G RANDVIEW H EIGHTS NCP A REA #3 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
WELCOME TO THE G RANDVIEW H EIGHTS NCP A REA #3 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING #6 For more information visit the city of surrey webpage at: www.surrey.ca/gh3ncp GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS 1 Feb 1, 2018 CAC Meeting
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
1
Feb 1, 2018
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING #6
For more information visit the city of surrey webpage at: www.surrey.ca/gh3ncp
CAC Meeting
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
CAC Meeting
2
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
The results of this survey, conducted between November 27, 2017 and January 3 2018, are not weighted to the City of Surrey’s population. The results are based on 464 survey responses of which 242 where completed Surveys.
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Age Range Neighbourhood Area
DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographics are provided as background on the composition of survey respondents. Please note these results are not weighted to the City of Surrey’s population.
3% 15% 20% 19% 28% 12% 3%
19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Prefer Not to Answer
9% 49% 12% 10% 5% 6% 8% 2%
In Study Area Other part of South Surrey Cloverdale Fleetwood Guildford Newton City Centre/Whalley Outside Surrey
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: In early consultation with the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), nine draft planning priorities were developed to help guide the creation of future land use concepts for this neighbourhood. Help us rate these priorities in preparation for the next steps of the planning process. Total participants: 464 58% 55% 53% 43% 52% 40% 41% 12% 12% 33% 35% 31% 39% 28% 38% 37% 38% 32% 6% 7% 12% 14% 11% 17% 15% 30% 38% 2% 2% 2% 3% 6% 3% 5% 13% 12% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 7% 5% Provide For Community Amenities & Schools Provide Parks &Recreation Opportunities Ensure Healthy, Protected & Well-Maintained Ecosystems & Biodiversity Ensure Appropriate Servicing, Financing and Infrastructure Improvements Limit Urban Impacts on the Agricultural Land Reserve Provide Appropriate Housing Ensure Multimodal Road Design encouraging a Transit Oriented Community Include opportunities for Neighbourhood Serving Commercial Uses Consider Viewscape Opportunities Very Important Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Unimportant Very Unimportant
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: Are there any other planning priorities you would suggest? Total participants: 142
“Most importantly, Surrey needs to improve walkability of neighborhoods to amenities. Surrey has not done well with this creating a city that requires cars which is the most unhealthy. We need better transit to connect out of the way residential neighborhoods with other services.” “Create an appropriate mix of single family and townhouses with sufficient density to ensure cost of providing community services can be justified.” “A disc golf course in a park in this area.” “Ensure developers pay for infrastructure upgrades required and not Surrey tax payers.” “Any new development initiative that gets considered seems to always negate roadside parking space. Good example is Clayton Heights. Homes get built with suites (legal or illegal) but not enough consideration is ever given to where will people park or where will service vehicles park.” “No more housing developments until schools have been built, especially another high school….” “Plan the neighborhoods properly, too much housing, and not enough doctors, dentists, daycares, grocery stores: these need to be in walking distance!” “Incorporating public art in common public spaces.”
