City of Surrey ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS File: 7914-0037-00 Planning Report Date: February 23, 2015 PROPOSAL: • NCP Amendment from 10-15 upa Medium Density to 20-30 upa Medium-High Density • Rezoning from RA to RM-30 • Development Permit • Development Variance Permit in order to permit the development of a 36 unit townhouse development LOCATION: 2421 - 164 Street 16349 - 24 Avenue OWNER: IK Homes Inc. ZONING: RA OCP DESIGNATION: Urban NCP DESIGNATION: 10-15 upa Medium Density
Transcript
City of Surrey ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS
File: 7914-0037-00
Planning Report Date: February 23, 2015
PROPOSAL:
• NCP Amendment from 10-15 upa Medium Density to 20-30 upa Medium-High Density
• Rezoning from RA to RM-30 • Development Permit • Development Variance Permit
in order to permit the development of a 36 unit townhouse development
LOCATION: 2421 - 164 Street 16349 - 24 Avenue
OWNER: IK Homes Inc.
ZONING: RA
OCP DESIGNATION: Urban
NCP DESIGNATION: 10-15 upa Medium Density
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 2 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY • Council pass third reading to Surrey Zoning Bylaw, 1993, No. 12000, Amendment Bylaw, 2014,
No. 18375.
• Council support Development Variance Permit No. 7914-0037-00. RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATION • At the January 12, 2015 Regular Council – Public Hearing meeting, Council referred the subject
development application back to Staff to address the concerns raised during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. The primary concern expressed by the delegations were with regard to the proposed development utilizing existing easements for site access through neighbouring townhouse developments Azure East (2456 - 163 Street) and Abbey Road (2469 - 164 Street). Concerns regarding tree removal, the proposed site density, and proposed variances to permit visitor parking stalls within the north setback (which is adjacent to an existing access easement drive aisle), and to permit reduced building setbacks were also expressed.
• Staff remain supportive of the access arrangements, as presented to Council in the December 15, 2014 Planning Report (Appendix II). Prior to the project being presented to Council in December Staff met with the Strata representatives of Azure East and Abbey Road to hear the concerns regarding the original proposed development density and to answer questions about the use of the existing access easements by the proposed site traffic.
• Staff relayed the concerns to the applicant and in response significant adjustments to the site
plan were made. These changes reduced the original proposed overall density and split the site into two separate development clusters that were not connected by vehicle access. The two separate areas have densities that are consistent with the adjacent strata and do not provide for through traffic between them.
• Staff consider that the access and circulation arrangements brought forward to Council
provide an equitable approach for the existing and future residents and are consistent with the intent of the original planned access easements as part of the development applications that created Azure East and Abbey Road.
• The proposed site plan takes into consideration tree preservation in a suitable and satisfactory
way. A total of 38 percent of the site’s mature trees, as well as 20 smaller non-Bylaw sized trees, are proposed to be retained. Many of the trees to be retained are located along the boundaries of the site, providing a sensitive interface with adjacent townhouse developments to the west and north.
• Staff remain supportive of the proposed NCP amendment to allow an increase in overall
density on the site, recognizing that the two separate areas have densities that are each comparable to the respective adjacent strata’s. Staff also support the proposed variances to the RM-30 Zone. The proposal is consistent with and sensitive to its neighbourhood context.
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Development Department recommends that: 1. Surrey Zoning Bylaw, 1993, No. 12000, Amendment Bylaw, 2014, No. 18375, to rezone the
site from "One-Acre Residential Zone (RA )" (By-law No. 12000) to "Multiple Residential (30) Zone (RM-30)" (By-law No. 12000), pass its third reading.
