nichol road housing development

7/25/2019 Nichol Road housing development

1/81

City of RevelstokeCouncil Report

File No.: 3360-20, ZON 2014-16

To: His Worship Mayor McKee and Members of City Council

From: Dean Strachan, MCIP, RPP

Manager of Development Services

Date: January 15, 2016

Subject: Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment and Rezoning 1750, 1800 & 1816 NicholRoad

RECOMMENDATION:

THATthe information items provided by the applicant in response to Councils resolutionJune 9, 2015 be received.

AND THAT the information items provided by the applicant are forwarded to theAdvisory Planning Commission for their review and recommendation to Council.


2/81


Consultation Plan included: letters sent to all Revelstoke properties on the south side of thebridge informing them of the subject development application, ways to provide input and invitingthem to a Public Open House. In addition to the letter, communication notifications on theproposed development were posted on the City website, posted on the City Facebook page anda press release was sent to local media outlets.

The Public Open House was held on Thursday, April 30, 2015 at Arrow Heights Elementary

School from 6:00 8:00 pm. The format of the open house included an introductorypresentation from City Staff on the proposal followed by an opportunity for the public to review aseries of panel drawings, maps and designs for the proposed development and ask questions ofstaff. Comment / Input forms were available for attendees to provide their input. The number ofpeople who attended the open house was 154, of which two-thirds (105) were from the ArrowHeights neighbourhood. Submissions were received from 87 people.

At their meeting of June 9, 2015 Council received a Community Consultation Summary that

included copies of the 87 submissions received (see Figure 5). The summary copy included withthis report does not include the 87 submissions to reduce report length. At that meeting Councilalso received a letter from the applicant in response to the public comments and input received(see Figure 6). Further, at the June 9, 2015 meeting Council requested that the applicantprovide the following seven items prior to Councils further consideration of the application:

1. Financial Impact Assessment2 T ffi St d


3/81


Traffic volume and flow resulting from the proposed development warrants the preparation of aTraffic Study by a Civil Engineer. At this time the applicant has provided a preliminary reviewwhich has been stamped and sealed by a Civil Engineer (see Figure 11). If the subjectapplication proceeds further it will be recommended that a Development Agreement be enteredinto with the applicant. As a part of that process more detailed traffic analysis will be required.The Development Agreement would be recommended to be completed in advance of Councilsconsideration of adoption of the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments and Rezoning.

The infrastructure and servicing for the proposed development includes a number of complexcomponents requiring a Civil Engineer to review and plan. As the development is proposed tobe constructed in phases over ten years, an over arching plan for what infrastructure isrequired would be developed prior to the adoption of the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendmentsand Rezoning. The applicant has provided a preliminary Infrastructure and Servicing Review(see Figure 12) which indicates a Civil Engineer will be engaged in detailed design should theapplication proceed. The applicant has indicated the internal roadways and infrastructure would

be private with rights of way for public access on main connecting roadways.

Environmental conditions on the site were reviewed and reported on by an EnvironmentalProfessional (Registered Professional Biologist). The Biologist did not identify any significantitems requiring addressing at this time (see Figure 13).

The applicant has proposed the Parks and Trails Plan to include a series of connecting trailid th t ld t t l th d d l t b t l th di


4/81


Financial / Risk Implications:

No financial or risk implications are anticipated from the proposed recommendation.

Others Consulted:

In addition to the standard referral process undertaken a Community Consultation Plan was

followed.

Attachments:

Figure 1Context MapFigure 2Official Community Plan Designation MapFigure 3Zoning District MapFigure 4Community Consultation Plan

Figure 5Community Consultation Plan SummaryFigure 6Letter from Applicant and Rezoning Application Planning PackageFigure 7Updated Letter from ApplicantFigure 8Financial Analysis, R1 Development FormatFigure 9Financial Analysis, CD Development FormatFigure 10Financial Analysis, ComparativeFigure 11Traffic StudyFi 12 I f t t d S i i St d


5/81

McKinnonRd

Ga

lt

Cres

Galt Cres

McKinnonRd McKinnon Rd

Grizz

lyL

n

MountainView Dr

McKinnon Rd

Pi o

tro w

s kiRd

McKinnon Rd

ArrowDr

Bir

chDr

DogwoodDr

WindsorDr

Dr

1741

1669

1767

1788

1752

1731

1743

1773

1789

17201736

1904

1656

1616 1640

1590

1678

1664

1635

1675

1738

1515

1645

1605

1595

1585

1655

1569

1574

1833

1840

1726

1756

1774

1790

1895

1665

1815

1571 1593

1706

1663 16851739

1615

18111625

1715

1926

1710

1825

1837

1857

1875

1885

1836

1617

1630

1646

1735

18531679

1757

1727

1742

18491807 1877

18121890

1893

1717

17181610

1580

17001650

1657

1740

1633

1749

19061918

Context Map

Figure 1


6/81

Hiob

Rd

Bia t e c kiRd

McKinnonRd

Par

kD

r

G a

l t C

r e s

Galt Cres

P

a rkDr

McKinnon

Rd

G

altCres

McKinnonRd

HiobRd

Pa rkDr

McKinnonRd

Pa rkDr

Griz

zly

Ln

Pa

rkDr

Em

erald

D

r

HiobRd

Mountain ViewDr

McKinnon Rd

Bi a

te c kiRd

Pio t ro ws ki R

d

Ti lle nRd

McKinnon Rd

ArrowDr

Hay

Rd

Meln

ykR

d

Birc hDr

Hay

Rd

DogwoodDr

Windsor Dr

Dr

T3

T3

T3

T3FutureGrowth

T3

T3

T3

T4

T3

T3 T3

T3

T3

T3T4 Limited

FutureGrowth

T3

T4T3

T3

T3

T3 AgriculturalLand Reserve

Future

Growth

AgriculturalLand Reserve

Future

T3

T3

T3

CivicSpace

T3

T3 T3 T3

T3

T3

T3

T3

CivicSpace

T3

Official Community Plan

Land Use Designation Map

Figure 2


7/81

C10

R1

R1

R1

P1

R1

R3

RR04

R1 R1

R1

R5

R3

R1

R1

R1

R2

R1

R1

RR1

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

Hiob

Rd

Bia t e c kiRd

McKinnonRd

Par

kD

r

G a

l t C

r e s

Galt Cres

P

a rkDr

McKinnon

Rd

G

altCres

McKinnonRd

HiobRd

Pa rkDr

McKinnonRd

Pa rkDr

Grizz

lyL

n

Pa

rkDr

Emera

ldD

r

HiobRd

Mountain ViewDr

McKinnon Rd

Bi a

te c kiRd

Pio t ro ws ki R

d

Ti lle nRd

McKinnon Rd

ArrowDr

Hay

Rd

Meln

ykR

d

Birc hDr

Hay

Rd

DogwoodDr

Windsor Dr

Dr

Zoning District Map

Figure 3


8/81

File: 3360-20, ZON2014-16

Community Consultation Plan

Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment and Rezoning Appl ications

1750 & 1816 Nichol Road

Proposed Development Project:

The applicant is proposing to amend the Zoning Bylaw to add a Comprehensive Development

Zoning District (CD17) and rezone the properties at 1750 & 1816 Nichol Road to the new CD17

zone. The proposal is to develop the subject properties with approximately 1580 residential

units and limited commercial uses adjacent to Nichol Road.

As the proposed development is significant as it is proposed to include approximately 1580

residential units and is complex in it is to include multiple sub zones a consultation plan isproposed to allow for a greater level of review, referral and consultation than that required by

legislation.

