v0032f> Minutes of a Public Hearing held July 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Matsqui Centennial Auditorium

Transcription

1 v0032f> Minutes of a Public Hearing held July 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Matsqui Centennial Auditorium Council Present: Mayor G. Ferguson; and Councillors S. Gibson, M. Gill, G. Peary, P. Ross, M. Warawa, and C. Wiebe Staff Present: City Manager - G. Guthrie; Director of Administration and Corporate Planning - T. Strong; Acting Director of Engineering - 1. Gordon; Manager of Engineering Services 1. Duckworth; Acting Director, Development Services - P. Andzans; Senior Planner - R. Hintsche; Senior Planner - M. A. Thornton; and Committee Secretary - E. Storrier Media Present: Shaw Communications Inc. Public Present: 48 Mayor Ferguson called the hearing to order at 7:00 p.m., and outlined the procedures to be followed. I. By-law No , Z.A. No. 297, G. Howard, 2769 and 2772 Bernadotte Street; Rezones from RR4 to RS3 ( R02-020) If approved, the applicant proposes to develop a residential subdivision consistent with the RS3 zone. H. Schmidt, Bergman Street, queried whether Junction Avenue and Bergman Street would be connected by the proposed development, using funds previously set aside for road development; if there would be a buffer zone provided; and whether his property's address would be changed to Junction Avenue once the road was completed. Staff advised that road improvements are limited to the frontages of the subject property, with no requirement to extend Junction Avenue through to Bergman Street, and would follow up on any funds previously set aside for a road extension; a three meter landscaped buffer would be provided; and an address change could be considered when the road was completed. B. Noga, 2762 Station Place, queried the plans to extend Junction Avenue to Bergman Street and asked how many lots were being proposed. Staff advised that five lots were planned for each property. There were no further comments or questions.

2 \)0032.'1 Minutes of a Public Hearing held July 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Matsqui Centennial Auditorium Page 2 2. By-law No , ZA No. 296, B. Anderson, 3116 and 3168 Station Road; Rezones from RR4 to RS3. RS5 and P2 C /R02-013) If approved, the applicant proposes to develop a residential subdivision consistent with the RS3 and RS5 zones. The existing watercourse over the northern portion of the lands will be dedicated as park. M. Groves, Burgess Avenue, part owner of the farm to the east of the subject property, spoke to his submission, which is attached to and forms part of these minutes. While in favour of development in West Abbotsford, he did not support the proposed development because the proposed road alignment would negatively affect the development potential on his family's property. He requested consultation and negotiation with all affected property owners prior to rezoning. E. Simonsen, A Street, opposed to the proposed development, was concerned about residential growth in the Station Road area, resulting traffic congestion, and the need for coordination with the Township of Langley. L. Groves, Fraser Highway, believed the location of a frontage road on the north side of Fraser Highway should be negotiated equitably with all property owners before the rezoning was approved. He was opposed to the proposed subdivision. S. Groves, Fraser Highway, and part owner of27775 Fraser Highway, opposed the development of a subdivision on the subject lands because she did not believe there had been adequate consultation with surrounding property owners, and the proposal would affect future development of her property. There were no further comments or questions. 3. By-law No , Z.A. No. 294, S. Sharma, 2112 Townline Road; Rezones from Al to 12 C R02-015) If approved, the applicant proposes to develop an automotive repalf shop and an accessory one unit residential use. L. Scott, Peardonville, outlined her concerns regarding the high number of automotive businesses in the area, the environmental impact, and attempts made through By-law Enforcement to prohibit operation of the repair shop until the rezoning application had been approved.

