Skip to content

LETTER: Traffic report must be considered

The discussion at hand is generated by a development that is the wrong density in the wrong location
8090743_web1_170316-SUM-Typewriter

Dear Editor:

In the July 24 council meeting, a very confusing traffic report was presented by Lark Enterprises, indicating it would result in a 30 per cent decrease in vehicle trips when compared to low-rise residential condos.

There are 424 units proposed for the six-plus acres in the proposed high density CD8 zoning.

We are pretty sure this surprised everyone.

We have since learned that the “low rise” zoning used for the report is a generic zoning used for all traffic reports and does not refer at all to Summerland’s actual Medium Density Zoning Bylaw.

The OCP states the future use of this location in the Lower Town Strategic Plan (Page 16-8), designating it as a “development permit area for Multifamily Medium Density Development” or RMD.

The Summerland RMD bylaw states that the maximum height should be the lesser of 10.5 metres or three storeys, and that “no more than eight dwellings may be located in a building,” with 40 per cent maximum lot coverage. If we are to calculate 336 units (the amount used in the traffic report) in a Summerland MDR development, at eight units per dwelling, there would have to be 42 buildings on the property, much more than 40 per cent lot coverage.

But we also disagree with the size of acreage used for the calculation.

Summerland’s zoning bylaw defines lot coverage as “area that may be built on.” The traffic report calculation uses the whole 14 acres, which includes eight acres of non-buildable land.

No geotechnical reports have been done on this additional eight acres of Red Zone/High Hazard and Environmentally sensitive areas to deem it a safe area.

If the Trip Generation Rates were calculated on the actual buildable area of six-plus acres, this decreases to 63 per cent less than the estimated vehicle trips for 424 units.

But regardless of the comparisons, please don’t miss the fact that the Traffic Report states that the residents of Latimer Ave and the surrounding rural residential neighbourhoods will be faced with over 2,000 additional vehicles per day accessed by very narrow roads built to rural No Truck standards.

The discussion at hand is generated by a development that is the wrong density in the wrong location, on Agriculture zoned land, built right up to the borders of Red Zone and Environmentally Sensitive areas.

This is not a city property bounded on four sides and accessed by wide city streets and sidewalks that can properly service the development with safe access and egress.

This cannot be compared to a residential subdivision adding 30 or 40 homes to an existing a single street, this is 424 residential units, restaurant, bistro, visitors, offices, industrial laundry, staff, medical services and more, at the end of a single street.

Please understand, we encourage development, we are not against it.

But in order to protect the character of Summerland as the OCP states, it needs to be the right development, in the right location, with height and size restrictions that suit Summerland, not the massive high-density proposal in place before you.

We thank council members for questioning the documents presented to them, and hope you will all continue to do so.

Donna and Larry Young

Summerland