Public Consultation:

The consultation plan includes an expanded area for notification. Letters are to be sent to all

R l t k ti th th id f th b id i f i th f th li ti t

Figure


9/81

File: 3360-20, ZON2014-16

Community Consultation Plan SummaryZoning Bylaw Text Amendment and Rezoning Appl ications

1750, 1800 & 1816 Nichol Road

Proposed Development Project:

The applicant is proposing to amend the Zoning Bylaw to add a Comprehensive Development

Zoning District (CD17) and rezone the properties at 1750, 1800 & 1816 Nichol Road to the newCD17 zone. The proposal is to develop the subject properties original with approximately 1580

residential units (now reduced to approximately 1200 units) and limited commercial uses

adjacent to Nichol Road.

The proposed development is significant as it is proposed to include a significant number of

residential units and is complex in it is to include multiple sub zones a consultation plan was

developed to allow for a greater level of review, referral and consultation than that required by

legislation.

Public Consultation:

The consultation plan included an expanded area for notification. Letters were sent to all

Revelstoke properties on the south side of the bridge informing them of the subject development

application, ways to provide input and inviting them to the Public Open House. In addition to the

Figure 5


10/81

Conclusion:

The consultation process to date has successfully engaged the community in providing input on

the subject development proposal. An expansion of the current consultation plan is not

recommended at this time. It is recommended that the formal Bylaw process proceed and that

the applicant provide additional studies related to the public input received. The additional

studies are to be completed in advance of the Public Hearing. It is further recommended by

Staff that notification for the Public Hearing be expanded from the standard 100m radius to

include all Revelstoke properties on the south side of the bridge.


11/81

0929468 BC Ltd.

David Evans

3669 Catherwood RoadRevelstoke, BC V0E 2S3

1 (604) [email protected]

Mayor McKee & Revelstoke City Council,

Please accept this rezoning application for 14.4 hectares of land in the Arrow Heights neighbourhood of Revelstoke.

The parcel of land is located on Nichol Road between Arrow Heights Elementary School and Hay Road (Map A -

page 1). It is currently a greeneld site with little development and represents the best location for inll development

in Arrow Heights.

I ask that you support the rezoning of R-1 (single-family residential) (Map B - page 2)to a mixed use CD-16 zone

with 6 sub zones (Maps C & D - pages 3-4). This zone will provide a mix of multi-family housing made up of studio

and 1 to 4-bedroom apartments, row houses, with some duplexes, single-family dwellings, and suites with a small

neighbourhood commercial node. The variety of housing types makes this area attractive to rst-time buyers, retir-

ees, recreational property owners, and renters. My intent is to provide housing starting from under $99,999. I believe

that this development represents a great opportunity for Revelstoke to provide a diversity of aordable housing for all

types of residents, implement strong sustainable design policies found in the Ocial Community Plan, provide small

neighbourhood commercial services, increase the municipal taxation base, and reduce long-term infrastructure

MacKenzie Landing

Nichol RoadRevelstoke, BC

Figure 6


12/81

construction workers, electricians, plumbers, etc. and am focused on hiring as many local people as possible.

Sustainable Development Principles

Working with SPD, before beginning the design we undertook several preliminary steps to ensure that this develop-

ment will be done right. First, we developed a list of Sustainable Design Principles (page 7). These principles were

developed by completing a thorough review of Revelstokes Ocial Community Plan (OCP), reviewing neighbour-

hood designs and layouts from other communities, and integrating standard sustainable design practices. We have

highlighted policies from the OCP that support this development and can be found asAppendix 1of your submis-

sion package. We also mapped steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive lands with the aim of preserving

and protecting these areas throughout the construction phase (Map E - page 5). We also recognize that the devel-

opment needs to be sensitive to its neighbours, so we have buered existing single-family residential development

by locating higher density residential away from the edges (Map F - page 6), towards the interior of the lot, and

locating the mixed use commercial node along Nichol Road to take advantage of higher trac volumes.

Sta Review and Support

We have reviewed the concepts and preliminary designs with the sta from the Department of Engineering, Building& Planning and received support for this development. We have continued to work closely with City sta to ensure

that the development is consistent with Ocial Community Plan and the best interests of the City and residents. We

have agreed to work with the City to create a safe cycling and walking route through the neighbourhood by provid-

ing parks and greenway space to connect the recently constructed trail system running along Nichol Road to Arrow

Heights school up the steep embankment through this property and along Nichol to other areas of Arrow Heights


13/81

d. They reduce snow removal costs, by reducing the amount of snow that needs to be cleared.

We will create a series of greenways for pedestrian, cycling and recreational use that will connect to sur-

rounding pathways and parks and provide non-motorized access through the neighbourhood, while still al-lowing for Emergency Medical Services access (Map G - page 7). These greenways will be maintained by

the strata groups and will signicantly reduce the amount of money the City spends on road maintenance

and snow removal.

Sustainable Design & Technologies - This development integrates several standard sustainable design

elements, with a specic focus on Revelstoke. The buildings will be located and placed to best take advan-

tage of solar gain and the use of passive solar energy, reducing heating requirements in buildings. For heat& power, this development will integrate district biomass heat & energy built on a phase by phase basis,

making this a potentially o-the-grid neighbourhood and a net contributor to the provincial power grid. This

development will also include several ecological elements such as using native species to reduce water use

and reect a local sense of place, use storm water trenches rather than sewers to reduce infrastructure

costs and have cleaner storm water discharge, and maintain and protect slopes and existing large trees, to

better integrate the development into the landscape. Sustainability is also about building homes and public

spaces that will last a long time. This development will focus on high quality building and public spaces. Seethe character palette for examples of potential building and public space design (pages 9-10).

Flexibility & Intended Build-Out

The strength of this application is in the exibility of uses allowed in the proposed CD zone. With the higher densi-


14/81

MacKenzie Landing

Nichol RoadRevelstoke, BC

Submitted: December 2nd, 2014

0929468 BC Ltd.David Evans

3669 Catherwood RoadRevelstoke, BC V0E 2S3

1 (604) [email protected]

Rezoning Application

Drawings Prepared by:

Box 1994Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S0(250) [email protected]

Part 1: Mapping & Design PrinciplesMaps A - G 1-7

Sustainable Development Principles 8Neighbourhood Character Images 9-10Flexible Building Types Diagram 11

Part 2: Official Community Plan SupportHighlighted Goals & Policies (Selected pages only)

Package Contents:


15/81


16/81


17/81

C


18/81

D


19/81

E


20/81

F


21/81

G


22/81

On-Site Environmental Development Principles

Create a diverse housing stock with a variety of building types that provide dierent types of residentia

including ownership, timeshare, suites, and rental units for a wider range of people (elderly, young fam

seasonal workers, young retirees, etc.)

Develop higher density housing to take advantage of municipal cost sharing for infrastructure (i.e. morepaying for the same amount of pipe)

Reduce the number and width of roads throughout the neighbourhood to save on municipal maintena

costs and create natural trac calming

Link the road network to surrounding neighbourhoods where feasible

Consider snow removal and storage in laying out roads

Preserve existing trees where possible

Re-establish the native forest ecology by planting native species and reducing lawn, water and pestici

Treat stormwater on-site through inltration with storm trenches along roads and pathways and storm p

where appropriate

Make solar access a priority in building layout to take advantage of passive solar and maximize daylighwinter

Consider shade and solar access in laying out trails and parks to encourage use during non-summer

Use biomass to provide heat, hot water, and electricity for the entire neighbourhood

Building Development Principles

Create buildings with High Environmental Performance standards (Passive House, LEED, etc.)

