Nichol Road Housing Development

City of Revelstoke
Council 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 Nichol
Road
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the information items provided by the applicant in response to Councils resolution
June 9, 2015 be received.
AND THAT the information items provided by the applicant are forwarded to the
Advisory Planning Commission for their review and recommendation to Council.
CAO Comments:
Approved for Council consideration. AC
Background:
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 (see Figure
1) to the new CD17 zone. The proposal was to develop the subject properties with
approximately 1580 residential units and limited commercial uses adjacent to Nichol Road. The
applicant has revised their development plans to reduce the number of proposed units from
1580 to ~1100 units. The number of units would vary depending on the market absorption of the
smaller units in the initial phases; however, the overall footprint of the buildings would not
change.
The subject properties have an Official Community Plan (OCP) designation of Future Growth
(see Figure 2) and are currently zoned Single Family Residential District (R1) and Rural
Residential 60 Hectare District (RR60) (see Figure 3).
At their meeting of February 24, 2015, Council approved a Community Consultation Plan (see
Figure 4) for the subject application that included communication and consultation above and
beyond the required standard statutory consultation process. Due to the scale and complexity of
the subject application, additional communication and consultation was undertaken to ensure
the community was engaged and given an opportunity to provide input. The Community
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
Consultation Plan included: letters 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 a Public Open House. In addition to the letter, communication notifications on the
proposed development were posted on the City website, posted on the City Facebook page and
a 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 introductory
presentation from City Staff on the proposal followed by an opportunity for the public to review a
series of panel drawings, maps and designs for the proposed development and ask questions of
staff. Comment / Input forms were available for attendees to provide their input. The number of
people who attended the open house was 154, of which two-thirds (105) were from the Arrow
Heights 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 with
this report does not include the 87 submissions to reduce report length. At that meeting Council
also 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 applicant
provide the following seven items prior to Councils further consideration of the application:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Financial Impact Assessment

Traffic Study
Preliminary Infrastructure and Servicing Study
Environmental Report
Parks and Trails Plan
Waste Management Plan
Housing Agreements Strategy Affordable / Attainable Housing
Some of the items were received in the summer and fall with the bulk arriving in December,
2015. Minor revisions were completed earlier this month and the applicant submitted an
updated project summary letter (see Figure 7).
If the information provided by the applicant is received, Council would have an opportunity to
review the material, request information and/or clarification from Staff and/or the applicant in
advance of the proposed Bylaws being brought to Council for consideration of First and Second
Readings and scheduling of a Public Hearing. Council at that time may also request additional
community consultation that may include a second Open House.
Options / discussion:
As the subject application would include the addition of a significant number of residential units
to the community the financial impact to the City should be reviewed. This Financial Analysis
proposed to look at the site development in two formats, as a standard single family subdivision
and as the proposed mixed use / mixed format development. The applicant has provided the
financial information through a program the Province has made available for this purpose (see
Figures 8 - 10).
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
Traffic volume and flow resulting from the proposed development warrants the preparation of a
Traffic Study by a Civil Engineer. At this time the applicant has provided a preliminary review
which has been stamped and sealed by a Civil Engineer (see Figure 11). If the subject
application proceeds further it will be recommended that a Development Agreement be entered
into 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 Councils
consideration of adoption of the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments and Rezoning.
The infrastructure and servicing for the proposed development includes a number of complex
components requiring a Civil Engineer to review and plan. As the development is proposed to
be constructed in phases over ten years, an over arching plan for what infrastructure is
required would be developed prior to the adoption of the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments
and 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 the
application 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 Environmental
Professional (Registered Professional Biologist). The Biologist did not identify any significant
items requiring addressing at this time (see Figure 13).
The applicant has proposed the Parks and Trails Plan to include a series of connecting trail
corridors that would connect not only the proposed development but also the surrounding
neighoburhood (see Figure 14). These trail locations would be more definitively located as part
of the Engineering design work for the site infrastructure. It is proposed that the trail rights of
way be accepted as the 5% dedication of Park Land available to the City.
The proposed development includes a variety of residential development formats that would
facilitate centralized garbage and recycling. The applicants Waste Management Plan is to
utilize centralized enclosed buildings for the collection of garbage and recycling for the entire
proposed development. Specific enclosure locations would be established during the design
work for each phase.
Affordable and attainable housing has been a topic of significant community discussion for
many years. Although the subject development includes a wide variety of residential unit
formats including smaller units, it is recommended that the opportunity of Housing Agreements
be incorporated into the proposed Zoning Districts. The format allows for additional density to
be permitted subject to the establishment of a Housing Agreement for that development phase.
As a tool, Housing Agreements offer the greatest flexibility for addressing emerging community
housing related issues. As the proposed development is scheduled to extend beyond ten years
flexibility to shape initiatives to community changes over time is recommended. Of note the
proposed Housing Agreement format would be based on the provision of bonus density, if an
agreement could not be established the developer would be able to proceed with the
development but would not be able to include the bonus density.
Council may wish to request additional information from the applicant in relation to the
proposed development.
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
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 1 Context Map
Figure 2 Official Community Plan Designation Map
Figure 3 Zoning District Map
Figure 4 Community Consultation Plan
Figure 5 Community Consultation Plan Summary
Figure 6 Letter from Applicant and Rezoning Application Planning Package
Figure 7 Updated Letter from Applicant
Figure 8 Financial Analysis, R1 Development Format
Figure 9 Financial Analysis, CD Development Format
Figure 10 Financial Analysis, Comparative
Figure 11 Traffic Study
Figure 12 Infrastructure and Servicing Study
Figure 13 Letter from Registered Professional Biologist
Figure 14 Parks and Trails Map
Respectfully submitted,
Dean Strachan, MCIP, RPP

Manager of Development Services
1700
1633
1617
1646
Dogwood Dr
1574
Mountain View Dr
1569
1726
1740
1727
1742
1757
1756
1774
1790
1630
Arrow Dr
1811
1625
1741
1749
1678 1675
1736
1952
Pratico
Rd
1735
1767
1773
1738
1789 1788
1669
1815
1825
1837
1857
1875
1885
1679
Park Dr
1928
1940
1750
1836
1853
1906
1905
1910
1915 1914
1925 1920
1929
1931 1930
1950
1587
1570 1586
Nichol Rd
Nichol Rd
1816
1800
1886
1918
1911
1926
1921
1933
1935 1934
1936
Poplar Ln 1938
1953
1942
Aspen Cr
1946
1962 1958 1954
Nichol Rd
1785 1795
1775
McKinnon Rd
1720
1731
1743
1752
1840
1904
1890
1849 1877 1893
1807
1833
1895
1664
McKinnon Rd
1739 1710
1635
1640
1812
McKinnon Rd
1663 1685
1593
1571
1656
Galt Cres
Context Map
1655
1665
1706
McKinnon Rd
McKinnon Rd
1645
Piotrowski Rd
1615
1717
1590
Camozzi Rd
1616
1718
Galt
Cres
Windsor Dr
1585
1595
1605
Grizzly Ln
1650
1610
1715
Bi
rc
1657
1580
1515
hD
r
Figure 1
1887
OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
T3
Piotrowski Rd
Birch Dr
Hay Rd
Agricultural
Agricultural
Land Reserve Land Reserve
T4
Future Nichol Rd
Growth
SD - RMR
Future
Growth
Future
Growth
Future
Growth
SD - RMR
T3
Ln
lar
Pop T3
T3
Future
Growth
Nichol Rd
Camozzi Rd
Pratico
Rd
SD - RMR
SD - RN5
Future
Growth
T3
Future
Growth
T3
T4
Galt Cres
Hiob Rd
T3
SD - Civic
Institutional
Nichol Rd
T3
Future
Growth
T3
Park Dr
t Dr
Fores
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T4
T3
T3
Arrow Dr
Civic
Space
T3
T3
Aspen Cr
T3
T3
T3
Hay Rd
T3
T3
T4 Limited
T3
McKinnon Rd McKinnon McKinnon Rd

Rd
d
Hay R
T3
Park Dr
Mountain View Dr
McKinnon Rd
Tillen Rd
Park Dr
T3
T3
Grizzly Ln
McKinnon Rd
Emerald
Dr
Park Dr
T3
T4
k Rd
Meln
y
T3
Dogwood Dr
McKinnon Rd
T3
Official CommunityCres
Plan
Galt
T3
Land Use
Designation Map
T3
Hiob Rd
Park Dr
T3
Galt Cres
Future
Growth
Civic
Space
T3
Windsor Dr
Biatecki Rd Biatecki Rd
Park Dr
T3
Hiob
Rd
Figure 2
T3
SD - RMR
SD - RN3
SD - RN4
SD - RMR
SD - RN3
SD - RN4
T3
R1
Birch Dr
Hay Rd
R3
R1
Galt Cres
McKinnon Rd McKinnon McKinnon Rd

Rd
Grizzly Ln
R1
R2
Biatecki Rd Biatecki Rd
R1
Emerald Dr
Park Dr
McKinnon Rd
R1
R1
R1
R1
d
Hay R
Park Dr
R1
Tillen Rd
McKinnon Rd
R1
R1
Hiob Rd
R3
Piotrowski Rd
Park Dr
R1
Cres
Zoning DistrictGalt
Map
k Rd
R1
Dogwood Dr
Mountain View Dr
R1
Hiob Rd
Park Dr
R1
McKinnon Rd
R1
R1
Windsor Dr
Galt Cres
C10
P1
Meln
y
Park Dr
R1
Hiob
Rd
Figure 3
Arrow Dr
R1
R1
R5
Pratico
Rd
R1
Ln
lar
Pop R1
Nichol Rd
R1
R1
Nichol Rd
Nichol Rd
R1
Camozzi Rd
RR60
Aspen Cr
P3
R1
RR1
R1
Hay Rd
t Dr
Fores
Park Dr
R1
RR04
RR60
RN4
RN3
CD 08
RN5
R1
Figure 4
File: 3360-20, ZON2014-16
Community Consultation Plan

Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment and Rezoning Applications
1750 & 1816 Nichol Road
Proposed Development Project:

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 is
proposed 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
Revelstoke properties on the south side of the bridge informing them of the application, ways to
provide input and inviting them to a Public Open House. The Public Open House is scheduled
for Thursday, April 30, 2015 at Arrow Heights Elementary School from 6:00 8:00 pm. The
format of the open house is to include an introductory twenty minute presentation from City Staff
on the proposal followed by an opportunity for the public to review a series of panel drawings,
maps and designs for the proposed development and ask questions of staff. Comment / Input
forms will be available for attendees to provide their input.
Communication:
In addition to the above noted letter communication, the plan includes City website notifications
on the proposed development, how to provide input and inviting the public to attend the Public
Open House. This notification would also be posted on the Citys Facebook postings and be
sent to local media as a press release.
Conclusion:
Following completion of the above noted consultation and communication, Staff will review the
input received and provide to Council a recommendation as to whether additional consultation
should be considered, proposal changes and the consultation process be repeated or to accept
the input received and proceed with formal Bylaw consideration. The formal Bylaw process
would include a Public Hearing, it would be 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.
Figure 5
File: 3360-20, ZON2014-16
Community Consultation Plan Summary

Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment and Rezoning Applications
1750, 1800 & 1816 Nichol Road
Proposed Development Project:
Zoning District (CD17) and rezone the properties at 1750, 1800 & 1816 Nichol Road to the new
CD17 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
letter, communication notifications on the proposed development were posted on the City
website, posted on the City Facebook page and a 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 p.m. 8:00 p.m. The format of the open house included an introductory
presentation from City Staff followed by an opportunity for the public to review a series of panel
drawings, maps and designs for the proposed development and ask questions of staff.
Comment / Input forms were available for attendees to provide their input. The number of
people who attended the open house was 154, of which two-thirds (105) were from the Arrow
Heights neighbourhood (see attached Open House Sign In Sheets). Comment / Input sheets
were available at City Hall following the Public Open House and e-mail and letter submissions
were also received that were added to the input. As of May 29, 2015 we had received
comments from 87 people, the comment sheets have been attached for reference.
The public input received included six main themes:
1. Support for variety and size of proposed residential units.
2. Concerns about the number of residential units proposed.
3. Support for the greenspace and trials proposed.
4. Concerns about infrastructure capacity (roads, water, sewer etc).
5. Support for the concept of limited neighbourhood commercial uses being included.
6. Concerns about impacts of short term rental of units.
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.
Figure 6
MacKenzie Landing
0929468 BC Ltd.
David Evans
3669 Catherwood Road
Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S3
1 (604) 932-9835
dnevanshk@gmail.com
Nichol Road
Revelstoke, BC
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 greenfield site with little development and represents the best location for infill 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 first-time buyers, retirees, 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 affordable housing for all
types of residents, implement strong sustainable design policies found in the Official Community Plan, provide small
neighbourhood commercial services, increase the municipal taxation base, and reduce long-term infrastructure
costs.
Main Goal Affordable & Attainable Housing
The main goal of this development is to make true affordable and attainable housing for the residents of Revelstoke,
and attract new residents with a unique sustainable neighbourhood not found anywhere else in the world. I chose
to move to Revelstoke because I think this is a great place to live. In my time living here I have seen and spoken with
too many residents who want to stay, but cannot afford the price of owning a house. Reasons for this include an
abundance of old housing, that while affordable at face value have several issues requiring more and more money
to maintain and fix. Wooden foundations, asbestos, oil tanks, single pane windows, poor insulation, mould, can
make it nearly impossible to attain a mortgage and may double the cost of owning a home in Revelstoke. Add in the
financial and environmental costs of heating an inefficient and leaky home makes a truly affordable home in Revelstoke hard to find.
Hiring Local Businesses
This project is focused on serving Revelstoke and its residents. It starts with a commitment to hire local businesses and
people to work on the planning, design, and construction for this project. I have hired Selkirk Planning & Design (SPD),
a local planning and urban design firm to work with me and the City to create a sustainable neighbourhood plan and
work through the rezoning and subdivision. I have met with local building designers and builders to gauge their ability
and willingness to work on this project. In previous construction projects here in Revelstoke I have hired local contractors,
Page 1 of 3
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 development 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 Official Community Plan (OCP), reviewing neighbourhood 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 as Appendix 1 of your submission 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 development needs to be sensitive to its neighbours, so we have buffered 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 traffic volumes.
Staff Review and Support
We have reviewed the concepts and preliminary designs with the staff from the Department of Engineering, Building
& Planning and received support for this development. We have continued to work closely with City staff to ensure
that the development is consistent with Official 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 providing 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
and hopefully, eventually all the way to RMR.
Design Principles
There are several core design principles that make this development economically, environmentally, and socially
sustainable. These key concepts include:
Higher density & mixed use - Providing higher density means there are more units per hectare paying
for city services. This equates to lower costs for the City on infrastructure. Mixed use means that residents
of Arrow Heights and visitors going to or returning from Revelstoke Mountain Resort can stop to purchase
goods from small neighbourhood commercial stores rather than having to drive downtown. These commercial spaces arent designed to attract big box stores, but is at a size that encourages locally-owned businesses serving the immediate neighbourhood within a walkable distance. This helps the City meet its OCP
emissions targets of 8% GHG reduction by 2020 and 15% by 2030 based on 2007 levels, by reducing the
number of vehicular trips required.
Narrower and fewer roads - Narrower roads provide several benefits:

a.
They reduce speeding, making streets safer for cyclists, pedestrians and children,
b. They reduce City lifecycle maintenance costs by having less paved surface to replace as needed,
c.
They improve water quality with a smaller surface for pollutants, and less surface to heat and degrade water, and
Page 2 of 3
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 surrounding pathways and parks and provide non-motorized access through the neighbourhood, while still allowing for Emergency Medical Services access (Map G - page 7). These greenways will be maintained by
the strata groups and will significantly 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 specific focus on Revelstoke. The buildings will be located and placed to best take advantage 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 off-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 reflect 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. See
the 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 flexibility of uses allowed in the proposed CD zone. With the higher densities proposed through this development absorption rates become an important consideration. Flexible land uses
and adaptable building design allows for better absorption rates (Page 11). By allowing commercial, residential and
vacation rental suites in the main commercial area it means that if demand for commercial or residential isnt yet high
enough to fill the allotted space, buildings can still be filled for use by vacation rental. This flexibility reduces empty
buildings and allows the neighbourhood to evolve naturally. This flexibility is built into the surrounding residential sub
areas allowing the entire neighbourhood to better respond to market demands.
With regard to absorption rates this is a bit of an unknown as there is no accommodation or subdivision in Revelstoke to compare with our proposal in front of you today. That said we are extremely confident that there is a need
for high quality, lower maintenance, lower cost accommodation. Our intention is to start with subzone D and look to
build in year one up to 25% of this area, if sales of these homes are good we would look to start immediately with
another similar size build in subzone D followed after that by subzone A&B. We would then probably look to complete subzone D before moving into subzone C. Based on our expectations and knowledge from other similar plans
we would expect total build out to happen over the course of 10 years.
Regards,
David Evans
Page 3 of 3
Rezoning Application
MacKenzie Landing
0929468 BC Ltd.
David Evans
3669 Catherwood Road
Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S3
1 (604) 932-9835
dnevanshk@gmail.com
Nichol Road
Revelstoke, BC
Submitted: December 2nd, 2014
Package Contents:
Part 1: Mapping & Design Principles
Maps A - G
Sustainable Development Principles
Neighbourhood Character Images
Flexible Building Types Diagram
Part 2: Official Community Plan Support
Highlighted Goals & Policies (Selected pages only)
Drawings Prepared by:

1-7
8
9-10
11
Box 1994
Revelstoke, BC
V0E 2S0
(250) 200-0680
serlkirkplanning@gmail.com
MacKenzie Landing Sustainable Development Principles

City-Wide
On-Site Environmental Development Principles
Create a diverse housing stock with a variety of building types that provide different types of residential types,
including ownership, timeshare, suites, and rental units for a wider range of people (elderly, young families,
seasonal workers, young retirees, etc.)
Protect steep slopes by maintaining vegetation, minimizing soil compaction and creating minimal disturbances
(cut & fill) to slopes
Develop higher density housing to take advantage of municipal cost sharing for infrastructure (i.e. more people
paying for the same amount of pipe)
Transition surrounding neighbourhood single-family densities to higher densities towards the middle of the site
with adequate buffering
Reduce the number and width of roads throughout the neighbourhood to save on municipal maintenance
costs and create natural traffic 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 pesticide use
Treat stormwater on-site through infiltration with storm trenches along roads and pathways and storm ponds
where appropriate
Make solar access a priority in building layout to take advantage of passive solar and maximize daylight in
winter
Consider shade and solar access in laying out trails and parks to encourage use during non-summer months
Use biomass to provide heat, hot water, and electricity for the entire neighbourhood
Infill new development within established neighbourhoods rather than new development on the outer edges of the City
Neighbourhood-Wide
Allow for small neighbourhood mixed use commercial development to service the Arrow Heights neighbourhood 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
Building Development Principles
MacKenzie Landing Development Concept