2. Council support Development Variance Permit No. 7914-0037-00 (Appendix III), varying
the following:
(a) to reduce the minimum south setback of the RM-30 Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 4.5 metres (14.7 ft.) and 3.9 metres (12.8 ft.);
(b) to reduce the minimum east setback of the RM-30 Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to
3.5 metres (11.5 ft.) and 6.0 metres (19.7 ft.); (c) to reduce the minimum west setback of the RM-30 Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to
7.0 metres (23 ft.); (d) to reduce the minimum north setback of the RM-30 Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.)
to 3.0 metres (9.8 ft.) and 4.5 metres (14.7 ft.); and (e) to permit four (4) visitor parking stalls to be located within the north setback of
the RM-30 Zone. ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS Background • A Planning Report for Development Application No. 7914-0037-00 was forwarded to Council
for consideration at the December 15, 2014 Regular Council – Land Use meeting (Appendix II). The zoning amendment bylaw associated with the subject application received first and second readings at this meeting.
• At the January 12, 2015 Regular Council – Public Hearing meeting, Council referred the subject development application back to Staff to address the concerns raised during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting (Council Resolution R15-76).
• The intent of this report is to review and respond to the concerns raised at the January 12, 2015
Regular Council – Public Hearing meeting.
Concerns Raised at the January 12, 2015 Public Hearing • There were twelve (12) delegations at the January 12 Public Hearing. Nine (9) of the speakers
are residents of Azure East, the townhouse development to the west of the subject site at 2456 - 163 Street. There was also correspondence on table from three (3) residents expressing concern with regards to the proposal, and nine (9) residents expressing opposition to the proposal.
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 4
• The main concern expressed by the delegations at the Public Hearing was with regard to the
proposed use of existing access easement through neighbouring townhouse developments Azure East (2456 - 163 Street) and Abbey Road (2469 - 164 Street). There was no delegation at the Public Hearing from Abbey Road. The delegation indicated opposition to the proposed use of the existing access easement which is registered on the east-west drive aisle (Appendix IV).
• The delegations requested that other access options be utilized and suggested two (2)
potential alternatives of allowing access to 24 Avenue, or for all traffic to outlet to 164 Street from the development site. These resident suggested access alternatives are discussed in more detail in the "Access" section below.
• In addition to the main concern, four (4) other issues were raised as well. The concerns raised
included: 1. Access; 2. Tree removal; 3. The proposed site density; 4. The proposed visitor parking stalls along the northwestern boundary of the site
adjacent to the drive aisle; and 5. The proposed setbacks.
Response to Concerns Raised 1. Access • Staff remain supportive of the access arrangements, as presented to Council in the
December 15, 2014 Planning Report (Appendix II) as the applicant made significant adjustments to the original site plan in response to resident concerns about the use of the access easements. These changes split the site into two separate development clusters that were not connected by vehicle access and have densities that are consistent with the adjacent strata and do not provide for through traffic between them.
• Staff considered this proposal to split the site into two, provided an equitable approach to
utilizing the existing access easements registered as part of the development applications that created Azure East and Abbey Road. Staff anticipate that the division of the site will result in a modest impact of additional vehicle trips between the existing east and north townhouse sites.
• The resident-suggested access alternatives were to eliminate the use of the existing registered
access easements and either provide an access to 24 Avenue or have sole access to 164 Street for the development site. Staff do not support these alternatives for the reasons noted below.
Eliminate the Use of the Existing Registered Access Easements
o As part of future arterial widening of 24 Avenue physical median restrictions will take place consistent with the City’s standard access management principles. Staff anticipate that left-turn movements from 24 Avenue to 163 Street ("left-in") may be considered, but left-turns off of 163 Street and onto 24 Avenue ("left-out") will not be
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 5
permitted. Full movement access for the neighbourhood will be available at the future signalized intersection of 24 Avenue and 164 Street.
o Eliminating the use of the registered access easements would have significant impacts
to the future residents of this development. Through the development applications that created Azure East (7906-0307-00) and Abbey Road (7910-0310-00) alternative access was protected for this site through the registration of access easements on the drive aisles of the site. These access easements were a requirement to ensure that both the existing developments and future site had the ability to access 164 Street and the full movement intersection at 24 Avenue.