Create adaptable buildings that are designed to be exible enough to house both residential and com

uses (to be located strategically)

Create sustainable buildings are designed to last for centuries, considering lifecycle, deconstruction, s

able and non-toxic materials

Use local materials and climatic architecture to develop a Revelstoke Vernacular

Give every unit semi-private outdoor space (porches, patios, decks, etc.)

MacKenzie Landing Sustainable Development Principles

City-Wide

Inll new development within established neighbourhoods rather than new development on the outer edges of the City

Neighbourhood-Wide Protect steep slopes by maintaining vegetation, minimizing soil compaction and creating minimal disturbances

(cut & ll) to slopes

Transition surrounding neighbourhood single-family densities to higher densities towards the middle of the site

with adequate buering

Allow for small neighbourhood mixed use commercial development to service the Arrow Heights neighbour-

hood and reduce vehicle trips to downtown

Locate higher densities & mixed use commercial buildings along the Nichol Road transportation corridor

Create a diversity of parks using greenways, trails, open space and public space, and link to existing pathways

& parks in the Arrow Heights neighbourhood

MacKenzie Landing Development ConceptRezoning Application Package

N i hb h d Ch t


23/81

i i li

i

i i

i - -

li

,l

i

. . . .

.

.

.

i l

i l i - -

, i l , l ,

Neighbourhood Character




24/81



Flexible Building Types Allow for Higher Absorption Rates & Healthier Neighbourhoods


25/81

Flexible Building Types Allow for Higher Absorption Rates & Healthier Neighbourhoods

Mixed Use CD Zones (A & B)

A variety of building and unit sizes congurable at each phase as the market demands

Residential CD Zones (C-F)

Flexible Unit congurations allow for dierent housing types

Adaptable Buildings allowing for transition to ground-oor commercial or to

residential as demand changes

Variable Unit Sizes and congurations

Potential Setback Fourth Storey

Walk-up apartments with standard unit sizes to mim ic single

family housing and buer higher density from surrounding

single-family housing

Row houses with standard unit sizes to mimic single family housing and buer higher densi -

ty from surrounding single-family housing

Suites may be built

Walk-Up Apartments with a variety of unit sizes

and congurations

Row house units with a variety of unit sizes and congurations



26/81

Figure 7


27/81


28/81

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

DECISION SUPPORT TOOL

STEP 9: VIEW RESULTS

F Current Scenario: #8 - Nichol Road - Existing Development Type Note: Changes to Scenarios #0 - 6 cannot be SAVED as they are the built- in scenario s

Results Quick Navigation Menu: F Click on the cost category of interest.POTENTIAL REVENUES & PRIVATE COSTS & or pick compare scenarios to see a

COMMUNITY SERVICES COST RECOVERY EXTERNAL COSTS summary of the results

INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS

Total Residential Household PercentDevelopment Portion Costs Breakdown

POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES $ $ $/hh %Internal Roads $2,217,706 $2,217,706 $24,918 37%External Roads $2,212,397 $2,212,397 $24,858 37%

Potable Water Distribution and Treatment $300,000 $300,000 $3,371 5%Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment $350,000 $350,000 $3,933 6%

Storm Sewer Collection $880,000 $880,000 $9,888 15%Schools - - - -

Recreational Facilities $4,094 $4,094 $46 0%Transit Services $26,700 $26,700 $300 0%

Fire Services $5,073 $5,073 $57 0%

Distribution of Initial Capital Costs(Residential Portion)

Internal Roads

External Roads

Potable Water Distribution andTreatmentSanitary Sewer Collection andTreatmentStorm Sewer Collection

Schools

Recreational Facilities

Transit Services

Main Menu

Operating Costs

Life-cycle Costs

Compare Scenarios

Capital/Operating/LCC

Revenues

Revenue-Cost Allocation

Compare Scenarios

Cost/Revenue

Private Costs

External Costs

Compare Scenarios

Private/External Costs

Initial Capital Costs

View

Intermediate

Calculations

Figure 8
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/http://www2.gov.bc.ca/http://www2.gov.bc.ca/


29/81

ANNUALIZED LIFECYCLE COSTS


POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES $ $ $/hh %

Internal Roads $156,479 $156,479 $1,758 12%External Roads $184,792 $184,792 $2,076 14%

Potable Water Distribution and Treatment $53,733 $53,733 $604 4%

Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment $57,578 $57,578 $647 4%Storm Sewer Collection $57,626 $57,626 $647 4%

School Transit $71,200 $71,200 $800 5%Recreational Facilities $27,020 $27,020 $304 2%

Transit Services $18,763 $18,763 $211 1%Fire Services $29,589 $29,589 $332 2%

Police Services $44,596 $44,596 $501 3%Waste Management $16,376 $16,376 $184 1%

USER DEFINED User Defined Costs $1 $1 $0 0%SCHOOLS School Costs $618,461 $618,461 $6,949 46%

Total Costs (Excludin g School Costs) $717,753 $717,753 $8,065

Total Costs (Includin g School Costs) $1,336,214 $1,336,214 $15,014 100%

F Based on 100 year analysis period.

Includes initial capital, annual O&M, and replacement costs.

- $40 $80 $120 $160 $200

Internal Roads

External Roads

Potable Water Distribution and Treatment

Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment

Storm Sewer Collection

School Transit


Transit Services

Fire Services

Police Services

Waste Management

User Defined Costs

Thousands

Annualized Lifecycle Costs* (Residential Portion)

Return to Results Menu

* Excludes School Costs


30/81

COST COMPARISON FOR POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES - RESIDENTIAL PORTION

Scenarios for Compariso n (Select scenarios)

Scenario 2:

Scenario 3:

INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD

Initial Capital Costs (hh)

Nichol Road -Existing

Development

Potent ial Community Services $67,400Schools -

User Defined Costs -Total Costs $67,400 - -

ANNUAL O&M COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD

Annual O&M Costs (hh)


Development

Potential Communi ty Services $3,775Schools $6,949

User Defined Costs $0Total Costs $10,724 - -

ANNUAL LIFECYCLE COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD

Nichol Road

$0.0 $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0

Nichol Road - ExistingDevelopment Type

Thousands

Initial Capital Costs per Household - Residential Portion

Potential Community Services Schools

$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0


Thousands

Annual Operating Costs per Household - Residential Portion


Annualized Lifecycle Costs per Household - Residential Portion


31/81

REVENUES

Total RevenuesResidential per household($) or unit ($)

Annual Property Taxes $238,876 $2,684

Annual User Charges $44,055 $495 F Revenue collected from residents such aswaste collection charges, transit fares, water fees etc.

Total Initial Development Charges $1,118,196 $12,564 F Revenue collected from the developer through DCCs

Annual User Defined Revenues - - F Also includes home heating savings from Green Infrastructure Alternatives

Annualized Value of Revenues* $350,882 $3,942

* Based on 100 year analysis period. Includes annual property taxes,initial development charges, user charges and user defined revenues

ANNUAL REVENUE-COST ALLOCATIONS

ANNUALIZEDLIFECYCLE COSTS Developer Municipal User Fees Others F Caution should be observed in comparing municipal costs againstotential Community Services $227,992 $491,979 - - range of services. Similarly, due to varied approaches used by

Schools - $618,461 - - municipalities for providing credits for development charges, it is notUser Defined Costs $1 recommended that development charges be compared directly

Ann LC Costs* $227,992 $1,110,440 - $1 with developer costs.

