City of Surrey
ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS
File:
7914-0138-00
Planning Report Date: December 15, 2014
PROPOSAL:
•
Rezoning from A-1 to CD (based on RF-G)
in order to allow subdivision into 46 single family lots
and open space.
LOCATION:
7788, 7766 and 7736 - 156 Street
OWNERS:
Jasdev S Randhawa, Kamaljeet K
Randhawa, Kay Developments Ltd.,
and Bluejay Development Ltd
ZONING:
A-1
OCP DESIGNATION:
Urban (as of October 20, 2014)
INFILL AREA
CONCEPT PLAN
DESIGNATION:
5 upa Low-Medium Density
Cluster, Open Space/Future Park,
Habitat Corridor Park/Trail, Private
Landscape Buffer
Staff Report to Council
File:
7914-0138-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
•
Consider Third Reading of Rezoning By-law No. 18306.
DEVIATION FROM PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS
•
None.
RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATION
•
As requested at the October 20, 2014 Public Hearing for the subject application, staff have
reviewed the impacts of the proposed 46 single family lots on the adjacent school population
and additional traffic in the neighbourhood, and have consulted with the residents that
appeared as a delegation at the Public Hearing.
•
As described in the Initial Planning Report presented to Council on September 8, 2014, the
proposed development complies with the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Concept Plan, which
was approved by Council on March 11, 2013 (Corporate Report No. R049; 2013).
•
With the adoption of OCP By-law No. 18020 (approved by Council on October 20, 2014), the
subject site and surrounding area was redesignated from Suburban to Urban. OCP
Amendment By-law No. 18305 that was proceeding with the proposed rezoning of the subject
site is no longer required. Council subsequently filed By-law No. 18305 on December 1, 2014
along with other OCP Amendment By-laws no longer required.
Staff Report to Council
File:
Additional Planning Comments
7914-0138-00
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Development Department recommends that Council consider Third Reading of
By-law No. 18306, rezoning the subject site from "General Agriculture Zone (A-1)" (By-law No.
12000) to "Comprehensive Development Zone (CD)" (By-law No. 12000).
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Background
•
On September 8, 2014, Council considered an Initial Planning Report from the Planning &
Development Department (Appendix F) for the rezoning of the subject site, located at 7788,
7766 and 7736 - 156 Street. The subject site is located within the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area
Concept Plan (Fleetwood Enclave Plan) approved by Council March 11, 2013 (Corporate Report
No. R049; 2013).
•
The application subsequently proceeded to Public Hearing on October 20, 2014. At the Public
Hearing, Council heard concerns from community residents regarding the impact the
proposed development could have on school capacity, traffic congestion and access, the
condition of local roads, wildlife and the environment, and neighbourhood character
(resulting from too much density).
•
In addition, Council also heard from the President of Surrey Environmental Partners (SEP)
who questioned the suitability and viability of the proposed linear park bisecting the
neighbourhood as a corridor for wildlife.
•
Based on the concerns raised at Public Hearing, Council referred the project back to staff to
address the comments raised at the October 20, 2014 Public Hearing. In addition, Council
directed staff to meet with the residents who appeared as delegations at the Public Hearing.
Discussion of Concerns
•
The concerns expressed at the October 20, 2014 Public Hearing regarding the subject
application can be categorized as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
o
•
Impact on wildlife and the local environment;
Impact on neighbourhood character;
Additional traffic impact;
Impact to available on-street parking demand;
Current condition of 156 Street; and
Impact on Coyote Creek Elementary School capacity.
Staff met with the six community residents from three households located immediately
adjacent the Fleetwood Enclave Plan area on December 1, 2014, including those residents who
appeared as delegations at the Public Hearing. On a separate occasion, staff from Community
Planning and Parks Recreation, and Culture also met informally with the President of SEP to
discuss her concerns.
Staff Report to Council
File:
7914-0138-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 4
•
The residents generally stated that they are not opposed to development within the Fleetwood
Enclave, but have some very specific concerns related to the form and density of the proposed
development, and the related increased traffic and parking demand that is expected.
•
The following is a summary of these concerns and staff’s discussions with the delegations.
Impact on Wildlife and the Local Environment
•
A significant portion of the Fleetwood Enclave Plan area, including the 3.6-hectare (9.0-acre)
subject site, is presently forested with a mix of native coniferous and deciduous trees. In
addition, the subject site is immediately adjacent to Fleetwood Park to the east. Surrey Lake
Park, while not immediately adjacent to the subject site, is located south of the Fleetwood
Enclave Plan area (see Appendix E).
•
The Fleetwood Enclave Plan was developed in accordance with the City of Surrey’s Ecosystem
Management Study (EMS), which was endorsed by Council on April 18, 2011 (Corporate Report
No. R061), and the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS), which was approved by Council
on July 21, 2014 (Corporate Report No. R141). The Fleetwood Enclave Plan incorporates many
of the strategies identified in the BCS.
•
A central concept within the BCS is the "Green Infrastructure Network" (GIN), which
identifies large habitat areas throughout the City for protection (referred to as "hubs" and
"sites"), and ensures connectivity between them ("corridors"). Corridors, it should be noted,
are often used to meet several City objectives, including wildlife corridors as well as
recreational greenways.
•
Both Fleetwood Park and Surrey Lake Park are not only valuable recreational spaces, they
have also been identified as high value, ecologically significant "hubs" in the BCS. The
Fleetwood Enclave Plan has placed a priority on preserving and enhancing these important
park spaces/hubs, and on supporting the connections that link the Fleetwood Enclave Plan
area to Fleetwood Park and Surrey Lake Park.
•
As outlined below, the Fleetwood Enclave Plan and the subject development application have
focused on two key measures intended to mitigate the impacts development will have on
wildlife and the local environment, including trees. These measures include the expansion of
open space and the establishment of linear parks within the neighbourhood. Staff outlined
these measures to the residents at the meeting of December 1, 2014, and in discussions with
the President of SEP at City Hall.
Expansion of Open Space
•
One measure to mitigate impacts on wildlife and the environment is to protect and buffer
Fleetwood Park through the addition of passive green space separating the park from the
proposed developments.
o
As part of the development of the Fleetwood Enclave Plan, the City engaged an
environmental consultant (Diamond Head Consulting Ltd.). The consultant
determined that the top priority of the Plan should be the protection and preservation
of the highest value ecological habitat in the neighbourhood, Fleetwood Park, through
the establishment of a forest buffer along its western edge.
Additional Planning Comments
Staff Report to Council
File:
7914-0138-00
Page 5
o
Approximately 4,761 square metres (1.2 acres) of additional open space will be added to
the western boundary of Fleetwood Park as part of the proposed development, with
more to be added through subsequent developments, to provide a 25-metre (82 ft.)
wide forest buffer.
o
Diamond Head Consulting also recommended that the connection between Fleetwood
Park, Surrey Lake Park and the southerly adjacent ALR lands should be maintained
and enhanced wherever possible.
Linear Parks
•
Building upon the objectives above, the second measure within the Fleetwood Enclave Plan is
to provide connections through the neighbourhood that are linked to the City’s park and trail
system with a series of linear parks bisecting the plan area, for the benefit of residents and
local wildlife. There are two important linear parks that traverse the Fleetwood Enclave Plan
area:
o
The first linear park is proposed to bisect the neighbourhood from east to west
through a 15-metre (50 ft.) wide median located in the middle of 77 Avenue, with
vehicle travel lanes located on both the north and south sides of this linear park.

o
This proposed linear park serves two purposes:
o
Designed to incorporate a meandering path, native vegetation and tree
coverage, the park will function primarily as an amenity for area
residents. With limited vehicle crossings, residents (particularly
children) will have the ability to safely cross the neighbourhood,
eventually connecting to Fleetwood Park.
o
In addition, identified as a "local corridor" in the GIN, it is designed to
provide movement of wildlife species that are tolerant of human
disturbance, serving as only one component of a larger regional
network.

The additional width of this linear park also allows for the retention or
re-planting of tree coverage that is more significant than that found in a typical
recreational greenway.

A 1,118-square metre (12,034 sq.ft.) portion of this linear park is to be provided
along the southern edge of the subject site.
A second, existing linear park is located at the southern edge of the plan area (see
Appendix B), adjacent to the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) boundary and created as
part of Application No. 7911-0085-00 (rezoning to CD By-law No. 17505 approved by
Council on July 26, 2012).

This linear park has no public access, functioning primarily as a GIN "corridor"
linking Surrey Park, Fleetwood Park, and the ALR lands to the south.
Staff Report to Council
File:
7914-0138-00

•
Additional Planning Comments
Page 6
This corridor is more suited to the movement of wildlife that are less tolerant
of human disturbance.
On October 24, 2013 the Fleetwood Enclave Plan was presented to the Environmental
Advisory Committee (EAC). The EAC was generally supportive, commenting that the
Fleetwood Enclave Plan has perhaps the most consideration for environmental values as
compared to similar plans in the City.
Impact on Neighbourhood Character
•
The Fleetwood Enclave Plan area includes approximately 26 hectares (64 acres) of land that is
currently comprised of rural- and suburban-form residential properties, some of which are
currently under application for rezoning and subdivision as per the plan.
•
The plan area is bordered by an established residential neighbourhood to the north, Surrey
Lake and Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands to the south, Eaglequest (Coyote Creek) Golf
Course to the west and Fleetwood Park to the east.
•
The residential neighbourhood to the north is an established, Urban-designated and primarily
"Single Family Residential (RF)" – zoned neighbourhood. The lot pattern in this
neighbourhood was established in the mid-1990’s.
•
A typical lot in this existing neighbourhood ranges in size from approximately 625 sq. metres
(6,700 sq.ft.) to 665 sq. metres (7,200 sq.ft.), although a few lots are larger. This equates to an
approximate neighbourhood density of 15 units per hectare (6 units per acre).
•
The proposed housing types and density within the Fleetwood Enclave Plan are characterized
by a single family residential form of development, with gross densities of 10 to 13 units per
gross hectare (4 to 5 units per gross acre).
•
The Fleetwood Enclave Plan also includes an open space and trail network that is intended to
introduce open space into the plan area, as well as connections between the plan area and
adjacent community amenities such as Fleetwood Park and Surrey Lake Park. As noted
previously in the report, these open spaces are also intended to satisfy some of the objectives
within the City’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS). Approximately 2.5 hectares
(6.2 acres) of land is designated for open space within the Plan area.
•
Open space is conveyed to the City as dedication, as per the requirements in the Fleetwood
Enclave Plan (in most cases, 13% of the gross site area), with any excess land to be acquired by
the City. In certain cases, where an open space requirement has not been identified, the City
will require the developer to provide cash-in-lieu of open space.
•
Local residents have expressed concern that the lot sizes that are proposed to be developed
under the subject development application, and elsewhere in the Fleetwood Enclave Plan
area, are inconsistent with the existing lot sizes in the area. For example, the lot sizes
proposed under the subject application range in size from 406 square metres (4,370 sq.ft.) to
607 square metres (6,537 sq.ft.).
Staff Report to Council
File:
7914-0138-00
Additional Planning Comments
Page 7
•
In order to achieve the open space objectives of the Fleetwood Enclave Plan, yet maintain the
housing types and density proposed in the plan, density is calculated on the gross site area,
including the areas that are to be conveyed to the City as open space. As such, while the
individual lot sizes are smaller than the existing residential lots to the north, the overall
density is slightly less than in the existing neighbourhood.
•
The residents staff consulted have stated that the expansion of Fleetwood Park and the
creation of other open space in the neighbourhood is certainly a desirable goal, however they
argue that the resulting smaller lot sizes are not worth the trade-off. They are very concerned
that the development of these small lots will negatively impact their own existing property
values. Their position is that the proposed development should only be permitted to proceed
if the proposed number of new lots is reduced to such an extent that they will be of a similar
size to the lots in the existing neighbourhood.
•
In addition, a Private Landscape Buffer is proposed along the north property line of the
subject site, to act as a buffer between the existing and proposed residential developments
(see Appendix B). The applicant has proposed varying the depth of the landscape buffer at
the northwest corner of the subject site, such that that the buffer would range in depth from
4.0 metres (13 ft.) to 7.5 metres (25 ft.), noting that the orientation of the adjacent proposed
Lot 1 and existing, 3.0–metre (10 ft.) wide statutory rights-of-way (for sanitary and drainage
purposes) provide sufficient buffering to the existing dwelling to the north (see Appendix C).
•
The residents who live adjacent the private landscape buffer contend that the width of the
buffer should be a consistent 7.5 metres (25 ft.) along its entire length. They argue that the
reduction of the buffer to 4.0 metres (13 ft.) at the northwest corner of the proposed
development site should not be permitted.
Additional Traffic Impact
•
The issue of increased traffic from the development of the Fleetwood Enclave Plan has been
consistently raised as a major concern by residents.
•
Residents noted that all of the traffic travelling to and from the Fleetwood Enclave Plan area
will pass through the intersection of 80 Avenue and 156 Street, which is currently operated as
a four-way stop. They observed that the periods of greatest congestion coincide with the
beginning and end of the school days at Coyote Creek Elementary School and Fleetwood Park
Secondary School.