Rezoning Application Package
Create buildings with High Environmental Performance standards (Passive House, LEED, etc.)
Create adaptable buildings that are designed to be flexible enough to house both residential and commercial
uses (to be located strategically)
Create sustainable buildings are designed to last for centuries, considering lifecycle, deconstruction, sustainable 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.)
Neighbourhood Character
Nichol Road
Private Property
Nichol Road Right-of-Way
5.0 m
2.7 m
4.3 m
2.7 m
3.0 m
Cycling Lane
Boulevard &
Parking
Driving Lane
Stormwater,
Boulevard &
Parking
Sidewalk
4.3 m
Road Width
9.7 m
Road & Parking Width
17.7 m
Road Right-of-Way
September 8, 2014

Nichol Road, Revelstoke, BC
DRAFT - Road Sections
Neighbourhood Character

10
Flexible Building Types Allow for Higher Absorption Rates & Healthier Neighbourhoods
Mixed Use CD Zones (A & B)
A variety of building and unit sizes configurable at each phase as the market demands
Adaptable Buildings allowing for transition to ground-floor commercial or to

residential as demand changes
Variable Unit Sizes and configurations
Potential Setback Fourth Storey
Walk-Up Apartments with a variety of unit sizes

and configurations
Row house units with a variety of unit sizes and configurations
Row houses with standard unit sizes to mimic single family housing and buffer higher density from surrounding single-family housing
Suites may be built
Residential CD Zones (C-F)
Flexible Unit configurations allow for different housing types
Walk-up apartments with standard unit sizes to mimic single

family housing and buffer higher density from surrounding
single-family housing

11
Figure 7
Figure 8
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

DECISION SUPPORT TOOL
STEP 9: View
VIEWResults
RESULTS
Main Menu
Current Scenario: #8 - Nichol Road - Existing Development Type Note: Changes to Scenarios #0 - 6 cannot be SAVED as they are the built-in scenarios
Results Quick Navigation Menu:

POTENTIAL
COMMUNITY SERVICES
REVENUES &
COST RECOVERY
Click on the cost category of interest.

or pick compare scenarios to see a
summary of the results
Private Costs
Revenues
Initial Capital Costs
Operating Costs
PRIVATE COSTS &

EXTERNAL COSTS
Revenue-Cost Allocation
External Costs
Compare Scenarios
Cost/Revenue
Compare Scenarios
Private/External Costs
View
Intermediate
Calculations
Life-cycle Costs
Compare Scenarios
Capital/Operating/LCC
INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS
POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES

Internal Roads
External Roads
Potable Water Distribution and Treatment
Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment
Storm Sewer Collection
Schools
Recreational Facilities
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
Total Costs
Total
Development
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$2,217,706
$2,212,397
$300,000
$350,000
$880,000
$4,094
$26,700
$5,073
$2,670
$5,998,640
$2,217,706
$2,212,397
$300,000
$350,000
$880,000
$4,094
$26,700
$5,073
$2,670
$5,998,640
$24,918
$24,858
$3,371
$3,933
$9,888
$46
$300
$57
$30
$67,400
Distribution of Initial Capital Costs

(Residential Portion)
Internal Roads
External Roads
Potable Water Distribution and

Treatment
Sanitary Sewer Collection and
Treatment
37%
37%
5%
6%
15%
Schools
0%
0%
0%
0%
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
100%
Waste Management
User Defined Costs
Return to Results Menu
ANNUAL O&M COSTS

Total
Development
Internal Roads
External Roads
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
SCHOOLS
School O&M Costs
Total Costs (Excluding School Costs)

Total Costs (Including School Costs)
$20,000
$37,200
$34,700
$36,250
$4,000
$71,200
$26,700
$16,020
$29,192
$44,322
$16,376
$1
$618,461
$335,961
$954,422
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$20,000
$37,200
$34,700
$36,250
$4,000
$71,200
$26,700
$16,020
$29,192
$44,322
$16,376
$1
$618,461
$335,961
$954,422
$225
$418
$390
$407
$45
$800
$300
$180
$328
$498
$184
$0
$6,949
$3,775
$10,724
Distribution of Annual Operating Costs*

Internal Roads
External Roads
Treatment
Treatment
6%
11%
10%
11%
1%
21%
8%
5%
9%
13%
5%
0%
100%
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
User Defined Costs
* Excludes School Costs
School O&M Costs
Because of their large magnitude, school costs have been

itemized separately. They are not included in the graph.
ANNUALIZED LIFECYCLE COSTS

Internal Roads
External Roads
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
SCHOOLS
School Costs

Total
Development
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$156,479
$184,792
$53,733
$57,578
$57,626
$71,200
$27,020
$18,763
$29,589
$44,596
$16,376
$1
$618,461
$717,753
$1,336,214
$156,479
$184,792
$53,733
$57,578
$57,626
$71,200
$27,020
$18,763
$29,589
$44,596
$16,376
$1
$618,461
$717,753
$1,336,214
$1,758
$2,076
$604
$647
$647
$800
$304
$211
$332
$501
$184
$0
$6,949
$8,065
$15,014
Annualized Lifecycle Costs* (Residential Portion)

User Defined Costs
12%
14%
4%
4%
4%
5%
2%
1%
2%
3%
1%
0%
46%
Waste Management
Police Services
Fire Services
Transit Services
School Transit
External Roads
Internal Roads
100%
$40
$80
$120
$160
$200
Thousands
Based on 100 year analysis period.

Includes initial capital, annual O&M, and replacement costs.
COST COMPARISON FOR POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES - RESIDENTIAL PORTION

Scenarios for Comparison (Select scenarios)
Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:
INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD
Nichol Road Existing
Development
Initial Capital Costs (hh)
Potential Community Services
$67,400
Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs
$67,400
Initial Capital Costs per Household - Residential Portion
Nichol Road - Existing

Development Type
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
$80.0
Thousands
ANNUAL O&M COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD
Annual O&M Costs (hh)

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs

Development
$3,775
$6,949
$0
$10,724
Schools
Annual Operating Costs per Household - Residential Portion

Development Type
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
Thousands
ANNUAL LIFECYCLE COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD
Lifecycle Costs (hh)

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs

Development
$8,065
$6,949
$0
$15,014
Schools
Annualized Lifecycle Costs per Household - Residential Portion

Development Type
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
Thousands
Schools
REVENUES
Annual Property Taxes

Annual User Charges
Total Initial Development Charges
Total
Revenues
Residential
per household
($)
or unit ($)
$238,876
$2,684
$44,055
$495
$1,118,196
$12,564
Revenue collected from the developer through DCCs
Also includes home heating savings from Green Infrastructure Alternatives
Annual User Defined Revenues

Annualized Value of Revenues*
$350,882
Revenue collected from residents such as

waste collection charges, transit fares, water fees etc.
$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

ANNUALIZED
LIFECYCLE COSTS
Developer Municipal
User Fees
$227,992
$491,979
Schools
$618,461
User Defined Costs
Allocation Not Assessed
Ann LC Costs*
$227,992
$1,110,440
Others
-
$1
$1
Caution should be observed in comparing municipal costs against

range of services. Similarly, due to varied approaches used by
municipalities for providing credits for development charges, it is not
recommended that development charges be compared directly
with developer costs.
ANNUAL REVENUES
$306,827
$44,055
Taxes & Develop. Charges
User Charges
User Defined Revenues
Ann LC Revenues
$350,882
ANNUAL PRIVATE COSTS

Driving Costs
Home Energy
Ann LC Private Costs
$1,423,083
$204,700
$1,627,783
ANNUAL EXTERNAL COSTS

Climate Change
Air Pollution
Motor Vehicle Collisions
Ann LC External Costs
$20,675
$17,615
$121,840
$160,130
* Based on 100 year analysis period. Includes initial capital, annual O&M, and replacements costs.
COMPARISON OF COSTS AND REVENUES - RESIDENTIAL PORTION
Caution should be observed in comparing municipal costs against municipal revenues as municipal revenues are intended to cover a wide range of services.
ANNUAL MUNICIPAL LIFECYCLE COSTS AND REVENUES

Development
Type
Lifecycle Costs and Revenues (hh)
Total Municipal Costs1
Total Municipal Costs
$4,105
Municipal Revenues2
Municipal Revenues
$3,942
Net Revenue
($162)
1
Total Municipal Costs = municipal service and infrastructure costs from residential
component of community
2
Municipal Revenues = municipal revenue related to residential component of community
Annual Municipal Lifecycle Costs and Revenues
Nichol Road - Existing Development

Type
$0.0
including taxes, development charges, and user charges
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
($/household/year)
Municipal Revenues
$4.0
$5.0
Thousands
PRIVATE COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
Driving Costs
Transit Fares
Home Heating Costs
Total
Development
Household
Costs
$1,423,083
$15,990
$2,300
$204,700
F
F
F
Transportation costs and home heating costs are two major household costs
that depend on development form.
The cost of operating and owning a vehicle.
Home energy consumption is related to heating,
air conditioning and hot-water heating.
EXTERNAL COSTS OF AUTOMOBILE USE

ANNUAL COSTS

Air Pollution
Climate Change
Total
Development
Household
Costs
$121,840
$17,615
$20,675
F
F
$1,369
$198
$232
Valuation of external costs is highly varied and results should be viewed as approximate.
The cost of motor vehicle collisions includes the direct costs of fatal, injury
and property damage collisions. These costs implicitly include the costs of health care.
Climate change is based on model assumptions around the Vehicle km Travelled.
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 impacts
such as rebuilding dykes, emergency response costs, etc.
COMPARISON OF PRIVATE COSTS AND EXTERNAL COSTS
Annual Private Costs Per Household
ANNUAL PRIVATE COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD

Development
Annual Private Costs (hh)
Driving Costs
$15,990
Transit Fares
Home Heating Costs
$2,300
Total Cost
$18,290
Nichol Road - Existing Development Type

0
10
12
14
Home Heating Costs
Annual External (hh)