ANNUAL REVENUESTaxes & Develop. Charges $306,827

User Charges $44,055User Defined Revenues -

Ann LC Revenues $350,882

ANNUAL PRIVATE COSTSDriving Costs $1,423,083Home Energy $204,700

Ann LC Private Costs $1,627,783

ANNUAL EXTERNAL COSTSClimate Change $20,675

Air Pollution $17,615Motor Vehicle Collisions $121,840

Allocation Not Assessed



32/81

PRIVATE COSTS

ANNUAL COSTS Total HouseholdDevelopment Costs F Transportation costs and home heating costs are two major household costs

$ $ that depend on development form.

Driving Costs $1,423,083 $15,990 F The cost of operating and owning a vehicle.Transit Fares - -

Home Heating Costs $204,700 $2,300 F Home energy consumption is related to heating,

air conditioning and hot-water heating.

EXTERNAL COSTS OF AUTOMOBILE USE

ANNUAL COSTS Total Household

Development Costs F Valuation of external costs is highly varied and results should be viewed as approximate

$ $ F The cost of motor vehicle collisions includes the direct costs of fatal, injuryMotor Vehicle Collisions $121,840 $1,369 and property damage collisions. These costs implicitly include the costs of health care.

Air Pollution $17,615 $198 F Climate change is based on model assumptions around the Vehicle km Travelled.Climate Change $20,675 $232 GHGs are calculated at $25/tonne - a standard cost for offsets, but does not necessarily

account for the total external costs associated with Climate Change impactssuch as rebuilding dykes, emergency response costs, etc.

COMPARISON OF PRIVATE COSTS AND EXTERNAL COSTS

ANNUAL PRIVATE COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD

Annual Private Costs (hh)


Development

Driving Costs $15,990Transit Fares -

Home Heating Costs $2,300$18,290 - -

ANNUAL EXTERNAL COSTS OF AUTOMOBILE USE PER HOUSEHOLD

Total Cost

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Nichol Road - Existing Development Type

Annual Costs ($/household/year)Thousands

Annual Private Costs Per Household

Home Heating Costs Transit Fares Driving Costs

Annual External Costs of Automobile Use Per Household



33/81




F Current Scenario: #7 - Nichol Road - Proposed Note: Changes to Scenarios #0 - 6 cannot be SAVED as they are the built- in scenario s






Internal Roads $1,829,608 $1,646,647 $1,327 49%External Roads - - - -

Potable Water Distribution and Treatment $330,000 $330,000 $266 10%Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment $363,000 $363,000 $293 11%

Storm Sewer Collection $735,840 $662,256 $534 20%Schools - - - -


Fire Services $70,737 $70,737 $57 2%


Internal Roads

External Roads


Schools


Transit Services

Main Menu

Operating Costs

Life-cycle Costs

Compare Scenarios


Revenues


Compare Scenarios

Cost/Revenue

Private Costs

External Costs

Compare Scenarios



View

Intermediate

Calculations

Figure
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/http://www2.gov.bc.ca/


34/81




Internal Roads $129,095 $116,186 $94 3%External Roads $51,655 $46,490 $37 1%

Potable Water Distribution and Treatment $347,637 $345,543 $278 8%

Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment $343,921 $341,709 $275 8%Storm Sewer Collection $48,141 $43,327 $35 1%School Transit $171,440 $154,296 $124 4%


Fire Services $412,582 $412,028 $332 10%Police Services $621,842 $621,460 $501 14%

Waste Management $228,344 $228,344 $184 5%USER DEFINED User Defined Costs $1 $1 $0 0%SCHOOLS School Costs $1,489,171 $1,489,171 $1,200 35%

Total Costs (Excludin g School Costs) $2,879,232 $2,818,730 $2,271




- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Internal Roads

External Roads




School Transit


Transit ServicesFire Services

Police Services

Waste Management

User Defined Costs

Thousands





35/81



Scenario 2:

Scenario 3:



Nichol Road -Proposed

Potential Communi ty Services $2,704Schools -

User Defined Costs -Total Costs $2,704 - -




Potential Communi ty Services $2,090Schools $1,200

User Defined Costs $0Total Costs $3,290 - -


$0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0

Nichol Road - Proposed

Thousands



$0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5


Thousands





36/81

REVENUES


Annual Property Taxes $1,556,574 $1,254

Annual User Charges $781,830 $630 F Revenue collected from residents such aswaste collection charges, transit fares, water fees etc.



Annualized Value of Revenues* $2,819,611 $2,272



ANNUALIZEDLIFECYCLE COSTS Developer Municipal User Fees Others F Caution should be observed in comparing municipal costs againstotential Community Services $593,581 $2,059,267 - - range of services. Similarly, due to varied approaches used by

Schools - $1,489,171 - - municipalities for providing credits for development charges, it is notUser Defined Costs $1 recommended that development charges be compared directly


ANNUAL REVENUESTaxes & Develop. Charges $2,037,781


Ann LC Revenues $2,819,611

ANNUAL PRIVATE COSTSDriving Costs $5,167,265Home Energy $1,550,500







37/81

PRIVATE COSTS




Home Heating Costs $1,550,500 $1,249 F Home energy consumption is related to heating,air conditioning and hot-water heating.




$ $ F The cost of motor vehicle collisions includes the direct costs of fatal, injuryMotor Vehicle Collisions $696,291 $561 and property damage collisions. These costs implicitly include the costs of health care.







Driving Costs $4,164Transit Fares -

Home Heating Costs $1,249$5,413 - -


Total Cost

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5








38/81




F Current Scenario: #7 - Nichol Road - Proposed Note: Changes to Scenarios #0 - 6 cannot be SAVED as they are the built- in scenario s






Internal Roads $1,829,608 $1,646,647 $1,327 49%External Roads - - - -


Storm Sewer Collection $735,840 $662,256 $534 20%Schools - - - -


Fire Services $70,737 $70,737 $57 2%


Internal Roads

External Roads


Schools


Transit Services

Main Menu

Operating Costs

Life-cycle Costs

Compare Scenarios


Revenues


Compare Scenarios

Cost/Revenue

Private Costs

External Costs

Compare Scenarios



View

Intermediate

Calculations

Figure 1
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/http://www2.gov.bc.ca/


39/81




Internal Roads $129,095 $116,186 $94 3%External Roads $51,655 $46,490 $37 1%


Storm Sewer Collection $48,141 $43,327 $35 1%School Transit $171,440 $154,296 $124 4%


Fire Services $412,582 $412,028 $332 10%Police Services $621,842 $621,460 $501 14%

Waste Management $228,344 $228,344 $184 5%USER DEFINED User Defined Costs $1 $1 $0 0%SCHOOLS School Costs $1,489,171 $1,489,171 $1,200 35%

Total Costs (Excludin g School Costs) $2,879,232 $2,818,730 $2,271




- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Internal Roads

External Roads




School Transit


Transit ServicesFire Services

Police Services

Waste Management

User Defined Costs

Thousands





40/81



Scenario 2:

Scenario 3:





Development

Potential Community Services $2,704 $67,400Schools - -

User Defined Costs - -Total Costs $2,704 $67,400 -





Development

Potential Community Services $2,090 $3,775Schools $1,200 $6,949

User Defined Costs $0 $0Total Costs $3,290 $10,724 -


Nichol Road

$0.0 $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0



Thousands



$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0



Thousands






41/81

REVENUES


Annual Property Taxes $1,556,574 $1,254

Annual User Charges $781,830 $630 F Revenue collected from residents such as

waste collection charges, transit fares, water fees etc.