•
As part of the Engineering Servicing Strategy of the Fleetwood Enclave Plan, the City retained
a Transportation consultant, Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd, to perform a Traffic Impact
Assessment (TIA) to identify potential transportation infrastructure improvements. The TIA
also included secondary suites into the trip generation rate.
•
The TIA concluded that improvements to the intersection of 80 Avenue and 156 Street were
not necessary. The existing four-way stop would continue to operate at a level of service
(LOS B) during the AM and PM peak periods that is well within acceptable levels of
performance. The TIA did recommend road improvements outside of the Fleetwood Enclave
Plan area, such as at the intersection of 82 Avenue and 156 Street, and at the intersection of
82 Avenue and 160 Street. The City concurs with the Transportation consultant.
Staff Report to Council
File:
Additional Planning Comments
7914-0138-00
Page 8
•
To address residents’ concerns and their local observations, staff from Transportation
Engineering recently returned to the site to undertake additional monitoring and analysis of
the 80 Avenue and 156 Street intersection during the school peak periods mentioned above.
•
The results of this additional analysis indicated that for a brief 15 – 30 minute time period the
intersection performance decreases. However, this short duration of change in intersection
performance is typical of four-way stop controlled intersections found in close proximity to
schools throughout the City. Beyond this short time period the additional analysis indicated
similar conclusions to the TIA and that there was no justification to warrant significant
upgrades, such as the installation of a roundabout or traffic signal, to accommodate the peak
period traffic volumes.
•
Staff will continue to monitor the intersection performance over time.
Impact to Parking Demand and On-Street Availability
•
The local residents expressed concern about the increased on-street parking demand that
would result from the smaller lots and the corresponding impacts to on-street parking
capacity within the community, particularly as secondary suites are permitted in every new
dwelling.
•
Using current and typical vehicle ownership trends within the City, Transportation staff
estimated that each new dwelling in the Fleetwood Enclave could potentially generate
approximately four (4) to five (5) cars, including secondary suites. Each proposed new lot will
have the capacity for four cars per lot, two in the garage and two on the driveway.
•
Most of the proposed roads in the Fleetwood Enclave conform to City standards, and will
include on-street parking on both sides. As a result the new roads within the Fleetwood
Enclave are anticipated to handle any surplus on-street parking demands and not impact any
of the existing on-street parking availability.
Current Condition of 156 Street
•
The condition of 156 Street south of 80 Avenue through the existing neighbourhood and into
the Fleetwood Enclave Plan area is of varying treatment and standard. Sections north of
78A Avenue are constructed to a more urban standard, complete with curb and gutter and
sidewalks. South of 78A Avenue the road is constructed to a rural standard with roadside
swales and ditches. This standard is appropriate and consistent with other historical one-acre
(RA) zoned lands throughout the City.
•
At the Public Hearing, residents noted that a portion of the 156 Street pavement directly in
front of their residences is of poor quality (see attached photo, Appendix D). The pavement
has been significantly impacted due to the current construction of a BC Hydro sub-station
further south on 156 Street, adjacent Surrey Lake Park.
Staff Report to Council
File:
Additional Planning Comments
7914-0138-00
Page 9
•
It is anticipated that the majority of the sub-station infrastructure construction on 156 Street
will be completed by October, 2015. These works include the installation of water service and
transmission ducts along the west side of 156 Street from the sub-station to Fraser Highway.
Both of these services require trenches and subsequent re-paving of the trench. A second
trench may be required in the short to medium term, along the east side of 156 Street for
future transmission duct expansion.
•
In addition to the re-paving of the trench, BC Hydro’s contractors will undertake further
repairs and repaving along 156 Street, if it is deemed necessary by the City. Upon completion
of the sub-station project, Engineering Operations staff will continue to monitor and maintain
the 156 Street pavement condition as required.
•
Ultimately as development proceeds within the Fleetwood Enclave Plan area, 156 Street will be
upgraded to the urban standards with reconstructed pavement, curb and gutter and sidewalk
on a development-by-development basis.
Impact on School Capacity
•
As part of the typical development application review process, the Surrey School District ("the
School District") is provided with information regarding specific developments within school
catchment areas. As new housing places pressures on schools across the City, the School
District can use this information to plan for and accommodate population growth.
•
In addition, the School District is provided with the opportunity to comment on, and provide
Council with projections for school enrolment over the next several years. The School District
will also offer an estimated student yield that will be generated by a proposed development.
•
At the Public Hearing, local residents and Council raised questions with respect to the
accuracy of the School District’s short-term and long-term projections. The School District
has provided further information to staff clarifying the methodology for determining
enrolment projections and student yield, which is outlined below.
Enrolment Projections
•
Enrolment projections are included as graphs in the standard response provided by the School
District and attached as an appendix to most Planning Reports (see Appendix IV of Appendix
F attached to this report).
•
The following factors are used by the School District to determine future enrolment
projections:
o
o
o
o
o
o
The existing school aged population within a catchment;
The percentage of that school aged catchment population that has historically
attended their local school;
Analysis of historical and predicted District program enrolment trends (e.g. French
Immersion);
Analysis of historical and predicted out-of-catchment and out-of-District trends;
Development of new housing, based on secondary plan development scenarios,
development applications and other information provided by City staff;
The impact of net-migration of specific age cohorts;
Staff Report to Council
File:
Additional Planning Comments
7914-0138-00
o
o
o
o
Page 10
Actual and projected births;
Local knowledge from school principals and other staff;
Information from the real-estate community; and
Historical retention rates of students between grade levels and schools.
•
Typically, where the densities of a development are accounted for in a secondary plan, the
enrolment growth is reflected in a school’s future enrolment projections. The enrolment
projections for both Coyote Creek Elementary and Fleetwood Park Secondary Schools
incorporate the full development (i.e. build-out) scenario anticipated in the Fleetwood
Enclave Plan.
•
It should be noted that the population projections in the Fleetwood Enclave Plan area account
for secondary suites in all homes, which are permitted in the plan area as per the
requirements of Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No. 12000.
•
Staff at the School District have reviewed the projections for Coyote Creek Elementary, noting
that last year’s enrolment was consistent with their projections. School District staff are
confident that these future projections remain accurate based on the current planning
context.
•
It is anticipated that full build-out of the Fleetwood Enclave Plan will ultimately push Coyote
Creek above built-capacity. As enrolment approaches capacity, the School District will
develop short- and long-term strategies to address this issue.
Student Yield from New Development
•
For most new developments in the City, the School District will provide a gross estimate
student yield, i.e., the combined elementary and secondary enrolment expected from the
proposed development, as a part of the standard response attached as an appendix to most
planning reports. The following factors are used to determine this yield:
o
o
o
o
o
Housing type (single family tends to yield more students than multi-family);
The prevalence of secondary suites and coach houses;
The target demographic of the development;
The existing characteristics of the neighbourhood; and
Participation rates of area students at their local catchment school.
•
It should be noted that the estimated student yield accounts for the fact that a portion of
students will attend private schools or District programs, such as French Immersion, or that
some families will have children either under or over school age.
•
Staff at the School District reviewed actual student yield from approximately 136 units to the
north of the subject site, and determined that this existing development generated
approximately 72 students, generating a per unit yield of 0.53.
•
School District staff have reviewed the estimated student yield for the subject application,
which was based on an estimated yield of 0.5 students per unit, and are confident that the
estimates are relatively accurate.
Additional Planning Comments
Staff Report to Council
File:
•
7914-0138-00
Page 11
This yield has been found to be generally consistent across the School District, although local
conditions will vary. Some neighbourhoods may not achieve the yield, while others, such as
East Clayton, tend to exceed the yield.
CONCLUSION
•
The application is for 46 single family lots at a gross density of 5 units per acre, with related
open space. The density is consistent with the 5 upa Low-Medium Density Cluster Urban
designation of the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Development Plan.
•
Furthermore, the applicant is conveying approximately 0.59 hectare (1.5 acres) of the subject
site to the City as open space, consistent with the Fleetwood Enclave Plan, which will result in
an expansion of Fleetwood Park and the creation of a portion of the linear park that is
proposed to bisect the neighbourhood. The location and area of the open space to be
conveyed to the City is consistent with the City of Surrey’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
•
The impacts that the proposed development of the lands in the Fleetwood Enclave Plan area,
and the development site in particular, will have on local traffic, parking and school capacity
has been reviewed and the neighbourhood has been consulted.
•
In light of the preceding, it is recommended that Council consider Third Reading of By-law
No. 18306.
INFORMATION ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT
The following information is attached to this Report:
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Appendix E.
Appendix F.
Lot Owners and Action Summary
Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Concept Plan
Proposed Subdivision Layout
Photo of Current Condition of 7800 Block of 156 Street
Location of Surrey Lake Park and Fleetwood Park
Initial Planning Report No. 7914-0138-00, dated September 29, 2014
original signed by Judith Robertson
Jean Lamontagne
General Manager
Planning and Development
CA/da
\\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\30530753099.doc
DRV 12/11/14 12:59 PM
APPENDIX A
Information for City Clerk
Legal Description and Owners of all lots that form part of the application:
1.
(a) Agent:
Name:
Address:
Tel:
Fax:
2.
3.
Roger Jawanda
CitiWest Consulting Ltd.
Unit 101, 9030 - King George Blvd.
Surrey, BC V3V 7Y3
604-591-2213
604-591-5518
Properties involved in the Application
(a)
Civic Addresses:
7788 - 156 Street
7766 - 156 Street
7736 - 156 Street
(b)
Civic Address:
Owner:
7788 - 156 St
Kamaljeet K Randhawa
Jasdev S Randhawa
PID:
009-666-834
Lot 7 Section 23 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan 12206
(c)
Civic Address:
7766 - 156 St
Owner:
Kay Developments Ltd.
PID:
009-666-869
Lot 8 Section 23 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan 12206
(d)
Civic Address:
7736 - 156 St
Owner:
Bluejay Development Ltd.
PID:
000-633-054
Lot 9 Section 23 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan 12206
Summary of Actions for City Clerk's Office
(a)
Consider Third Reading of Rezoning By-law No. 18306.
\\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\30530753099.doc
DRV 12/11/14 12:59 PM
~
Section 1: Planning
t! ,,S{JRREY
~~
b/11(~
r=ro
.. .
.~,
the future lives here;
.,.:
J ,.•• ""'",.........-..l•• .~-.., •• •'l........
.u.t..,.,. .... J-.J ........
!
! I
P~OPOSED COLLECTOR ROAD
PROPOSED GREEN ROAD (SPECIAl STANDARD)
PROPOSED LOCAL ROAD
EXISTING ~OAD
EXISTING PARKLAND BUFFER
OPEN SPACE I FUTURE PARK
FLEElWOOD CITY PARK
PONTENTIAl SIGNIFICANT TREE
Agricul1ural Land Reserve
•• •• ••• EXISTING PARK TRAIL
•
~
'
!I
" !
LJ..
~
\?
m
~
m
-1
. , • • • .c. .... ...
--"'""""-n
.:
•
ITBAVENUE
~
;;o
i\-
,
~
m
!:!)
• ••
-----~
- .. ~ .. r· · .. -:·
,.r· r ..
~ I
~ I
en
\,•
r
n AYE"!UE,
.i
!
_,1
~
ill
I
!:!) I
• ~
I
I
I !
I I !
Fleetwood Park
·· ----.-----------~--,.r-r.r·
~r·~ ... r· 4 ,.,
i
....... .....,
.!
AVENUE
6
•
ii
I
I
I
v
!
!
!
76BAVENUE
!
I
!
!i
IJII"" ):j
~ - --"
i
:::_;~1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! /"
- - --l ..J.-
. ._: ~ ' ~ i
..
i
L
...
. . . . . . . _ _ ,.
,. . l .................
~ -··'-""·-··· ·-·-·-·-·----·-·---·-·-·······
.... -....
-..... --·-·---·-·-·-···-·-'
......
!
•• •
HYDRO TRANSMISSION UNES
FUTURE CONNEC TION (To 152 Sl and 76 Ave
, , to be required In the future if and when adjacent
"Golf Cours<~" area Is redeveloped)
r·
I
!
i
PRIVATE LANDSCAPE BUFFER
HABITAT CORRIDOR PARK/TRAIL
- PROPOSED GREENWAYSITRAILS
~
l m
!
.
'
~
~
t
-
EXISTING SUBURBAN CLUSTER 2 U.P.A
- -
••
.•
~
I!~
1
"
..···
..... ,~ .... .,~t"'-· •,.......,.:-__.~~
t
I I
l.
.J
78AVENUE
! I
Ii II en~
EXISTING LOTS
'
_. .
iI
r.~~l FLEEl'NOOO ENCLAVE BOUNDARY
-
'•
'
!i I 7·
Legend
==
"
!!
FLEETWOOD ENCLAVE
LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN
•I
rr~
I
PLANNING A.NO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
C
'
.......
i
!
- ·-·-·-·-·-·-· -·-·- · -·---·· -··----·-··~
.•
~Meters
0
25
50
100
A[R ,
Dale: 1-31·13
Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Plan
Page 3
Appendix B
i
1:2,500
Appendix C
.§'
'
'\
~·
7819
23
27
ED54-001:l
~
·~
"
~-
1::>1
.2.1lLMlJUlll!.