Air Pollution
Climate Change
Total Cost
18
Driving Costs
Annual External Costs of Automobile Use Per Household
ANNUAL EXTERNAL COSTS OF AUTOMOBILE USE PER HOUSEHOLD

Development
$1,369
$198
$232
$1,799
Transit Fares
16
Thousands
Annual Costs ($/household/year)

Development Type
-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600

Climate Change
Air Pollution
Notes Regarding Interpretation of Results

- The results show the relative quantifications of varying development patterns. It is important to note that the tool is not a budgeting tool providing accurate costing
estimates. It is intended as a planning tool that provides high-level numbers for comparison purposes. So while the costs and assumptions might be inaccurate in
some cases, the assumptions would be consistent between scenario's, thus allowing for relative comparison to one-another.
- Caution should be taken not to compare the results from one community to the next as the costing assumptions and revenues vary between communities.
- Consider when to compare the total cost vs. per household costs. Some costs are calculated on a per capita or household basis, so developments with more
people will result in a higher cost. Other costs are spatial / linear, so developments with a larger footprint will result in a higher cost. Generally, compare either
developments of comparable size (by looking at household cost) or with comparable population size (by looking at total cost).
Figure 9

STEP 9: View
VIEWResults
RESULTS
Main Menu
Current Scenario: #7 - Nichol Road - Proposed
Note: Changes to Scenarios #0 - 6 cannot be SAVED as they are the built-in scenarios

POTENTIAL
COMMUNITY SERVICES
REVENUES &
COST RECOVERY
PRIVATE COSTS &

EXTERNAL COSTS
Private Costs
Revenues
Operating Costs

External Costs
Compare Scenarios
Cost/Revenue
Compare Scenarios
View
Intermediate
Calculations
Life-cycle Costs
Compare Scenarios

Internal Roads
External Roads
Schools
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
Total Costs
Total
Development
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$1,829,608
$1,646,647
-
$330,000
$363,000
$735,840
$57,086
$210,338
$70,737
$37,230
$3,633,838
$330,000
$363,000
$662,256
$57,086
$189,304
$70,737
$37,230
$3,356,260
$1,327
$266
$293
$534
$46
$153
$57
$30
$2,704

Internal Roads
External Roads

Treatment
Treatment
49%
10%
11%
20%
Schools
2%
6%
2%
1%
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
100%
Waste Management
User Defined Costs
ANNUAL O&M COSTS

Total
Development
Internal Roads
External Roads
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
SCHOOLS
School O&M Costs

$16,500
$37,200
$326,700
$321,800
$3,300
$171,440
$372,300
$126,203
$407,048
$618,018
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,628,854
$4,118,024
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$14,850
$33,480
$326,700
$321,800
$2,970
$154,296
$372,300
$113,582
$407,048
$618,018
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,593,389
$4,082,560
$12
$27
$263
$259
$2
$124
$300
$92
$328
$498
$184
$0
$1,200
$2,090
$3,290

Internal Roads
External Roads
Treatment
Treatment
1%
1%
13%
12%
0%
6%
14%
4%
16%
24%
9%
0%
100%
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
User Defined Costs
School O&M Costs


Internal Roads
External Roads
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
SCHOOLS
School Costs

Total
Development
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$129,095
$51,655
$347,637
$343,921
$48,141
$171,440
$376,766
$147,809
$412,582
$621,842
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,879,232
$4,368,403
$116,186
$46,490
$345,543
$341,709
$43,327
$154,296
$376,319
$133,028
$412,028
$621,460
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,818,730
$4,307,901
$94
$37
$278
$275
$35
$124
$303
$107
$332
$501
$184
$0
$1,200
$2,271
$3,471

User Defined Costs
3%
1%
8%
8%
1%
4%
9%
3%
10%
14%
5%
0%
35%
Waste Management
Police Services
Fire Services
Transit Services
School Transit
External Roads
Internal Roads
100%
$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Thousands


Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs
Nichol Road Proposed

$2,704
$2,704
Nichol Road - Proposed

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

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs

$2,090
$1,200
$0
$3,290
Schools

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

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs

$2,271
$1,200
$0
$3,471
Schools

$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
Thousands
Schools
REVENUES

Annual User Charges
Total
Revenues
Residential
per household
($)
or unit ($)
$1,556,574
$1,254
$781,830
$630
$7,918,684
$6,381

$2,819,611

$2,272


ANNUALIZED
LIFECYCLE COSTS
Developer Municipal
User Fees
$593,581
$2,059,267
Schools
$1,489,171
User Defined Costs
Ann LC Costs*
$593,581
$3,548,438
Others
-
$1
$1

ANNUAL REVENUES
$2,037,781
$781,830
User Charges
Ann LC Revenues
$2,819,611

Driving Costs
Home Energy
$5,167,265
$1,550,500
$6,717,765

Climate Change
Air Pollution
$118,150
$100,668
$696,291
$915,109

Municipal Revenues2
Municipal Revenues
Net Revenue
1

$1,102
$2,272
$1,170

$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
($/household/year)
Municipal Revenues
$2.0
$2.5
Thousands
PRIVATE COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
Driving Costs
Transit Fares
Home Heating Costs
Total
Development
Household
Costs
$5,167,265
$4,164
$1,249
$1,550,500
F
F
F

ANNUAL COSTS

Air Pollution
Climate Change
Total
Development
Household
Costs
$696,291
$100,668
$118,150
F
F
$561
$81
$95

Driving Costs
Transit Fares
Home Heating Costs
Total Cost

$4,164
$1,249
$5,413

0
Home Heating Costs

$561
$81
$95
$737
Driving Costs

Air Pollution
Climate Change
Total Cost
Transit Fares
4
Thousands
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600

Climate Change
Air Pollution

Figure 10

STEP 9: View
VIEWResults
RESULTS
Main Menu
Current Scenario: #7 - Nichol Road - Proposed
Note: Changes to Scenarios #0 - 6 cannot be SAVED as they are the built-in scenarios

POTENTIAL
COMMUNITY SERVICES
REVENUES &
COST RECOVERY
PRIVATE COSTS &

EXTERNAL COSTS
Private Costs
Revenues
Operating Costs

External Costs
Compare Scenarios
Cost/Revenue
Compare Scenarios
View
Intermediate
Calculations
Life-cycle Costs
Compare Scenarios

Internal Roads
External Roads
Schools
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
Total Costs
Total
Development
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$1,829,608
$1,646,647
-
$330,000
$363,000
$735,840
$57,086
$210,338
$70,737
$37,230
$3,633,838
$330,000
$363,000
$662,256
$57,086
$189,304
$70,737
$37,230
$3,356,260
$1,327
$266
$293
$534
$46
$153
$57
$30
$2,704

Internal Roads
External Roads

Treatment
Treatment
49%
10%
11%
20%
Schools
2%
6%
2%
1%
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
100%
Waste Management
User Defined Costs
ANNUAL O&M COSTS

Total
Development
Internal Roads
External Roads
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
SCHOOLS
School O&M Costs

$16,500
$37,200
$326,700
$321,800
$3,300
$171,440
$372,300
$126,203
$407,048
$618,018
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,628,854
$4,118,024
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$14,850
$33,480
$326,700
$321,800
$2,970
$154,296
$372,300
$113,582
$407,048
$618,018
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,593,389
$4,082,560
$12
$27
$263
$259
$2
$124
$300
$92
$328
$498
$184
$0
$1,200
$2,090
$3,290

Internal Roads
External Roads
Treatment
Treatment
1%
1%
13%
12%
0%
6%
14%
4%
16%
24%
9%
0%
100%
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
User Defined Costs
School O&M Costs


Internal Roads
External Roads
School Transit
Transit Services
Fire Services
Police Services
Waste Management
USER DEFINED
User Defined Costs
SCHOOLS
School Costs

Total
Development
Residential
Portion
Household
Costs
Percent
Breakdown
$/hh
$129,095
$51,655
$347,637
$343,921
$48,141
$171,440
$376,766
$147,809
$412,582
$621,842
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,879,232
$4,368,403
$116,186
$46,490
$345,543
$341,709
$43,327
$154,296
$376,319
$133,028
$412,028
$621,460
$228,344
$1
$1,489,171
$2,818,730
$4,307,901
$94
$37
$278
$275
$35
$124
$303
$107
$332
$501
$184
$0
$1,200
$2,271
$3,471

User Defined Costs
3%
1%
8%
8%
1%
4%
9%
3%
10%
14%
5%
0%
35%
Waste Management
Police Services
Fire Services
Transit Services
School Transit
External Roads
Internal Roads
100%
$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Thousands


Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs

$2,704
$2,704

Development
$67,400
$67,400

Development Type

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

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs

$2,090
$1,200
$0
$3,290
Schools

Development
$3,775
$6,949
$0
$10,724

Development Type

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

Schools
User Defined Costs
Total Costs

$2,271
$1,200
$0
$3,471
Schools

Development
$8,065
$6,949
$0
$15,014

Development Type

$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
Thousands
Schools
REVENUES

Annual User Charges
Total
Revenues
Residential
per household
($)
or unit ($)
$1,556,574
$1,254
$781,830
$630
$7,918,684
$6,381

$2,819,611

$2,272


ANNUALIZED
LIFECYCLE COSTS
Developer Municipal
User Fees
$593,581
$2,059,267
Schools
$1,489,171
User Defined Costs
Ann LC Costs*
$593,581
$3,548,438
Others
-
$1
$1