Annualized Value of Revenues* $2,819,611 $2,272



ANNUALIZEDLIFECYCLE COSTS Developer Municipal User Fees Others F Caution should be observed in comparing municipal costs againstotential Community Services $593,581 $2,059,267 - - range of services. Similarly, due to varied approaches used by

Schools - $1,489,171 - - municipalities for providing credits for development charges, it is notUser Defined Costs $1 recommended that development charges be compared directly


ANNUAL REVENUESTaxes & Develop. Charges $2,037,781


Ann LC Revenues $2,819,611

ANNUAL PRIVATE COSTSDriving Costs $5,167,265Home Energy $1,550,500







42/81

PRIVATE COSTS




Home Heating Costs $1,550,500 $1,249 F Home energy consumption is related to heating,air conditioning and hot-water heating.




$ $ F The cost of motor vehicle collisions includes the direct costs of fatal, injuryMotor Vehicle Collisions $696,291 $561 and property damage collisions. These costs implicitly include the costs of health care.








Development

Driving Costs $4,164 $15,990Transit Fares - $180

Home Heating Costs $1,249 $2,300$5,413 $18,470 -


Total Cost

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18








Figure


43/81

Mackenzie Village Development

Preliminary Traffic Study

Preliminary Traffic Study - Mackenzie Village Development Revision

Date

RDSL Doc. No.: 15031-TIS-001 0 10-Dec-15



44/81

Date


Revisions List

Revision Remarks

No By Checked Approved Date

0 JS GJS GJS 10-Dec-15 Initial Submittal



45/81

Date


1.0 Introduction

In response to your request, we have completed a preliminary traffic assessment for your

proposed residential development on the north side of Nichol Rd. The site, referred to as

Mackenzie Village, is approximately 3.6 km south of Revelstokes town center.

This report provides information for the development and includes:

Existing Conditions

Future Traffic Conditions

Intersection Impact

Summary and Findings

As to the agreed scope of work, it is not intended to be a formal traffic study that is typicallysubmitted to an approving agency.

2.0 Site Location

The proposed development site coves approximately 14.3 acres over two lots located at 1750

and 1816 Nichol Road. The site is surrounded by residential development to the East and

North, Nichol Road to the South and Arrow Heights Elementary School to the West. The site



46/81

Date


2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing traffic counts are based on the 2015 Hose Counts (the most recent available)

completed by the Town of Revelstoke. 2015 Hose Counts are for Nichol Road, Airport Way,

and the Illeiewaet Bridge are summarize in Table 1.

Table 1 - Hose Count 2015

Weekday A.M. Peak Weekday P.M. Peak

Approach SB/EB NB/WB 2 Way SB/EB NB/WB 2 Way

Nichol Road in Front of Site 70 76 146 89 73 162

Airport Way 50 63 113 71 70 141

Illeillewaet Bridge 165 284 449 306 236 542

3.0 Future Traffic Conditions

3.1 Development Concept

The projections for Mackenzie Village at full build-out for each residential type are presented in

Table 3. The subject lands are currently zoned Single Family Residential District (R1). It is

understood rezoning is required to permit development of the proposed 14.3 acre Mackenzie



47/81

Date


Table 3 - Peak Hour at Full Build-out

A.M. Peak Hours

Rate Vehicle Two-way Peak Outbound 90% Inbound 10%

Permanent Residents 0.3 617 185 167 18

Peak Increase Traffic 0.3 1235 371 333 38

P.M. Peak Hours

Rate Vehicle Two-way Peak Outbound 10% Inbound 90%

Permanent Residents 0.3 617 185 18 167

Peak Increase Traffic 0.3 1235 371 38 333

Development of Mackenzie Village is anticipated to occur over 10 years therefore, traffic from

permanent residents is anticipated to increase at a rate of (617/10) 62 vehicles per year.

Similarly peak increase traffic is anticipate to increase at a rate of (1,235/10) 123 vehicles per

year. The horizon years selected for the traffic study are 2016, 2021, and 2026, which are the

estimated opening day (2016) of this project, 5 years and 10 years after the opening dayrespectively. Phased Development Traffic Generation is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 - Phased Development Traffic Generation

Year One -2016

A.M. Peak Hours



48/81

Date


4.0 Intersection Impact

Based on the observed rates, it is estimated Mackenzie Village will increase the average two-

way peak hour trips by 185 vehicles per hour by permanent residence with a peak increase of

371 vehicles per hour. Table 5 combines the existing 2015 traffic counts with the estimated

counts predicted from the Mackenzie Village Development at Year 1, Year 5, and Year 10.

Table 5 - Predicted Total Traffic Counts over the Development of Mackenzie Village

Year One -2016


SB/EB NB/WB 2 WAY SB/EB NB/WB 2 WAY


Airport Way 54 96 150 104 74 178

Illecillewaet Bridge 169 317 486 339 240 579

Year Five - 2021


SB/EB NB/WB 2 WAY SB/EB NB/WB 2 WAY


Airport Way 69 230 299 90 237 327



49/81

Date


It is predicted peak traffic from the development will be approximately double the

summer traffic counts during winter due to the proximity to the ski resort.

The development is predicted to generate approximately 371 vehicular two-way trips

in both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour.

Given the projected traffic from the development it is suggested intersection upgrades

will be required at the Airport Way/Nichol intersection, and the two access points tothe development from Nichol Road and Hay Road. Suggested options to improve flow

of traffic include: one; left and right hand turning lanes, or two; the construction of

round-abouts which can reduce vehicle idling and improve traffic flow.

Combined existing and predicted peak hour traffic from the development do not

exceed the lane capacities or two-way peak capacities of Airport Way or the

Illecillewaet Bridge.

Full build-out of the development will be phased over ten (10) years. The additionalpeak hour traffic on completion of Mackenzie Village will begin to approach 80% of the

lane capacity of the Illecillewaet Bridge. Depending on other future developments, it

may be necessary to upgrade the bridge between year five (5) and year ten (10) as

peak hour lane counts crossing the bridge approach 800. Options may include a

second bridge or upgrading the existing to a three lane bridge with the centre lane

0929468

BC Ltd

Prelmnary

lnfrastructure

& Servicing

Study

Mackenzie Vllage

Figure 2


50/81

Mecxetzre

Vr-tnce

PReuurrtRRv IrurRASTRUcTune

& SeRvrctc Sruov

Revrsor. I

-

Frrunl RepoRr

Preliminary lnfrastructLrre

Servicing Study

Mackenzie Village

Revision 1

-

October 2015

929468 BC Lrd


51/81

Table

of Contents

lntroduction

1.1

PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT.........

Subdivision

Analysis....

2.1 ACCESS

AND

INTERNAL

ROADS..

2.2

WATER

SUPPLY DISTRIBUTION

2.3 SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION..

2.4

STORM DRAINAGE

Appendices

A

B

1.

2.

t

1

2

2

2

3.

Closing

..9

13

1-4

Mackenzie

Village

-

Water

Demands Sanitary

Flows by Phase

Figurel-ContextMap

Map

C

-

Proposed CD Zones

Map

G

-

Greenways, Nodes Parks

Map

l-

Proposed Phasing

Civil

1

-

Utility

Schematic

0929468 BC Lrd

Preliminary lnfrastructure

& Servicing Study

l\4ackenzie

Village

Revision 1

-

October20l-5


52/81

7-.

lntrod

uction

McElhanney

Consulting

Services

Ltd.