3 v0032,~ Minutes of a Public Hearing held July 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Matsqui Centennial Auditorium Page 3 1. Scott, Peardonville, was opposed to the proposed development because the business was already operating on the subject property, and he believed this was unfair to other developers. He did not believe the development climate of the City was favourable. There were no further comments or questions. 4. By-Law No , Z.A. No. 295, and DP No. 1310, H. G. Sanborn & Associates Inc., Sunrise Crescent; Rezones from RS3 to C5 and reduces width of accessway; and building set back requirements ( R and / ) If approved, the applicant proposes to construct a two-storey building with retail on the ground floor and a one unit residential use on the second floor. Development Permit No. 1310, if approved, varies Abbotsford Zoning By-law, 1996, Section , to allow the width of the accessway to be reduced from the required 7.3 metres to 6.0 metres, and will vary Section to allow the building set back requirements for the one unit residential unit on the second floor to be 2.0 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres. Staffwas in receipt of two letters from T. Vanderhoek, Sunrise Crescent, opposed to the proposed development for reasons of parking, increased traffic and concern for pedestrian safety. The letters are dated July 3, 2002, regarding the current development proposal, and July 29, 2000, concerning a proposed development across the street from the subject property. The letters are attached to and form part of, these minutes. G. Sanborn, H. G. Sanborn & Associates Inc., on behalf of the owners, H. and J. Toor, explained the proposed development was designed to reduce massing of pavement and that the applicants would comply with the terms and conditions set out by the City. T. Vanderhoek, Sunrise Crescent, spoke to his submissions, noted above. He cited problems with parking, increased traffic, and concern for pedestrian traffic from Tabor Manor, a seniors' residence. He requested that the driveway be relocated at the east end of the proposed development. There were no further comments or questions. 5. By-law No , OCP Amendment No. 66, City of Abbotsford, Map 8, "Present and Future Major Road System", Realignment of King Road between Bradner Road and Mt. Lehman Road ( CP66 and IAOI-007) If approved, Map 8, "Present and Future Major Road System" of the Official Community Plan would be revised to provide for the realignment of King Road between Bradner Road and Mt. Lehman Road. The realignment would improve access to the Abbotsford Airport by directly connecting King Road (16th Avenue) from the west.

4 Minutes of a Public Hearing held July 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Matsqui Centennial Auditorium Page 4 C. Mundhenk, King Road, owner of a chicken farm, was concerned about run off from the proposed realignment which may accumulate on his property. J. Kish, 1833 McDermott, owner of 1080 Bradner Road, was opposed to the proposed realignment and wanted truck traffic prohibited on King Road. G. Spencer, 1640 Bradner Road, spoke in favour of the proposed realignment, however expressed concern regarding increased noise, dust, pollution and congestion on King Road, and timing of the proposed reconstruction. R. Peterson, 1616 Bradner Road, was concerned about the timing of the realignment's construction; believed it should be completed all at once, so that all taxpayers could use it; and that it was a positive move to provide better access to the airport. There were no further comments or questions. 5. Termination Moved by Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Gibson, that the Public Hearing terminate. (7:51 p.m.) CARRIED. Certified Correct: Director. stration and Corporate Planning

5 July 3, 2002 \) Mayor and Council, City of Abbotsford, South Fraser Way Abbotsford, BC Re: Proposed Development Sunrise Crescent My wife and I will support this development if the plan for the driveway is changed to the east side of the building with the parking area remaining at the north portion of the lot. Our support of this development is contingent with no other changes being made to the location and size of the building on the lot as indicated on the plans at city hall. The foregoing will tend to keep the commercial traffic away from the residential area. I am led to believe the family that owns the adjacent commercial building on the northwest corner of Clearbrook Road and Sunrise Crescent also owns this property. Moving the driveway to the east end of the proposed building will tie in the driveways and parking areas for both commercial properties. Under no circumstances will we support parking in front of this proposed development. This would only increase the parking and traffic problems we are currently experiencing on Sunrise Crescent. For your information, I have attached a copy of a submission I made to council July 29, 2000, concerning a proposed development across the street from this current proposal in which I outlined the traffic problems in this area. These problems remain. I have informed the family, proposing this development, of my concerns regarding the location of the driveway. Respectfully submitted, Sunrise Crescent Abbotsford, BC V2T1N7 (604)