ANNUAL REVENUES
$2,037,781
$781,830
User Charges
Ann LC Revenues
$2,819,611

Driving Costs
Home Energy
$5,167,265
$1,550,500
$6,717,765

Climate Change
Air Pollution
$118,150
$100,668
$696,291
$915,109

Municipal Revenues2
Municipal Revenues
Net Revenue
1

$1,102
$2,272
$1,170

Development
Type
$4,105
$3,935
($170)
Nichol Road - Existing Development

Type

$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
($/household/year)
Municipal Revenues
$4.0
$5.0
Thousands
PRIVATE COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
Driving Costs
Transit Fares
Home Heating Costs
Total
Development
Household
Costs
$5,167,265
$4,164
$1,249
$1,550,500
F
F
F

ANNUAL COSTS

Air Pollution
Climate Change
Total
Development
Household
Costs
$696,291
$100,668
$118,150
$561
$81
$95
F
F

Driving Costs
Transit Fares
Home Heating Costs
Total Cost

$4,164
$1,249
$5,413

Development
$15,990
$180
$2,300
$18,470

0
10
12
14
Home Heating Costs

Air Pollution
Climate Change
Total Cost

Development
$1,369
$198
$232
$1,799
18
Driving Costs

$561
$81
$95
$737
Transit Fares
16
Thousands

Development Type
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600

Climate Change
Air Pollution

Figure 11
Preliminary Traffic Study - Mackenzie Village Development
RDSL Doc. No.: 15031-TIS-001
Mackenzie Village Development

Preliminary Traffic Study
Form No. RDSL 15031-TIS-001
Revision
0
Date
10-Dec-15
Revisions List
Revision
No
By
JS
Remarks
Checked Approved
GJS
GJS
Date
10-Dec-15
Revision
Initial Submittal
Date
10-Dec-15
1.0
Revision
0
Date
10-Dec-15
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 typically
submitted 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
is accessed from the Town of Revelstoke via Fourth Street, over the Illecillewaet River Bridge,
Airport Rd, and Nichol Road.
3.0
Existing Conditions
2.1
Existing Road Network

The existing key roads in the vicinity of the site are:
A.
Nichol Road The subject section of Nichol Road is a two-lane arterial that extends
from Airport Way easterly to Camozzi Drive. It is a two-lane road with a typical rural
cross-section, ie. Without any curb, gutter or sidewalk on either side. The posted
speed limit is 50 km/hr with a school zone immediately to the southwest of the
development with a posted speed limit of 30 km/hr during the hours or 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.
B.
Airport Way Airport Way is a two lane rural roadway with paved shoulders of varying
width. The posted speed limit is 50 km/hr. This roadway connects to the only existing
crossing of the Illecillewaet River required to access the Mackenzie Village
Development from Downtown Revelstoke. It is currently the only connecting route to
the hospital.
C.
Illecillewaet Bridge The bridge crossing the Illecillewaet River is currently the only
crossing and consists of one travel lane in each direction, no shoulders, roadside
barriers and a sidewalk on the east side. These features reduce the capacity of the
crossing in number of vehicles per hour.
Page No. 1
2.2
Revision
0
Date
10-Dec-15
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

Approach
Nichol Road in Front of Site
Airport Way
Illeillewaet Bridge
3.0
Future Traffic Conditions
3.1
Development Concept
Weekday A.M. Peak

SB/EB
NB/WB
2 Way
70
76
146
50
63
113
165
284
449
Weekday P.M. Peak

SB/EB
NB/WB
2 Way
89
73
162
71
70
141
306
236
542
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
Village.
Access to the future development is proposed via existing roads and includes access from
both Nichol and Hay Roads. The efficiency of site access arrangement will depend on capacity
of the key routes to accommodate the site generated traffic.
It is our understanding the development has a projected owner base of 1/3 permanent
residents, 1/3 recreational users and 1/3 retirees. It is forecasted occupancy rates would vary
from 50% during summer months to 100% during winter months. Due to the proximity to
Revelstoke Mountain Resort recent reports indicate the peak two-way traffic would occur
during the winter months.
Table 2 - Proposed Mackenzie Village Dwelling Breakdown
Dwelling Type
Total No.
Single Family
19
Duplex
28
Townhouse
328
Apartment
866
Total
1241
3.2
Development Traffic
The trip generation for the proposed 14.3 acre residential development was estimated by
applying the trip rates established in the MMRMP. The trip generation calculations for full
build-out are summarized in Table 3.
Page No. 2
Revision
Date
10-Dec-15
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
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 day
respectively. Phased Development Traffic Generation is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 - Phased Development Traffic Generation
Year One -2016
A.M. Peak Hours
Rate
Vehicle Two-way Peak
Permanent Residents
0.3
62
19
0.3
124
37
P.M. Peak Hours
Rate
Permanent Residents
0.3
62
19
0.3
124
37
Year Five - 2021
A.M. Peak Hours
Rate
Permanent Residents
0.3
310
93
0.3
620
186
P.M. Peak Hours
Rate
Permanent Residents
0.3
310
93
0.3
620
186
Year Ten - 2026
A.M. Peak Hours
Rate
Permanent Residents
0.3
617
185
0.3
1235
371
P.M. Peak Hours
Rate
Permanent Residents
0.3
617
185
0.3
1235
371
Outbound 90%
17
33
Inbound 10%
2
4
Outbound 10%
17
4
Inbound 90%
2
33
Outbound 90%
84
167
Inbound 10%
9
19
Outbound 10%
9
19
Inbound 90%
84
167
Outbound 90%
167
334
Inbound 10%
18
37
Outbound 10%
18
37
Inbound 90%
167
334
Page No. 3
4.0
Revision
0
Date
10-Dec-15
Intersection Impact
Based on the observed rates, it is estimated Mackenzie Village will increase the average twoway 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
Weekday A.M. Peak
Weekday P.M. Peak
SB/EB
NB/WB 2 WAY
SB/EB NB/WB 2 WAY
74
109
183
122
77
199
Airport Way
54
96
150
104
74
178
Illecillewaet Bridge
169
317
486
339
240
579
Year Five - 2021
Weekday A.M. Peak
Weekday P.M. Peak
SB/EB
NB/WB 2 WAY
SB/EB NB/WB 2 WAY
89
243
332
108
240
348
Airport Way
69
230
299
90
237
327
184
451
635
325
403
728
Year Ten - 2026
Weekday A.M. Peak
Weekday P.M. Peak
SB/EB
NB/WB 2 WAY
SB/EB NB/WB 2 WAY
107
410
517
423
110
533
Airport Way
87
397
484
405
107
512
202
618
820
640
273
913
Pervious traffic reports (MMRMP traffic Impact study) list road capacities for Airport Way and
the Illecillewaet Bridge. They are as follows:
Airport Way- 2 Lanes with a capacity of 970 veh/hr/lane

Illecillewaet Bridge- 2 lanes with a capacity of 800 veh/hr/lane
Forecasted traffic rates resulting from the development of Mackenzie Village will not exceed
the lane capacity of Airport Way and the bridge crossing the Illecillewaet River. At full buildout of the development, however, the bridge traffic will be approaching its capacity.
5.0
Summary and Findings

The key findings of this preliminary assessment are summarized as follows:
The Mackenzie Village site is located approximately 3.6 kms south of the town centre
near the Revelstoke Mountain Resort and will include a 14.3 acre residential
development of single, duplex, townhouse, and apartment complexes.
Page No. 4
6.0
Revision
0
Date
10-Dec-15
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 to
the 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 additional
peak 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
direction lights marking travel in the direction of highest flow.
Limitation of Report
This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of Mr. David Evans and his agents.
Revelstoke Design Services (RDSL) does not accept responsibility for the accuracy of any of
the data, the analysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the
report is used or relied upon by any party other than Mr. David Evans, or for any project other
than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is
at the sole risk of the user.
Revelstoke Design Services Ltd.
Greg Saunders, P.Eng.
Page No. 5
Figure 12
0929468
Prelmnary lnfrastructure & Servicing Study

Mackenzie Vllage
BC Ltd
Mecxetzre Vr-tnce
PReuurrtRRv IrurRASTRUcTune & SeRvrctc
Revrsor.
I-
Sruov
Frrunl RepoRr
Ocroeen 2015
,t
Prepared by
McElharrney
McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd.

710 Laval Crscent
Kamloops, BC
v2c
5P3
Gontact Bryan Gurnon, PEng

Phone 2504U-9524
Email: bgurnon@mcelhanney.com
2431-4684r-At
-l
oQMl,w#i'si*'
ffi
Preliminary lnfrastructLrre & Servicing Study

Mackenzie Village
Revision 1 - October 2015
0929468 BC Lrd
Table of Contents
1.
1.1
2.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........
Subdivision Analysis....
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
lntroduction
ACCESS AND INTERNAL ROADS..
WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION..
..9
STORM DRAINAGE
13
Closing
1-4
Appendices
Water Demands & Sanitary Flows by Phase
Mackenzie Village
Figurel-ContextMap
Map C - Proposed CD Zones
Map G - Greenways, Nodes & Parks
l-
Proposed Phasing
Map
Civil 1 - Utility Schematic
243].-46801'-Ot
,t
lVlcElhannelr
0929468
7-.
Preliminary lnfrastructure & Servicing Study

l\4ackenzie Village
Revision 1 - October20l-5
BC Lrd
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
#
Phase
- Proposed
Units
30
CD Zones. A summary of the phasing is as follows:
Building Types
Split Townhouses
Phases 2 &
308
Apartment Buildings c/w Commercial Units
Phases 4 to
565
Apartment Buildings
Phase
Phases 9 to
Phase
12
25
1l
205
45
'1,178
Single Family Homes/Duplexes/Townhouses

Split Townhouses, and Single Family Townhouses
Single Family Homes/Duplexes/Townhouses
Total
Building types within each phase will be dependent on market demands. The expectations are that total
build out will occur over '10 years.
2431-46aOr-O1-
Page
}|
rucelhanneY

Mackenzie Village
0929468 BC Lrd
2.
Subdivision Analysis
2.T ACCESS AND INTERNAL ROADS

