and townhomes only.”

“Need to keep more large lots, rather than all tiny lots. Leave some space and trees. The roads cannot support more density so close to the all the current development. We are already short on schools, transit in the area. Roads all need widening to support the existing growth. Add more trails and walkways. Safer biking areas on the streets.”

‘Homes that allow for wheelchair/universal access for aging population. The 3 level townhouse with 2 flights of stairs don't suit seniors and people who have mobility challenges.” “Density is far too high. High density does not fit in

with the existing 1 acre lots surrounding the NCP.” “Do not forget lower cost rental housing and starter homes for young singles and married with young families. We cannot afford to continue to force them out of our communities as Vancouver has done.”

“There are lots of semi-detached and townhouse along the 24th corridor. And plenty of commercial. There is little or no need for it here.”


School Locations

Q: Which one of the four proposed locations would you prefer? Or alternately select other and indicate with the highlighter tool the other location on the map below. Total participants: 259 Heat map is based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.

31%

26%

26%

11%

6%

Location A

Location B

Location C

Location D

Other


School Locations

Q: Do you have any comments about Schools in the plan area? Total participants: 75

“School sites should be provided for before/during the re-development of the area to ensure schools are available for new families.”

“Only one school site in this area, too difficult and expensive to get two.”

“Build with future expansion in mind so that instead of portables, actual classrooms can be added. And what is wrong with two-storey elementary schools? This concept would take less land allowing for more outdoor space for recreation and neighbourhood utilization.”

“Slower traffic, more vehicles on the road, make sure it's somewhere that won't create a bottleneck.”

“Putting the school closer to the kids that will attend that school on the other side of 176 St will make it more central for everyone.”

“The school should be located next to Dart's Hill and the existing church. There may be an opportunity for some shared amenities between the Park the School and the Church. e.g.: Daycare in the Church outdoor activities in the Park, shared parking for larger events, etc”

“Safety should be important - for children walking to school, with wide sidewalk and crosswalk areas; as well as for drivers.”

“I don't understand why the lot of the previous Grandview Heights Elementary can't be used? It has an old (possibly heritage) schoolhouse on the property that should be saved for some history in the area as it is linked to the founders of Red Wood Park. This would be where I would propose a new school to go.”


Hazelmere Estates Planning Concepts

Q: What type of ultimate long term land uses may be appropriate in the Hazelmere Estates Area? Total participants: 254/14

26%

22%

45%

7%

Maintain the status quo (existing suburbandesignation only): Mix of 1 acre and half

acre lots (Concept 1)

Urban re-development around peripherywith a suburban core: Urban designation(e.g. single family/townhouse etc.) along…

Urban Re-development for the entire area:Mix of urban designation (e.g. single family,

duplex, townhouse etc.) with potential…

Other

“Single Family and Duplexes, with a larger then normal lot sizes.”

“Urban redevelopment is great but not with the school here.. this is the last area to put a school as it is least central and is

likely to be the last area developed fully.”

“More green spaces. No further development.”

“50% rental apartment buildings with commercial underneath and 50% rental

townhouses.”


Road Network and Circulation Planning Comments

Q: What do you think about future roadway and pedestrian connectivity? Total participants: 137

“Typically, TOO MANY traffic lights - if the goal is to reduce congestion, traffic circles "of a reasonable size for each individual intersection" need to be incorporated in the design. Both concepts will only create more congestion.”

Probably need a mix of A and B. I like splitting 18th Ave around the creek area, that is a good idea.” “Connecting roads which go all the way thru the NCP

could disrupt the wildlife corridors.”

“Bike paths are very important in such a network. Plus adapting the network as the community grows.”

“I think people are more likely to walk or bike if they can put some distance away from cars whether for exhaust, noise or safety. We enjoy walking on the new widened walkways in Grandview area. We can talk without yelling and don't have to check as often for cars or other peds.”

“Long term transit connectivity is paramount; MEANINGFUL transit times to major hubs (Central City, Skytrain, Guildford, Langley Centre) required to reduce traffic on 24th, 20th, 16th avenues - connectivity to Semiahmoo or Ocean Park will not negate excessive car use.”

“It is needed. We will never get people to stop driving so develop wider roads with adequate room for pedestrians and bikes.”