6 July 29,2000 V On3 tj J 'V l Mayor and Council City of Abbotsford South Fraser Way Abbotsford, BC Re: Proposed Development SIW Corner of Clearbrook Road and Sunrise Crescent As residents of Sunrise Crescent, directly affected by this proposed development, my wife and I are totally opposed to this until the city deals with the current parking and traffic problems at this location. The problems are so severe that three of the five homes on this portion of Sunrise Crescent have large rocks on their lawns near the road edge to prevent people parking cars on the lawns. Also, there is a sidewalk on the north side of Sunrise Crescent where people regularly park their vehicles, obstructing pedestrians. At the west end of Sunrise Crescent, two houses west of the proposed development, is the Tabor Manor, a three-story building consisting of 39 single and double units occupied by elderly residents who regularly walk on Sunrise Crescent. Next to the Tabor Manor is the Tabor Home, an intermediate care facility consisting of 121 units of which some of the residents walk on Sunrise Crescent. The Tabor Home support staff also walk on Sunrise Crescent. Further compounding the traffic problems on Sunrise Crescent is the narrow pavement. Vehicle traffic has become so heavy in the past few years that on occasion my wife and I and our family members have had difficulty driving to our home. In fact on two occasions police had to attend to ensure orderly flow of traffic on Sunrise Crescent. For a developer to place a building containing three separate businesses on a 1 00'x1 00' lot with only 16 parking spaces for customers and staff, with curren\& street parking problems, makes no sense. This problem is compounded by one of the proposed businesses being a thirty-seat restaurant. I would like members of the council to visualize the problems I have outlined in the foregoing with pedestrians, some with walkers, wheelchairs and grocery carts dodging around parked and moving vehicles on Sunrise Crescent. Without a complete traffic plan for this area, I believe you will come to the same conclusion as we have. We ask council not to approve of this development application. Respectfully submitted, ~~, fi ander Hoek Sunrise Crescent Abbotsford, BC V2T-1N

7 j/bo I Mr. Mayor, Councilors, Ladies and Gentlemen My name is Matthew Groves and I live in Mount Lehman in the city of Abbotsford. My brothers and sister and I own the farm immediately East of this proposed rezomng. I would like to start by saying that we are not opposed to development in West Abbotsford. Our family has owned this property for almost 100 years and our Grandfather, Thomas Charles Groves, was the original developer. Long before many of those present at this meeting were born - He subdivided the half acre lots along Fraser Hwy as well as our Home place from what is now the Ferguson property As I said we support development but we cannot support this plan for the following reasons; #1 This plan violates the development concept plan ofthe OCP in that it moves a major road entirely onto our property. This proposal offloads all of the construction costs and land loss onto us while it maximizes the return for the developer. This development concept plan has always been presented to us as an integral part of the OCP. In fact staff at City Hall refer to this development concept plan to this day and even have copies available for sale at their counter. I would like you to see these: Page 1 is an enlarged copy of that Development Concept Plan and Page 2 is the plan recently negotiated between the developer and city staff As you can see by looking at these two plans side by side there is an attempt to download all of the negative aspects of this access road onto us. Reason #2 for rejection: This plan violates the future land use designations of the OCP. It effectively removes a large area from the Medium Density Residential designation and forces it into the compact residential designation. I am referring to the area isolated by the nonsensical road alignment proposal. I am refering to the area in blue on page 2. The development

8 L vod3 2~3 possibilities of our property have already been seriously compromised by the creek setbacks as you can see on the map. This projected road access would decimate them further -likely to the extent that it would be financially impractical to develop it under this plan. And all of this is to facilitate maximum profits for the developer and satisfy the unrealistic expectations of City staff. Reason #3 for rejection. This plan offloads all of the costs and land loss of the road to access the parallel road north of Fraser Hwy. This plan moves the access from being shared between two property holders to the west onto only one property owned by my sister Sheila Groves. The offloading of this road will completely ruin any development potential of her property. Reason #4 for rejection. This plan was conceived and developed during private meetings between City staff and the developer. Prior to this meeting most property owners adjoining the development were unaware that changes to the OCP were being devised. In fact the only reason my family recently became aware of these plans was because the Developers were trying to negotiate a right of way through our property. It's unconcionable that City Staff would actively negotiate a plan with a developer that offloads his responsibilities onto other property owners while keeping those same property owners in the dark. Reason #5 for rejection: Alternate plans already exist which provide for the proper road alignments and conformance to the OCP. Page 3 and 4 are a couple of them. Reason #6 for rejection: This plan will probably result in our property not being developed for a long period of time and as a result no access would be provided to the north parallel road along Fraser Hwy. This would harm the development prospects and value of all the lots along Fraser Hwy. Finally I have given you a copy of our letter of July 3, 2002 to City of Abbotsford's Manager, Development Approvals: Ms Boyle. To date we have not had the courtesy of a reply from Ms. Boyle just as she declined to meet with us in person on June 27, Further we find it quite

