City of Surrey ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS File:

Transcription

1 City of Surrey ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS Planning Report Date: September 28, 2015 PROPOSAL: Development Variance Permit to permit setback variances on a proposed subdivision into six (6) single family lots. LOCATION: OWNER: ZONING: OCP DESIGNATION: LAP DESIGNATION: Avenue Hua Deng RH Suburban Suburban Residential (1/2 Acre)

2 Staff Report to Council Additional Planning Comments Page 2 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Approval for Development Variance Permit to proceed to Public Notification. DEVIATION FROM PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS Setback variances are proposed to increase the front yard setbacks for proposed Lots 1 and 2 on 56 Avenue and the west side yard setback on proposed Lot 5, and to reduce the front yard setbacks for proposed Lots 4 and 5 on 55 Avenue. RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATION At the September 14, 2015 Regular Council Land Use meeting, the subject application was referred back to staff to address the following concerns: o o o tree retention; safety/security around a proposed pedestrian connection to Colebrook Park and around a proposed dead end road; and public consultation relating to the above concerns. This report responds to Council s directive. The current proposal is the result of collaboration between the applicant, the West Panorama Ridge Ratepayers Association, neighbouring residents and City staff and therefore the requested setback variances are supported.

3 Staff Report to Council Additional Planning Comments Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Development Department recommends that Council approve Development Variance Permit No (Appendix VII of Appendix B) varying the following, to proceed to Public Notification: (a) (b) (c) to increase the minimum front yard setback of the principal building in the RH Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 15 metres (50 ft.) on proposed Lots 1 and 2; to reduce the minimum front yard setback of the principal building in the RH Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 5.0 metres (16 ft.) on proposed Lots 4 and 5; and to increase the minimum west side yard setback of the principal building in the RH Zone from 4.5 metres (15 ft.) to 7.0 metres (23 ft.) on proposed Lot 5. DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The subject application was considered by Council at the September 14, 2015 Regular Council Land Use meeting (Appendix B). Council referred the development application back to staff to address concerns raised by the West Panorama Ridge Ratepayers Association (WPRRA) and neighbouring residents. The intent of this report is to review and respond to the concerns of the WPRRA and neighbouring residents. Council identified three (3) main concerns to be addressed by staff: o o o tree retention; safety/security around a proposed pedestrian connection to Colebrook Park and around a proposed dead end road (55 Avenue); and public consultation with members of the community. Tree Retention In response to Council s direction, staff have continued to review opportunities for tree retention on the property. Tree retention has also been identified as a concern by the WPRRA. The WPRRA has requested that clearer, larger scale tree removal/retention and replacement plans be made available and the applicant is revising their plans accordingly and they will subsequently be provided to the WPRRA. The WPRRA has specifically requested the City review the potential to preserve a London Plane Tree (Tag #552) in the boulevard of the proposed north/south road (139 Street). The WPRRA has identified the prominence of this tree and its visibility as the rationale to retain this tree. Preserving large, mature trees in the boulevards of new streets can be difficult due to grading and the installation of services. However, staff will investigate alternative servicing options and site grading in an effort to potentially save this tree. This will be done through the

4 Staff Report to Council Additional Planning Comments Page 4 Servicing Agreement phase of this development, and with the assistance of the applicant s arborist. Walkway to Colebrook Park Staff remain supportive of a pathway connection to Colebrook Park. Colebrook Park is a Community Level Park acquired to provide open space for the Newton Community. The park is hectares (381 acres) in size with approximately 2.5 kilometers of frontage along its northern boundary. The park has a Council adopted master plan that includes six planned access points leading to a network of natural area trails. The access points include four planned pedestrian only access points along the north boundary for West Panorama Ridge Residents. Two community access points are planned off of Colebrook Road with parking to accommodate park visitors from other areas of Newton and Surrey. Currently Colebrook Park has very limited pedestrian access from the West Panorama Ridge neighbourhood. With the subject development application, there is the opportunity to achieve a pedestrian park linkage which will improve connectivity to this major Parks asset and amenity. Funding has recently been allocated to develop a portion of the natural area path network and one of the community access points. The Parks Division is currently designing the parking area and trail network. Prioritizing the community access point is in response to West Panorama Ridge resident concerns about park users accessing the trail network through neighbourhood streets. This community access point is intended to be constructed in Spring/Summer, The proposed park access through the subject application allows for neighbourhood access to Colebrook Park for residents from the east and central areas of West Panorama Ridge. It conforms to the master plan for the park. It would be constructed following approval of the associated subdivision and servicing of the development. The Parks Division has been requested to accommodate servicing of the development through Colebrook Park. Staff consider the provision of neighbourhood access as an essential public benefit from the development to rationalize allowing servicing through the parkland. Staff do not support the servicing of the development through parkland without the public benefit of pedestrian access to the park. Following Council s referral of the application back to staff, the WPRRA have confirmed with staff that they continue to support the proposed eastern alignment of the park access, rather than a western alignment. The WPRRA have also confirmed that they are supportive of the walkway connection to Colebrook Park for its benefit to the community. However, the WPRRA has informed staff that an adjacent neighbour remains concerned about the safety of the walkway to the park. Ideally, park access points are at least 20 metres (66 ft.) wide. However, there are many access points similar to the 8-metre (26 ft.) wide access proposed with this application across the City of Surrey. The City has the experience and resources to address challenges that may occur with access to Colebrook Park. Having another alternate access with parking on the south side

