Monday, January 9, Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Time: 5:08 p.m.

Transcription

1 Monday, January 9, 1995 Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Time: 5:08 p.m. Present: Acting Mayor Robinson - Chairperson; Councillor McCallum, Councillor Watkins, Councillor Huot and Councillor McKinnon. Mayor Bose, Councillor Lewin, Councillor Higginbotham and Councillor Villeneuve entered the meeting as noted in the minutes. Staff Present: Assistant. City Manager, City Clerk, and W. Hyndman - Administrative A. CORPORATE REPORTS 1. Dr. Beth Atkinson, Organizational Effectiveness Manager ( ) Dr. Atkinson was in attendance and updated Council on the "Future Surrey" program. Dr. Atkinson advised that she will present an official report to Council by next week. Councillor Lewin entered the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Dr. Atkinson then updated Council on the successful response to invitations to the Search Conferences to be held later in the Spring. She added that, following a suggestion from citizens, approximately eight seats will be reserved for representatives of ratepayer groups at the Community Search Conferences. As well, a future edition of City Page will include an article advising how Future Surrey and the Official Community Plan link together. Councillor Higginbotham and Councillor Villeneuve entered the meeting at 5:13 p.m. 2. Corporate Report C178 was considered and dealt with as follows: Item No. C178 Policy on Stormwater Detention Ponds ( ) The General Manager of Engineering submitted a report regarding the policy on stormwater detention ponds.

2 The General Manager of Engineering was recommending that the 1979 Natural Drainage Policy be revised as outlined in the report. Mr. Eric Emery, Drainage Planning Manager, provided an in-depth presentation of the report. He briefly discussed how the existing drainage policy evolved and how it has changed to deal with future trends. The benefits of stormwater detention were discussed in detail. It was recommended that they be financed on a developer pay approach, which affords flexibility. As well, the location of the stormwater detention facility would be identified early in the process with public input being sought shortly thereafter. In response to questions from Councillor Villeneuve, Mr. Emery advised that it would be preferable to do a master drainage plan for areas which have already been built up, then present such plans to Council and discuss them in open meetings. Councillor Lewin requested to know the approach for infill situations. She then questioned how excessive expenditures could be collected from developers, if the developer pay basis were to be in effect and expenditure exceeded the original forecast. It was pointed out that developers pay the current DCC rate and it is, therefore, difficult to go back and collect increased funds from those developers. Councillor Watkins commended staff for providing such an informative report and suggested that it be displayed at City Hall, as well as local shopping areas. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION It was Moved by Councillor McCallum Seconded by Councillor Higginbotham That the 1979 Natural Drainage Policy be revised to reflect the following principles. 1. Stormwater detention be provided on a catchment wide basis. 2. Siting of storm water detention facilities be primarily governed by considerations of functionality and effectiveness, as well as safety, environmental benefit, community amenity and cost efficiency. 3. An integrated and coordinated planning process for detention be adopted including Parks & Recreation, School Board and the Planning & Development Department. 4. Public input be included as an integral component in the detention pond planning process. 5. Environmental considerations be included in detention pond designs and that, where existing creeks are impacted, input from the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be sought. 6. Construction and land costs be funded on a development pay approach.

3 Carried Due to time constraints, the following item was not dealt with. Item No. C179 Proposed Concept Plans for Sidewalks & Tree Planting in Surrey City Centre ( /3) The General Manager of Planning & Development submitted a report concerning the proposed Concept Plans for sidewalks and tree planting in Surrey City Centre. The General Manager of Planning & Development was recommending that Council: 1. Approve the proposed concepts for sidewalks and tree planting as shown on the attached Plans 1, 2, and 2A as standards for Surrey City Centre to be implemented through servicing agreements; 2. Authorize the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare a tree planting and maintenance program and planting specifications for City Centre based on the tree planting concept; 3. Authorize the Planning & Development Department to work with the Engineering Department and Parks & Recreation Department to develop and implement the standards, details and a maintenance program for an underground irrigation system for trees (and hanging baskets along the City Parkway) with a view to including the underground irrigation as a servicing requirement on major roads (including City Parkway) within the City Centre; 4. Authorize the Engineering Department to develop standards and details for low voltage hard wiring of trees on major roads (including City Parkway); 5. Authorize the Engineering Department to incorporate the proposed sidewalk designs (Plans 3 to 11) and tree planting concept and the underground irrigation system and electrical system into the Design Criteria Manual and Standard Construction Documents, General Conditions, Supplementary Specifications and Standard Drawings and the Subdivision By-law and introduce the appropriate amendments to the Subdivision By-law; and 6. Authorize the Engineering Department to develop a programme to retrofit, in accordance with this new concept, the streets in Surrey City Centre which presently contain substandard infrastructure standards and the lands are fully developed or will likely not be redeveloped except in the long term. 7. Authorize the Engineering Department to prepare costs and possible revenue sources involved in implementing and maintaining the proposed beautification program and to report to Council with the results. 8. Instruct the Engineering Department and Parks & Recreation Department to implement Recommendations 2 through 7 in B. ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL

4 Due to time constraints, the following item was not dealt with. 1. Development Permit No Ed Klassen Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd Street ( ) At the Regular Council meeting held on December 19, 1994, Council referred Development Permit No to the January 9, 1995, Council-in-Committee meeting to discuss the provision of a proper landscape buffer. Mayor Bose entered the meeting at 5:39 p.m. but did not assume the Chair. C. DELEGATIONS 1. Fred Glasbergen Airflow Ultralight Aviation Ltd. ( ; ) Fred Glasbergen of Airflow Ultralight Aviation Ltd. was in attendance to make a presentation with respect to his rezoning application for an ultralight field on the King George Highway. Mr. Glasbergen referenced reports of complaints regarding noise generated by ultralight aircraft. As a result of the complaints, Mr. Glasbergen advised that they conducted a survey of 224 residents in the Panorama Ridge area, which resulted in 202 residents indicating that they are not opposed to the airfield in its present location; as well, 10 residents had a negative opinion of the airfield with the remaining 12 abstaining from providing an opinion. Mr. Glasbergen added that it has been their policy not to fly over the Panorama Ridge area, or the Serpentine Fen. He added that local farmers recently signed a petition supporting the ultralight airfield in its present location and submitted same to the City Clerk. It was Moved by Councillor Huot Seconded by Councillor Lewin That the petition presented by Mr. Glasbergen be received. Carried Mr. Glasbergen then discussed the results of decibel readings which were taken a few days ago whilst four ultralights were flying overhead, and noted they were unable to obtain a decibel reading. This was not the case, however, when a decibel reading of 85 to 90 was recorded from noise arising from the dirt bike track behind the St. Michelle Winery. Mr. Glasbergen advised that they too have been aware of environmental concerns. He referenced the

5 increasing bird population in the Fen and pointed out that there has never been a bird struck by an ultralight in the fourteen years they have been in operation on this site. He reiterated their policy which is to avoid the Fen and the Panorama Ridge area. Mr. Glasbergen commented that the facility has attracted tourists to Surrey. He added that the weakness of the dollar is making it attractive for people to travel from England to learn how to fly in Canada and, indeed, interest has been expressed in sending between four to eight people per month to Surrey to learn how to fly. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Glasbergen emphasized that it is their intention to keep the airfield strictly recreational. He added that more aircraft are being fitted with four-stroke engines, which are very quiet. In response to questions from Councillor Villeneuve, Mr. Glasbergen advised that it is their intention to fix up the parking lot and provide shelter for the aircraft. Councillor McKinnon expressed the opinion that Council made a hasty decision on the last vote and stated a preference that this matter go to Public Hearing. In response to questions from Mayor Bose, the delegation advised that the definition of an ultralight aircraft is a gross weight of 1200 lbs., with a stall speed no higher than 45 mph. He added that there are approximately 40 aircraft on the site at present and confirmed that it is for these aircraft they propose to provide hangars. Councillor Watkins referenced letters from environmental groups opposed to any type of flying in the Fen area, as well as complaints from people who have concerns with low flying aircraft along the dyke. He then added that this location will most likely generate a lot of opposition and asked the delegation if they had considered an alternative location for the airfield. The delegation responded that 90% of the surrounding residents are in support of the airfield in its present location. Responding to questions from Councillor McCallum, the delegation advised that except for take off and landing, aircraft must fly at least 1,000 feet above residential areas and 500 feet above agricultural areas. Councillor McCallum suggested that the delegation engage in a public relations exercise with the residents of Crescent Beach, who have expressed many concerns with low flying aircraft over that area. In response to questions from Councillor Higginbotham regarding liability, Mr. Glasbergen advised that the Government of Canada has made it mandatory to have liability insurance on all aircraft, including ultralights. Ms. Amber Crombach, a 15-year-old Surrey resident, advised that she received her Transport Canada Student Ultralight License last summer. She stated that from the start of her lessons, she was advised of the policy not to fly over Panorama Ridge or the Serpentine Fen. She added that the airfield is a great tourist attraction which appeals to all age groups. Ms. Crombach pointed out Airflow has been in operation for fourteen years and provides many benefits to the community. Mr. Keith McMurchy advised that he has lived on Panorama Ridge for two and a half years and has not

6 been bothered by ultralight aircrafts. He added that he has walked along the dyke on numerous occasions and has not been disturbed. D. DELEGATION REQUESTS E. COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS F. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT It was Moved by Councillor McKinnon Seconded by Councillor Watkins That the Council-in-Committee meeting do now adjourn. Carried The Council-in-Committee meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. CLKMIN 4104