Land Use Concepts

Q: Based on the draft planning principles provided, which land use concept do you prefer? Total participants: 242

Concept A 33% Concept B 67%


Land Use Concepts by Neighbourhood

48% 68% 79% 79%

50% 67%

56%

25%

66%

52% 32% 21% 21%

50% 33%

44%

75%

34%

Concept A

Concept B

*Caution: Low base n<10


Questions from Open House • What Percentage of Land is Park/Green? • How will the city Pay for Parkland/wildlife

Corridors? • Why is majority of Density North of 18th Ave? • What Populations is projected.


Combine features,

to formulate Preferred Land Use Concept

Formation of Preferred Concept

A B

C


QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

24 CAC Meeting

E


STAGE 1 - PLANNING SCHEDULE

Council authorized City Staff to begin the process of preparing a Stage 1 NCP for Grandview Heights NCP #3.

Initial Public Open House #1

• Select a Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) to work with the City to develop the NCP.

July 25th 2016

November 23rd 2016

Development Applications may be processed and advanced to Council for Consideration

Open House #1

January-February 2017

Open House #2 Open House

#3

Late November 2017

April 2018

June/July 2018

If Stage 1 is approved by Council, initiate Stage 2

• Landowner petitions received by City

We Are Here

January – April 2016

Complete

CAC #1

CAC #2

CAC #3

CAC #4

CAC #5

CAC #6

CAC #7

*Note: NCP Planning Process Timelines are subject to change.

• Background studies, including an environmental study, heritage study, and an integrated stormwater management plan (ISMP).

• Develop Terms of Reference • City Staff works with the CAC

and other stakeholders, as required, to develop Draft Land Use Options.

25 CAC Meeting

Public Open House #2 – Draft Land Use Options

Develop a Preferred Land Use Concept

CAC #8

Public Open House #3 – Preferred Land Use Concept

Present Draft Stage 1 Report to Council

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The Schedule shows the activities and approximate time frames associated with the major steps in the NCP #3 planning process. Infrastructure and engineering servicing planning, will be integral to the Stage 2 process, as will be extensive public consultation through committees, workshops and/or focus groups and meetings in Stage 1. At various milestones through the planning process public open houses will be held to invite comments, and status reports will be provided to Council. Where appropriate, input of the residents/property owners outside of the NCP area, business community and other stakeholders will be sought during the preparation of the NCP. As part of the planning process, at least two land use options will be developed for review and comment by the residents/owners, stakeholders, and other interested parties, before a preferred land use concept option is brought forward for final council consideration and approval. Following the adoption of a preferred stage 1 plan, stage 2 of the NCP will commence, and will include final servicing, and financial plans.


Specific Next Steps

Completion of ISMP in

tandem with Stage 1 of

NCP

City Interdepartment

al meetings to prepare a

“Preferred” land Use Concept

City Committee Meetings

Stage 1 Interagency

Meeting

CAC Meeting #7

(Land Use Concept

Workshop)

Public Open

House #3

CAC Meeting #8

(Open House Review)

Council Report and Stage 1 Plan Consideratio

n

*Note: NCP Planning Process Timelines are subject to change.


A Name for Grandview Heights NCP #3 Examples of names that have been given to other NCPs in Grandview Heights include Morgan Heights, Sunnyside Heights, Redwood Heights, and Orchard Grove. We welcome your suggestions and comments.

Some initial suggestions from City staff include the following: Darts Hill Sam Hill Darts Village Grandview Ridge

If you have any suggestions for other names or comments on any of the names please let us know, and we will be bringing a list of names to the next Public Open House.


28 CAC Meeting

Email: [email protected]

Webpage: www.surrey.ca/ghncp3

PHONE: PATRICK KLASSEN, COMMUNITY PLANNING MANAGER (604) 598-5858 [email protected] MARKUS KISCHNICK, COMMUNITY PLANNER (604) 591-4485 [email protected]

City of Surrey Community Planning Division

13450 - 104 Avenue Surrey, BC, Canada

V3T 1V8

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.surrey.ca/ghncp3













WELCOME TO THE G HEIGHTS NCP #3 - surrey.ca Heights NCP 3 CAC Meeting... · with the existing 1...

Documents

Transcript of WELCOME TO THE G HEIGHTS NCP #3 - surrey.ca Heights NCP 3 CAC Meeting... · with the existing 1...