The proposed Mackenzie Village development is located in the Arrow Heights neighbourhood of
Revelstoke, on the north side of Nichol Road, between Arrow Heights Elementary School (on Park Drive)
and Hay Road. The location is approximately 3.6 km southeast of downtown Revelstoke by travelling 0.7
km south on Victoria Road, 1.2 km southeast on Fourth St. E., crossing the lllecillewaet River bridge, 1.1
km south on Airport Way, and finally 0.6 km east on Nichol Road to the site.
A total of three accesses are proposed for the development: two accesses off of Nichol Road, and one
access off of Hay Road at the intersection with Aspen Crescent (north side). Nichol Road is classified as a
Collector Street and Hay Road is classified as a Local Street. Both roads are owned by the CoR and
access design shall conform to the CoR's design guidelines, Schedule 4 of the Subdivision, Development
and Servicing Bylaw No. 1846.
lnternal strata roads will be constructed following the same CoR design guidelines but the intent is to build
narrower roads to reduce vehicular speeds and strata maintenance costs, while improving the accessibility
for cyclists and pedestrians. The proposed layout of the internal roads is shown on Map G - Greenways,
Nodes & Parks, as well as on drawing Civil 1 - Utility Schematic. All roads will be thru-roads (i.e. no deadends) and snow storage locations are proposed in various locations within the development. There are no
significant challenges anticipated for the design of the internal roads.
2.2 WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION

Water supply to the Mackenzie Village development will come from the CoR's water system. As shown on
drawing Civil I - Utility Schematic, there are two pressure zones covering the area of the development and
another pressure zone to the southeast:
Pressure Zone 1 (PZ-1, shaded purple) with hydraulic grade line (HGL) of 532.5m;
Pressure Zone 2A (PZ-2A, shaded green) with HGL of 560m; and
Pressure Zone 2 (PZ-2, shaded orange) with HGL of 586m.
Per CoR record data, zones 1 and 2A are directly connected to each other; however, it is assumed there is
an isolation valve or break in the main that separates the zones near the intersection of Hay Road and
Aspen Crescent (south side), as noted on the drawing.
Based on the pressure zone HGL's and the existing ground elevations between 485m and 500m, static
pressures within the development would range as follows:
c PZ-1
between 320 kPa and 465 kPa;
. PZ-2A
between 590 kPa and725 kPa; and,
2437-46aAa-O1
Page 2
rtltelhanneY

Mackenzie Village
0929468 BC Ltd.
PZ-2
between 840 kPa and 990 kPa.
CoR bylaw mandates a minimum static pressure of 280 kPa and a maximum static pressure of 820 kPa.
Considering only static pressures, connecting to PZ-1 and/or PZ-2A would be recommended. Connection
to PZ-2 would require a pressure reducing valve (PRV) to lower the service pressures to the development.
Therefore, based on pressure zone HGL's connecting to PZ-1 and/or PZ-2A would be recommended;
however, available flow to supply the domestic and fire protection demands need to be considered also.
Section 2.2.1 estimates the design demands for the development, Section 2.2.2 reviews the existing CoR
pipe sizes and supply capacities, and finally, Section 2.2.3 summarizes the options and provides our
recommendation for servicing the development.
2.2.I
Design Demands
Water demands are calculated based on a per capita basis, excluding the fire flow requirements that are
based on zoning and use, and referencing the FUS guidelines. The design Peak Daily Flow or Maximum
Daily Demand (MDD) is based on the following:
a
An indoor (domestic) use of 250 litres/capita/day that was used for the Mt. Mackenzie Resort and
referenced in the Urban Systems report Master Plan, lnfrastructure and Traffic Plan, dated
December 2003. As noted in that report and applicable to the Mackenzie Village development, this
indoor use is a reasonable estimate for commercial and household water demand generated by a
population that has embraced water conservation practices.
A peak irrigation rate of 50 m3/hectarelday referenced from the Design Guidelines for Rural
Residential Community Water Systems 2012, prepared by the Water Management Branch, Ministry
of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations, Government of BC. The rate is dependent on a
number of parameters such as evapotranspiration, type of crop, size of area, soil types and
irrigation efficiency. This peak irrigation rate is for Revelstoke, within a temperate climate zone, at
70% efficiency, and with meters on all customers.
Mackenzie Village has an estimated irrigation area of 4.8 hectares that excludes hardscape areas
of the buildings, parking and road surfaces. This irrigation area is conservative as it includes the
storm pond areas and steep sloped areas that will not be irrigated. Therefore, the peak irrigation
use is estimated as 105 litres/capita/day.
a
Design population based on
3.0 people/unit
3.0 people/unit
3.0 people/unit
2.1 people/unit
1.9 people/unit
1.2 people/unit
3.5 employee/unit
Single family / duplex

Single family townhouse
Split townhouse
Large apament (1500 sf)
Medium apartment (1000 sf)
Small apartment (500 sf)
Retail Commercial
2437-46801.-OL
Page 3
/)l
Mcelhanney

Mackenzie Village
0929468 BC Lrd
Fire flow requirements are based on zoning and use, as follows:
Single and Two Dwelling
Apartments and Row
Housing
Housing
. Commercial
60
litres/sec
150
litres/sec
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
Total
MDD
MDD
cap
(m3/day)
(L/s)
30
90
32
0.37
Phase 2 - Apartments (Large/Medium/Small), and Commercial
165
261
93
1.09
Phase 3 - Apartments (Large/MediumiSmall), and Commercial
143
223
80
0.94
Phase 4 - Apartments (Large/Medium/Small)
170
255
91
1.06
140
212
76
0.89
120
195
70
0.81
Phase 7 - Apartments (LargelMedium/Small)
135
241
86
1.00
Phase 8 - Single Family / Duplex /Townhouse
25
75
27
o32
Phase 9 - Split Townhouse, and Single Family Townhouse
55
'165
59
0.69
55
165
59
0.69
95
285
102
1.18
Phase 12 - Single Family / Duplex / Townhouse
45
135
48
0.56
1,178
2,302
830
9.60
# Units
Phase
Phase 1 - SplitTownhouse
Totals
2.2.2
Pipe Sizes & Capacities
Per CoR bylaw, the sizing of pipes in the water distribution system must be designed to provide day-to-day
domestic requirements plus provide adequate flows for fire protection. The maximum allowable design
velocity is not to exceed 2.0 m/s at Peak Hour Flow (or Peak Hour Demand, PHD), and 4.0 m/s at Fire
Flow Conditions (MDD plus fire flow).
For Mackenzie Village, the size of water mains is governed by the Fire Flow Conditions. At the projected
build out the MDD is 10 L/s and the maximum fire flow requirement is 150 L/s; therefore, mains must be
sized for a maximum flow of 160 L/s. Note that not all the mains will need to carry this flow and detailed
design will determine the appropriate sizes; however, the main size required for Fire Flow Conditions helps
determine options for servicing the development from the CoR's water system.
243L-46801--O1
Page
,l
McElhannelr
0929468

l\4ackenzie Village
BC Ltd
The following table shows the maximum allowable demands for various pipe szes using PVC mains with
Hazen-William's roughness 'C' value of 130.
Pipe
Peak Hour Flow
Fire Flow Conditions
Max. Velocity of 2.0 m/s
Max. Velocity of 4.0 m/s
lmm)
lLls)
lLls)
100
15.7
31.4
Diameter
150
35.4
70.7
200
250
62.9
125.8
98.4
196.5
300
141.7
283.0
350
400
192.9
385.3
251.9
503.2
For a maximum flow of 160 L/s the minimum pipe size required is 250mm. Therefore, to service the
development from a single supply main a 250mm or larger pipe is required. Based on the CoR record
data, the closest existing 250mm or larger mains are within the followrng pressure zones.
PZ-1
A 300mm main at the intersection of Park Drive and Arrow Drive.

Approximately 300m of new 250mm main would be required on Arrow Drive, from
Park Drive to the development
PZ-2
A 300mm main on Nichol Road approximately 60m east of the development.

Approximately 300m of new 250mm main would be required on Nichol Road to the
development.
Servicing the development from multiple mains smaller than 250mm may be possible also. lt may be
possible to connect the development to the 200mm main on Nichol Road, to the 150mm main on Hay
Road, and to the 150mm main on Biatecki Road. Combined, these mains may be able to provide the
maximum flow of 160 L/s with flow velocities less than 4.0 m/s. New PRV stations would be needed to
regulate the pressures from PZ-1 and PZ-2A. Detailed analysis of the CoR's pipe network would be
required to confirm this is possible.
A more holistic approach to servicing the development would combine many of the above options to
provide the most benefit to the overall network. This would include connecting to the existing 300mm
mains on Park Drive and Nichol Road, tying into the dead end mains on Tillen Road, Piotrowski Road, and
Biatecki Road, and tying into the main on Hay Road. New PRV stations would be needed to regulate the
pressures romPZ-2toPZ1(Nichol Road) and from PZ-2AloPZ-1(Hay Road, and Biatecki Road).
2.2.3
Optons & Servicing Recommendation
There are a number of possible options to provide water service to the Mackenzie Village development
using the CoR's water system. A summary of each option is presented below.
Option
Service from the 200mm main on Nichol Road, the 150mm main on Hay Road, and the
150mm main on Biatecki Road. Works would include two tie-ins on Nichol Road, tie-ins to
Hay and Biatecki Roads (including new PRV's), and 250mm and smaller mains within the
development. Detailed analysis is required to confirm available flows meet requirements.