(MCSL) was retained

by

0929468

BC Ltd.

to

provide

a

Preliminary

lnfrastructure & Servicing Study in support of

the

rezoning

application

with the

City

of

Revelstoke

(CoR)

for

the

proposed Mackenzie

Village

development

located

in Revelstoke,

BC.

This

report

provides

an

overview

of the development and

anticipated

phasing,

the

road accesses to

and

within

the

development, and

the

municipal

servicing

required for

the

development including water,

sanitary

sewer, and storm drainage. Figure drawings

and

maps, including

a

new

Utility

Schematic

showing existing

and

proposed

municipal servicing,

are attached

in

the

Appendices.

L1, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1,.1,

DevelopmentDescription

The

Mackenzie Village

development

is

proposed

on

14.4 hectares of

land

located in

the

Arrow

Heights

neighbourhood of

Revelstoke. The

property

is located on the north

side

of

Nichol Road between

Arrow

Heights Elementary

School

and

Hay Road

(see Figure 1

-

Context

Map in the Appendices).

The development

will

include

a

variety of

residential housing types

and an area

of

mixed

uses with

residential

units above

commercial

units. The current

proposal

is

to develop

approximately

1,200

residential

strata

units

with a limited

number

of

commercial

units adjacent

to

Nichol Road.

1,.1.2

Phasing

Development

of

Mackenzie

Village

is

proposed

in twelve

(12)

phases,

as shown

on Map

I - Proposed

Phasing in the

Appendices.

The

phase

boundaries correspond

with

proposed

internal roads and the

proposed

Subzones

shown

on

Map C

-

Proposed CD Zones. A

summary

of

the

phasing

is as follows:


53/81


54/81

Preliminary lnfrastructure

& Servicing Study

Mackenzie Village

Revision 1

-

October

2015929468

BC Lrd


55/81

Phase

Fire

flow

requirements

are

based on

zoning

and

use, as follows:

.

Single

and

Two

Dwelling

Housing

60

litres/sec

.

Apartments and

Row Housing 150 litres/sec

. Commercial

150

litres/sec

Design

water

demands

for

each

phase

have

been estimated and

summarized in the

table below.

Detailed

calculations

are

attached

in

the

Appendices

spreadsheet

entitled

Mackenzie

Village

-

Water

Demands &

Sanitary

Flows by

Phase.

Summary of

Water Demands by Phase

MDD

(m3/day)

MDD

(L/s)

32

93

80

91

76

70

86

27

59

59

102

48

830

0.37

1.09

0.94

1.06

0.89

0.81

1.00

o32

0.69

0.69

1.18

0.56

9.60

# Units

Total

cap

30

165

143

170

140

120

135

25

55

55

95

45

1,178

90

261

223

255

212

195

241

75

'165

165

285

135

2,302

Phase 1

-

SplitTownhouse

Phase 2

-

Apartments

(Large/Medium/Small),

and

Commercial

Phase 3

-

Apartments

(Large/MediumiSmall),

and

Commercial

Phase 4

-

Apartments

(Large/Medium/Small)

Phase 5

-

Apartments


Phase

6

-

Apartments


Phase 7

-

Apartments

(LargelMedium/Small)

Phase 8

-

Single

Family

/

Duplex

/Townhouse

Phase 9 - Split

Townhouse, and

Single

Family Townhouse

Phase

10

-

Split Townhouse,

and

Single Family Townhouse

Phase

11

-

Split

Townhouse, and


Phase

12

-

Single

Family

/ Duplex / Townhouse

Totals


56/81


57/81


58/81


59/81

RE: The importance of the Mackenzie Landing property as wildlife habitat and as a wildlife corridor.

To Whom It May Concern:

I have reviewed aerial imagery and conducted a brief preliminary site visit to familiarize myself with theproperty and its habitat in its existing (pre-development) condition.

The property is clearly well used by urbanized deer, and is no doubt utilized by bears, particularly in thefall. I expect that the property provides greater utility to these species for forage, bedding, and cover,and that the property has little importance as a corridor. From a conservation point of view, these twospecies should not be encouraged into urban areas; from this point of view I see little concern regardingthe development of this property.

I also see little potential value in this parcel of land regarding species at risk and the conservation ofother species. The property is already a highly disturbed site. While the habitat is suitable for a varietyof wildlife species (e.g., edge-loving species), I see no reason to believe that the habitat on the property

has any particular conservation importance with regards to rare or uncommon species, or species atrisk.

Sincerely,

COOPER BEAUCHESNE AND ASSOCIATESLTD

KOOTENAY OFFICE -BOX 2508,1123WEST2ND ST

250.837.3550


60/81

0929468

BC

Lrd.

Preliminary

lnfrastructure

& Servicing Study

Mackenzie Viliage

Revision

1

-

October

2015


61/81

Accounting

for the

projected population

increases in Revelstoke including Mackenzie Village, the current

treatment

plant

will still reach 100o/o capacity

in

2018. Mackenzie Village marginally increases

the timeline

but

the change is not

significant over three

years.

At

buildout

with

Mackenzie

Village

in 2025 the

population

of Revelstoke is

projected

to

be 9,444.

Then

by

the

same

per

capita

use noted above, the

estimated

MDD

is 20'1

L/s, and

the

upgraded water

treatment

plant

would

be

at70

of capacity.

Reservoir

Storaqe

in

Arrow

Heiqhts

The

existing

reservoir

storage

in

Arrow

Heights has a capacity

o12,270

m3

as

noted

in the

D&K

tech

memo.

Of the

total,

817 m3 is

provided

for

fire

flows

for commercial zones, 25o/o ot MDD is

provided

for

balancing

storage, and

10

of

MDD is

provided

for

emergency

storage.

Therefore,

1,453

m3

is allotted for

balancing

and emergency storage that equates to

an

MDD of

4,150 m3.

Using the

per

capita use

of

1

,790

litres/capita/day from

the D&K tech

memo,

the total

population

that can

be

served

by

the existing reservoir

is

2,318.

The

current

population

served by the

existing

reservoir is unknown; however,

an estimate of the existing

population

in

Arrow

Heights

is

1,800 based on

a

count

of

approximately 600 homes

with

3.0

people/home.

Using an annual

growth

rate

of

1.0o/o for Arrow Heights, the

population

would

grow

to

1

,989

by

the

year

2025. During this same time

period

Mackenzie Village would add an additional PE

of

460, for a

total

population

of

2,449.

Consequently,

expansion

of the

existing

reservoirwill

be

required

before

2024based

on

these

population projections

as shown

in

the following table.

Estimated

Population

in

Arrow

Heights

Year

Population

Arrow

Heights

Mackenzie

Village

Total

1,800

1,818

1,837

1,855

0

46

92

138

1,800

1,864

1,929

1,993

201 5

(Current

Estimated)

2016

2017

2018


62/81

0929468

BC

Lrd

Preliminary

lnfrastructure & Servicing Study

Mackenzie Village

Revision 1

-

October

2015


63/81

Summary

of

Sanitary Flows by

Phase

Phase

2,3.2 Pipe

Sizes & Capacities

The following table shows the

full flow

capacities

and minimum allowable

flows for

various

pipe

sizes

at

minimum slopes using

PVC

gravity

mains

with a Manning's roughness

coefficient

of

0.011.

The

minimum

allowable

flow is

the

flow

required

to

attain

a minimum flow velocity of

0.60

m/s for

flushing.

Pipe

Min.

Pipe

Full

Flow

Min.