5 Staff Report to Council Additional Planning Comments Page 5 of the park is very beneficial. Ultimately, an engaged neighbourhood is the best tool to ensure safety in the public realm. As with most walkway designs, Parks staff are requesting limits to the height of fences and landscaping on the adjacent lots along the walkway in order to allow for adjacent owner surveillance of the walkway. This will be addressed as part of the subdivision approval. Security Around Dead End Roads Concern was expressed regarding the need to have the proposed 55 Avenue extend west of the proposed 139 Street. The property owners of lands to the west of the subject site indicated that they are not planning on subdividing their properties, and therefore do not require a road extension, in the foreseeable future. The WPRRA and residents expressed concerns about privacy and safety, and about people potentially parking their vehicles at the end of the dead-end street (future through-road). In order to address concerns about parking in the dead-end road, staff suggested that the driveways for proposed Lots 5 and 6 be placed as far west as possible, which has been accommodated on the applicant s current layout (Appendix II of Appendix B). Locating the driveways to the west will minimize opportunities for on-street parking along 55 Avenue. Further, the westernmost portion of 55 Avenue will not be constructed at this time and an 8- metre (26 ft.) wide landscaped buffer is proposed instead in order to provide buffering for the property immediately west of the subject site. The landscaped buffer is located in the road allowance and will not be removed until 55 Avenue is extended west in conjunction with any future development of the adjacent lands to the west. Staff have also referred this application to the RCMP South Surrey District Office to provide comments on safety and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) as it relates to the design of 55 Avenue and the walkway to Colebrook Park. Any comments that are received will be considered as part of the subdivision approval process. Public Consultation Extensive public consultation for this project has taken place between staff, the applicant, the West Panorama Ridge Ratepayers Association (WPRRA) and neighbouring residents, as outlined in the Initial Planning Report dated September 14, 2015 (Appendix B). The current proposal (Appendix II of Appendix B) is the result of collaboration between staff, the applicant, the WPRRA and neighbouring residents. This proposal addresses the concerns raised including (1) the western portion of the proposed 55 Avenue, and (2) the walkway location previously proposed at the southwest corner of the site. Staff will continue to dialogue with the WPRRA to resolve concerns relating to tree removal and replacement prior to final subdivision approval.

6 Staff Report to Council Additional Planning Comments Page 6 INFORMATION ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT The following information is attached to this Report: Appendix A. Lot Owners, Action Summary and Project Data Sheets Appendix B. Initial Planning Report dated September 14, 2015 original signed by Ron Hintsche Jean Lamontagne General Manager Planning and Development EM/da \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\ doc KD 9/24/15 9:55 AM

7 APPENDIX A Information for City Clerk Legal Description and Owners of all lots that form part of the application: 1. (a) Agent: Name: Maggie Koka Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. Address: Suite 1680, Avenue Surrey, BC V3T 5X3 Tel: Properties involved in the Application (a) Civic Address: Avenue Owner: Hua Deng PID: Lot 132 Section 4 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan Summary of Actions for City Clerk's Office (a) Proceed with Public Notification for Development Variance Permit No and bring the Development Variance Permit forward for issuance and execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\ doc KD 9/24/15 9:55 AM

8 SUBDIVISION DATA SHEET Requires Project Data Proposed GROSS SITE AREA Acres 4.2 Hectares 1.7 NUMBER OF LOTS Existing 1 Proposed 6 SIZE OF LOTS Range of lot widths (metres) 32.2 m 46.7 m Range of lot areas (square metres) 1,871 m 2 3,008 m 2 Existing Zoning: RH DENSITY Lots/Hectare & Lots/Acre (Gross) Lots/Hectare & Lots/Acre (Net) 3.5 uph / 1.4 upa 5 uph / 2 upa SITE COVERAGE (in % of gross site area) Maximum Coverage of Principal & 25% Accessory Building Estimated Road, Lane & Driveway Coverage 5% Total Site Coverage 30% PARKLAND Area (square metres) % of Gross Site N/A Required PARKLAND 5% money in lieu YES TREE SURVEY/ASSESSMENT MODEL BUILDING SCHEME HERITAGE SITE Retention FRASER HEALTH Approval DEV. VARIANCE PERMIT required Road Length/Standards Works and Services Building Retention Others YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES - Setbacks \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\ doc KD 9/24/15 9:55 AM

9 City of Surrey PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT Planning Report Date: September 14, 2015 PROPOSAL: Development Variance Permit to permit setback variances on a proposed subdivision into six (6) single family lots. LOCATION: OWNER: ZONING: OCP DESIGNATION: LAP DESIGNATION: Avenue Hua Deng RH Suburban Suburban Residential (1/2 Acre)

10 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 2 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Approval for Development Variance Permit to proceed to Public Notification. DEVIATION FROM PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS Setback variances are proposed to increase the front yard setbacks on 56 Avenue and the west side yard setback on proposed Lot 5, and to reduce the front yard setbacks on 55 Avenue. RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATION The variance to increase the front yard setback requirement on 56 Avenue is consistent with other recent subdivisions on 56 Avenue and New Mclellan Road in West Panorama Ridge, and will assist in preserving the existing character of the street. The variance to increase the west side yard setback requirement on proposed Lot 5 is proposed in order to require an increased separation between the house on this proposed lot and the neighbouring property to the west. The variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement on proposed Lots 4 and 5 will not have a negative impact on the streetscape, and will increase the distance that future homes will be sited from the steeper slopes at the rear of these lots. Reduced front yard setbacks are common in areas with steep slopes in West Panorama Ridge. The proposal will provide for a walkway and new access to Colebrook Park, which is located to the south of the subject site. Existing access to Colebrook Park is very limited, and the proposed walkway and park connection will be a benefit to the community. The proposed variances along with the overall lot layout and walkway connection have been reviewed by the West Panorama Ridge Ratepayers Association and adjacent neighbours and are found to be acceptable.