243].-4680LA1
Page 5
,t
McElhanney

Mackenzie Village
Revision 1- - October 20l-5
0929468 BC Ltd.
With the exception of the tie-ins, all the works would be within the property of the
development. Cost-sharing may be possible for the PRV stations on Hay and Biatecki
Roads.
Option 2
Service from the 300mm main on Nichol Road. Works would include a new PRV station
on Nichol Road, addition of approximately 300m of 250mm main on Nichol Road, 250mm
and smaller mains within the development, plus a second tie-in to the new 250mm main on
Nichol Road, and tie-ins to Hay and Biatecki Roads (including new PRV's).
Offsite works would include the PRV station on Nichol Road, the tie-ins on Nichol, Hay and
Biatecki Roads, and the addition of the 250mm main on Nichol Road. Cost-sharing may
be possible for the main on Nichol Road and the PRV stations on Nichol, Hay and Biatecki
Roads.
Option 3
Servlce from the 300mm main on Park Drive. Works would include addition of
approximately 300m of 250mm main on Arrow Drive with tie-ins to Tillen and Piotrowski
Roads, 250mm and smaller mains within the development, plus tie-ins to the 200mm main
on Nichol Road, and to Hay and Biatecki Roads (including new PRV's).
Offsite works would include the addition of the 250mm main on Arrow Drive, and the tie-ins
on Nichol, Hay and Biatecki Roads. Cost-sharing may be possible for the main on Arrow
Drive and the PRV stations on Hay and Biatecki Roads.
Option 4
Service from the 300mm mains on Nichol Road and Park Drive. Works would include all
the items in Options 2 and 3, a 250mm main running thru the development with other
smaller mains withi the development, plus tie-ins on Nichol, Hay and Biatecki Roads, and
tie-ins to Park Drive, Tillen and Piotrowski Roads.
Offsite works would include the PRV station on Nichol Road, the addition of the 250mm
mains on Nichol Road and Arrow Drive, and the tie-ins on Hay and Biatecki Roads. Cost
sharing may be possible for the mains on Nichol Road and Arrow Drive, and the PRV
stations on Nichol, Hay and Biatecki Roads.
For all the options, seruice pressures within the development will range between 320 kPa and725 kPa
based on matching the existing CoR's pressure zones PZ-I and PZ-2A.
The options are presented in order of increasing anticipated capital and engineering costs, excluding any
cost-sharing that may be possible. However, a more thorough analysis of the costs will be required to
confirm this opinion.
Recommendations for Water Service
We recommend providing water service to the Mackenzie Village development using Option 2 with a
service connection to the 300mm main on Nichol Road. This option provides demand flows with relatively
minor offsite works required, and as a result, reduces the capital and engineering costs. Drawing Civil 1 Utility Schematic shows the proposed works for Option 2.
2431.-468CL-0L
Page 6
,l
McEllrannelr

Mackenzie Village
Revision 1- - October 2015
0929468 BC Ltd.
Our opinion for recommendation does not account for any cost-sharing opportunities that may be possible
for offsite works or consider the CoR's requirements for approval. Wth this additional information and
following further analysis our opinion for recommendation may change.
2.2.4
CoR lnfrastructure Analysis
Analysis of the City of Revelstoke's water system referenced the following technical memo.
City of Revelstoke, City Long Term Water Supply 2006,
lmpact of Population Growth on Water Supply,
Prepared by Dayton & Knight, revision dated November 9, 2007
Water Suoolv and Treatment
The Dayton & Knight (D&K) technical memo estimated the capacity of the CoR's water system
components, as follows:
210 Lls
Supply from Greeley Creek

Supply from Golf Course Well
70 L/s
Current Water Treatment Plant
Lls
278 Lls
177
Upgraded Water Treatment Plant
(equivalent to 8,543 people)

(equivalent to 13,400 people)
The current MDD for Revelstoke is 155 L/s based on an estimated current population of 7,500 and a per
capita use of 1,790 litres/capita/day (per D&K tech memo). This estimates the current water treatment
plant is at 88% of capacity.
The D&K tech memo estimated water service populations (excluding RMR) of 6,430, 7,376 and 9,255 in
2005, 2015 and 2025 respectively. This works out to an actual annual growth rate of 2.0o/o lrom 2005 to
2015, and a projected annualgrowth rateof 2.3o/ofrom2015lo 2025. Using hhe2.3% annualgrowth rate,
the current treatment plant will reach 100% capacity in 2018.
The timeline to reach buildout for Mackenzie Village is anticipated to be 10 years with a total population of
approximately 2,300. Simplified, this works out to approximately 230 people per year added to the system
However, the population equivalent (PE) for Mackenzie Village is only 0.20 based on per capita water use
(355 Lpcd I 1,790 Lpcd). Thus, 230 people is reduced to 46 people per year, and a total population of 460
at buildout.
Based on a count of approximately 600 homes with 3.0 people/home, the existing population in Arrow
Heights is 1,800. The addition of 460 people over 10 years for Mackenzie Village works out to a projected
growth rate of 2.3o/o for all of Arrow Heights; however, some growth is expected in other parts of Arrow
Heights. Therefore to be conservative, the projected growth includes the annual growth rate of 1.0o/o for
Arrow Heights plus the 46 people per year for Mackenzie Village. The table below provides the population
projections to 2025.
2437-46aAa-O1
Page 7
,r
McEllrannelr
COOPER BEAUCHESNE AND ASSOCIATES LTD

KOOTENAY OFFICE - BOX 2508, 1123 WEST 2ND ST
250.837.3550
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 the
property 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 the
fall. 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 two
species should not be encouraged into urban areas; from this point of view I see little concern regarding
the development of this property.
I also see little potential value in this parcel of land regarding species at risk and the conservation of
other species. The property is already a highly disturbed site. While the habitat is suitable for a variety
of 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 at
risk.
Sincerely,
Harry van Oort MSc, RPBio #1804

Wildlife Biologist
0929468

Mackenzie Viliage
BC Lrd.
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
Population
Arrow
Year
Heights
Mackenzie Village
Total
201 5 (Current Estimated)
1,800
1,800
2016
1,818
46
1,864
2017
1,837
92
1,929
2018
1,855
138
1,993
2019
1,873
184
2,057
2020
1,892
230
2,122
2Q21
1,911
276
2,187
2022
1,930
322
2,252
2023 (need to expand reservor)
1,949
368
2,317
2024
1,969
414
2,383
2025 (Buildout of Mackenzie Village)
1,989
460
2,449
Notes:
1.
2.
Current population of Arrow Heights based on an estimate of 600 homes with 3.0 people/home.
Mackenzie Village annual population increase based on a total PE of 460 averaged over the 10
year anticipated buildout.
2431-468AlOt
Page 8
McelhanneY
0929468

Mackenzie Village
BC Ltd
2.3
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION
The sanitary sewer collection system from the Mackenzie Village development will tie into the CoR's
wastewater system. As shown on drawlng Civil '1 - Utility Schematic, tie-ins will be made to the existing
CoR gravity mains on Nichol Road. There are no other existing mains adjacent to the property. An
existing service stub from San MH 22 could be utilized for servicing Subzone A, and a new service pipe
could be installed from San MH 23 to service Subzone B, but these services will need to be reviewed
further during detailed design. New main stubs are proposed to tie to future CoR mains on Hay Road at
Aspen Crescent (north side), and at Biatecki Road.
The majority of the onsite collection system will consist of gravity-flow piping that will tie into the existing
CoR main on Nichol Road. However, the west and nofth sides of the property are lower than the existing
main and will either need to be pumped up to the main on Nichol Road, or an offsite gravity main needs to
be built to connect to another CoR existing main. Drawing Civil 1 shows the lift station option only. The
offsite gravity main option is presented in Section 2.3.3.
2.3.1,
Design Flows
Sanitary sewer design flows are calculated using the CoR's Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw
No. 1846 and a per capita basis accounting for infiltration rates, zoning, and a peaking factor, as follows:
a
CoR design standards require an average daily flow (ADF) rate of 300 litres/capita/day for new
development areas.
Design population based on:
3.0 people/unit
3.0 people/unit
3.0 people/unit
2.1 people/unit
1.9 people/unit
1.2 people/unit
3.5 employee/unit
Single family / duplex

Single family townhouse
Split townhouse
Large apartment (1500 sf)
Medium apartment (1000 sf)
Small apartment (500 sf)
Retail Commercial
The peaking factor is applied to the ADF or average dry weather flow (ADWF) to estimate the peak
dry weather flow (PDWF). The value for the peaking factor is calculated using the formula:
PF = 1 + 114 I (4 + sqrt(P)
a
)l
,where P is the population in thousands.
Wet weather conditions are accounted for by adding an infiltration flow of 5,000 litres/hectare/day
(for pipes not in water table, anticipated for this development) that represents groundwater
infiltration into the system.
Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) equals the sum of the PDWF and infiltration flow
Design sanitary flows 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."
243t-4680L-01,
rd q
)l
rucelhanlrey