o Without the use of the existing registered access easements the site would have
severely restricted access and a high degree of circuitous neighbourhood travel to gain access to existing and planned full movement intersections on 24 Avenue. Owners with limited access typically do not realize the full impact of these restrictions until they experience them on a regular basis and at which time they raise their concerns with the City. Therefore eliminating the use of the existing registered access easements and compromising the access to the site would appease the concerns of the adjacent townhouse residents, but will likely result in concerns from the future residents in the subject development.
o The use of access easements is not uncommon and is applied throughout the City and
in other municipalities to support access management principles for arterial roads. The access easements are registered as a charge on-title to the property and are available on all property disclosure statements. Modifying the proposal to not utilize the existing registered access easements would also set a poor precedent for other existing and future sites.
Providing Direct Access to 24 Avenue
o Permitting direct access for residential properties is contrary to the intent of
restrictions identified in the Highway and Traffic By-law No. 13007 and Design Criteria. These principles are established to manage and limit direct access to arterial roads in order to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the highest classification of road in the City.
o Direct access to an arterial is typically only granted when no alternatives are available. The existing registered access easements provide this alternative access.
o Restrictions to 24 Avenue are necessary as it is an important transportation corridor
for the City and has already had significant traffic volumes increase due to the growth of Grandview Heights. Additionally, it has recently had the introduction of transit service with the long term plans for this service to become part of TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network service.
o The future growth in South Surrey has required the City to protect 24 Avenue for an
ultimate six-lane transportation corridor. These additional lanes will either be for additional general purpose traffic lanes or as potential curb side bus/HOV lanes. Direct residential driveway access would have a significant impact on these future plans.
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 6
o At the Public Hearing a delegation had suggested that a left-turn bay from 24 Avenue into the site (left-in) could be provided to eliminate the need to access from 163 Street. This left-in to the site from 24 Avenue cannot be achieved, as a left-turn bay will be required for both 164 Street and is being considered for 163 Street and will leave insufficient space for both. Therefore any access to 24 Avenue would be restricted to right-in/right-out and would not address the site having the ability for full movement access as described earlier in this section.
Provide Sole site Access to 164 Street
o The proposed direct access to 164 Street from the subject site is restricted to right-in/right-out only, due to the proximity to the future signalized intersection at 24 Avenue and 164 Street. Consistent with the above comments regarding a right-in/right-out only this is very limited and compromised access alternative that would have significant impacts on the future residents of this development.
o Staff also evaluated a suggested alternative to re-design the site and not utilize the existing access easement to Azure East but maintain the use of the registered access easement to Abbey Road and the right-in/right-out access to 164 Street. While this would allow the future residents of this site to gain access to the full movement signalized intersection at 24 Avenue and 164 Street, Staff do not consider this to be viable alternative as this would transfer all of the site traffic from the Azure East site to the Abbey Road site instead of equitably distributing it.
o Staff is of the understanding that residents from Abbey Road were generally satisfied
with the proposed access arrangement presented to Council on December 15, 2014. • Given the above analysis of the resident suggested alternatives, Staff recommend that Council
support the proposal presented to Council on December 15, 2014. The proposal provides the most equitable approach for the existing and future residents and is consistent with the broader intent of the existing registered access easements.
2. Trees • Concerns were also raised at the Public Hearing regarding a lack of tree preservation. • To clarify, there are a total of 40 By-law sized trees on the subject site, as illustrated on the
Tree Removal and Retention Plan attached as Appendix V. A summary of tree preservation by tree species is provided on Table 1 of the December 15, 2014 Planning Report (Appendix II). Of the 40 trees on the site, 25 are proposed for removal and 15 are proposed for retention. Therefore, 38 percent of the total on-site trees are proposed to be retained. In addition, 20 non-By-law sized trees (smaller than 30 centimeters diameter at breast height) are proposed to be retained.
• The majority of trees along the west property line of the subject site, adjacent to the Azure
East site, are proposed to be retained. These trees provide a green buffer between the proposed development and the existing Azure East development.