~~
i
7799
26
"""1.!1.40
'""
t-t--JC:04
1/L11 ,\"
13.4<1
----"
15
a
=
;;
0013
1
t3.4~~.c
13. 40
~
~l)_,Y'15708
.
~2~m~
"'--
13.<40
1- ----1 12
11
~1em~
~
H,.'jO
""
~
~
14
1J.~O
1l.40
+-- -
'
\ooouo
~-t
·__:____
111.~
~
15
25.00
CD Z!Y.(: BASED ON RF -C
-
TOTAl SITE AREA ..
13
~1Bm~
.'11 Bm~
3.6:mh~
(.Ma9AC.}
TOTAl PARK AREA f>RO'.o!OED• S87Sm!
(1~.16~
TOTAl PARI< AREA IH:QI.UED•472Sm 1 (13J)(l~
~
~
BASED ON FLEETWOOO ENa..AVE LAND USE CONCEP1 PLAN
~
~
~
ornstry RfOV!Rfb1FlliS·
DErlSITY PmMITTEO • :lupa CROSS DErlSIT¥
2
3
DErlSITYPRCf'OSfll • ~ -5.
oi06m2
431m~
77B
11 7 ~pa
1_;},:'-0
~:-"'"
-
t-
w
w
7 781
25
2
~
-~R( ..';Om
bop
0:::
t-
[/)
~
c.o
15:4t~
~I
N
~
77fiEi
21
4J1m!
1 ""'
23
414mJ
~I
7761
24
17
18
~14;.;! ~
~
13.40
11.51
~~
12.61 'rt!4
I
l{)
13.4(1
11.60
..-:A
1.'!. 4(']
~
~
20
~
19
4J.3ml
::;
445m2
~
"
~
~
1!1.4.'!
1~ . -4(\
502m~ ~
~Sm l
g
~
16
465m1 ~
~
34
414m2
8
;
\~!i1
"'"45
35
~65ml
I
14
4-<JSm1 ~
"
1J.40
14.~0
34.70
~
~
15
45~l :
~
~e4rn~
OPEN SPACE
f4_7!}
47'!11m1
•
r,---=~--T----=~--~~~~~--~~---r----~----~~~·- ~
w
~~
~.oc
I
7743
;I
23
;
26
4-14ffl!
I
31
~
-4-14rnl
:;
~ ~•m
~ <D
~ \.()
I
77]6
!!i
~~ 4JOm2 ~
27
I
~ 1~-~
7721
28
8
1
4J1rn
~
29
~.3ni
.J
3(]
~
• 2l!m 1
:i
f.
1~.45
J
....,.
~
~
12206
40
g
l':ID2m~
t5.•s
L()
~
~
1~ ..o!{l
['.
42
39
~
L____j
~
43
4~4m2
UJ
..,,
1;:':1.4!1
1~.~!)
~
'"'
~
~
00
!--""
g
I
38
4fi5m1
I
~
0:::::
4 14m!
~
!J
~
>l
31.61
U <J
22
~
41
.'101m~
8
"'·"
II "~
77 AVENUE
~~
HA BITAT COR RIDOR PARK/TRAIL
1118m!
~
11
l>.OD
1~\.1~
~ -~:- __-_ ~ u· - ~ _-_-_- _-_- __- :
J!.QIES;_
7705
1. All OIJ.ENSimiS ARE .IJ>PROXt
Ol~l'!' BASED ON MASlER R...AJ.
21
I
l
I
I
I
I
10
2. LAYOUT IS
I
PREUI..ii ~JARY N~D ~
TO APPROVALS AND St.RI.£'r'S.
3. EXlSntW HOOSES TO BE REI>IO
Cit:iWast:
Cansult:ing
N o.10 1-9030 K tt~G GEORGE BLVD.,
~~
0
'
ADDEOr.1U'~
ADJUSTED ROAC WID~ .k UCREASED DM:t~ SP.-.CE
1 M ~-""1 ...; dniq~ ;. th• pr-rty a f CtlWESl Cllt\Sl'--'flt.IC LTil. ond co;JY>D< b• ~•"'"· r•~-d
~"'
TELEPHONE
~'"'"'"
FAX 604-591-5518
E-MAIL: offfce@cltfwcst.com
ss
IH"
604-5~1-2213
SU RREY, BC,
. ,•....,,.\
ih• ..nt ~ <XPI...,l dl ~ """'
Lt:d.
V.3V 7 Y3
ll-,
..,,.,
~1\11&«
FLEElV/000 PARK JOINT VENTURE
11S5-19~5J ~llO'ft'aROa<
ORt\IE, LAinfY, BC, \flY
1 ~14 ,
Pit 604-97o-U79 F,i.X; ti04-5J3-4g39
PRELIMINARY LOT LAYOUT
S1JBDI~SION
AT 7735/7755/7788 - 155 STREE T. SURREY. BC
~~~y
w.
PU
1\ppro..-od:
Jol;l
flo. 14-3 120
Dll1'
d.trDy
~AR/14
tOl prinbl b-iooj
OW9.
r~o.
s
Of
A,¥1,1on
r"'"""""" .........,
Appendix D
—””‡–‘†‹–‹‘‘ˆͳͷ͸–”‡‡–ǡŽ‘‘‹‰•‘—–Šˆ”‘͹ͺ˜‡
Appendix E
Surrey Lake and Fleetwood Parks
Subject
Site
Fleetwood
Park
Surrey Lake Park
0
0.210
0.420
Kilometers
The data provided is compiled from various sources and is NOT warranted as to its accuracy or
sufficiency by the City of Surrey. This information is provided for information and convenience purposes
only. Lot sizes, legal descriptions and encumberances must be confirmed at the Land Title Office. Use
and distribution of this map is subject to all copyright and disclaimer notices at cosmos.surrey.ca.
Enter Map Description
Scale: 1: 7,000
Map created on: December-10-14
Appendix F
City of Surrey
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT
File:
7914-0138-00
Planning Report Date: September 8, 2014
PROPOSAL:
x
x
OCP Amendment from Suburban to Urban
Rezoning from A-1 to CD (based on RF-G)
in order to allow subdivision into 46 single family lots
and open space.
LOCATION:
7788, 7766 and 7736 - 156 Street
OWNER:
Jasdev S Randhawa
Kamaljeet K Randhawa
Eastwest Construction Company
Ltd
Bluejay Development Ltd
ZONING:
A-1
OCP DESIGNATION:
Suburban
NCP DESIGNATION:
5 upa Low-Medium Density
Cluster, Open Space/Future Park,
Habitat Corridor Park/Trail, Private
Landscape Buffer
Staff Report to Council
File:
Planning & Development Report
7914-0138-00
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
x
By-law Introduction and set date for Public Hearing for:
o OCP Amendment; and
o Rezoning.
DEVIATION FROM PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS
x
None.
RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATION
x
Complies with the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Concept Plan, which was approved by
Council on March 11, 2013 (Corporate Report No. R049; 2013).
Page 2
Staff Report to Council
File:
Planning & Development Report
Page 3
7914-0138-00
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Development Department recommends that:
1.
a By-law be introduced to amend the OCP by redesignating the subject site from
Suburban to Urban and a date be set for Public Hearing.
2.
Council determine the opportunities for consultation with persons, organizations and
authorities that are considered to be affected by the proposed amendment to the Official
Community Plan, as described in the Report, to be appropriate to meet the requirement of
Section 879 of the Local Government Act.
3.
a By-law be introduced to rezone the subject site from "General Agriculture Zone (A-1)"
(By-law No. 12000) to "Comprehensive Development Zone (CD)" (By-law No. 12000) and a
date be set for Public Hearing.
4.
Council instruct staff to resolve the following issues prior to final adoption:
(a)
ensure that all engineering requirements and issues including restrictive
covenants, dedications, and rights-of-way where necessary, are addressed to the
satisfaction of the General Manager, Engineering;
(b)
submission of a subdivision layout to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer; and
(c)
submission of a finalized tree survey and a statement regarding tree preservation,
and adequately address the deficiency in tree replacement to the satisfaction of the
City Landscape Architect.
REFERRALS
Engineering:
The Engineering Department has no objection to the project
subject to the completion of Engineering servicing requirements as
outlined in Appendix III.
School District:
Projected number of students from this development:
16 Elementary students at Coyote Creek Elementary School
7 Secondary students at Fleetwood Park Secondary School
(Appendix IV)
The applicant has advised that the dwelling units in this project are
expected to be constructed and ready for occupancy by May, 2015.
Parks, Recreation &
Culture:
Parks supports the proposed open space concept, which is in
compliance with the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Concept Plan.
Staff Report to Council
File:
Planning & Development Report
Page 4
7914-0138-00
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Existing Land Use:
Residential acreage parcels with existing dwellings, to be demolished.
Adjacent Area:
Direction
Existing Use
North:
Single family
dwellings
Fleetwood Park
East:
South:
West (Across 156 Street):
Single family dwelling
on acreage parcel
Single family
dwellings on acreage
parcels
OCP/NCP
Designation
Urban in OCP
Existing Zone
Suburban in OCP
A-1
Habitat Corridor, Low
Density Cluster 4 UPA
¼-Acre Density (4
UPA)
A-1
RF
RA
SITE CONTEXT
x
The approximately 3.6-hectare (9.0-acre) subject site is located in Fleetwood within the area
that comprises the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Concept Plan ("Fleetwood Enclave Plan"
shown as Appendix VII). The Fleetwood Enclave area, which covers approximately 26
hectares (65 acres) of land, consists of large acreage residential properties, and is bordered by
an established single family residential neighbourhood to the north, the unopened 76 Avenue
right-of-way and ALR to the south, the Eaglequest (Coyote Creek) Golf Course to the west and
Fleetwood Park to the east.
x
The Fleetwood Enclave Plan was adopted by Council on March 11, 2013 (Corporate Report
No. R049). The related Fleetwood Enclave Area Servicing Strategy was approved by Council
on September 9, 2013 (Corporate Report No. R161).
x
The subject site is designated Suburban in the Official Community Plan (OCP), is designated
Low-Medium Density Urban Cluster (5 UPA) in the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Plan, and is
zoned "General Agriculture Zone (A-1)".
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Current Application
x
The subject proposal is to redesignate the site in the OCP from Suburban to Urban and to
rezone from "General Agriculture Zone (A-1)" to "Comprehensive Development Zone (CD)"
based on the "Single Family Residential Gross Density Zone (RF-G)", in order to allow
subdivision into forty-six (46) single family lots at a density of 13 units per gross hectare
(upgh) or 5 units per gross acre (upga), and one open space parcel.
x
The 46 proposed lots range in size from 406 square metres (4,370 sq.ft.) to 607 square metres
(6,537 sq.ft.), in width from 13.4 metres (44 ft.) to 17.3 metres (57 ft.), and in depth from
28 metres (92 ft.) to 45 metres (148 ft.).
Staff Report to Council
File:
x
Planning & Development Report
Page 5
7914-0138-00
The Fleetwood Enclave Plan development guidelines propose a minimum lot depth of 30
metres (100 ft.), largely because this was the most practical depth after road and open space
dedication. The subject application proposes two lots with a depth of 28 metres (92 ft.).
These proposed lots (proposed Lots 2 and 3) front future 77B Avenue. If proposed Lots 2 and
3 were oriented towards 156 Street, it would be possible to achieve a depth of 30 metres (100
ft.). However, by orienting these two lots towards 77B Avenue, the applicant reduces the
number of driveways crossing the 156 Street multi-use pathway (MUP), therefore creating a
safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. For this reason, reduced lot depth on these
two lots has merit.
Proposed CD Zone (Appendix IX)
x
The proposed CD Zone is based upon the "Single Family Residential Gross Density Zone
(RF-G)". The table below provides a comparison between the proposed CD Zone and the
RF-G Zone:
RF-G Zone
Minimum Open 15% of the site area for Type I
Space to Achieve subdivisions
Gross Density
Density
0.55 floor area ratio (FAR)
Lot Coverage
Principal
Building
Setbacks
18.5 uph (7.5 upa)
45%
Front: 7.5 m (25 ft.)
Rear: 7.5 m (25 ft.)
Side: 1.2 m (4 ft.)
Flanking Side: 3.6 m (12 ft.)
Proposed CD Zone
13% of the site area for subdivision
0.60 FAR for the first 560 sq.m. (6,000
sq. ft.) of lot area, and 0.35 for lot area in
excess of 560 sq. m.
13 upgh (5 upga)
40% for lots with a size of 560 sq.m.
(6,000 sq.ft.) or less, and decreasing as
lot size increases
Block A
Front Yard: 7.5 m (25 ft.)
Rear: 6.0 m (20 ft.)
Side: 1.2 m. (4 ft.)
North Side Yard: 5.2 m. (17 ft.)
Block B
Front Yard: 6.0 m (20 ft.)
Rear: 15 m (50 ft.)
Side: 1.2 m. (4 ft.)
Flanking Side Yard: 2.4 m. (8 ft.)
Block C
Front Yard: 6.0 m (20 ft.)
Rear: 7.5 m (25 ft.)
Side: 1.2 m. (4 ft.)
Flanking Side Yard: 2.4 m. (8 ft.)
Block D
Front Yard: 7.5 m (25 ft.)
Rear: 6.0 m (20 ft.)
Side: 1.2 m. (4 ft.)