11 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Development Department recommends that Council approve Development Variance Permit No (Appendix VII) varying the following, to proceed to Public Notification: (a) (b) (c) to increase the minimum front yard setback of the RH Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 15 metres (50 ft.) on proposed Lots 1 and 2; to reduce the minimum front yard setback of the RH Zone from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 5.0 metres (16 ft.) on proposed Lots 4 and 5; and to increase the minimum west side yard setback of the RH Zone from 4.5 metres (15 ft.) to 7.0 metres (23 ft.) on proposed Lot 5. REFERRALS Engineering: School District: The Engineering Department has no objection to the project [subject to the completion of Engineering servicing requirements] as outlined in Appendix IV. Projected number of students from this development: 2 Elementary students at Colebrook Elementary School 1 Secondary students at Panorama Ridge Secondary School (Appendix V.) The applicant has advised that the dwelling units in this project are expected to be constructed and ready for occupancy by Summer Parks, Recreation & Culture: While Parks prefers the western alignment of the park pathway (Appendix III), the current proposal with the eastern park pathway alignment (Appendix II) can be supported. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Existing Land Use: Single family dwelling on 1.7 hectare (4.2 acre) property. Adjacent Area: Direction Existing Use OCP/LAP Designation North (Across 56 Avenue): Single family Suburban/Suburban homes. Residential (1/2 acre) Existing Zone RH

12 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 4 Direction Existing Use OCP/LAP Existing Zone Designation East: Single family Suburban/Suburban RH home. Residential (1/2 acre) South: Colebrook Park Agricultural A-1 West: Single family home. Suburban/Suburban Residential (1/2 acre) RH DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Background The subject 1.7 hectare (4.2 acre) site is located on the south side of 56 Avenue, west of King George Boulevard, in West Panorama Ridge. It is designated "Suburban Residential (1/2 Acre)" in the West Panorama Ridge Local Area Plan (LAP). The site is adjacent to Colebrook Park to the south, oversized RH Zoned lots to the east and west, and RH lots to the north. Proposal The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject site into six (6) single family lots under the existing RH Zone (Appendix II). The proposed gross unit density is 3.5 units per hectare (1.4 units per acre) and the net unit density is 5 units per hectare (2 units per acre). The proposal meets all subdivision and density requirements of the RH Zone. The applicant also proposes to dedicate 8 metres (26 ft.) of land to the east of the buildable portion of proposed Lot 4 for a future access to Colebrook Park (Appendix II). Parks is supportive of this connection to Colebrook Park, which currently has very limited access from 56 Avenue. The portion of proposed Lot 4 on the east side of the proposed 8 metre (26 ft.) wide walkway is planned to be consolidated and developed with the property to the immediate east at Avenue in the future, subject to further review. A Section 219 "No Build" Restrictive Covenant will be required in this regard. The applicant proposes road dedications for a new north-south road (139 Street) and east-west road (55 Avenue) (Appendix II). The proposed 55 Avenue could continue to both the east and west, to allow future subdivision on adjacent oversized RH lots. Three (3) variances are being sought: to increase the front yard setback on 56 Avenue from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 15 metres (50 ft.) for proposed Lots 1 and 2, to increase the west side yard setback on proposed Lot 5 from 4.5 metres (15 ft.) to 7 metres (23 ft.), and to reduce the front yard setback from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 5.0 metres (16 ft.) for proposed Lots 4 and 5 (Appendix VII). These variances are discussed in more detail in the "By-law Variance and Justification" section of this report.

13 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 5 Walkway to Colebrook Park and Servicing Strategy The walkway location to Colebrook Park is proposed in the same location as a servicing corridor for temporary sanitary and permanent storm servicing from 55 Avenue through Colebrook Park. The proposed temporary sanitary main will tie-in with an existing City sanitary main located at the west end of Trites Road. The existing sanitary main is connected to the Metro Vancouver sanitary main located to the south of the subject site. The proposed sanitary and storm mains will be located in the middle of the 8 metre (26 ft.) wide dedicated walkway, and the remaining 9 metres (30 ft.) required for the servicing corridor (for a total of 17 metres / 56 ft.) will be secured via statutory right-of-way for maintenance purposes (Appendix II). The Parks, Recreation and Culture and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposed servicing strategy and indicated that it is generally acceptable, subject to detailed review through the Servicing Agreement process. In the previous iteration of the proposal, from April 2015, the walkway and servicing corridor were proposed at the western edge of the subject site, south of 55 Avenue (Appendix III). However, as is explained in more detail in the Neighbourhood Consultation section of this report, this alignment was opposed by the West Panorama Ridge Ratepayers Association (WPRRA) and surrounding neighbourhood residents. The Parks, Recreation & Culture Department s preference is for the western alignment, as this option would have the least impact on tree removal. o o The Project Arborist, Nick McMahon of Arbortech Consulting, has advised that with the previous proposal or western alignment (Appendix III), 14 trees require removal. All of these trees are off-site trees, located in Colebrook Park. 3 trees in high risk condition; 1 Western Red Cedar in Unsuitable Condition 1 Alder or Cottonwood 1 Big Leaf Maple in Unsuitable Condition 11 Additional Trees are proposed to be removed 3 Alder or Cottonwood 6 Big Leaf Maple 2 West Red Cedar in Marginal Condition With the current proposal or eastern alignment (Appendix II), 20 trees have been identified for removal (18 located in Colebrook Park / 2 on-site). The trees for removal include: 3 trees in high risk condition 3 Big Leaf Maple in Unsuitable Condition 16 Additional trees require removal 2 Alder or Cottonwood 8 Big Leaf Maple in Unsuitable Condition 2 Big Leaf Maple in Marginal Condition 1 Birch in Unsuitable Condition 1 Western Red Cedar in Marginal Condition 1 Western Red Cedar in Suitable Condition