• The majority of trees along the northeast property line, adjacent to the Abbey Road site, are
also proposed to be retained and provide a green buffer between the proposed development
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 7
site and the existing Abbey Road site. In addition, a portion of the existing hedge between the eastern portion of the subject site and the Abbey Road site to the north is proposed to be retained.
• For comparison purposes, approximately 25 percent of the trees on the Azure East site (9 out
of 36 trees), and approximately 33 percent of the trees on the Abbey Lane site (10 out of 30 trees), were retained. Comparatively, and especially given the 20 undersized trees being retained, the proposed development is retaining the highest percentage of trees of all three (3) sites in terms of tree preservation.
3. Density • Density concerns were also raised at the Public Hearing. It was indicated that the density
proposed is not consistent with the neighbourhood context. The proposed density has been reviewed and Staff confirms that it is consistent with the neighbourhood context.
• The applicant is proposing a 36-unit townhouse development with an overall net density of 20.5 upa (50.7 uph). However, as mentioned above, with the need to protect 24 Avenue for ultimate six lanes the road dedication requirement for 24 Avenue has increased since the time that the Azure East site was developed. Azure East was only required to dedicate 1.3 metres (4.2 ft.) along the 24 Avenue frontage, while the subject site is required to dedicate 6.3 metres (20 ft.). If the subject site had the same road dedication requirement on 24 Avenue as Azure East, the overall net site density would be 17.3 upa (43 uph).
• The Azure East development to the west has a net site density of 11.4 upa (28 uph). Had this
provided the current road dedication requirement on 24 Avenue (6.3 metres / 20 ft. of dedication along this frontage), the net site density would increase to approximately 12 upa (29 uph).
• The Abbey Road development to the north has a net site density of 19 upa (47 uph) and was
not required to provide any arterial road dedication on 24 Avenue.
• While the proposed overall net site density of 20.5 upa is slightly higher than that of Azure East or Abbey Road separately, the splitting of the site into two sections with the west half interfacing solely with Azure East and the east half interfacing with Abbey Road has resulted in a proposed density that is very consistent with the neighbourhood context. This is further evident when the current road dedication requirements on 24 Avenue are considered.
West Half
o The west half of proposed development has a net density of 15.5 upa (38 uph) with the
current 6-lane 24 Avenue road dedication requirements.
o However, if the previous 4-lane road requirements on 24 Avenue for Azure East were applied to this site, the net site density would decrease to 14.5 upa (33.7 uph). This net density is consistent with the current NCP designation of "10-15 upa Medium-High Density" and only slightly higher than the density of the Azure East site (12 upa / 29 uph).
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 8
East Half
o The east half of the proposed development has a net density of 23 upa (57 uph).
o Again, if the previous road requirements on 24 Avenue for Azure East were applied to this site, the net site density would decrease to 20.4 upa (51 uph). This is consistent with the 19 upa (47 uph) density on the Abbey Road site.
• Staff remain supportive of the proposed NCP amendment to allow an increase in density on
the site. The proposal is consistent with, and respects, the neighbourhood context. In addition, and as indicated in the December 15, 2014 Planning Report (Appendix II), newer NCPs such as Orchard Grove and Sunnyside Heights encourage higher densities along 24 Avenue, as it is a major transportation corridor and supports planned Frequent Transit Network service. Furthermore, the site is in close proximity to community amenities and a major commercial and employment centre (Grandview Corners). Given the current and future context of the site, the NCP amendment to permit a slightly increased density is appropriate and supportable.
4. Visitor Parking Stalls • One (1) of the speakers at the Public Hearing raised concerns regarding the visitor parking
stalls proposed along the northern boundary of the western portion of the site. • The proposed visitor parking stalls at this location require a variance, to allow four (4) visitor
parking stalls to be located within the north setback. This was reviewed previously and is discussed in the "By-law Variance and Justification" section of the December 15, 2014 Planning Report (Appendix II). The report indicates that the variance is supportable as the visitor parking stalls are not within a typical setback as this setback is along the edge of the drive aisle with the existing registered access easement for the adjacent townhouse developments.