Flanking Side Yard: 2.4 m. (8 ft.)
Staff Report to Council
File:
Planning & Development Report
Page 6
7914-0138-00
Subdivision
Lot Area: 370 sq.m. (4,000 sq.ft.)
Lot Width: 12 m. (40 ft.)
Lot Depth: 28 m. (90 ft.)
Blocks A, C and D
Lot Area: 371 sq.m. (4,000 sq.ft.)
Lot Width: 13.4 m (44 ft.)
Lot Depth: 28 m (91 ft.)
Block B
Lot Area: 518 sq.m. (4,000 sq.ft.)
Lot Width: 13.4 m (44 ft.)
Lot Depth: 38 m (124 ft.)
x
The applicant is required to set aside 13% of the gross developable area as open space as per
the open space requirement of the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Concept Plan, slightly less
than the 15% requirement of the RF-G Zone.
x
Density and lot coverage provisions are consistent with other similar single family small lot
developments proposed in the Fleetwood Enclave area (application nos. 7912-0308-00 and
7913-0017-00, both at Third Reading).
x
For all the proposed lots, open-to-below areas and covered decks will be included in the floor
area calculation.
x
The typical front yard setback for small lot developments within the Fleetwood Enclave area is
6.0 metres (20 ft.). All of the proposed lots will have a consistent minimum front yard
setback of 6.0 metres (20 ft.) with the exception of Lots 1 and 23 through 26, which will have
larger 7.5 metre (25 ft.) front yard setbacks to allow for a larger separation from the 156 Street
multi-use pathway.
x
Some lots have a larger than typical rear and side yard requirements to accommodate
landscape buffers. Opposite yards have been reduced slightly on these lots to accommodate
reasonable building envelopes.
Private Landscape Buffer
x
Proposed Lot 1 (Block A) has an increased north side yard setback to facilitate the installation
of a landscape buffer on private property, as required in the Fleetwood Enclave Plan.
x
Similarly, proposed Lots 4 through 13 (Block B) have increased rear yard setbacks to facilitate
the installation of a landscape buffer as per the Fleetwood Enclave Plan.
x
The intent of the landscape buffer on private property is to soften the transition between the
new developments in the Fleetwood Enclave and the existing single family residential
community to the north. The landscape buffers will be installed prior to the issuance of
building permits on these lots and will be comprised of existing trees, new coniferous trees
and native vegetation. A corresponding Section 219 Restrictive Covenant (Landscaping
Buffer) is to be registered on proposed Lots 1 and 4 through 13 to secure installation and
maintenance of these buffers. See Trees Section for details regarding the proposed landscape
buffer.
Staff Report to Council
File:
7914-0138-00
Planning & Development Report
Page 7
Open Space
x
The Fleetwood Enclave Plan proposes approximately 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of total open
space, including parkland and pathways, within the Plan area. These open spaces and
pathways will connect to the existing trail networks that are within the adjacent Fleetwood
and Surrey Lake Parks (see Appendix VII).
x
The proposed open space areas on the west, south and east edges of the Fleetwood Enclave
Plan area will be maintained as a natural woodland habitat.
x
A linear park consisting of a meandering pathway is proposed to bisect the neighbourhood
from east to west through the middle of 77 Avenue, with vehicle travel lanes located on both
the north and south sides of this linear park.
x
This linear park is also intended to function as a Green Infrastructure Network (GIN) wildlife
"corridor" (GIN corridor #81) connecting Fleetwood Park to Surrey Lake, as identified in the
City of Surrey’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS), which was approved by Council on
July 21, 2014 (Corporate Report No. R141). Both Fleetwood Park and Surrey Lake Park have
been identified as high value, ecologically significant "Green Infrastructure Hubs and Sites" in
the BCS. Corridors provide an important link for wildlife to move between hubs. Therefore,
this linear park is designed with limited vehicle crossings and will consist of significant
vegetation and tree coverage to facilitate the movement of wildlife.
x
The proposed subdivision will result in approximately 16% or 0.59 hectare (1.5 ac.) of the
subject site being conveyed to the City as open space (see Appendix II), which exceeds the 13%
requirement of both the Fleetwood Enclave Plan and the proposed CD By-law. The City will
acquire the portion of open space that exceeds 13%.
x
Consistent with the Fleetwood Enclave Plan, approximately 0.48 hectare (1.2 ac.) of open
space will be provided along the eastern edge the subject site, adjacent to 157 Street, for the
expansion of Fleetwood Park. In addition, a 1,118-square metre (0.28-ac.) portion of the linear
park is to be provided for within the subject site.
Road Dedication Requirement
x
The applicant will be required to construct 156A Street and 77B Avenue to the Neo-traditional
Through Local Road standard, and will be required to construct 157 Street to a Unique Green
Street standard, which is to a 13.5-metre (44-ft.) wide ultimate road allowance.
x
The applicant will also be required to construct the northern portion of 77 Avenue to an NCP
Unique Through Local Road standard, as per the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Plan, which is to a
35-metre (115-ft.) wide ultimate road allowance. This ultimately permits a 15-metre (49-ft.)
wide linear park to be provided between the eastbound and westbound vehicle lanes.
x
The applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of their site for the completion of
156 Street, and must also provide a 2.7-metre (9-ft.) statutory right-of-way for the 4-metre
(13-ft.) wide future multi-use pathway (MUP) along 156 Street, which ultimately will connect
to Surrey Lake Park.
Staff Report to Council
File:
Planning & Development Report
7914-0138-00
Page 8
Neighbourhood Character Study and Building Scheme
x
The applicant for the subject site has retained Tynan Consulting Ltd. as the Design
Consultant. The Design Consultant conducted a character study of the surrounding homes
and based on the findings of the study, which suggest that the older housing stock in the area
does not provide suitable architectural context, has proposed a set of building design
guidelines that recommend an updated design standard (Appendix V) and are consistent with
the two projects in the Plan area at Third Reading.
Proposed Lot Grading
x
In-ground basements are proposed for all lots based on the lot grading (prepared by CitiWest
Consulting Ltd.). Basements will be achieved with minimal cut or fill. The information
provided has been reviewed by staff and found acceptable.
PRE-NOTIFICATION
Pre-notification letters were sent out on August 11, 2014 to a total of 95 addresses. Staff received
the following responses:
x
Staff received one phone call from a resident concerned about the impact the proposed
development will have on traffic congestion in the neighbourhood. The caller notes that the
intersection of 156 Street and 80 Avenue (adjacent Fleetwood Park Secondary School) is very
busy. The resident requests that traffic improvements be in place prior to the approval of this
and other applications in the neighbourhood.
(Staff advised the caller that there will upgrades to the intersections at 82 Avenue and
156 Street as well as at 84 Avenue and 160 Street to improve traffic movement in the
larger neighbourhood. Staff also referenced the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the
Fleetwood Enclave Plan that found that the development of the Fleetwood Enclave will
have some limited impact on the local road network.
It should also be noted that the Fleetwood Enclave Plan does propose a future
connection west through Eaglequest Golf Course to 152 Street should that site develop in
the future.)
JUSTIFICATION FOR OCP AMENDMENT
x
The subject site is designated Suburban in the Official Community Plan (OCP).
x
The applicant is proposing to redesignate the 3.6-hectare (9.0-ac.) site from Suburban to
Urban (see Appendix VIII).
x
The proposed OCP amendment is consistent with the Fleetwood Enclave Plan. Staff support
the proposed amendment.
Staff Report to Council
Planning & Development Report
Page 9
7914-0138-00
File:
PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR OCP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Section 879 of the Local Government Act, it was determined that it was not necessary
to consult with any persons, organizations or authorities with respect to the proposed OCP
amendment, other than those contacted as part of the pre-notification process.
TREES
x
Colin Rombough, ISA Certified Arborist of Mike Fadum and Assoc., Ltd. 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
83
83
Deciduous Trees
(excluding Alder and Cottonwood Trees)
Birch, Paper
17
17
Cherry
1
0
Dogwood, Pacific
1
1
Holly, English
1
1
Maple, Big Leaf
110
107
Maple, Sycamore
1
1
Oak, English
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
Coniferous Trees
Coast Redwood
Dawn Redwood
Douglas Fir
Scots Pine
Sitka Spruce
Western Hemlock
Western Red Cedar
1
1
6
1
2
3
72
1
1
6
0
2
3
66
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
219
208
11
68 (approx)
0
68
Total (excluding Alder and
Cottonwood Trees)
Additional Trees in the
proposed Open Space
Total Replacement Trees Proposed
(excluding Boulevard Street Trees)
226
Total Retained and Replacement
Trees
237
Contribution to the Green City Fund
$81,900
Staff Report to Council
File:
7914-0138-00
Planning & Development Report
Page 10
x
The Arborist Assessment states that there are a total of two hundred and nineteen (219)
protected trees on the site, excluding Alder and Cottonwood trees. Eighty-three (83) existing
trees, approximately 27% of the total trees on the site, are Alder and Cottonwood trees. It
was determined that eleven (11) trees can be retained as part of this development proposal,
within the area to be developed (and excluding those in the areas to be dedicated or acquired
by the City as open space). The proposed tree retention was assessed taking into consideration
the location of services, building footprints, road dedication and proposed lot grading.
x
The Fleetwood Enclave Plan has placed a priority on preserving and enhancing the existing
habitat and open space areas connected to Fleetwood Park, and on supporting the green
infrastructure network (i.e. "habitat corridors") that surround and bisect the Fleetwood
Enclave. Therefore, the focus will be on the protection and replanting of native trees in the
identified open space areas of the Plan.
x
Table 1 includes approximately sixty-eight (68) additional protected trees that are located
within the proposed open space adjacent to Fleetwood Park and within the habitat corridor
along 77 Avenue. The trees within these proposed open spaces will be retained, except where
removal is required due to hazardous conditions. This will be determined at a later time, in
consultation with the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department. Furthermore, additional
trees will be planted in the future within these open space areas by the Parks, Recreation and
Culture Department.
x
For those trees that cannot be retained, the applicant will be required to plant trees at 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 four-hundred and ninety-nine (499) replacement trees on the
site. Since only two-hundred and twenty-six (226) replacement trees can be accommodated
on the site (based on an average of three (3) trees per lot plus those proposed for the private
landscape buffer), the deficit of two-hundred and seventy-three (273) replacement trees will
require a cash-in-lieu payment of $81,900, representing $300 per tree, to the Green City Fund,
in accordance with the City’s Tree Protection By-law.
x
The new trees on the new single family residential lots will consist of a variety of deciduous
and coniferous trees.
x
Approximately ninety-one (91) trees are proposed to be planted within the landscape buffer
on private property at the north end of the subject site (located on proposed Lots 1 and 4
through 13). The project arborist is proposing a double row of trees be planted amongst the
existing trees, primarily low maintenance indigenous species including Maple, Dogwood, and
Western Red Cedar. Katsura trees are also proposed. Large boulders will be placed to
delineate the southern edge of the landscape buffer.
x
In addition to the replacement trees, boulevard street trees will be planted on 156 Street,
156A Street, 157 Street, 77 Avenue and 77B Avenue. The number of trees will be determined at
the servicing agreement stage by the Engineering Department.
x
In summary, a total of two-hundred and thirty-seven (237) trees are proposed to be retained
or replaced on the developable portions of the site, in addition to approximately sixty-eight
(68) trees retained within the proposed open space, for a total of three-hundred and five (305)
trees, with a contribution of $81,900 to the Green City Fund.
Staff Report to Council
File:
Planning & Development Report
Page 11
7914-0138-00
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
The applicant prepared and submitted a sustainable development checklist for the subject site on
May 14, 2014. 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)
7. Education &
Awareness
(G1-G4)
Sustainable Development Features Summary
x Within the Fleetwood Enclave Infill Plan area.
x Density is calculated on the gross site area, as the development is
providing 16% of the site area as open space.
x Secondary suites will be provided, offering a diversity of housing
options.
x The development provides open space which is to be provided as
natural woodland habitat, and a linear park which will serve as a
wildlife habitat corridor bisecting the Plan area.
x The development will connect to several multi-use pathways within
adjacent open space and parks.
x The development incorporates CPTED principles, such as providing
"eyes on the street", and is accessible to outdoor space that is suitable
for different age groups.
x N/A
x N/A
Staff Report to Council
File:
Planning & Development Report
Page 12
7914-0138-00
INFORMATION ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT
The following information is attached to this Report:
Appendix I.
Appendix II.
Appendix III.
Appendix IV.
Appendix V.
Appendix VI.
Appendix VII.
Appendix VIII.
Appendix IX.
Lot Owners, Action Summary, Project Data Sheets and Survey Plan
Proposed Subdivision Layout
Engineering Summary
School District Comments
Building Design Guidelines Summary
Summary of Tree Survey and Tree Preservation and Landscape Buffer Plan
Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Plan
OCP Redesignation Map
Proposed CD By-law
original signed by Judith Robertson
Jean Lamontagne
General Manager
Planning and Development
CA/da
\\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\23102482027.doc
DRV 9/4/14 9:48 AM
APPENDIX I
Information for City Clerk
Legal Description and Owners of all lots that form part of the application:
1.
(a) Agent:
Name:
Address:
Tel:
2.
3.
Roger Jawanda
CitiWest Consulting Ltd.