14 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 6 1 Douglas Fir in Marginal Condition o Based on the information provided by the Project Arborist, the previous proposal (Appendix III) is a better option from a tree preservation perspective, because 14 trees require removal as opposed to 19 trees. However, with both options, only 1 suitable Western Redcedar tree requires removal. As is explained in more detail in the next section of this report, the WPRRA and neighbourhood residents are opposed to the previous proposal (Appendix III) and supportive of the current proposal (Appendix II). Staff from Parks, Engineering and Planning agree that the current proposal (eastern alignment) is acceptable, recognizing that it is not the most desirable option from a tree preservation perspective. Hazard Lands The site is also subject to a Development Permit for Hazard Lands under the new OCP, given there are existing slopes on the property in excess of 15% grade. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report providing a slope stability analysis. The geotechnical report outlines a number of recommendations to be followed for the design and construction of future residential homes. City staff are currently establishing a process around Hazard Land DPs and expect to have this process in place in the near future. The applicant is aware of the DP requirement, and understands that prior to final subdivision approval, the DP requirement must be met and the DP issued. NEIGHBOURHOOD CONSULTATION A development proposal sign was erected on the site on June 11, Since the application does not involve rezoning, pre-notification letters are not required. At the time, the proposal was for subdivision into seven (7) lots. The sign was revised to reflect the six (6) lot proposal in April On April 15, 2013, a petition in opposition to the proposal was submitted with signatures from 26 households. On September 26, 2013, 14 additional households were added to the petition. However, signatures from these 14 households were not provided on the petition. The petition indicated opposition due to the proposed introduction of new roads and lack of consistency with the existing neighbourhood character. Between September 2012 and July 2015, there have been numerous meetings and discussions between staff, the applicant, the West Panorama Ridge Ratepayers Association (WPRRA) and neighbouring residents regarding the proposal. The current proposal (Appendix II) is the result of collaboration between staff, the applicant, the WPRRA and neighbouring residents. This proposal addresses the concerns raised including (1) the western portion of the proposed 55 Avenue, and (2) the walkway location previously proposed at the southwest corner of the site.

15 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page Avenue (the proposed east-west road) A concern was expressed regarding the need to have the proposed 55 Avenue extend west of the proposed 139 Street. The property owners of lands to the west of the subject site indicated that they are not planning on subdividing their properties, and therefore do not require a road extension, in the foreseeable future. The WPRRA and residents expressed concerns about privacy and safety, and about people potentially parking their vehicles at the end of the dead-end street (future through-road). In response, staff explained that this part of West Panorama Ridge is zoned "Half-Acre Residential" and designated "Suburban Residential (1/2 Acre)" in the West Panorama Ridge Local Area Plan (LAP). Therefore, in consideration of the proposed development, staff must take into consideration the development potential of surrounding properties, regardless of whether or not the current property owner expresses an interest in subdividing at the present time. The proposed east-west connection is critical in order to preserve the development potential of adjacent properties to the east and west. In order to address concerns about parking in the dead-end road, staff suggested that the driveways for proposed Lots 5 and 6 be placed as far west as possible. The applicant has included this in their latest proposal (Appendix II). Further, the westernmost portion of 55 Avenue is proposed to not be constructed at this time and an 8-metre wide landscaped buffer is proposed instead in order to provide buffering with the property immediately west of the subject site. The landscaped buffer is in road allowance and is anticipated to be constructed as a road at the time of development of the lands to the west. The latest proposal (Appendix II) satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised regarding the western portion of 56 Avenue. 2. Walkway to Colebrook Park Currently Colebrook Park has very limited pedestrian access from the West Panorama Ridge neighbourhood. The Parks, Recreation and Culture Department (PRC) are planning for improvements to Colebrook Park in the future. With the subject development application, Parks has the opportunity to obtain a pedestrian park linkage which will improve connectivity to this major Parks asset and amenity. As aforementioned, the walkway was previously proposed along the western property line as this alignment provides for the least impact to tree removal from both the subject site and Colebrook Park to the south. As the walkway was proposed to be adjacent to the existing property to the west, the WPRRA and neighbouring residents expressed concerns about safety and loss of privacy. In the current proposal, the walkway and servicing right-of-way are proposed to be located near the southeast portion of the site, between two new proposed lots rather than adjacent to an existing dwelling. Staff agree that this alignment is acceptable; however it is not the preferred alignment as it results in greater impacts to existing trees in Colebrook Park.

16 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 8 In addition, the WPRRA has expressed concern regarding the proposed removal of tree #552 in order to accommodate construction of 139 Street. Staff responded that this tree would require a significant root protection zone, making it challenging to retain this tree while maintaining minimum road standards. However, staff will review and consider this as part of the detailed design review of servicing and road works, prior to final subdivision approval. TREES Nick McMahon, ISA Certified Arborist of Arbortech Consulting prepared an Arborist Assessment for the subject property. The table below provides a summary of the tree retention and removal by tree species: Table 1: Summary of Tree Preservation by Tree Species: Tree Species Existing Remove Retain Alder and Cottonwood Trees Alder Deciduous Trees (excluding Alder and Cottonwood Trees) Bigleaf maple Manitoba maple Downy Japanese maple Red alder European beech English holly Walnut Apple London Planetree Lombardy poplar Flowering cherry Black locust Other untagged native deciduous species Coniferous Trees Lawson cypress Sawara cypress Blue spruce Douglas fir White cedar Western redcedar Total (excluding Alder and Cottonwood Trees) Total Replacement Trees Proposed (excluding Boulevard Street Trees) Total Retained and Replacement Trees