• Further to the above justification for support of this variance, if the subject site had been
consolidated and included with the adjacent townhouse site, this variance would not be required, as there would be no property line along this boundary. It is reasonable to allow visitor parking spaces along internal townhouse drive aisles.
5. Setbacks • Concerns were also raised at the Public Hearing regarding the proposed setbacks, which
require variances to the RM-30 Zone. The proposed setbacks and interface with adjacent projects and with 24 Avenue and 164 Street were reviewed closely before the project was presented to Council on December 15, 2014, and Staff remain supportive of the proposed variances. Justification is provided in the "By-law Variance and Justification" section of the December 15, 2014 Planning Report (Appendix II).
Site Addressing • A question was raised at the Public Hearing with regards to site addressing, considering
Emergency Services’ ability to respond to an incident at the proposed development if it was addressed off 24 Avenue.
Staff Report to Council File: 7914-0037-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 9 • The site addressing is discussed in the "Vehicle Access, Pedestrian Circulation and Parking"
section of the December 15, 2014 Planning Report (Appendix II). The intent remains the same: to have the western portion accessed from 163 Street through the Azure East site and addressed to 163 Street, and the eastern portion accessed directly and addressed to 164 Street.
• In response to the question raised at the Public Hearing, the Fire Chief provided a memo in
response, indicating that this addressing arrangement has been reviewed with the Fire Services’ Prevention Division and that the approach has been supported throughout the process.
Future Direction • Securing access easements to facilitate future development has been an ongoing City practice
when reasonable land consolidations cannot be achieved. It is evident that other measures in addition to, or in lieu of, registrations of easements, need to be considered in these circumstances. In this regard, Staff intends to follow up with a review of current practice in a broader policy context.
INFORMATION ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT The following information is attached to this Report: Appendix I. Lot Owners, Action Summary and Project Data Sheets Appendix II. December 15, 2014 Planning Report Appendix III. Development Variance Permit No. 7914-0037-00 Appendix IV. Context and Site Access Map Appendix V. Tree Removal and Retention Plan
original signed by Nicholas Lai Jean Lamontagne General Manager Planning and Development HK/da \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\5843421023.doc DRV 2/19/15 1:24 PM
(b) Civic Address: 2421 - 164 Street Owner: IK Homes Inc. PID: 010-720-049 Lot 1 Section 24 Township 1 New Westminster District Plan 77379 (c) Civic Address: 16349 - 24 Avenue Owner: IK Homes Inc. PID: 003-219-178 Lot 16 Section 24 Township 1 New Westminster District Plan 63062
Required Development Data Minimum Required / Maximum Allowed
Proposed
LOT AREA* (in square metres) Gross Total 8,600 m2
Road Widening area 1,475 m2
Undevelopable area
Net Total 7,125 m2 LOT COVERAGE (in % of net lot area) Buildings & Structures 45% 39% Paved & Hard Surfaced Areas 26% Total Site Coverage 65% SETBACKS ( in metres) South 7.5 m 4.5 m North (west portion of site) 7.5 m 3 m North (east portion of site) 7.5 m 4.5 m West 7.5 m 7 m
East (west portion of site) 7.5 m 6 m East (east portion of site) 7.5 m 3.5 m BUILDING HEIGHT (in metres/storeys) Principal 13 m 10.8 m Accessory NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS Bachelor One Bed Two Bedroom Three Bedroom + 36 Total 36 FLOOR AREA: Residential 5,800 m2
FLOOR AREA: Commercial Retail Office Total FLOOR AREA: Industrial FLOOR AREA: Institutional TOTAL BUILDING FLOOR AREA 5,800 m2 * If the development site consists of more than one lot, lot dimensions pertain to the entire site.