9030 - King George Blvd, Unit 101
Surrey BC V3V 7Y3
604-591-2213
Properties involved in the Application
(a)
Civic Address:
7788 - 156 Street
7766 - 156 Street
7736 - 156 Street
(b)
Civic Address:
Owner:
(c)
Civic Address:
7766 - 156 Street
Owner:
Eastwest Construction Company Ltd
PID:
009-666-869
Lot 8 Section 23 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan 12206
(d)
Civic Address:
7736 - 156 Street
Owner:
Bluejay Development Ltd
PID:
000-633-054
Lot 9 Section 23 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan 12206
7788 - 156 Street
Kamaljeet K Randhawa
Jasdev S Randhawa
PID:
009-666-834
Lot 7 Section 23 Township 2 New Westminster District Plan 12206
Summary of Actions for City Clerk's Office
(a)
Introduce a By-law to amend the Official Community Plan to redesignate the site.
(b)
Introduce a By-law to rezone the site.
\\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\23102482027.doc
DRV 9/4/14 9:48 AM
SUBDIVISION DATA SHEET
Proposed Zoning: CD (RF-G)
Requires Project Data
GROSS SITE AREA
Acres
Hectares
NUMBER OF LOTS
Existing
Proposed
SIZE OF LOTS
Range of lot widths (metres)
Range of lot areas (square metres)
DENSITY
Lots/Hectare & Lots/Acre (Gross)
Lots/Hectare & Lots/Acre (Net)
Proposed
9.0
3.6
3
46
13.4 – 17.3
406 - 607
12.6 upgh /5.0 upga
SITE COVERAGE (in % of gross site area)
Maximum Coverage of Principal &
Accessory Building
Estimated Road, Lane & Driveway Coverage
Total Site Coverage
8.7%
48.7%
PARKLAND
Area (square metres)
% of Gross Site
5,879
16.16
40%
Required
PARKLAND
5% money in lieu
NO
TREE SURVEY/ASSESSMENT
YES
MODEL BUILDING SCHEME
YES
HERITAGE SITE Retention
NO
FRASER HEALTH Approval
NO
DEV. VARIANCE PERMIT required
Road Length/Standards
Works and Services
Building Retention
Others
NO
NO
NO
NO
\\file-server1\net-data\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\23102482027.doc
DRV 9/4/14 9:48 AM
SURVEY PLAN TO ACCOMPANY CITY OF SURREY
REZONING BYLAW NO.
OF LOTS 7, 8
AND 9; ALL OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 2,
NWD, PLAN 12206
City of Surrey
B.C.G.S. 92G.017
50
0
I
100m
I
SCALE
I
1 : 1500
All distances ore in metres
#; ___
-~---~--J
- !j:l_~-Ptan~~:~
r--89~~1"
BLOCK A
556.3 m2
"~
32.047
,..,
134.002
89'57'21.
~
•
"
"
,..,~
32.046
:g~
.a• 89'58'05·
"
~
~ ""~..,
~
I
18 J
IO_____
II/
BLOCK B
0.639 ho .
7
Plan 12206
ti
,..,
I
LMP59:J1
14
15
89'57'21.
25.000
•
~
"
'I'
~
~
0,
~
134.002
89'58'05-
cCl
..,:
"
•
.a•
89'58'os·
~
~
32.843(
c
10
c
10
~
"i
II)
BLOCK D
•
a~
0.176 ho
Cl •~
Cl
8
It)
~
2.768 ho.
~
~
9
a• c
~
1
Plan LMP32472
BLOCK C
32.843
89'5805
01
~
•
c::i
~
~
Plan 12206
Plan 12206
~·
II)
~
191.045
89'58'05.
10
Plan 12206
Cameron Land Surveying Ltd.
B.C. Land Surveyors
Unit 206 - 16055 Fraser Highway
Surrey, B.C. V4N OG2
Phone: 604-597-3n7
Fax:
604-597-3783
legend:
ha Denotes hectares
m2 Denotes square metres
This plan lies within the Greater Vancouver Regional District
File: 5325-ZONING
""'"'
;;.'
7819
23
27
E054-0013
~
·~
1--t-
,;~
1::>1
~1
l~2~ml
~
77'99
r
~
'""
2
16
;;
0013
1&.~
--"
13.~
1.3. 40
u~
I
1 15. ~
"'---
13.40
l l.40
+-- -
1-
25.00
~IBm~
TOTAl SITE AAEA - J.637!».a (.!1. 9.f'l9.t.C. }
.!IHim~
~
~
TOTAL PARK AREA ?RO\o1DE0•5117Sm! (16.16~
TOTAl PARI<: AREA ~QIJIR[D.. 472Smt (1 3.00~
~
~
BASED ON FLEETWOOO ENCLAVE LA ND USE CONCEPT PLAN
CD ZO'.JE BASED ON RF-C
13
12
~
~
~
14
1MO
----1 -
11
~
H.-50
15
• __:___
~1em,
I
1
13.4\l
\,!1_40
\'"'u' ~
~~l/_,Y,15708 ~i.
.
1a
'
'?
26
1/L R,\"
DU'JS!TyRfOO!RfNEllTS·
DEl'JSITY PmMITIEO •
2
3
8
«>5m2
431m~
:lupa GAQSS OEJlSITV
DmSirr~ - ~ -5.11 7uJXl
,:1
77 B
1H O
~:-""-
t-
w
w
7781
25
~
~
~~
~1( -';0ITI
bop
a::
t-
[/)
~
c.o
I
~143~1 ~
l{)
~I
431m!
4J.3ml
::;
11 .51
i~
502m2 ~
I<
4~z ~
-465m2
"
g
~
16
465m1 ~
15
14
46~~ ;52
lj.gg,2
~
~
~
"
77f5Ei
1 ""'
23
414mJ
~I
24
~
13.40
17
18
20
21
N
J.lli!ll..JlflL ~
776 1
12..B1~
1:0\t~
1.3.40
11 .60
~
1~ . 46
1.'1_4.(]
N.60
1!L4.!l
\J.40
34
~
414mz
8
~
:;
34.61
46
35
~65ml
I
\~ !i\
1.'L40
34.70
~
~
~e 4ml
OPEN SPACE
i4_7[}
47!11m'
t-
w
w
~.,
I
7743
;I
23
;
26
<4-1-lffl!
I
~
~
~
~4m·
"":.m
V1
<(
<D
1--" "
~
.,,
~~- ~
27
~~ i JIJmz
~
28
1!'
8
~
4J1m1
29
4.'1~2
..
30
~
...25m.
f.
7721
22
15.45
:i
40
g
:!'
~
1~.45 ._f)
j
1.()
....,.
3
12206
~D2 m1
1 ~. 4{)
V1
,.....
42
39
£
12.!){1
I
43
4~4m2
~
I
~
J
,...
~"
..,,
;
L______.
7736
1
g
~
:-:!
4&5ml
I
1 ~.~1)
I
38
~ \()
~
a::
~
>l
41
.!101m1
.31.61
8
11~
"E
77 AvE'N"·u
II
II IBm!
-
-
-
'"'
u· . ~ --- - -
7705
21
I
l
I
I
I
<
15..00
J!.QIES;_
1. Ali OIMENSIOI'iS ARE APPROXNA
OI~ LY BASED ON MASlER PLAAS.
I
I
10
2. LAYOU T IS PRfUi.jiNAR Y N~D SUI
TO APPROVALS AND SI.,R I;t'YS.
3. EXlSniW HOOSES
Cit:iWast:
Cansult:ing
No.101-9030 K lt4G GEORGE BLVD.,
2.
U/07/~!i
ADDED MLf' IIDW
1 140
ADJUSlrD ROAC WIDTI1 &: UCREASED Of"Et~ SPACE
rJe
Oat•
1ii. ~"-1...; cio.iQ..- it. -th. pr-fty af Ctlo\l,f:S:fCIYlSlilntiC Llli_ and-c07Y'<>i bi. ~••(
~"'
ss
c•~-d
De .iOt.<i ..,'tk.o.it -h ..ffti..
TELEPHONE 604- 591 - 2213
FAX 504-591-55 18
E-MAIL: offfce@clt fwcs t.co m
<XP~-'l ~ ~ '"''"'(~"":
Lt:d.
SURREY, 8C, V .3V 7Y3
ll-,
~l\1/eri
r..rw
FLEElWOOO PARK JOIN T VENTURE
1 1 56- 19~ 5l
'Ml.LowaROOK ORI\1£'. WXU:Y, BC, Vl'f ltJ4, Pit 60+-97o-4.279 F,i,:<; ti(J4- SJJ- 49.39
PRELIMINARY LOT LAYOUT
S1JBOI~SI ON
AT 77 36/7766/7788 - 156 STREET. SURREY. B<:
ro
~~~y
--:w.
PU
l'.pprQYC!'J:
BE RE~OVE
0~.
No.
ss
..toO NQ. 14-312Q
Of
Dll1•
A'¥111Qn
MAR/14
d..trn7t0l prinbl bo,..iow;Jpr""""""~"'
Appendix II
~ -=,
~~
HABITAT coR RIDOR PARK (TRAIL
c=::=J
Appendix III
lt_sliRREY
._
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
the future lives here.
TO:
Manager, Area Planning & Development
- North Surrey Division
Planning and Development Department
FROM:
Development Services Manager, Engineering Department
DATE:
September 3, 2014
RE:
Engineering Requirements
Location: m6/66/88 - 156 Street
PROJECT FILE:
OCP AMENDMENT
There are no engineering requirements relative to the OCP Amendment.
REZONE/SUBDIVISION
Property and Right-ofWay Requirements
• Dedicate 1.942m on 156 Street for an ultimate 24.0 m Collector road.
• Dedicate 18.om wide ultimate road allowance for 156A Street.
• Dedicate 15.om wide ultimate road allowance for 157 Street.
• Dedicate 1o.om wide for 77 Avenue for an ultimate 2o.o m Local road.
• Dedicate 7.5m for Habitat Corridor on 77 Avenue for an ultimate 15.0 m.
• Dedicate 18.om wide ultimate road allowance for 77B Avenue.
• Dedicate 3.om x 3.0 corner cuts at all intersections.
• Provide o.5m wide on-site SROW along all site frontages, except 156 Street and east
side of 157 Street.
• Provide additional 2.7m wide on-site SROW along 156 Street for Multi Use Pathway.
Works and Services
• Construct east side ofl56 Street to Collector standard.
• Construct 156A Street to Through Local standard.
• Construct 157 Street to Unique Through Local standard.
• Construct 77 Avenue to the Unique Through Local standard, with Habitat Corridor.
• Construct 77B Avenue to Through Local standard.
• Construct water mains, sanitary sewer mains and storm sewer mains to service the
site.
• Register restrictive covenants for on-site stormwater management features.
A Servicing Agreement is required prior to Rezone/Subdivision.
Remi Dube, P.Eng.
Development Services Manager
HB
NOTE: Detailed Land Development Engineering Review available on file
Appendix IV
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.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Planning
Capacity for Coyote Creek Elementary in the table below includes the main school building (40K + 500)
plus a modular classroom complex with capacity for 100 students. There are no new capital projects
proposed at the elementary school and no new capital projects identified for the secondary school. The
projections include estimated new students from recent NCP amendments to allow new infill
development, and the projections have also been adjusted higher for single family units with secondary
suites. Depending upon actual student yield from dwellings with secondary suites, and any changes to
demographics and retention rates of school age population from the school catchments, the projected
enrolment shown in the graph below could be slightly higher or lower.
THE IMPACT ON SCHOOLS
APPLICATION #:
14-0138-00
SUMMARY
The proposed
46
Coyote Creek Elementary
single family lots
are estimated to have the following impact
on the following schools:
700
600
Projected # of students for this development:
Elementary Students:
Secondary Students:
16
7
500
Enrolment
400
Capacity
300
September 2013 Enrolment/School Capacity
Coyote Creek Elementary
Enrolment (K/1-7):
Capacity (K/1-7):
200
100
67 K + 541
40 K + 600
0
2009
Fleetwood Park Secondary
Enrolment (8-12):
Nominal Capacity (8-12):
Functional Capacity*(8-12);
1289
1200
1296
Projected cumulative impact of development
Nominal Capacity (8-12):
subject project) in the subject catchment areas:
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Fleetwood Park Secondary
1450
1400
1350
1300
Enrolment
Elementary Students:
Secondary Students:
Total New Students:
12
17
29
1250
Capacity
1200
1150
Functional Capacity
1100
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
*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.
Appendix V
BUILDING GUIDELINES SUMMARY
Surrey Project no:
Project Location:
Design Consultant:
7914-0138-00
7736 / 7766 / 7788 - 156 Street, Surrey, B.C.
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:
The subject site is located in an old growth area. Most homes are "old urban" homes situated on RA
zoned lots, west and south of the site. East of the site are undeveloped lands. North of the site are
RF zoned lots developed during the mid 1990s to the post - 2010s. Homes in this area were built out
over a time period spanning from the 1960's to the post-2010's. The age distribution from oldest to
newest is: 1960's or earlier (50%), 1980's (6%), 1990's (31%), and post year 2010's (13%).
