WELCOME TO THE NCP AREA #3 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING #6 For more information visit the city of surrey webpage at: www.surrey.ca/gh3ncp 1 Feb 1, 2018 CAC Meeting NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN PLAN AREA AREA #3 #3
MEETING AGENDA 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 CAC Meeting
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #2 - SURVEY RESULTS 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.
Profile of Survey Participants Neighbourhood Area Age Range In Study Area Other part of South Surrey Cloverdale Fleetwood Guildford Newton 9% 12% 10% 5% 6% 49% 3% 15% 20% 19% 28% 12% 3% 19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Prefer Not to Answer City Centre/Whalley Outside Surrey 2% 8% 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.
Rating Priorities Provide For Community Amenities & Schools 58% 33% 6% 2% Provide Parks &Recreation Opportunities 55% 35% 7% 2% Ensure Healthy, Protected & Well-Maintained Ecosystems & Biodiversity 53% 31% 12% 2% 2% Ensure Appropriate Servicing, Financing and Infrastructure Improvements 43% 39% 14% 3% 2% Limit Urban Impacts on the Agricultural Land Reserve 52% 28% 11% 6% 3% Provide Appropriate Housing 40% 38% 17% 3% 2% Ensure Multimodal Road Design encouraging a Transit Oriented Community 41% 37% 15% 5% 2% Include opportunities for Neighbourhood Serving Commercial Uses 12% 38% 30% 13% 7% Consider Viewscape Opportunities 12% 32% 38% 12% 5% Very Important Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Unimportant Very Unimportant 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
Other Priorities 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. A disc golf course in a park in this area. 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. Create an appropriate mix of single family and townhouses with sufficient density to ensure cost of providing community services can be justified. Ensure developers pay for infrastructure upgrades required and not Surrey tax payers. Incorporating public art in common public spaces. Plan the neighborhoods properly, too much housing, and not enough doctors, dentists, daycares, grocery stores: these need to be in walking distance! Q: Are there any other planning priorities you would suggest? Total participants: 142
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 Consolidate new parkland into one or two larger sites 44% Spread out several smaller sites across the plan area 56% 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
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 Highway Oriented Commercial 8% Neighbourhood Commercial 46% Mixed Use Commercial 37% No Commercial 9% Other 1% 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
Neighbourhood Village/Commercial Area by Age Range 29% 5% 6% 13% 10% 11% 9% Highway Oriented Commercial 65% 53% 37% 39% 57% 47% Neighbourhood Commercial Mixed Use Commercial No Commercial 71% 24% 34% 39% 43% 21% 36% 5% 6% 11% 7% 11% 8% 19-29* 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Overall *Caution: Low base n<10
Mix of Housing Appropriate to this Area 37 30 24 25 Mean Median 21 20 19 17 Detached Single Family Townhouse Semi-Detached Apartment 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
Residential Concepts 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Density is far too high. High density does not fit in with the existing 1 acre lots surrounding the NCP. 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 Location A 31% Location B 26% Location C 26% Location D 11% Other 6% 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.
School Locations 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. Only one school site in this area, too difficult and expensive to get two. School sites should be provided for before/during the re-development of the area to ensure schools are available for new families. 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. 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. 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. Q: Do you have any comments about Schools in the plan area? Total participants: 75
Hazelmere Estates Planning Concepts Maintain the status quo (existing suburban designation only): Mix of 1 acre and half acre lots (Concept 1) Urban re-development around periphery with 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 26% 22% 45% 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. Single Family and Duplexes, with a larger then normal lot sizes. More green spaces. No further development. 50% rental apartment buildings with commercial underneath and 50% rental townhouses. Other 7% Q: What type of ultimate long term land uses may be appropriate in the Hazelmere Estates Area? Total participants: 254/14
Road Network and Circulation Planning Comments 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. 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. It is needed. We will never get people to stop driving so develop wider roads with adequate room for pedestrians and bikes. Probably need a mix of A and B. I like splitting 18th Ave around the creek area, that is a good idea. 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. 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. Q: What do you think about future roadway and pedestrian connectivity? Total participants: 137
Land Use Concepts Concept A 33% Concept B 67% Q: Based on the draft planning principles provided, which land use concept do you prefer? Total participants: 242
Land Use Concepts by Neighbourhood 52% 32% 21% 21% 50% 33% 44% 75% 34% Concept A Concept B 48% 68% 79% 79% 50% 67% 56% 25% 66% *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 18 th Ave? What Populations is projected.
Formation of Preferred Concept A B Combine features, to formulate Preferred Land Use Concept C
E QUESTIONS & COMMENTS 24 CAC Meeting
STAGE 1 - PLANNING SCHEDULE January April 2016 July 25 th 2016 November 23 rd 2016 January-February 2017 Late November 2017 April 2018 June/July 2018 Open House #1 CAC #5 CAC #4 CAC #3 CAC #2 CAC #1 Open House #2 CAC #7 CAC #6 Open House #3 CAC #8 Landown er petitions received by City 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. Develop Terms of Reference City Staff works with the CAC and other stakeholders, as required, to develop Draft Land Use Options. Background studies, including an environmental study, heritage study, and an integrated stormwater management plan (ISMP). Public Open House #2 Draft Land Use Options Develop a Preferred Land Use Concept Public Open House #3 Preferred Land Use Concept Present Draft Stage 1 Report to Council If Stage 1 is approved by Council, initiate Stage 2 Complete We Are Here Development Applications may be processed and advanced to Council for Consideration *Note: NCP Planning Process Timelines are subject to change. 2 5 CAC Meeting
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. 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. Some initial suggestions from City staff include the following: Darts Hill Sam Hill Darts Village Grandview Ridge
Email: gh3plan@surrey.ca City of Surrey Community Planning Division 13450-104 Avenue Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 1V8 PHONE: PATRICK KLASSEN, COMMUNITY PLANNING MANAGER (604) 598-5858 PKLASSEN@SURREY.CA MARKUS KISCHNICK, COMMUNITY PLANNER (604) 591-4485 MKISCHNICK@SURREY.CA Webpage: www.surrey.ca/ghncp3 2 8 CAC Meeting