17 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 9 The Arborist Assessment states that there are a total of 89 protected trees on the site, excluding Alder and Cottonwood trees. There are 2 existing Alder or Cottonwood trees on the site. It was determined that 41 trees can be retained as part of this development proposal (excluding Alder and Cottonwood trees). The proposed tree retention was assessed taking into consideration the location of services, building footprints, road dedication and proposed lot grading. A number of the existing trees on the site appear to be severely infected with root diseases. The applicant proposes to undertake detailed testing of these trees to diagnose these trees prior to the approval of the subdivision. This testing may lead to additional trees for retention, or additional trees requiring removal. For those trees that cannot be retained, the applicant will be required to plant trees on a 1 to 1 replacement ratio for Alder and Cottonwood trees, and a 2 to 1 replacement ratio for all other trees. This will require a total of 97 replacement trees on the site. The applicant is proposing 97 replacement trees, meeting this requirement. In addition to the replacement trees, boulevard street trees will be planted on 56 Avenue, 55 Avenue and 139 Street. This will be determined at the servicing agreement stage by the Engineering Department. In summary, a total of 139 trees are proposed to be retained or replaced on the site. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST The applicant prepared and submitted a sustainable development checklist for the subject site on June 16, The table below summarizes the applicable development features of the proposal based on the seven (7) criteria listed in the Surrey Sustainable Development Checklist. Sustainability Criteria 1. Site Context & Location (A1-A2) 2. Density & Diversity (B1-B7) 3. Ecology & Stewardship (C1-C4) 4. Sustainable Transport & Mobility (D1-D2) 5. Accessibility & Safety (E1-E3) 6. Green Certification (F1) N/A Sustainable Development Features Summary The proposal includes space for potential private gardens. The proposal respects the natural slope at the rear of proposed Lots 5 and 6. The proposal provides for recycling and organic waste facilities. The proposal includes an 8 metre (26 ft.) wide dedication for the construction of a future access to Colebrook Park to the south of the subject site. The site design incorporates CPTED design principles. N/A

18 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 10 Sustainability Criteria 7. Education & Awareness (G1-G4) Sustainable Development Features Summary The community has been involved in the development proposal through a number of meetings with neighbouring residents and the WPRRA, as discussed in the "Neighbourhood Consultation" section of this report. BY-LAW VARIANCE AND JUSTIFICATION (a) Requested Variance: To increase the minimum front yard setback on proposed Lots 1 and 2 from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 15 metres (50 ft.). Applicant's Reasons: The increase in setback is proposed in order to match the character of the adjacent homes on 56 Avenue. The increased setback allows for winding walkways to the front of the homes similar to those found on the north side of 56 Avenue. Staff Comments: The proposed increased setbacks are consistent with recent adjacent subdivisions on 56 Avenue and New Mclellan Road in West Panorama Ridge. The rationale for the increased setbacks is to maintain the estate character of 56 Avenue and New Mclellan Road. Some landscaping along the street, to be determined before subdivision approval, will also be required. Staff support the proposed increased setbacks on 56 Avenue. (b) Requested Variance: To reduce the minimum front yard setback on proposed Lots 4 and 5 from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 5.0 metres (16 ft.). Applicant's Reasons: The setback relaxations are proposed in order to reduce the required depth of the sanitary servicing connections. Reducing the depth of the sanitary connection will help to reduce the depth of the temporary sanitary main, which is proposed to run through existing parkland via a statutory right-of-way. Geotechnical assessment determined that no buildings or structures should be erected south of the 65 metre contour line. By reducing the front yard setback, building

19 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 11 footprints are pushed toward 56 Avenue, away from the south property line which is the steepest portion of the slope. With a shorter distance between the road and the house, and therefore a shorter driveway, the house can step down to steeper grades at the rear of the property, and therefore less lot grading will be required at the front of the property. Staff Comments: Parks and Engineering approval are required in order to permit the proposed site servicing, which includes a statutory right-of-way for sanitary and storm servicing through Colebrook Park. Reduced front yard setbacks are common in areas with steep slopes in West Panorama Ridge. The setbacks will not have a negative impact on the streetscape, and will also increase the distance that future homes will be sited from the steeper slopes at the rear of these lots. Staff have no concerns with the proposed variance. (c) Requested Variance: To increase the minimum west side yard setback on proposed Lot 5 from 4.5 metres (15 ft.) to 7 metres (23 ft.). Applicant's Reasons: The increase in setback is proposed in order to require an increased separation between the house on this proposed lot and the neighbouring property to the west. Staff Comments: Staff support the proposed increased setback.