A majority of homes in this area have a floor area in the 2501 - 3000 sq.ft. size range. Home size
distribution is: 1000 - 1500 sq.ft. (19%), 1501 - 2000 sq.ft. (13%), 2001 - 2500 sq.ft. (6%), 2501 3000 sq.ft. (50%), 3001 - 3550 sq.ft. (13%). Styles found in this area include: "Old Urban" (31%),
"West Coast Traditional (Bavarian emulation)" (13%), "West Coast Modern" (25%), "Heritage (Old
B.C.)" (6%), and "Neo-Traditional" (25%). Home types include: Bungalow (25%), 1½ Storey (13%),
Basement Entry (6%), and Two-Storey (56%).
Massing scale (front wall exposure) characteristics include: low mass structure (38%), low to midscale massing (13%), mid-scale massing (19%), mid-scale massing with proportionally consistent,
well balanced massing design (13% context homes), mid to high scale massing (13%), and high
scale, box-like massing (6%). The scale (height) range for front entrance structures include: one
storey front entrance (75%), one storey front entrance veranda in heritage tradition (6%), 1½ storey
front entrance (13%), and two storey front entrance (6%).
The range of roof slopes found in this area is: 4:12 (19%), 5:12 (19%), 6:12 (19%), 7:12 (19%), 8:12
(13%), 12:12+ (13%). Main roof forms (largest upper floor truss spans) include: Main common hip
roof (56%), and Main common gable roof (44%). Feature roof projection types include: None (17%),
Common Hip (25%), Common Gable (38%), Dutch Hip (8%), Shed roof (8%), and Carousel Hip
(4%). Roof surfaces include: Interlocking tab type asphalt shingles (13%), Rectangular profile type
asphalt shingles (6%), Shake profile asphalt shingles (38%), Concrete tile (shake profile) (6%), and
Cedar shingles (38%).
Main wall cladding materials include: Horizontal cedar siding (12%), Horizontal vinyl siding (12%),
and Stucco cladding (76%). Feature wall trim materials used on the front facade include: no feature
veneer (56%), Brick feature veneer (25%), Stone feature veneer (6%), and Horizontal cedar accent
(13%). Wall cladding and trim colours include: Neutral (45%), Natural (50%), and Primary derivative
(5%).
Covered parking configurations include: No covered parking (20%), Double carport (13%), and
Double garage (67%).
A variety of landscaping standards are evident with standard ranging from "primarily natural state" to
above-average modern urban landscape standard featuring numerous shrub plantings. Driveway
surfaces include: gravel (6%), asphalt (44%), exposed aggregate (50%).
1.2
Features of Surrounding Dwellings Significant to the Proposed
Building Scheme:
1)
Context Homes: 13 percent of homes in this area could be considered to provide acceptable
architectural context. However, massing design, construction materials, and trim and detailing
standards for new homes constructed in RF-12 zone subdivisions now exceed standards evident
on the context homes. The recommendation therefore is to adopt standards commonly found in
post year 2010 RF-12 zoned subdivisions, rather than to emulate the aforesaid context homes.
Style Character: There is a mix of old urban and modern urban styles in this neighbourhood.
Preferred styles for this site include “Neo-Traditional” and “Neo-Heritage”, as these styles are an
ideal bridge between old urban and modern urban. Note that style range is not restricted in the
building scheme. However, the consultant refers to the character study when reviewing plans for
meeting style-character intent.
Home Types: There is a wide range of home types evident, and so some flexibility is justified.
Home type (Two-Storey, Bungalow, Basement Entry, Split Level, etc.) will not be regulated in the
building scheme.
Massing Designs: Massing designs should meet new standards for RF-12 zoned subdivisions.
New homes should exhibit "mid-scale" massing. Various elements and projections on the front of
the home should be interesting architecturally, and should be in pleasing natural proportions to
one another. These elements and projections should be located so as to create balance across
the façade.
Front Entrance Design: Front entrance porticos range from one to two storeys in height. The
recommendation however is to limit the range of entrance portico heights to between one storey
and 1 ½ storeys to ensure there is not proportional overstatement of this one element.
Exterior Wall Cladding: A wide range of cladding materials have been used in this area,
including vinyl, cedar, stucco, brick, and stone. Reasonable flexibility should therefore be
permitted, including the use of vinyl siding, provided the overall quality of wall cladding materials
meets or exceeds common standards for post 2010 developments.
Roof surface : This is area in which a wide variety of roof surface materials have been used.
Most homes however are older homes, with old roofing materials that are not being used for
context. It is expected that most new homes will have asphalt shingle roofs, and for continuity,
asphalt shingles are recommended. A single cedar shingle or concrete tile roof would stand out
as inconsistent due the large difference in textures (thickness) between asphalt shingles and
cedar shingles or concrete tiles, and so these products are not recommended. However, where
opportunities arise to introduce new environmentally sustainable products, they should be
embraced. Generally, these materials have thicknesses between asphalt shingles and cedar
shingles and will not appear out of place texturally. Therefore, to ensure consistency of
character, only shake profile asphalt shingles and shake profile sustainable products are
recommended.
Roof Slope : A significant number of neighbouring homes have low slope roofs that are not well
suited to the proposed style range. Emulation of the low slope roof characteristic is therefore not
recommended. Roofs slopes of 8:12 or higher are recommended, with standard exceptions to
allow lower slopes at verandas (so front windows at the upper floor can be of sufficient depth)
and to ensure that roofs are not overly high, resulting in over-shadowing of neighbouring lots, or
resulting in view corridor blockage. However, due to emerging trends in which contemporary
designs are being increasingly sought, lower slope roofs could be approved subject to the
consultant determining that the architectural integrity of the contemporary design is sufficient to
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
warrant approval.
Streetscape:
East of the site are undeveloped lands. West and south of the site are large RA
zoned lots with 50 year old. "Old urban" homes. North of the site are RF zoned
homes from the mid 1990's, and post 2000's, which provide the best context for
the subject site. These newer homes have mid-scale massing designs with mass
allocated in a proportionally correct and balanced manner across the façade.
Main roof forms are common hip or common gable at an 8:12 slope. All new
homes have common gable projections articulated with either cedar shingles or
with hardiboard and 1x4 vertical wood battens. The colour range of all homes,
except one, includes only natural and neutral hues. Landscaping meets a
common modern urban standard.
2.
Proposed Design Guidelines
2.1 Specific Residential Character and Design Elements these Guidelines
Attempt to Preserve and/or Create:
x
x
x
x
x
the new homes are readily identifiable as one of the following styles: “Neo-Traditional”, “NeoHeritage”, or "Contemporary", as determined by the consultant Note that the proposed style range is
not contained within the building scheme, but is contained within the residential character study
which forms the basis for interpreting building scheme regulations.
a new single family dwelling constructed on any lot meets year 2000's design standards, which
include the proportionally correct allotment of mass between various street facing elements, the
overall balanced distribution of mass within the front facade, readily recognizable style-authentic
design, and a high trim and detailing standard used specifically to reinforce the style objectives
stated above.
trim elements will include several of the following: furred out wood posts, articulated wood post
bases, wood braces and brackets, louvered wood vents, bold wood window and door trim, highly
detailed gable ends, wood dentil details, stone or brick feature accents, covered entrance verandas
and other style-specific elements, all used to reinforce the style (i.e. not just decorative).
the development is internally consistent in theme, representation, and character.
the entrance element will be limited in height (relative dominance) to 1 to 1 ½ storeys.
2.2 Proposed Design Solutions:
Interfacing Treatment
with existing dwellings)
13 percent of homes in this area could be considered to
provide acceptable architectural context. However, massing
design, construction materials, and trim and detailing standards
for new homes constructed in RF-12 zone subdivisions now
exceed standards evident on the context homes. The
recommendation therefore is to adopt standards commonly
found in post year 2010 RF-12 zoned subdivisions, rather than
to emulate the aforesaid context homes.
Exterior Materials/Colours:
Stucco, Cedar, Vinyl, Hardiplank, Brick, and Stone.
“Natural” colours such as browns, greens, clays, and other
earth-tones, and “Neutral” colours such as grey, white, and
cream are permitted. Primary colours are not recommended on
main cladding for this development. “Warm” colours such as
pink, rose, peach, salmon are not permitted. Trim colours:
Shade variation of main colour, complementary, neutral, or
subdued contrast only.
Roof Pitch:
Minimum 8:12, with "standard" exceptions, and possible
exceptions where "Contemporary" styles are used, as
determined by the consultant.
Roof Materials/Colours:
Only shake profile asphalt shingles with a raised ridge cap and
new environmentally sustainable roofing products providing that
aesthetic properties of the new materials are equal to or better
than the traditional roofing products. Greys, browns, or black.
In-ground basements:
Permitted, subject to determination that service invert locations
are sufficiently below grade. Basements will appear
underground from the front.
Treatment of Corner Lots:
Significant, readily identifiable architectural features are
provided on both the front and flanking street sides of the
dwelling, resulting in a home that architecturally addresses
both streets. One-storey elements on the new home shall
comprise a minimum of 40 percent of the width of the front and
flanking street elevations of the single family dwelling. The
upper floor is set back a minimum of 0.9 metres [3'- 0"] from the
one-storey elements.
Landscaping:
Moderate modern urban standard: Tree planting as specified on
Tree Replacement Plan plus minimum 17 shrubs of a minimum
3 gallon pot size. Corner lots shall have an additional 8 shrubs
of a minimum 3 gallon pot size, planted in the flanking street
sideyard. Sod from street to face of home. Driveways: exposed
aggregate, interlocking masonry pavers, or stamped concrete.
CPTED :
Lots 13, 14, 27-30, and 40-46 face public areas in which CPTED
principles ought to apply. Public area facing balconies will be
permitted on these lots. Fencing will be restricted. Landscaping
restrictions will limit the maturity height of shrubs planted on the
public facing side of these lots to no more than 1.2 metres. A
minimum of 40 sq.ft. of unobstructed window area will be
required on the park facing side of these lots.
Public interface lots:
Lots 13, 14, 27-30, and 40-46 face public areas in which higher
articulation and massing standards ought to apply. Unbroken
massing will be limited to no more than 1 ½ storeys. Feature
projections, layered fascia, and window trim is mandatory on
public facing building faces.
Compliance Deposit:
$5,000.00
Summary prepared and submitted by:
Reviewed and Approved by:
Tynan Consulting Ltd.
Date: July 31, 2014
Date: July 31, 2014
Appendix VI
MIKE FADUM AND ASSOCIATES LTD.
VEGETATION CONSULTANTS
Tree Preservation Summary
Surrey Project No: 14-0138-00
Address: 7736, 7766, 7788 – 156 Street
Registered Arborist: Colin Rombough and Peter Mennel
On-Site Trees
Number of Trees
Protected Trees Identified
(on-site and shared trees, including trees within boulevards and proposed streets
and lanes, but excluding trees in proposed open space or riparian areas)
Protected Trees to be Removed
Protected Trees to be Retained
(excluding trees within proposed open space or riparian areas)
Total Replacement Trees Required:
302
291
11
- Alder & Cottonwood Trees Requiring 1 to 1 Replacement Ratio
83 X one (1) = 83
499
- All other Trees Requiring 2 to 1 Replacement Ratio
208 X two (2) = 416
Replacement Trees Proposed
Replacement Trees in Deficit
Protected Trees to be Retained in Proposed [Open Space / Riparian Areas]
Off-Site Trees
226
364
TBD by PR&C
Number of Trees
Protected Off-Site Trees to be Removed
Total Replacement Trees Required:
1
- Alder & Cottonwood Trees Requiring 1 to 1 Replacement Ratio
0 X one (1) = 0
2
- All other Trees Requiring 2 to 1 Replacement Ratio
1 X two (2) = 0
Replacement Trees Proposed
Replacement Trees in Deficit
TBD
TBD
Summary report and plan prepared and submitted by: Mike Fadum and Associates Ltd.
Date: September 3, 2014
Signature of Arborist:
Mike Fadum and Associates Ltd.
#105, 8277-129 Street, Surrey, BC, V3W 0A6
Phone 778-593-0300 Fax 778-593-0302
1 11;a:
I
tI .. ~
..
.
l
.
_
s
D•..,BAN
s
lb:&a
o:ann
•
·± """"':::1J
------::~
lf
_
.............,
_
~~ttt;'ff..---------'---1 ~IJ1
-
-
-
-
\
-
\
-
- :..
=- - - ---
1
:~1
6!1
11
r;;
NOTE: BUFFER PLANTINGS AND ROCK WAI.L
DELINEAnON WORK 18 TO BE DONE BY DEVELOPER
ADJUSllvlEfffll MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUIT SITE
CONDITIONS
NOTE: ROCK DEliNEAnON TO BUFFER
l:i
II i
J I"
I, -Iif
I, J ~~
13 I
12
w
6!11248
(.)e
6!11249
I, I
~
en ;
;:1 z
® 1$1254
til
w
a..
0
e
1252
6!1
6!1
$$
e e
~
w
w
a::
~
6!1
e
en
6!1
ml€!1
(0
LO
"l"""
~374• ----1!9~TCH(LINE
e
e
1375
LEGEND
0
TREE TO BE RETAINED
~
CITYDFSURREYPARKB TREE
NOTE: REPLACEMENT TliEES SHALL CONFORM TO
BCSL.A/IICLNA LANDSCAPE STANDARDS.
