Dialogue re 36th ave and 196 St Orion development Proposal No. 19 0256
Updated: Aug 20, 2021
Note that the intent in documenting the following is all about precedence. Decisions by Surrey related to this development will most likely have a future impact on all the neighbours along 196 Street, both North and South of 36 Avenue.
Date: 2021-03-02 9:31 AM
I am not sure what you are referring to with regards to 192 Street – 192 Street requires a 6 metre landscape buffer and there is a 4 metre-wide multi-use pathway within road right-of-way. This application proposes a similar condition in that there is a 1.8 metre-wide sidewalk and 1.5 metre-wide cycle track within City road right-of-way. The road cross-section for 196 Street does not call for a multi-use pathway, nor could this be accommodated with the required tree retention and provisions for on-street parking.
The drawings I previously provided incorrectly identified the municipal boundaries. The City of Surrey owns all land west of the centreline of the road, and so Surrey is responsible for this portion of 196 Street that is planned to be delivered through this application.
February 24, 2021 1:17 PM
Plans with conceptual descriptions are understandably interpreted as part of that plan. As Surrey has not defined a City of Surrey owned strip of land adjacent to the Langley border, they will either be building pathways on Township land or on land sold to a Surrey industrial development, in this case, Orion. What is the intent and expectation? Again I refer to generous pathways defined on 192nd Street in the Campbell Heights development. Can we not expect a similar treatment with respect to 196th Street? If not, why? While laudable, I feel that public consultation by the applicant is not sufficient. Once a decision is made about the Surrey/Langley border buffers and setbacks in this case, a precedence will have been established that will impact future decisions all along the 196 Street interface. Sincerely, Nigel Bell 3938 196 Street.
Feb 23, 2021 at 11:42 AM
The buffer diagram you noted is ‘conceptual’. The Local Area Plan does not specify the details of the landscape buffer components, so the walkway shown is merely illustrative. Staff are certainly open to a dialogue with Township of Langley residents regarding how best to deliver the landscape buffer and the components that comprise it, however, the alignment of the walkway and cycle track are based on best practice engineering design, park planning, and the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which would suggest locating this pathway outside of the buffer. The buffer is to remain privately maintained and therefore, public access needs to be provided outside of the buffer. Statutory Right-of-ways (SROW) for public access over private land has resulted in many issues throughout the City, and so there is a risk (in the scenario that we allow a SROW for the walkway through the buffer) that public access is restricted by the private landowner (even with the SROW in place). This has occurred in many places across the City, and so today’s practice is to require public access within public right-of-ways (i.e., 196 Street).
The applicant is preparing to send residents an invitation to a virtual Public Information Meeting where more information will be provided. This will also provide an opportunity to ask questions and provide additional feedback.
KEVIN SHACKLES, BA, PDD (Applied Planning) | PLANNER 1
February 17, 2021 4:30 PM
My reading of your response, Kevin, suggests you are pushing to gain 20 meter acceptance instead of the more desirable 30 meters as originally laid out in the Campbell Heights Plans.
Let me refer you to the attached excerpt from the Campbell Heights Local Area Plan Review. This diagram specifies the setbacks for North and South of 36 Avenue along 196 Street. It also images the pathway through the 30 meter setback that would meander through the landscaping. Surely, this is more desirable than walking along an increasingly busy 196 Street, which is entirely located in the Township of Langley.
If the City in its plans has failed to protect a border municipality with adequate setbacks and related amenities, now is the time to correct that. This 196 Street setback issue is discordant with other parts of the Campbell Heights Development. Look at the borders to 192nd Street in the Development - generous setbacks with pathways for walking and cycling. Along 36th Avenue, sidewalks are a requirement of that Development. I expect that the City has established standards for maintaining such pathways.
The four points you make are not beneficial because:
Pathways through landscaping are more desirable than those adjacent to roadways,
It is safer to be further off the road rather than immediately adjacent to it,
Surely, standards are to be maintained on the part of landowners as part of their obligations,
Again, a walkway through the landscaped buffer will be more desirable than a roadside alternative.
If there are approved revisions to the attached document, please forward.
While I recognize the need to deliver on the Campbell Heights developments, you will understand that reducing the impact on neighbouring properties in different zoning is a very important consideration.
3938 196 Street