20 Staff Report to Council Planning & Development Report Page 12 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. Proposed Subdivision Layout (August 2015 Proposal) Appendix III. Previously Proposed Subdivision Layout (April 2015 Proposal) Appendix IV. Engineering Summary Appendix V. School District Comments Appendix VI. Summary of Tree Survey and Tree Preservation Appendix VII. Development Variance Permit No Appendix VIII. Building Design Guidelines Summary original signed by Nicholas Lai Jean Lamontagne General Manager Planning and Development HK/da \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\ doc KD 9/10/15 4:52 PM

21 APPENDIX I Information for City Clerk Legal Description and Owners of all lots that form part of the application: 1. (a) Agent: Name: Maggie Koka Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. Address: Suite Avenue Surrey, BC V3T 5X3 Tel: Properties involved in the Application (a) Civic Address: Avenue Owner: Hua Deng PID: Lot 132 Section 4 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan Summary of Actions for City Clerk's Office (a) Proceed with Public Notification for Development Variance Permit No and bring the Development Variance Permit forward for issuance and execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\ doc KD 9/10/15 4:52 PM

22 SUBDIVISION DATA SHEET Requires Project Data Proposed GROSS SITE AREA Acres 4.2 Hectares 1.7 NUMBER OF LOTS Existing 1 Proposed 6 SIZE OF LOTS Range of lot widths (metres) 32.2 m 46.7 m Range of lot areas (square metres) 1,871 m 2 3,008 m 2 Proposed Zoning: RH DENSITY Lots/Hectare & Lots/Acre (Gross) Lots/Hectare & Lots/Acre (Net) 3.5 uph / 1.4 upa 5 uph / 2 upa SITE COVERAGE (in % of gross site area) Maximum Coverage of Principal & 25% Accessory Building Estimated Road, Lane & Driveway Coverage 5% Total Site Coverage 30% PARKLAND Area (square metres) % of Gross Site N/A Required PARKLAND 5% money in lieu YES TREE SURVEY/ASSESSMENT MODEL BUILDING SCHEME HERITAGE SITE Retention FRASER HEALTH Approval DEV. VARIANCE PERMIT required Road Length/Standards Works and Services Building Retention Others YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES - Setbacks \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\ doc KD 9/10/15 4:52 PM

23 Appendix II Jun He Residential Subdivision Avenue, Surrey CONCEPT EAST ALIGNMENT Project No.: Date: 31 August 2015 Drawing 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION GROSS SITE AREA EXISTING DESIGNATIONS Lot 132 Section 4 Township 2 Plan NWD 1.7 hectares / 4.2 acres (approx.) Zoning: RH (Half Acre Residential) PID: NCP: N/A NET SITE AREA OCP: Suburban 1.3 hectares / 3.2 acres (approx.) PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS Zoning: No Change NCP: N/A OCP: No Change LOT YIELD Existing Number of Lots: 1 Proposed Number of Lots: 6 DENSITY Gross: 3.5 uph / 1.4 upa Net: 4.6 uph / 1.9 upa NOTE: Conceptual layout only, subject to change without notice. Property of Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. and not to be reproduced or used without written permission by the Company. M:\2011\11-100\DWG\PLANNING\ SUB PLAN 26Aug E V.2.dwg

24 Appendix III Jun He Residential Subdivision Avenue, Surrey CONCEPT WEST ALIGNMENT Project No.: Date: 31 August 2015 Drawing 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION GROSS SITE AREA EXISTING DESIGNATIONS Lot 132 Section 4 Township 2 Plan NWD 1.7 hectares / 4.2 acres (approx.) Zoning: RH (Half Acre Residential) PID: NCP: N/A NET SITE AREA OCP: Suburban 1.3 hectares / 3.2 acres (approx.) PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS Zoning: No Change NCP: N/A OCP: No Change LOT YIELD Existing Number of Lots: 1 Proposed Number of Lots: 6 DENSITY Gross: 3.5 uph / 1.4 upa Net: 4.6 uph / 1.9 upa NOTE: Conceptual layout only, subject to change without notice. Property of Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. and not to be reproduced or used without written permission by the Company. M:\2011\11-100\DWG\PLANNING\ SUB PLAN 6July W Align.dwg

25 ktslirrey ~ the future lives here. INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO : FROM: Manager, Area Planning & Development - South Surrey Division Planning and Development Department Development Services Manager, Engineering Department DATE: September 09, PROJECT FILE: oo RE: Engineering Requirements Location: Avenue SUBDIVISION Property and Right-of Way Requirements Dedicate 2.o.ooom each for 139 Street, and 55 Avenue. Dedicate 3.om x 3.om corner cuts at the intersection of 139 Street and 56 Avenue and at the intersection of 139 Street and 55 Avenue. Dedicate 8.ooom wide road allowance for future park access. Provide 9.ooom wide SROW on Lot 4 and off-site SROW on Colebrook Park for servicing. Works and Services Construct south side of 56 Avenue to West Panorama Ridge standard. Construct 139 Street and 55 Avenue as full road to West Panorama Ridge standard. Construct sanitary main, storm main and water main on 139 Street and on 55 Avenue. Construct sanitary main and storm main within dedicated walkway and within Colebrook Park. Secure Parks approval for servicing through the Park and satisfy engineering maintenance access concerns. Construct storm main and sanitary main on 56 Avenue. Submit geotechnical report in favour of proposed sanitary and storm servicing. Provide on-site and off-site statutory rights-of-way for servicing. Register restrictive covenant for engineered foundation, pumped sanitary and storm connections and driveway access. A Servicing Agreement is required prior to Subdivision. DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT There are no engineering requirements relative to issuance of the Development Variance Permit. j!-c~~ ~ Remi Dube, P.Eng. Development Services Manager HB NOTE: Detailed Land Development Engineering Review available on file