uph FAR (gross) 0.70 FAR (net) 0.9 0.85 AMENITY SPACE (area in square metres) Indoor 108 m2 0 Outdoor 108 m2 115 m2
PARKING (number of stalls) Commercial Industrial Residential Bachelor + 1 Bedroom 2-Bed 3-Bed 72 72 Residential Visitors 7 9 Institutional Total Number of Parking Spaces 81 Number of disabled stalls 2 Number of small cars 0 Tandem Parking Spaces: Number / % of
Total Number of Units N/A
Size of Tandem Parking Spaces width/length
N/A
Appendix II
December 15, 2014 Planning Report (follow hyperlink)
Address of Owner: 8120 128 Street, Unit 206Surrey, BC V3W 1R1
1. This development variance permit is issued subject to compliance by the Owner with allstatutes, by laws, orders, regulations or agreements, except as specifically varied by thisdevelopment variance permit.
2. This development variance permit applies to that real property including land with orwithout improvements located within the City of Surrey, with the legal description andcivic address as follows:
Parcel Identifier: 010 720 049Lot 1 Section 24 Township 1 New Westminster District Plan 77379
2421 164 Street
Parcel Identifier: 003 219 178Lot 16 Section 24 Township 1 New Westminster District Plan 63062
16349 24 Avenue
(the "Land")
3. (a) As the legal description of the Land is to change, the City Clerk is directed to insertthe new legal description for the Land once title has been issued, as follows:
4. Surrey Zoning By law, 1993, No. 12000, as amended is varied as follows:
(a) In Section F of Part 22 of Surrey Zoning By law, 1993, No. 12000, as amended, theminimum setback from the property line is varied from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to:
i. 4.5 metres (14.7 ft.) and 3.9 metres (12.8 ft.) along the south property line;ii. 3.5 metres (11.5 ft.) and 6.0 metres (19.7 ft.) along the east property line;iii. 7.0 metres (23 ft.) along the west property line; andiv. 3.0 metres (9.8 ft.) and 4.5 metres (14.7 ft.) along the north property line.
(b) In Section H of Part 22 of Surrey Zoning By law, 1993, No. 12000, as amended,four (4) visitor parking stalls are permitted within the north setback.
5. The siting of buildings and structures shall be in accordance with the drawing numbered7914 0037 00 (A) (the "Drawing") which is attached hereto and forms part of thisdevelopment variance permit.
6. The Land shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions andprovisions of this development variance permit.
7. This development variance permit shall lapse if the Owner does not substantially start anyconstruction with respect to which this development variance permit is issued, within two(2) years after the date this development variance permit is issued.
8. The terms of this development variance permit or any amendment to it, are binding on allpersons who acquire an interest in the Land.
9. This development variance permit is not a building permit.
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COUNCIL, THE DAY OF , 20 .ISSUED THIS DAY OF , 20 .
______________________________________Mayor – Linda Hepner
______________________________________City Clerk – Jane Sullivan
This plan and design are, and at all times remain the exclusive property of the architect/designer and cannot be used or reproduced without written consent. Written dimensions shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Contractors shall verify and be responsible for all dimensionsand conditions on the job and this office shall be informed of any variations from the dimensions and conditions shown on the drawing.
Copyright Reserved
This plan and design are, and at all times remain the exclusive property of the architect/designer and cannot be used or reproduced without written consent. Written dimensions shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Contractors shall verify and be responsible for all dimensionsand conditions on the job and this office shall be informed of any variations from the dimensions and conditions shown on the drawing.
0 Copi'lgh1 Rose.- .......... . ...... T-1 This~ •nd design Is ll'le T1 • TREE REMOVAL AND SGL
propefty ol MI<.IB F adum and 16349 24 AVE., PRESERVATION PLAN ..... , Assocbtes l td. and may not be AS SHOWN reprociJced or used for other SURREY, B.C. profects ~CMA thet permission. Dt:CEU8ER4.20U