SPECIES AND LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED AT
LANDSCAPE STAGE.
BUFFER PLANTING
/Q\
DECIDUOUS REPlACEMENT TREE (&CM CALIPER)
O
CONIFEROUS REPLACEMENTTREE(3.0M HT MINIMUM)
"l/
(TO BE ASSESSED BYSURREYSTN'F)
- - - TREE PROTECTION FENCING
( \
MINIMUM NO DISTURBANCE ZONE
-../ (8XDIA ASPERCITYCFSURREYPDUCY) ~ PROPOSEDFILLORC\IT>06M
.A, DECIDUOUS TREE
¥
VINE MAPLE (3.0 M HT.),
DOGWOOD 'EDDIES WHITE WONDER'
(30M HTOR6CMCAL)
11'/'\
,.
20
'c:::.D' DECIDUOUS TREE
METERS
"'
KATSURA (6 CM CAL1
,..., CONIFEROUS TREE
W' WESTERN RED CEDAR(3.0 M HT.)
~05.
BZ17128 Sl
su..,.,Britillleo..-
MIKE FADUM AND ASSOCIATES LTD
VEGETATION CONSULTANTS
VNIOM
Ph: (771) sa.D300
F11>0 {778)1i8!1-<Ja112
Mo~!o:(e04):114~
Emili: nrt.du
c Cowlght-.-
Thl• d11111111ng and d.lgn IIi th•
prapert)' Df MUm Fadam •nd
AMociatel Ud. and MIY nat be
...,.-oduoed or uled Ioree.
pqact.wtlhout lhlllrpann... IDn.
-""-'
NOTE: TliEE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED TO CITY STANDARDS.
REASSESS TliEES WITH LOT GRADING PLANS.
NOTE: PLANTING OF BUFFER BY DEVELOPER.
SPECIES AND LOCATIONS DETERMINED IN FIELD
BY PROJECT ARBORIST. UNDERSTORY
VEGETAOON TO BE RETAINED WHERE FEASIBLE.
-..mu
13· TREE PROTECTION AND
7736,7766,7788 166ST.,
SURREY, B.C.
REPlACEMENTPLAN·NORTll
I
.....,.
•
~
~~
®
®10
e
24
f
~
e
@j
25
0
'<t
~t
«>
-
e
e
32
Q
ee
Q
1368
0
1412611 $1411
0
..,;
- I®
26
27
e
®lo
~
OSA
OSB
e
I®
e
e
I
Oosc
611
@I
@j
14,1 Q
OSD
@1$
@11413
l;i
ll
e e
1415
1417
1416
@1$
-- -
----D---- ----- ----D---- ----- ----D----
E!l§
611133ae1338
611 1337
@I
e
I
E!l
E!l
1332
1333
611
6111335
c==J
611
611e
1348
HABITAT CORRIDOR PARK/TRAIL 611
1348
1
1e1.1e
--@11418
@11419
@
1350 @I
$1420
1.co2 @I
1346 E!l 611
~
lr '
TREE m BE RETAINED
~
0
DECIDUOUS REPLACEMENT TREE (5 CM CALIPER)
CONIFEROUS REPlACEMENT TREE ( 3.0 M. HT. MINIMUM
,.
..
20
r.£TCRO
{TO BE ASSESSED BY SURREY STAFF)
- - - TREE PROTECTION FENCING
MINIMUM NO DISTURBANCE ZONE
(6X CIA. AS PER CITY DF SURREY POLICY)
~
~~GQ
Oos1
NO'Tl:: REPLACEMENT TREES SHALL CONFORM TO
BCSLA/BCLNA LANDSCAPE STANDARDS.
SPECIES AND LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED AT
LANDSCAPE STAGE.
NO'Tl:: TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED TO CITY STANDARDS.
REASSESS TREES Willi LOT GRADING PLANS.
PROPOSED FILL DR CUT> 0.5 M
.-tO&, BZ17128 Sl
su..,.,Britillleo.....,.
MIKE FADUM AND ASSOCIATES LTD
VEGETATION CONSULTANTS
QosF
OosJ
I
6111347
LEGEND
CITY DF SURREY PARKS TREE
QOSE
"'1344
L----------~~-~~1331 1334
1336 - - -~
-- - - - - - - - - - - - 1345
---------------- I
0
e
WNOM
Ph: (771)50-ll300
F11>0 (778)1i8S-"3112
Mo~lo:(e04):114~
Emili: nrt.du
c CowlgiO-.-
_,.,.
_,.,.,.
T4 ·lREE PROTECTION AND
Thl• d11111111ng and d.lgn IIi th•
prapert)' Df MUm Fadam •nd
AMociatel Ud. and MIY nat be
...,.-oduoed or uled Ioree.
pqact.wtlhout lhlllrparm... IDn.
7736,7766, 7786166ST.,
SURREY, B.C.
I
REPlACEMENT PLAN-SOUTH
.....,.
~
~Dj
~tL----------------------
Section 1: Planning
.>, .) ,
laS{JRREY
.,:
!he fvture lives here
PLAN~lNG AND
DfV£LOf'MEHT O£PARTM£NT
FLEETWOOD ENCLAVE
LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN
....
,.,...
I
,
n
r··
~-
I
0
I
j
'
I
I
I
f • "
· ·- ~ - · - --~· -,. .... , .~~, ,...., •• -. ~ ~.-.. ..._~ ';f· llllf • '.!l'' ...• ·- ~ ·~-.,
i.
ii
' •
I
.
78AVENUE
i
!
-·-~~~
\-;.
'i
i 7.
Legend
r.:J
FLEETWOOD ENClAVE BOUNDARY
c:__ EXISTING LOTS
• I
==
PROPOSED COLLECTOR ROAD
PROPOSED GREEN ROAD (SPECIAl STANDARD)
PROPOSED LOCAL ROAD
EXISTING ROAD
EXISTING SUBURBAN CLUSTER 2 U.PA
l
I
Ii
I ~
77BAVENUE
!1
I ....
~
I en
! I il
~ t rn
! I ....
l
LOW DENSITY CLUSTER 4 U PA
lOW-MEO DENSITY CLUSTER 5 U,P,A
EXISTING PARKLAND BUFFER
PRIVATE l.AN.OSCAPE BUFFER
! ~ HABITAT CORRIDOR PARKITRAIL
OPEN SPACE / FUTURE PARK
FlEETWOOD CITY PARK
&
PONTENTIAl SIGNIFICANT TREE
Agncultural Land Rnerve
······• EXISTING PARK TRAIL
- -
~
~
··
j
~
-
-·•
•t
m
l£
)>
-·~
·.r•r
.... __
__ ·.......
,.. .
_..
.
-·
· n AVENUE
r
r
~
i!
.
:
LJ..
ry=
I
il
!
il
!1
~:~:. ~
n AVENUE
...;.;;~-~~~
I
I
' :
i
!
'ii
I
i
76BAVENlJE
{
i
i
i
·-~~~
i
!
I,
·- -...... -..1.._J,.,.
! /
I
i
--'········-.,.···----·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-···
--·-···-·-···-·-·-·-·-·--·--···-·-·-·
....
-..
i
!
.....
100
Date: 1-31 -13
Fleetwood Enclave Infill Area Plan
~'I
-1
Page 3
Appendix VII
50
m
i
~ Meters
25
m
i
i
...
tnl
....
enl
~
•
_,"-. I
en
~
~.~
HYDRO TRANSMISSION UNES
FUTURE CONNECTION (To 152 Sl and 76 Ave
, , to be required In tJtelutUJelf and when adjacent
'"Golf Course· area 1$ redeveloped)
0
~
....
,' \,1
Subject Site
- PROPOSED GREENWAYSITRAILS
-
~
m
r
iI
•
en
~
-- - ~_
1/4 ACRE GROSS DENSITY 4 U.PA
...·
155A St
Appendix VIII
79A Ave
78A Ave
78A Ave
SUB
TO
URB
156 St
78A Ave
156A St
URB
156 St
155 St 155 St
SUB
76A Ave
East
-Wes
t Co
nnec
76A Ave
76 Ave
tor R
d
AGR
OCP Amendment
Proposed amendment from Suburban TO Urban
·
Appendix IX
CITYOFSURREY
BYLAWNO. AbyǦlawtoamendSurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended
...........................................................
THECITYCOUNCILoftheCityofSurreyENACTSASFOLLOWS:
1.
SurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended,isherebyfurtheramended,pursuant
totheprovisionsofSection903oftheLocalGovernmentAct,R.S.B.C.1996c.323,as
amendedbychangingtheclassificationofthefollowingparcelsofland,presentlyshown
uponthemapsdesignatedastheZoningMapsandmarkedasSchedule"A"ofSurrey
ZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamendedasfollows:
FROM:
GENERALAGRICULTUREZONE(AǦ1)
TO: COMPREHENSIVEDEVELOPMENTZONE(CD)
_____________________________________________________________________________
ParcelIdentifier:009Ǧ666Ǧ834
Lot7Section23Township2NewWestminsterDistrictPlan12206
7788Ǧ156Street
ParcelIdentifier:009Ǧ666Ǧ869
Lot8Section23Township2NewWestminsterDistrictPlan12206
7766Ǧ156Street
ParcelIdentifier:000Ǧ633Ǧ054
Lot9Section23Township2NewWestminsterDistrictPlan12206
7736Ǧ156Street
(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Lands")
2.
ThefollowingregulationsshallapplytotheLands:
A.
Intent
ThisComprehensiveDevelopmentZoneisintendedtoaccommodateandregulate
thedevelopmentofsinglefamilydwellingsonsmallurbanlotswithsubstantial
publicopenspacesetasidewithintheLands,andwheredensitybonusisprovided.
TheLandsaredividedintoBlocksA,B,CandDasshownontheSurveyPlan
attachedheretoandformingpartofthisByǦlawasScheduleA,certifiedcorrectby
SeanCostello,B.C.L.Sonthe29thdayofAugust2014.
Ǧ1Ǧ
B.
PermittedUses
TheLandsandstructuresshallbeusedforthefollowingusesonly,orfora
combinationofsuchuses:
1.
Onesinglefamilydwellingwhichmaycontain1secondarysuite.
2.
Accessoryusesincludingthefollowing:
(a)
(b)
C.
BedandbreakfastuseinaccordancewithSectionB.2,Part4
GeneralProvisions,ofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,as
amended;and
ThekeepingofboardersorlodgersinaccordancewithSectionB.2,
Part4GeneralProvisions,ofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,
asamended.
LotArea
NotapplicabletothisZone.
D.
Density
1.
2.
Forthepurposeofsubdivision,themaximumunitdensityshallnotexceed
2.5dwellingunitsperhectare[1u.p.a.].Themaximumunitdensitymaybe
increasedto3.95dwellingunitsperhectare[1.6u.p.a.]ifamenitiesare
providedinaccordancewithScheduleGofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,
No.12000asamended.
Themaximumunitdensitymaybeincreasedfrom3.95dwellingunitsper
hectare[1.6u.p.a.]to13dwellingunitspergrosshectare[5u.p.g.a.]
calculatedonthebasisoftheentireLands,providedthat:
(a)
Openspaceinanamountnotlessthan13%ispreservedinits
naturalstateorretainedforparkandrecreationalpurposes;
(b)
Thesaidopenspaceshallcontainnaturalfeaturessuchasastream,
ravine,standsofmaturetrees,orotherlandformsworthyof
preservation,andmayincludeundevelopableareas;and
(c)
Thesaidopenspaceshallbeaccessiblebythepublicfroma
highway.
Ǧ2Ǧ
3.
Forbuildingconstructionwithinalot:
(a)
Thefloorarearatioshallnotexceed0.60forthefirst560square
metres[6,000sq.ft.]oflotareaand0.35fortheremaininglotarea
inexcessof560squaremetres[6,000sq.ft.],providedthat,ofthe
resultingallowablefloorarea,39squaremetres[420sq.ft.]shallbe
reservedforuseonlyasagarageorcarportandfurtherprovided
thatwhereanyaccessorybuildingisgreaterthan10squaremetres
[105sq.ft.]insizethattheareainexcessof10squaremetres
[105sq.ft.]shallbeincludedaspartofthefloorareaforthe
purposeofcalculatingfloorarearatio;
(b)
Themaximumpermittedfloorareaofasecondstoreyfora
principalbuildingmustnotexceed80%ofthefloorareaofthemain
floorlevelincludingattachedgarageandthatportionofanyporch
orverandaatthefrontthatiscoveredbyaslopedroof,butnot
includinganyportionofthestructurelocatedwithin6.0metres
[20ft.]ofthefrontlotline.Thereducedfloorareaofthesecond
storeyshallbeaccomplishedbyanoffsetatthesecondstoreylevel
fromthewallatthemainfloorlevelfromeitherthefrontorside
wallsoracombinationthereof;and
(c)
ForthepurposeofthisSectionandnotwithstandingthedefinition
offloorarearatioinPart1DefinitionsofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,
1993,No.12000asamended,thefollowingmustbeincludedinthe
calculationoffloorarearatio:
i.
Coveredareausedforparkingunlessthecoveredparkingis
locatedwithinthebasement;
ii.
Theareaofanaccessorybuildinginexcessof10square
metres[105sq.ft.];
iii.