26 Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Planning THE IMPACT ON SCHOOLS APPLICATION #: School Enrolment Projections and Planning Update: The following tables illustrate the enrolment projections (with current/approved ministry capacity) for the elementary and secondary schools serving the proposed development. The Colebrook Elementary has maturing trends and surplus classrooms for future growth or program location. An addition to Panorama Ridge Secondary has been approved as a capital project (the addition will be built large enough to accommodate 1500 students, plus there will be Neighbourhood of Learning Centre with space that can accommodate community use). The addition to Panorama Ridge Secondary in under construction and should be completed in May The proposed development will not have an impact on these projections. SUMMARY The proposed 7 single family lots Colebrook Elementary are estimated to have the following impact on the following schools: 350 Projected # of students for this development: Elementary Students: 2 Secondary Students: Enrolment Capacity September 2014 Enrolment/School Capacity Colebrook Elementary Enrolment (K/1-7): 26 K Capacity (K/1-7): 20 K Panorama Ridge Secondary Enrolment (8-12): 1502 Panorama Ridge Secondary Nominal Capacity (8-12): 1475 Functional Capacity*(8-12); Projected cumulative impact of development Nominal Capacity (8-12): subject project) in the subject catchment areas: Elementary Students: 8 Secondary Students: 50 Total New Students: Enrolment Capacity Functional Capacity *Functional Capacity at secondary schools is based on space utilization estimate of 27 students per instructional space. The number of instructional spaces is estimated by dividing nominal facility capacity (Ministry capacity) by 25.

27 a division of: Surrey Project No.: Project Address: Consulting Arborist: TREE PRESERVATION SUMMARY Avenue Surrey, BC Nick McMahon Appendix ON-SITE TREES: Total Bylaw Protected Trees Identified (on-site and shared trees, including trees within boulevards and proposed streets and lanes, excluding Park and ESA dedications) QUANTITY OF TREES Bylaw Protected Trees to be Removed 48 Bylaw Protected Trees to be Retained (excludes trees in Park dedication areas and ESA s) Replacement Trees Required: Alder and Cottonwood at 1:1 ratio: 3 times 1 = 3 All Other Bylaw Protected Trees at 2:1 ratio: 47 times 2 = 94 TOTAL: 97 Replacement Trees Proposed 97 Replacement Trees in Deficit 0 Protected Trees Retained in Proposed Open Space/ Riparian Areas OFF-SITE TREES: QUANTITY OF TREES Bylaw Protected Off-Site Trees to be Removed 18 Replacement Trees Required: Alder and Cottonwood at 1:1 ratio: 2 times 1 = 2 All Other Bylaw Protected Trees at 2:1 ratio: 16 times 2 = 32 TOTAL: 34 Replacement Trees Proposed 34 Replacement Trees in Deficit 0 This summary and the referenced documents are prepared and submitted by: Nick McMahon, Consulting Arborist Dated: September 9, 2015 Direct: nick@aclgroup.ca PAGE 1 OF HORSESHOE WAY RICHMOND, BC V7A 4V4 P F

28 CITY OF SURREY (the "City") DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO.: Issued To: HUA DENG ("the Owner") Address of Owner: Avenue Surrey, BC V3X 2Z8 1. This development variance permit is issued subject to compliance by the Owner with all statutes, by-laws, orders, regulations or agreements, except as specifically varied by this development variance permit. 2. This development variance permit applies to that real property including land with or without improvements located within the City of Surrey, with the legal description and civic address as follows: Parcel Identifier: Lot 132 Section 4 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan Avenue (the "Land") 3. (a) As the legal description of the Land is to change, the City Clerk is directed to insert the new legal description for the Land once titles have been issued, as follows: Parcel Identifier: (b) If the civic addresses change, the City Clerk is directed to insert the new civic addresses for the Land, as follows:

29 Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No , as amended is varied as follows: (a) (b) (c) In Section F. of Part 14 "Half-Acre Residential Zone (RH)" the minimum front yard setback to a principal building is increased from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 15 metres (50 ft.) on Lots 1 and 2, as conceptually shown on Schedule A which is attached hereto and forms part of this development variance permit. In Section F. of Part 14 "Half-Acre Residential Zone (RH)" the minimum front yard setback to a principal building is reduced from 7.5 metres (25 ft.) to 5.0 metres (16 ft.) on Lots 4 and 5, as conceptually shown on Schedule A which is attached hereto and forms part of this development variance permit. In Section F. of Part 14 "Half-Acre Residential Zone (RH)" the minimum west yard setback to a principal building is increased from 4.5 metres (15 ft.) to 7.0 metres (23 ft.) on Lot 5, as conceptually shown on Schedule A which is attached hereto and forms part of this development variance permit. 5. The Land shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and provisions of this development variance permit. 6. This development variance permit shall lapse unless the subdivision, as conceptually shown on Schedule A which is attached hereto and forms part of this development variance permit, is registered in the New Westminster Land Title Office within three (3) years after the date this development variance permit is issued. 7. The terms of this development variance permit or any amendment to it, are binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the Land. 8. 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 \\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\ doc. 9/10/15 4:39 PM

30 Schedule A Jun He Residential Subdivision Avenue, Surrey CONCEPT EAST ALIGNMENT Project No.: Date: 31 August 2015 Drawing 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION GROSS SITE AREA EXISTING DESIGNATIONS Lot 132 Section 4 Township 2 Plan NWD 1.7 hectares / 4.2 acres (approx.) Zoning: RH (Half Acre Residential) PID: NCP: N/A NET SITE AREA OCP: Suburban 1.3 hectares / 3.2 acres (approx.) PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS Zoning: No Change NCP: N/A OCP: No Change LOT YIELD Existing Number of Lots: 1 Proposed Number of Lots: 6 DENSITY Gross: 3.5 uph / 1.4 upa Net: 4.6 uph / 1.9 upa NOTE: Conceptual layout only, subject to change without notice. Property of Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. and not to be reproduced or used without written permission by the Company. M:\2011\11-100\DWG\PLANNING\ SUB PLAN 26Aug E V.2.dwg