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: We need to plan for a habitat corridor between Darts Hill Park and Redwood Park. Highlight on the map the best location for a wildlife corridor. Use your cursor to highlight the map. Based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: New parkland for people is also important. Highlight
your cursor to highlight the map. Based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: The amount of new active parkland will be based on the number of new residents in the area. Assuming a set amount of new parkland, how do you think it should be provided? Total participants: 291
Consolidate new parkland into one or two larger sites 44% Spread out several smaller sites across the plan area 56%
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: Highlight on the map the best location(s) for a village node and/or commercial area(s). Based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: A neighbourhood village or commercial areas can take a variety of forms and support different uses. Each contributes differently to a neighbourhood. Which form of commercial building do you feel is suitable for this area? Total participants: 279
8% 46% 37% 9% 1% Highway Oriented Commercial Neighbourhood Commercial Mixed Use Commercial No Commercial Other
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
5% 6% 11% 7% 11% 8% 71% 24% 34% 39% 43% 21% 36% 29% 65% 53% 37% 39% 57% 47% 5% 6% 13% 10% 11% 9% 19-29* 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Overall Highway Oriented Commercial Neighbourhood Commercial Mixed Use Commercial No Commercial
*Caution: Low base n<10
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: What mix of housing do you think should be provided is appropriate in this area (by percentage)? Note, some areas may not redevelop so this balance would apply only to those areas that do. 100% must be assigned to move to the next question. Total participants: 266
37 24 21 19 30 25 20 17 Detached Single Family Townhouse Semi-Detached Apartment
Mean Median
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: Example locations of potential housing types are illustrated above in Concept A & B, for discussion purposes. Given the ideas about where housing could be provided, do you have any additional comments about the location and type of housing for this neighbourhood? Total participants: 118
“The area should be single family and some townhomes/rowhomes. The amount of density should be driven by only having to provide one school in the area. Getting two school sites in this area will be prohibitive. Also, services and transit are not in this area so density should remain low. Higher density areas exist near 24th and 160th and in Area 2. This should be urban single family and townhomes only.” “Need to keep more large lots, rather than all tiny lots. Leave some space and trees. The roads cannot support more density so close to the all the current development. We are already short on schools, transit in the area. Roads all need widening to support the existing growth. Add more trails and walkways. Safer biking areas on the streets.” ‘Homes that allow for wheelchair/universal access for aging
suit seniors and people who have mobility challenges.” “Density is far too high. High density does not fit in with the existing 1 acre lots surrounding the NCP.” “Do not forget lower cost rental housing and starter homes for young singles and married with young families. We cannot afford to continue to force them
“There are lots of semi-detached and townhouse along the 24th
here.”
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: Which one of the four proposed locations would you prefer? Or alternately select
Total participants: 259 Heat map is based on CitySpeaks survey responses only.
31% 26% 26% 11% 6% Location A Location B Location C Location D Other
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: Do you have any comments about Schools in the plan area? Total participants: 75
“School sites should be provided for before/during the re-development
“Only one school site in this area, too difficult and expensive to get two.” “Build with future expansion in mind so that instead of portables, actual classrooms can be added. And what is wrong with two-storey elementary schools? This concept would take less land allowing for more outdoor space for recreation and neighbourhood utilization.” “Slower traffic, more vehicles on the road, make sure it's somewhere that won't create a bottleneck.” “Putting the school closer to the kids that will attend that school on the other side of 176 St will make it more central for everyone.” “The school should be located next to Dart's Hill and the existing church. There may be an
Daycare in the Church outdoor activities in the Park, shared parking for larger events, etc” “Safety should be important - for children walking to school, with wide sidewalk and crosswalk areas; as well as for drivers.” “I don't understand why the lot of the previous Grandview Heights Elementary can't be used? It has an old (possibly heritage) schoolhouse on the property that should be saved for some history in the area as it is linked to the founders of Red Wood Park. This would be where I would propose a new school to go.”
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: What type of ultimate long term land uses may be appropriate in the Hazelmere Estates Area? Total participants: 254/14
26% 22% 45% 7%
Maintain the status quo (existing suburban designation only): Mix of 1 acre and half acre lots (Concept 1) Urban re-development around periphery with a suburban core: Urban designation (e.g. single family/townhouse etc.) along… Urban Re-development for the entire area: Mix of urban designation (e.g. single family, duplex, townhouse etc.) with potential… Other
“Single Family and Duplexes, with a larger then normal lot sizes.” “Urban redevelopment is great but not with the school here.. this is the last area to put a school as it is least central and is likely to be the last area developed fully.” “More green spaces. No further development.” “50% rental apartment buildings with commercial underneath and 50% rental townhouses.”