9 3 u astonishing that Ms. Boyle is not present at this meeting to answer our questions and justify her department's actions. This is particularly onerous, as we have been advised by city staff that this will be the public's only opportunity to speak on this matter. In view of her absence we would request that council investigate the private negotiations which its staff have had with the developer that appear to compromise the OCP and harm the interests of neighboring property holders. In conclusion we ask council to reject this rezoning proposal. The plan, which it is associated with, is simply unjust and unacceptable. A proper plan for road access should be achieved through consultation and negotiation with all property holders affected or failing that must be left exactly as depicted by the Development Concept Plan. Thank you,

10 v0032b -T a.. U o o.~ 1/1 " ~-1~4 o I,.., :-J I I I

11 u ~ ---I- c o CL TI ()) C/') a Q CL ~ Z!, "!.- ' '.,.,!., '., L I -.. ~ r

12 ~ o ~- TB2 TB3 --SOH4720 ~ ~'.. 5m ROW '-. 15 I' H ~hub T~k 700.q, " TB5 Ii TB6 ~ TB7 TBB 262,} ' 04' TBIO.5 TBU TB12 ~ '".-J../ TBIO TB. HUB 206 A " TB17 B16 TB15 TB1 4 '\ A --l-o B13 52 vo D3 ~ '1 \ TBlB A 51 I~"'" ~~~ '( 13.5 R ',"I'",. 7 E 3' 35 I ro 16 ll"i17 18 n 19 " E 3S 16.5m 20 ~.8 E 31 E 37 r-- - / '" 47 TB1'i ~5m I B20 IE THe 5 6 E 7 B N 22 g '" m m 17m ~o 45 9 E 36.4m 3 '" 27 Jj 36.4m <ri ,; 41 33m e 42 4l 1:- 33m '-., e- 11 E ~ 0 E N r- _3.5m,- nrl"ll'lertv line > CO M. RS 5 ~ 3. 5rr '" ~ 5m lone f5 RM 5 E ;;; y 2Dl~ '" '~ 5.5m Jj ~ - - _ ' 0 - _ 0, FRASER HIGH\..JA Y \

13 v00323

14 July 3, 2002 v Burgess Ave. Mount Lehman, B.C. V4X2A6 Ms. Geri Boyle Manager, Development Approvals City of Abbotsford South Fraser Way Abbotsford, BC V2T lw7 Dear Ms. Boyle: Re: Meeting with Ron Hintsche on June 27, 2002, regarding proposed subdivision plan 71824, West Abbotsford. We were disappointed that you were unable to attend our meeting. Please accept this letter as written confirmation of our opposition to the proposed subdivision plan of Lot A plan and the subsequent access road proposal. This access road is to connect a proposed frontage road adjacent to the north side of Fraser Highway. As the historic owners of the property directly to the east of "Station Developments" proposed subdivision plan we are extremely concerned that we have not been included in the planning process to date, especially when the major road for frontage access has been changed to go through the property of Sheila Groves. All of our information has been received from the developer and only then because they wanted a sewer right of way through our property. We can not and will not accept this proposal for development because: 1. It is a significant violation of the "Development Concept Plan" which clearly indicates that the major access to the Fraser Highway Frontage Road is largely contained within Station Developments property. It has always been presented to us that this "Development Concept Plan" is an integral part of the OCP. 2. Station Developments has an option to purchase the Ferguson property taking into account the original access route. 3. This plan has a severe negative impact on our ability to develop our land's OCP RM30 designation. At the same time it allows Station Developments to maximize the return from their property while effectively offloading their responsiblility to build the access road onto us. This is blatantly unjust and even more offensive considering that this plan was conceived and developed during private conversations between Station Developments and City of Abbotsford staff (as reported to us by both Station Developments and Mr. Hintsche)

15 July J 5, 2002 Page 2 4. The creek set backs have already seriously compromised the development opportunities of our property and this projected access road would decimate them further. v004c;o The city of Abbotsford's desire to plan a frontage road parallel to the north side of Fraser Highway has created a significant acquisition and access road funding problem. One frontage lot is required to be purchased and an 18.5 M. RIW road constructed for the length of this lot without specific benefit to anyone land owner. If this frontage road is to remain a requirement, then road funding and property acquisition must be secured on an equitable basis before any development is approved on the north side of Fraser Highway. Although we are opposed to the present subdivision plan proposal, we remain open to consultation on equitable changes and request that any further planning affecting our property includes our input. Sincerely, Matthew Groves Larry Groves David Groves Ted Groves Sheila Groves