Surrey planning report 7922-0149-00

Staff Report to Council Application No.: 7922-0149-00 Planning & Development Report Page 18 o Lack of street parking in the neighbourhood was a complaint that was raised by residents who are concerned that more development will exacerbate the problem. (The applicant proposes to eliminate the east-west flex road bisecting the site that is shown in the Sunnyside Heights NCP. This road would have provided some on-street parking which would be a benefit to area residents. However, because the applicant proposes to provide a park in exchange for elimination of the road, staff believe that the neighbourhood will still be receiving a benefit, albeit of a different nature. Within the proposed townhouse site, the required minimum number of visitor parking spaces is 34. The applicant proposes to construct 46 visitor parking spaces in order to reduce the future demand for on-street parking.) o Residents are concerned about the number of trees that are proposed for removal, considering the site’s current designation for cluster development. The current proposal shows fewer retained trees than the previous Stage 1 proposal. (The applicant proposes to redesignate the site to “Multiple Residential 15-25 upa” which is not a cluster designation. Although the arborist investigation determined that a number of trees on the site are diseased, the Stage 1 proposal did include more tree retention than is currently shown. By having the tree retention within a public park, which is what the current proposal shows, nearby residents will potentially derive more enjoyment from the trees, but there are fewer retained trees overall.) o Some neighbours are concerned about a lack of privacy and an increase in noise that may be caused by the townhouse development. (The applicant has proposed privacy screening in the form of tree and shrub plantings where the development will directly abut existing single family lots to the east. The site has been designed with the primary indoor and outdoor amenity areas located towards the centre of the site, so noise from these gathering places should not adversely affect any existing residents. The proposed new park will be a passive use area with protected trees, and some pathways and picnic tables. The park is not expected to generate a significant amount of noise.) o A small number of residents highlighted the lack of public transit to this neighbourhood and believe that townhouse development should be located closer to public transit. (Transportation Engineering has indicated a desire for more frequent and expanded transit service in this area, but the decision is ultimately outside of the City’s jurisdiction.) o Some neighbours living on 166 Street have indicated that they may support the proposal in concept but would like the 166 Street driveway entrance eliminated. (Based on the number of units proposed, Transportation Engineering requires the applicant to provide two vehicle entrances in order to disperse traffic and avoid impacting neighbours on either side of the site disproportionately.) o The petition, which has been signed by 712 residents at the time of this report, notes the following objections to the application: townhouse development is not believed to be appropriate at the proposed location, increased traffic, loss of privacy, loss of property value, loss of trees and green space, insufficient medical services, and insufficient school capacity.

非商业公共资料研究与事实报道；仅展示核对事实所需的已评估摘录及本站中文说明。版权归原作者或发布机构；不表示来源机构认可本站。原文、来源及使用条款见链接。 来源使用条款 ↗