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: What do you think about future roadway and pedestrian connectivity? Total participants: 137
“Typically, TOO MANY traffic lights - if the goal is to reduce congestion, traffic circles "of a reasonable size for each individual intersection" need to be incorporated in the design. Both concepts will only create more congestion.” Probably need a mix of A and B. I like splitting 18th Ave around the creek area, that is a good idea.” “Connecting roads which go all the way thru the NCP could disrupt the wildlife corridors.” “Bike paths are very important in such a network. Plus adapting the network as the community grows.” “I think people are more likely to walk or bike if they can put some distance away from cars whether for exhaust, noise or safety. We enjoy walking on the new widened walkways in Grandview area. We can talk without yelling and don't have to check as often for cars or other peds.” “Long term transit connectivity is paramount; MEANINGFUL transit times to major hubs (Central City, Skytrain, Guildford, Langley Centre) required to reduce traffic on 24th, 20th, 16th avenues - connectivity to Semiahmoo or Ocean Park will not negate excessive car use.” “It is needed. We will never get people to stop driving so develop wider roads with adequate room for pedestrians and bikes.”
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Q: Based on the draft planning principles provided, which land use concept do you prefer? Total participants: 242
Concept A 33% Concept B 67%
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
48% 68% 79% 79% 50% 67% 56% 25% 66% 52% 32% 21% 21% 50% 33% 44% 75% 34%
Concept A Concept B
*Caution: Low base n<10
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Combine features, to formulate Preferred Land Use Concept
A B C
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
24 CAC Meeting
E
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Council authorized City Staff to begin the process of preparing a Stage 1 NCP for Grandview Heights NCP #3. Initial Public Open House #1
Advisory Committee (CAC) to work with the City to develop the NCP.
July 25th 2016 November 23rd 2016
Development Applications may be processed and advanced to Council for Consideration
Open House #1 January-February 2017 Open House #2 Open House #3 Late November 2017 April 2018 June/July 2018
If Stage 1 is approved by Council, initiate Stage 2
er petitions received by City
We Are Here
January – April 2016
Complete CAC #1 CAC #2 CAC #3 CAC #4 CAC #5 CAC #6 CAC #7
*Note: NCP Planning Process Timelines are subject to change.
an environmental study, heritage study, and an integrated stormwater management plan (ISMP).
and other stakeholders, as required, to develop Draft Land Use Options.
2 5
CAC Meeting
Public Open House #2 – Draft Land Use Options
Develop a Preferred Land Use Concept
CAC #8
Public Open House #3 – Preferred Land Use Concept Present Draft Stage 1 Report to Council
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Completion
tandem with Stage 1 of NCP City Interdepartment al meetings to prepare a “Preferred” land Use Concept City Committee Meetings Stage 1 Interagency Meeting CAC Meeting #7 (Land Use Concept Workshop) Public Open House #3 CAC Meeting #8 (Open House Review) Council Report and Stage 1 Plan Consideratio n
*Note: NCP Planning Process Timelines are subject to change.
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
Examples of names that have been given to other NCPs in Grandview Heights include Morgan Heights, Sunnyside Heights, Redwood Heights, and Orchard Grove. We welcome your suggestions and comments. Some initial suggestions from City staff include the following: Darts Hill Sam Hill Darts Village Grandview Ridge If you have any suggestions for other names or comments on any of the names please let us know, and we will be bringing a list of names to the next Public Open House.
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
2 8
CAC Meeting
Email: gh3plan@surrey.ca Webpage: www.surrey.ca/ghncp3 PHONE: PATRICK KLASSEN, COMMUNITY PLANNING MANAGER (604) 598-5858 PKLASSEN@SURREY.CA MARKUS KISCHNICK, COMMUNITY PLANNER (604) 591-4485 MKISCHNICK@SURREY.CA City of Surrey Community Planning Division 13450 - 104 Avenue Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 1V8
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCEPT PLAN AREA #3