Flow

Diameter

Slope

Capacity

Allowable

(mm)

(%)

(L/s)

(Us)

100

1.00

6.1

1.2

150

0.50

12.7 3.1

1.42

4.O7

3.44

3.90

3.25

3.03

3.77

1.26

2.58

254

4.32

2.21

35.79

PWWF

lUs)

Units

Total

Cap

30

165

143

170

140

120

135

25

55

55

95

45

1,178

90

261

223

.EE

212

195

241

75

165

165

285

'135

2,302

Phase 1 -

SplitTownhouse

Phase

2

-

Apartments


and

Commercial

Phase

3

-

Apartments


and Commercial

Phase 4

-

Apartments


Phase 5

-

Apartments


Phase 6

-

Apartments


Phase

7

-

Apartments


Phase

I

-

Single

Family

/

Duplex

/Townhouse

Phase

9

-

Split Townhouse,

and Single Family Townhouse

Phase 10 -

Split

Townhouse, and


Phase 11

-

Split Townhouse,

and

Single

Family Townhouse

Phase 12

-

Single

Family

/

Duplex /

Townhouse

Totals

0929468

BC Lrd

Preliminary Infraslructure

& Servicing Study

Rev

ision

yi'::

xl5f;


64/81

2.3.3 Lift

Station or Offsite Gravity

Main

The west and north sides of the development

will

require

a

lift

station or addition

of an

offsite

main

for

sanitary

servicing.

The existing

main

on

Nichol Road has

inverts of approximately

490m;

therefore,

units

with main floor elevations

lower

than say

492m

(accounting

for frost

cover and

pipe

slope)

will

need

to be

pumped

into

the main.

The

area

of development that will flow to the lift station is labelled as the

Lift

Station Catchment on

the

Utility

Schematic. The

lift

station

is

located

in

the

northwest corner of the

property

and

will

pump

sewage into an onsite manhole with

gravity

piping

that ties

into

the CoR's

main

on

Nichol

Road.

The

lift

station

will

be

owned

by the strata and

could

be removed in the future

when

gravity

service

is

available

on

Arrow

Drive.

The design flow from the development to the lift station is estimated at

9 L/s. Design of the

Iift station will conform to the CoR's design

guidelines,

Schedule

4

of the Subdivision,

Development and Servicing Bylaw No.

1846.

An alternative to

installing

the

lift

station

is

to

construct a

gravity

main offsite to tie into the CoR's existing

main

on

Airport

Way.

This option would require a total of approximately 800m of

pipe

installed

along Arrow

Drive, Park Drive, and McKinnon

Road

as shown

below.

Using topographic elevations

from Google Earth,

the average slope of

pipe

along this alignment is approximately

2%.

A cost sharing agreement

would need

to be negotiated if this alternative

is

chosen, as approximately

25

existing

propefties

adjacent

to

this

pipe

alignment could be serviced as well.

Offsite alignment of

gravity

main from

northwest

corner

of

development to existi ng

CoR

sanitary

main at

Airport Way.


65/81


66/81

Preliminary Infrastructure

& Servicing Study

lVackenzie Vil age

Revision

1

-

October

2015

0929468 BC Lrd


67/81

3.

Closing

Prepared

by:

This

report

is in

support of the

rezoning

application for the Mackenzie Village

development

and

considers

the

preliminary

site servicing

of

the development. The report was

prepared

by

McElhanney

Consulting

Services

Ltd. for

0929468

BC

Ltd.

The

information

in

this

report reflects MCSL's reasonable

judgement

in

light of the information available at the time of

preparation.

Any use

that a

third

party

makes of

this

report,

or

any

reliance

on or decisions

made based

on

it,

in

whole

or

in

part,

are

the

responsibility

of such third

parties.

MSCL accepts no responsibility

for

any damage

suffered

by

a

third

party

as a result of decisions

made

or

actions

based

on

this

report

Please call

the

undersigned

if

you

have any

questions

regarding

this study

Sincerely,

McELHANNEY

CONSULTING SERVICES

LTD.

c

rt- ii.lOt'l

#

zeaa7

Bryan Gurnon, PEng

li.

Senior

Project Engineer

Land Development

/

Municipal

email: [email protected]

cc: Selkirk

Planning & Design,

Attn:

Fraser Blyth

s'

U.

0929468

BC Ltd.

Preliminary

lnfrastructure

Servicng Study

Mackenzie Village

Revision

1

-

October 201-5


68/81

O

Appendix A

Mackenzie

Village

-

Water

Demands

Sanitary

Flows by Phase

l\

McEllranne

201

5-0

Mackenzie

Village

-

Water Demands

& Sanitary

Flows by

Phase


69/81

Subzone

-

percent

buildout

7,455

0.09

10 2.1

21

C

-

Large

Apartment

(1500

sf)

038

0020.34

0.08

0.36

4.38

Cum

MDD

=

370

m3 or

4.35

L/s

10

50

80

140

2.1

19

1.2

21

95

96

212

C

-

Large

Apartment

(1

500

s0

C

-

Medium

Apartment

(1000

sf)

C -

Small Apartment

(500

sf)

Subtotal

037

1.42

1.46

3.25

0.12

0.12

o.12

0.36

001

001

0.01

0.03

0.08

0.33

034

0.7s

438

425

425

036

141

1.45

3.22

7,455

33,725

34,080

75,260

0,09

0,40

040

0.89

Cum

MDD

=

300

m3

or

3.46 Us

C

-

Large

Aprtment

(1500

s0

C

-

Medium

Apartment

(1000

s0

C

-

Small

Apartment

(500

sf)

Subtotal

0.08

0.40

o.42

0.90

438

425

423

0.36

1.70

1.78

3.84

7,455

40,470

42,600

90,525

009

047

0.50

1.06

l0

60

100

170

2.1

19

12

21

114

120

255

0.38

1.72

1 .80

3.90

020

020

020

0.59

0.02

o.o2

o.o2

0.06

Cum

MDD

=

210 m3 or 2.4

Lls

B

-

Large

Apartment

(1

500

sf)

B

-

Medium Apartment

(1000

sf)

B -

Small

Apartment

(500

sf)

B

-

Retail Commercial

Subtotal

0.08

0.33

0.34

0.04

0.79

438

425

4.25

442

0.36

1.41

1.45

018

3.40

7,455

33,725

34,080

3,905

79,165

0.09

0.40

040

0.05

0.94

10

50

80

3

'143

2.1

19

1.2

21

95

96

11

223

037

142

1.46

0. 19

3.4

015

015

015

015

0.s8

001

001

0.01

0 0'1

0.04

Cum

MDD

=

130 m3 or 1.46 L/s

A

-

Large Apartment

(1500

sf)

A

-

Medum Apartment

(1000

sf)

A

-

Small

Apartment

(500

sf)

A

-

Retail Commercial

Subtotal

0.08

0.40

0.38

0.07

0.93

438

423

424

439

0.36

1.70

1.62

0.31

3.99

7.455

40,470

38,340

6,390

92,655

009

0-47

045

008

1.09

10

60

90

5

165

2.1

l9

1.2

3,5

21

114

108

18

261

038

172

164

033

4.07

019

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.75

o02

o02

o.o2

o.o2

0.08

Cum MDD

=

40

m3

or

0 37 L/s

D

- Split Townhouse

Subtotal

032

0.32

I /

1.37

4.26.37

0.37

31,950

3l,950

30

90

900

1.42

1.42

0.05

0.0s

0.76

0.76

# Units

Cap/Unit Total

Cap

PWWF

(L/s)

rea

(ha)

Flow

(Us)

DWF

(L/s)

Peak Factor

PDWF

(L/s)

DD

(L/day)

MDD

(L/s)

Desgn

Designnfiltration Calculations

low Calculations

Population

SANITARY

ATER

lll

@

I

(

N

uJ

u,

I

fL

IJJ

.

o-

uJ

.n

T

fL

o

Lrl

an

I

,l

McEllranne

20'1

5-0

Mackenze

Village

-

Water

Demands

& Sanitary

Flows

by

Phase


70/81

Subzone

-

percent

buildout

Cum

MDD

=

820

m3 or

9.6

L/s

E

/

F

-

Sngle Family / Duplex

E

/

F

- Single

Family

Townhouse

Subtotal

o.77

144

2.2',l.