31 BUILDING GUIDELINES SUMMARY Surrey Project no: Project Location: Avenue, Surrey, B.C. Design Consultant: Tynan Consulting Ltd., (Michael E. Tynan) The draft Building Scheme proposed for this Project has been filed with the City Clerk. The following is a summary of the Residential Character Study and the Design Guidelines which highlight the important features and form the basis of the draft Building Scheme. 1. Residential Character 1.1 General Description of the Existing and/or Emerging Residential Character of the Subject Site: This area was built out over a time period spanning from the 1960's to the 1990's. The age distribution from oldest to newest is : 50 years old (25%), 40 years old (58%), 30 years old (8%), 20 years old (8%). Most homes are over 3500 sq.ft. in size. Home size distribution is as follows : sq.ft. (25%), sq.ft. (17%), sq.ft. (25%), over 3550 sq.ft. (33%). Styles found in this area include: "Old Urban" (8%), "West Coast Traditional (68%), "Modern California Stucco" (8%), "Neo-Heritage" (8%), and "Traditional Cape Cod" (8%). Home types include: Bungalow (17%), Bungalow with above-ground basement (8%), 1½ Storey (17%), Basement Entry (8%), Cathedral Entry (8%), and Two-Storey (42%). The massing scale found on neighbouring homes ranges from simple rectangular low mass structures to mid-scale structures with proportionally consistent well balanced massing designs, to high mass, box-like structures. Massing scale is distributed as follows: low mass structures (25%), low to mid-scale structures (8%), mid-scale structures of average quality (25%), midscale structures with proportionally consistent, well balanced context quality massing designs (17%), mid-to-high-scale structures (8%), high scale structures with box-like massing resulting from locating the upper floor directly above or beyond the floor below (17%). The scale range for the front entrance element is: one storey (83%), and 1½ storey front entrance (17%). A wide range of roof slopes have been used including: low slope (flat to 5:12) = (41)%, moderate slope (6:12 to 7:12) = (20)%, steeply sloped (8:12 and steeper) = (41)%. Roof forms include : common hip (42%), common gable (50%), Dutch hip (8%). Roof surfaces include: roll roofing (8%), metal (8%), interlocking tab type asphalt shingles (17%), rectangular profile type asphalt shingles (25%), concrete tile (rounded Spanish profile) (8%), and cedar shingles (33%). Main wall cladding materials include : horizontal cedar siding (8%), vertical channel cedar siding (8%), vertical board and batten cedar (8%), horizontal vinyl siding (17%), stucco cladding (33%), and full height stone at front (25%). Feature veneers on the front façade include : no feature veneer (30%), brick (20%), wood wall shingles (10%), horizontal cedar (30%), Tudor style battens over stucco (10%). Wall cladding and trim colours include : Neutral (white, cream, grey, black) (50%), Natural (earth tones) (39%), Primary derivative (red, blue, yellow) (11%). Covered parking configurations include : No covered parking (9%), Single carport (18%), Single vehicle garage (9%), Double garage (64%).

32 A variety of landscaping standards are evident, ranging from "modest old suburban" (sod, a few shrubs, and a few mature trees) to 'high quality modern suburban" featuring over 100 shrubs, numerous trees and thoughtfully designed features. Driveway surfaces include: gravel (17%), asphalt (67%), and exposed aggregate (17%). Fifty five percent of homes can be considered 'non-context', and are not recommended for emulation. Forty five percent of homes can be considered 'context homes' (as identified in the residential character study), which provide acceptable architectural context for the subject site. However, massing design standards have improved markedly in the past ten years. The recommendation therefore is to require new homes to be designed and detailed to common new post year 2010 standards for suburban-estate homes on RH zoned lots in South Surrey, rather than be designed to emulate specific neighbouring homes. 1.2 Prevailing Features of the Existing and Surrounding Dwellings Significant to the Proposed Building Scheme: 1) Context Homes: Although there are numerous aesthetically acceptable homes in this neighbourhood, the recommendation is to require new homes to be designed and detailed to common new post year 2010 standards for suburban-estate homes on RH zoned lots in South Surrey, rather than to emulate existing structures. 2) Style Character : For reasonable blending with existing homes, and to provide styles that are suitable for the proposed executive quality suburban-estate character, the following styles are recommended: "Traditional", Neo-Traditional "Heritage" and Neo-Heritage. 3) Home Types : There are a wide variety of home types evident in this area, and the lots are large. Therefore a variety of home types can be accommodated, though it is likely that all new homes will be Two-Storey type. 4) Massing Designs : Surrounding new homes provide acceptable massing context. However, emulation of the neighbouring homes is not recommended. New homes will have to meet high new standards for suburban estate homes on RH zoned lots. New homes will have aesthetically pleasing shapes with interesting, proportionally consistent feature projections well balanced across the façade. 5) Front Entrance Design : Front entrance porticos range from one to 1 ½ storeys in height. A 1 ½ storey entrance element is of an appropriate size for a home of a suburban-estate scale. The recommendation is an entrance element ranging in size from 1 to 1½ storeys. 6) Exterior Wall Cladding : A wide range of wall cladding materials have been used in this area, including vinyl. Vinyl however is an economical utility wall cladding material appropriate for areas in which affordability is a concern. Vinyl is not appropriate for use on high value suburban estate homes and is not recommended for this site. 7) Roof surface: Roof surfaces are not a defining characteristic in this area, and so some flexibility can be justified, providing the materials are of a high standard. Cedar shingles, shake profile concrete roof tiles, and shake profile asphalt shingles with a 40 year or greater warranty are recommended. 8) Roof Slope : There are a wide range of roof slopes on existing neighbouring homes. The recommendation is to use roof slopes of 8:12 or higher for consistency with the proposed suburban-estate character, subject to standard exceptions. Window/Door Details: Rectangular dominant.