Coveredoutdoorspacewithaheightof1.8metres[6ft.]or
greater,exceptforamaximumof10%ofthemaximum
allowablefloorareaofwhich28squaremetres[300sq.ft.]
mustbereservedforcoveredoutdoorspace,ofwhich15
squaremetres[160sq.ft.]mustbereservedforafrontporch
orveranda;and
iv.
Floorareawithextendedheight,includingstaircases,must
bemultipliedby2,wheretheextendedheightexceeds
3.7metres[12ft.],exceptforamaximumof19squaremetres
[200sq.ft.].
Ǧ3Ǧ
E.
LotCoverage
Themaximumlotcoverageisasfollows:
LotSize
MaximumLotCoverage
560squaremetres[6,000sq.ft.]
40%
orless
Greaterthan560squaremetres
38%
[6,000sq.ft.]to653square
metres[7,000sq.ft.]
F.
YardsandSetbacks
Buildingsandstructuresshallbesitedinaccordancewiththefollowingminimum
setbacks:
1.
BlockA:
Setback Front
Rear
Side
NorthSide
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
Use
6.0m.
1.2m.
5.2m.
PrincipalBuilding
7.5m.1
[25ft.]
[20ft.] [4ft.]
[17ft.]
AccessoryBuildings
1.8m.
1.0m. 8.5m.
_2
andStructures
[6ft.]
[3ft.]
[27ft.]
MeasurementstobedeterminedasperPart1Definitionsof
SurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended.
1
Exceptforagarage,thefrontyardsetbackmayberelaxedatthelower
levelto5.5metres[18ft.]foramaximum50%ofthewidthofthe
principalbuilding.Thepermitted5.5Ǧmetre[18ft.]frontyardsetbacks
maybefurtherreducedtoaminimumof3.5metres[11ft.6in.]byan
unenclosedanduninhabitablespacesuchasaporchorveranda,
providedthatthesaidporchorverandaiscoveredfromaboveandisan
integralpartoftheprincipalbuilding.
2
Accessorybuildingsandstructuresarenotpermittedwithinthefront
yardsetback.
Ǧ4Ǧ
2.
BlockB:
Setback Front
Rear
Side
SideYard
Yard
Yard
Yard
onFlanking
Use
Street
PrincipalBuilding
6.0m.1 15m.3
1.2m.
2.4m.
[20ft.]
[50ft.] [4ft.]
[8ft.]
9.3m.
1.0m. 6.0m.
AccessoryBuildings
_2
[30ft.] [3ft.]
[20ft.]
andStructures
MeasurementstobedeterminedasperPart1Definitionsof
SurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended.
1
2
3
3.
Exceptforagarage,thefrontyardsetbackmayberelaxedatthelower
levelto4.0metres[13ft.]foramaximum50%ofthewidthofthe
principalbuilding.Thepermitted4.0Ǧmetre[13ft.]frontyardsetbacks
maybefurtherreducedtoaminimumof2.0metres[6ft.6in.]byan
unenclosedanduninhabitablespacesuchasaporchorveranda,
providedthatthesaidporchorverandaiscoveredfromaboveandisan
integralpartoftheprincipalbuilding.
Accessorybuildingsandstructuresarenotpermittedwithinthefront
yardsetback.
Theminimumrearyardsetbackoftheprincipalbuildingmaybe
reducedto13.5m[44ft.]foramaximumof50%ofthewidthoftherear
oftheprincipalbuilding.
BlockC:
Setback Front
Rear
Side
SideYard
Yard
Yard
Yard
onFlanking
Use
Street
PrincipalBuilding
6.0m.1 7.5m.3 1.2m.
2.4m.
[20ft.]
[25ft.] [4ft.]
[8ft.]
AccessoryBuildings
1.8m.
1.0m. 6.0m.
_2
andStructures
[6ft.]
[3ft.]
[20ft.]
MeasurementstobedeterminedasperPart1Definitionsof
SurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended.
1
Exceptforagarage,thefrontyardsetbackmayberelaxedatthelower
levelto4.0metres[13ft.]foramaximum50%ofthewidthofthe
principalbuilding.Thepermitted4.0Ǧmetre[13ft.]frontyardsetbacks
maybefurtherreducedtoaminimumof2.0metres[6ft.6in.]byan
unenclosedanduninhabitablespacesuchasaporchorveranda,
providedthatthesaidporchorverandaiscoveredfromaboveandisan
integralpartoftheprincipalbuilding.
Ǧ5Ǧ
2
3
Accessorybuildingsandstructuresarenotpermittedwithinthefront
yardsetback.
Theminimumrearyardsetbackoftheprincipalbuildingmaybe
reducedto6.0m[20ft.]foramaximumof50%ofthewidthoftherear
oftheprincipalbuildingbyanunenclosedanduninhabitablespace
suchasaporchorveranda,providedthatthesaidporchorverandais
coveredfromaboveandisanintegralpartoftheprincipalbuilding.
4.
BlockD:
Setback Front
Rear
Side
SideYard
Yard
Yard
Yard
onFlanking
Street
Use
1.2m.
2.4m.
PrincipalBuilding
7.5m.1 6.0m.
[25ft.]
[20ft.] [4ft.]
[8ft.]
AccessoryBuildings
1.8m.
1.0m. 6.0m.
_2
andStructures
[6ft.]
[3ft.]
[20ft.]
MeasurementstobedeterminedasperPart1Definitionsof
SurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended.
1
2
Exceptforagarage,thefrontyardsetbackmayberelaxedatthelower
levelto5.5metres[18ft.]foramaximum50%ofthewidthofthe
principalbuilding.Thepermitted5.5Ǧmetre[18ft.]frontyardsetbacks
maybefurtherreducedtoaminimumof3.5metres[11ft.6in.]byan
unenclosedanduninhabitablespacesuchasaporchorveranda,
providedthatthesaidporchorverandaiscoveredfromaboveandisan
integralpartoftheprincipalbuilding.
Accessorybuildingsandstructuresarenotpermittedwithinthefront
yardsetback.
G.
HeightofBuildings
MeasurementstobedeterminedasperPart1DefinitionsofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,
1993,No.12000,asamended.
1.
Principalbuildings:Thebuildingheightshallnotexceed9.0metres[30ft.].
2.
Accessorybuildingsandstructures:Thebuildingheightshallnotexceed4
metres[13ft.]exceptthatwheretheroofslopeandconstructionmaterials
ofanaccessorybuildingarethesameasthatoftheprincipalbuilding,the
buildingheightoftheaccessorybuildingmaybeincreasedto5metres
[16.5ft.].
Ǧ6Ǧ
H.
OffǦStreetParking
1.
ResidentandvisitorparkingspacesshallbeprovidedasstatedinTableC.6
ofPart5OffǦStreetParkingandLoading/UnloadingofSurreyZoning
ByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended.
2.
Outsideparkingorstorageofcampers,boatsandvehiclesincludingcars,
trucksandhousetrailersancillarytotheresidentialuse,shallbelimitedto:
(a)
(b)
(c)
3.
Amaximumof2carsortrucks;
Housetrailer,camperorboatprovidedthatthecombinedtotal
shallnotexceed1;and
Thetotalamountpermittedunder(a)and(b)shallnotexceed3.
Vehicleparkingmaybepermittedineitherthefrontyardorsideyard
subjecttothefollowing:
(a)
(b)
NooffǦstreetparkingspaceshallbepermittedwithintherequired
frontyardorsideyardsetbackexceptonadriveway.Drivewaysmay
beconstructedoffeitherthefrontingstreet;
Parkingspacesshallbelocatedonlyonadrivewayleadingtoa
garage,carportorparkingpad,inagarage,inacarport,orona
parkingpad;
(c)
Thetotalareasurfacedorpavedforadrivewayshallbeasfollows:
i.
ii.
Everylotmayhaveonedrivewaywithauniformwidthof6
metres[20ft.]extendingfromthelotlinetothegarage,
carport,orparkingpadonthelot;
Thedrivewaywidthmaybeexpandedprovidedthatthe
totalareaofthedrivewaywithinthefrontyardorrequired
sideyarddoesnotexceed33%ofthetotalareaofthefront
yardorrequiredsideyardwithinwhichthedrivewayis
located;and
iii.
Wherethedrivewayisconstructedinasideyardoffa
flankingstreetallreferencetofrontyardwithinthisSection
shallbereadassideyard;and
(d)
Thenumberofvehiclesparkedinadrivewaywithinthefrontyard
orsideyardshallnotexceed2.
Ǧ7Ǧ
I.
Landscaping
1.
Theparkingorstorageofhousetrailersorboatsshallbeadequately
screenedbycompactevergreentreesorshrubsatleast1.8metres[6ft.]in
heightandlocatedbetweenthesaidhousetrailerorboatandanypointon
thelotlinewithin7.5metres[25ft.]ofthesaidhousetrailerorboat,in
ordertoobscuretheviewfromtheabuttinglotorstreet,except:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Onacornerlot,thisrequiredlandscapescreeningshallnotbe
locatedinanareaboundedbytheintersectinglotlinesatastreet
cornerandastraightlinejoiningpoints9metres[30ft.]alongthe
saidlotlinesfromthepointofintersectionofthe2lotlines;
Wherethedrivewayortheparkingareaisusedforparkingor
storageofahousetrailerorboat,thelandscapescreenisnot
requiredwithinthesaiddriveway;and
Inthecaseofrearyards,thisscreeningrequirementmaybe
providedbya1.8metre[6ft.]highsolidfence.
2.
J.
TheopenspacesetasidepursuanttoSectionD.2ofthisZone,shallbe
improvedwithabasicleveloflandscapingworkincludingbrushingand
seedingoftheground,limbingoflowbranchesontreesandprovidingand
constructingpathsforpublicpassage,whereverappropriate.
SpecialRegulations
1.
Asecondarysuiteshall:
(a)
Notexceed90squaremetres[968sq.ft.]infloorarea;and
(b)
Occupylessthan40%ofthehabitablefloorareaofthebuilding.
K.
Subdivision
LotscreatedthroughsubdivisioninthisZoneshallconformtothefollowing
minimumstandards:
1.
BlocksA,CandD:
LotSize
LotWidth
LotDepth
371sq.m.
[4,000sq.ft.]
13.4metres
[44ft.]
28metres
[91ft.]
DimensionsshallbemeasuredinaccordancewithSectionE.21,Part4General
Provisions,ofSurrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No. 12000, as amended.
Ǧ8Ǧ
2.
BlockB:
LotSize
LotWidth
LotDepth
518sq.m.
[4,000sq.ft.]
13.4metres
[44ft.]
38.5metres
[126ft.]
DimensionsshallbemeasuredinaccordancewithSectionE.21,Part4General
Provisions,ofSurrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No. 12000, as amended.
L.
OtherRegulations
Inadditiontoallstatutes,byǦlaws,orders,regulationsoragreements,the
followingareapplicable,however,intheeventthatthereisaconflictwiththe
provisionsinthisComprehensiveDevelopmentZoneandotherprovisionsin
SurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended,theprovisionsinthis
ComprehensiveDevelopmentZoneshalltakeprecedence:
1.
DefinitionsareassetoutinPart1Definitions,ofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,
1993,No.12000,asamended.
2.
Priortoanyuse,theLandsmustbeservicedassetoutinPart2Uses
Limited,ofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamendedandin
accordancewiththeservicingrequirementsfortheRFǦGZoneassetforth
intheSurreySubdivisionandDevelopmentByǦlaw,1986,No.8830,as
amended.
3.
GeneralprovisionsareassetoutinPart4GeneralProvisionsofSurrey
ZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended.
4.
AdditionaloffǦstreetparkingrequirementsareassetoutinPart5
OffǦStreetParkingandLoading/UnloadingofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,
No.12000,asamended.
5.
SubdivisionsshallbesubjecttoSurreyDevelopmentCostChargeByǦ
law,2014,No.18148,asmaybeamendedorreplacedfromtimetotime
andthedevelopmentcostchargesshallbebasedontheRFǦGZone.
6.
Subdivisionsshallbesubjecttothe"TreePreservationByǦlaw".
7.
SignregulationsareassetoutinSurreySignByǦlaw,1999,No.13656,as
amended.
8.
SpecialbuildingsetbacksareassetoutinPart7SpecialBuildingSetbacks,
ofSurreyZoningByǦlaw,1993,No.12000,asamended.
9.
BuildingpermitsshallbesubjecttotheSurreyBuildingByǦlaw,2012,No.
17850,asamended.
Ǧ9Ǧ
3.
ThisByǦlawshallbecitedforallpurposesas"SurreyZoningBylaw,1993,No.12000,
AmendmentByǦlaw,,No.."
PASSEDFIRSTREADINGonthethdayof,20.
PASSEDSECONDREADINGonthethdayof,20.
PUBLICHEARINGHELDthereononthethdayof,20.
PASSEDTHIRDREADINGonthethdayof,20.
RECONSIDEREDANDFINALLYADOPTED,signedbytheMayorandClerk,andsealedwiththe
CorporateSealonthethdayof,20.
______________________________________ MAYOR
______________________________________ CLERK
\\fileǦserver1\netǦdata\csdc\generate\areaprod\save\23035347081.doc
CTA9/3/1411:06AM
Ǧ10Ǧ