109

1.09

2.17

o.o7

007

0.14

016

032

0.18

4.33

426

0.70

137

2.07

15,975

31,950

47,925

0.19

037

0.56

15 30

3.0

45

on

135

30

t5

Cum MDD

=

770

m3

or 9

04 Us

69,225

31,950

101,'175

081

0.37

1.18

65

30

95

J.U

195

90

285

D

-

Splt

Townhouse

D

-


Subtotal

289

1.43

4.32

090

0.90

1.80

0.06

0.06

0.12

068

0.32

L00

4.16

4.26

2.83

137

4.20

Cum

MDD

=

670

m3

or

7.86 Us

047

0.'1 1

0.58

4.21

436

'1.98

048

2.46

47,925

10,650

58,575

0.56

0.1 3

0.59

45

10

55

J.U

3.0

'135

30

165

D

-

Split Townhouse

D

-

Single Family

Townhouse

Subtotal

202

o.52

2.54

0.59

0.59

1.',t7

004

o.o4

0.08

Cum MDD

=

610

m3

or7

17 lls

D

-

Split

fownhouse

D

- Single Family Townhouse

Subtotal

1.62

096

2.58

0.76

076

1.51

005

0.05

0.10

o.37

021

0.58

4.24

4.30

1.57

0.91

2.

37,275

21

,300

58,575

044

o.25

0.69

20

55

3.0

30

105

60

165

Cum

MDD

=

560

m3 or

6.48 Us

10

15

25

3.0

30

30

45

75

E /

F

-

Sngle

Famly

/ Duplex

E

/

F

-

Single

Family

Townhouse

Subtotal

0.52

0.74

1.26

0.55

0.55

1.10

0.04

004

0.08

0.1

1

016

0,27

436

^

a

048

0.70

't.18

'10,650

'1

5,975

26,625

013

0.19

0.32

Cum

MDD

=

530

m3 or

6.

16 L/s

C

-

Large

Apartment

(1500

sf)

C

-

Medium

Apartment

(1000

s0

C

-

Small

Apartment

(500

sf)

Subtotal

0.87

2.28

062

3.77

082

0.82

082

2.46

0.05

005

005

0.15

0.1

I

053

0.1 3

0.85

431

4.19

4. C

0.82

2.23

057

3.62

'18,815

53,960

12,780

85,555

0.22

0.63

0.1 5

1.00

)q

80

30

't35

21

1.9

12

EA

152

5b

241

#

Units

Cap/Unit

Total

Cap

PWWF

(L/s)

rea

(ha)

Flow

(Us)

DWF

(Us)

Peak

Factor

PDWF

(Us)

DD

{Uday)

MDD

(Us)

Designnfiltration Calculations

low

Calculations

esign

WATER

Population

SANTARY

ts

t

UI

I

l

@

uJ

I

o-

o

uJ

U)

-

ul

U)

I

f

N

uJ

u,

I

,(\

McEllrann

20

1

5-0

Mackenze

Village

-

Water Demands

& Sanitary

Flows

by

Phase


71/81

Subzone

-

buildout

NOTES:

1. Design

Population based

on:

SF/D

SF Town

Split Town

Lge Apt

(1

500 s0

Med Apt

(1000

sf)

Sml

Apt

(s00

sf)

Retail Comm.

3.0

people/unit

3

0

people/unit

3.0

people/unit

2.1

peopleiunit

1.9

people/unt

1

2

people/unit

3 5

employeeiunit

-

lndoor

(Domestc)

Use

=

250

ltresicapita/day

-

PeaklrrgationUse=

105 litres/capita/day,basedonatotal

irrgationareaof:

-

Peak Daily Flow

(Maximum

Daily Demand)

=

355

lihes/capita/day

4.8 hectares x 50 m3/hectare/day

3.

Sanitary

Flow calculations based on City of Revelstoke's Subdivision, Development and

Servicing Bylaw No 1

846

-

Domestic Flow Rate

(Average

Daily

Flow)

=

300 litres/capiiaiday

-

Peak Factorcalculated usingformula: PF= 1+

114

l(4

+

sqrt(P)

)1,

where P

isthepopulation inthousands

- lnfiltration volume calculated using. . 5,000 litres/hectare/day

(for pipes

not

in

water table)

Estimated areas: Phase 1

0.76

ha

Phase

7

2.46

ha

Phase

2

0.75

ha

Phase

I

1.10

ha

Phase3

0.58

ha

Phaseg

1.51 ha

Phase

4 0.59

ha

Phase 10

1.17

ha

Phase

5

0.36

ha

Phase 11

1.80 ha

Phase6

1.03

ha

Phase

12 217 ha

Total 14.29 ha

Units Cap/Unt Total Cap

PWWF

(L/s)

rea

(ha)

Flow

(Us)

DWF

(Us)

Peak Factor

PDWF

(Us)

DD

(L/day)

MDD

(Us)

Designnfiltration

Calculations

low

Galculations

esign

WATER

Population

SANITARY

0929468 BC

Ltd

Appendix B

Preliminary

lnfrastructure

Servicing

Study

Mackenzie

Village

Revision

1

-

October

2015


72/81

.

Figure

1-

-

Context

Map

.

Map C

-

Proposed

CD

Zones

o

Map G

-

Greenways, Nodes

Parks

o

Map |

-

Proposed Phasing

o

Civil I

-

Utility

Schematic

ure

I


73/81

Gontext

Map

r

ir

ArswDr

-'...'..E---t

l-.t42 l-ecto'e

i

D 3li

l-er-lcr;;i

-l

I

I

I

L


74/81

4.Zi- lrs':' o:.r

d

{r?

lrurluriit

I

?J.

lJr,:lc:+l

l-4r

l-ls,ilcr.er

I

I

l

I

a

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

e

-l

o

o

I

I

1

i

l

t

I

I

I

I

I

L

,1

-F

i

I

I

t

I

I

I

+

I

I

I

a

I

I

I

a

,'-

-,-.1

**--

I

I

L-'

I

E

t

t

.

I

t

t

_l'-

.

a

a

i

I

i

J

l--

:,".

i,..

j'C,.,'r'

--i'-,t-

I

O.4

HcIars

0.4

Hctors

uuno

PROP9ED

PARK/

POTENTIAL

eIoRHUJATER

1

I.IANAGEI,IENT

I_ f\L/I_ JEJ I


75/81

4.2 s.clors

4.7 He.cIars

1.2

Hclars

1.5

Hclors

'Accss

Crnwoys

r

Joy

o

LlJoy

TRAIL

CONNECTION

FROTI

jCHOOL

q

NIC{.]OL

ROADgIDEtUALK/TRAIL

f

.d

)1v1,

Kootnoy

Dislrici

j'

i

l

i/

'

':,

I

.'.

nichol road housing development

Documents