Mackenzie Village
0929468 BC Lrd
Summary of Sanitary Flows by Phase

# Units
Total
Cap
PWWF
30
90
1.42
165
261
4.O7
143
223
3.44
170
.EE
3.90
140
212
3.25
120
195
3.03
135
241
3.77
25
75
1.26
55
165
2.58
55
165
254
95
285
4.32
Phase 12 - Single Family / Duplex / Townhouse
45
'135
2.21
1,178
2,302
35.79
Phase
Phase 1 - SplitTownhouse
Phase
- Single Family / Duplex /Townhouse
Totals
2,3.2
lUs)
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.
Min. Pipe
Pipe
Diameter Slope
(%)
(mm)
1.00
100
0.50
150
200
0.40
0.28
250
0.22
300
0.1 5
375
Flow
Capacity
(L/s)
6.1
12.7
24.5
37.2
53.6
80.3
Full
Min. Flow
Allowable
(Us)
1.2
3.1
4.6
7.6
11.0
19.0
Based on the total design flow of 36 L/s, the maximum size pipe required for the development only would
be a 300mm PVC main at0.22% grade taking into account maximum Ylulllor pipes greaterthan 250mm
diameter per CoR bylaw. The proposed tie-ins shown on drawing Civil 1 - Utility Schematic will divide the
total design flow into two pipes connecting to Nichol Road. The east and west tie-ins have estimated
design flows of 10 Us and 26 L/s respectively, with pipe sizes of 200mm and 300mm.
Within the development the majority of the pipe mains will be 200mm, using 150mm mains at dead ends
with no possible future extensron.
243]'-4684r-OL
Page 10
,l
McElhanney
Preliminary Infraslructure & Servicing Study
0929468
BC Lrd
2.3.3
Rev
ision
yi':: xl5f;
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.
Recommendations
We recommend servicing the west and north portions of the development using a lift station owned by the
strata. Construction of an offsite main may not be supported by iinpacted residents or the CoR; therefore,
we advise negotiating connection to the gravity main on Arrow Drive when the CoR considers expansion of
their collection system.
Our opinion for recommendation does not account for any cost-sharing opportunities that may be possible
for offsite works or consider the CoR's requirements for approval. With this additional information and
following further analysis our opinion for recommendation may change.
2431-46801-0L
Page 1-1
,t
McElhanney
Prelirninary lnfrastructure & Servicing Study

Mackenzie Village
0929468 BC Ltd
2.3.4
CoR lnfrastructure Analysis
Analysis of the City of Revelstoke's sanitary system referenced the following reports:
a
Revelstoke Mountain Resort, Sanitary Sewer System Predesign,

Prepared by Urban Systems, dated May 2007.
City of Revelstoke, Updated Arrow Heights Sewerage Servicing Plan,

Prepared by Dayton & Knight, dated February 2008.
Revelstoke Mountain Resort, Lift Station 2, Design Brief

Prepared by Urban Systems, dated May 2008,
- Revision 1,
Gravitv Collections Mains

Based on the referenced reports, the existing main on Nichol Road was designed to convey a minimum
P\ A/VF of 216 L/s. This ultimate flow rate was estimated using projected buildout population equivalents of
6,000 for Arrow Heights and 17,665 for RMR, and using unit flow rates of 365 Lpcd and 216 Lpcd
respectively.
The Mackenzie Village flow of 36 L/s at buildout is calculated using a unit flow rate of 300 Lpcd for
approximately 2,300 people. This equates to a population equivalent of only 1,890 based on a per capita
sanitary flow of 0.82 (300 Lpcd / 365 L/pcd). Therefore at buildout in 2025, the projected population for
Arrow Heights is 4,150 based on an annual growth rate of 2.3Yofrom 2015 to 2025, as noted in Section
2.2.4, and adding the buildout population from Mackenzie Village.
ln summary, the existing CoR mains downstream have sufficient capacity for the buildout flows from Arrow
Heights and RMR, including the Mackenzie Village development. No upgrades to the existing collection
mains will be required.
Lift Station
Based on the referenced lift station report, the existing lift station located at the intersection of Airport Way
and lllecillewaet Road has an ultimate capacity of 216 L/s; however, due to flow limitations at the existing
\ A/TP, the current pumps in the lift station only have a capacity for 80 L/s. From this and using the
average per capita flow of 254 litres/capita/day, the total population equivalent that can be served by the
current lift station is 8,765 that includes Arrow Heights and RMR, as well as Mackenzie Village.
The current and future population for RMR is unknown so an accurate estimate of when the lift station will
need to be upgraded cannot be provided. However, if the existing RMR population is assumed to be 1,800
(the sarne as the current population of Arrow Heights) and an annual growth rate of 2.3o/o is used, a
projected population of 6,410 in 2025 can be estimated for Arrow Heights (including Mackenzie Village)
and RMR. Based on these values the current lift station would be at approximately 73o/o capacity. To
reach 100% capacity in the year 2025, Ihe existing RMR population would need to be approximately 3,675.
The CoR should review the actual population equivalent and anticipated annual growth to determine the
appropriate schedule to upgrade the lift station.
243]'-4680].-0L
Page 12
)l
ucelhanney
0929468

Mackenzie Village
Revision 1 - October 201-5
BC Ltd
2.4
STORM DRAINAGE
The storm drainage system for the Mackenzie Village development will consist of surface water swales,
trenches and wetlands / ponds that are designed to infiltrate and recharge the groundwater system. The
intent of the development will be to limit the amount of infrastructure required, such as underground piping,
manholes, and catch basins, to reduce capital and maintenance costs by using natural processes to reduce
runoff and to help treat the storm water discharge. This approach entails maintaining and protecting slopes
and existing large trees, to better integrate the development into the landscape. Building roofs and parking
areas will also need to be designed to manage and treat runoff that may entail the use of green roofs,
bioswales, and/or infiltration ditches.
An overall Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for the development will need to be completed to
conform to the CoR's design guidelines, Schedule 4 of the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw
No. 1846. The plan will need to consider allthe drainage impacting the development, and this may include
areas outside of the property such as the existing lots on the west side of Hay Road, or roadside runoff
along Nichol Road. The plan will need to be completed prior to the first phase of development and updated
as necessary as subsequent phases are added.
The proposed layout of greenways / trails, and stormwater ponds is shown on Map G - Greenways, Nodes
& Parks, as well as on drawing Civil 1 - Utility Schematic. As mentioned above, the key components of
drainage management will be as follows:
a
Roof rainwater leaders, parking area catch basins, and lawn basins directed to surface water
swales, trenches and wetlands / ponds designed to allow infiltration into the native soils.
Ponds designed as dry ponds / infiltration basins, sized to capture the runoff from a 1OO-year storm
plus a 50% safety factor per CoR bylaw, and with emergency overflows.
Emergency overflow from the south pond will flow into the north pond, and the overflow from the
north pond will discharge onto Arrow Drive, or into a drainage conveyance that is part of the CoR's
Master Drainage Plan (currently being prepared).
Pond locations and sizes shown on drawing Civil 1 are approximate only. Hydrogeological testing of the
onsite soils will need to be completed during detailed design of the infiltration ditches and ponds. As well,
temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation controls (ESC's) will need to be part of the overall
SWMP with specific ESC's identified for each phase works in the detailed design.
243L-468O1-01-
Page 13
l|
nacelhanneY
Preliminary Infrastructure & Servicing Study

lVackenzie Vil!age
0929468 BC Lrd
3. Closing
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
Prepared by:
rt-!ii.lOt'l
# zeaa7
tU. s'
li.
Bryan Gurnon, PEng

Senior Project Engineer
Land Development / Municipal
email: bgurnon@mcelhanney.com
cc:
243A-46801-O7
Selkirk Planning
& Design, Attn: Fraser Blyth
Page 14
,l'
MaElhanney
Preliminary lnfrastructure & Servicng Study

Mackenzie Village
Revision 1 - October 201-5
0929468 BC Ltd.
Appendix A
2431-46801-OI
Mackenzie Village
- Water Demands
Page A
& Sanitary Flows by Phase
rucelhannelr
l\
McEllranney
201 5-09-l 5
Mackenzie Village - Water Demands & Sanitary Flows by Phase

SANITARY
WATER
Population
#
Units Cap/Unit
30
Total Cap
MDD
(L/day)
ADWF
(L/s)
31,950
0.37
032
90
3l,950
0.37
0.32
009
0.08
0-47
38,340
6,390
92,655
D - Split Townhouse
I(!
Subtotal
30
A - Large Apartment (1500 sf)
10
2.1
A - Medum Apartment (1000 sf)
60
l9
114
40,470
A - Small Apartment (500 sf)
90
1.2
108
3,5
18
261
MDD (L/s)
90
lll
lnfiltration Calculations
Flow Calculations
Desgn
Subzone - percent buildout
Peak
Factor
4.26
PDWF (L/s)
Area
(ha)
Design
Flow (Us)
PWWF (L/s)
I /
0.76
0.05
1.42
1.37
0.76
0.0s
1.42
438
0.36
019
o02
038
0.40
423
1.70
0.19
o02
172
045
0.38
424
1.62
0.19
o.o2
164
008
0.07
439
0.31
0.19
o.o2
033
1.09
0.93
3.99
0.75
0.08
4.07
Cum MDD = 40 m3 or 0 37 L/s
21
7.455
uJ
u,
IfL
A - Retail Commercial
Subtotal
165
Cum MDD = 130 m3 or 1.46 L/s

10
2.1
21
7,455
0.09
0.08
438
0.36
015
001
037
B - Medium Apartment (1000 sf)
50
19
95
33,725
0.40
0.33
425
1.41
015
001
142
B - Small Apartment (500 sf)
80
1.2
96
34,080
040
0.34
4.25
1.45
015
0.01
1.46
11
3,905
0.05
0.04
442
018
015
0. 19
79,165
0.94
0.79
3.40
0.s8
0.04
3.4
7,455
009
0.08
438
0.36
020
0.02
0.38
1.72
B - Large Apartment
(1
500 sf)
IJJ
.
o-
B - Retail Commercial
Subtotal
223
'143
0'1
Cum MDD = 210 m3 or 2.4 Lls

C - Large Aprtment (1500 s0
l0
2.1
21
60
19
114
40,470
047
0.40
425
1.70
020
o.o2
C - Small Apartment (500 sf)
100
12
120
42,600
0.50
o.42
423
1.78
020
o.o2
Subtotal
170
255
90,525
1.06
0.90
3.84
0.59
0.06
3.90
7,455
0,09
0.08
438
036
0.12
001
037
1.42
C - Medium Apartment (1000 s0
uJ
.n
T
fL
.80
Cum MDD = 300 m3 or 3.46 Us

C - Large Apartment
o
Lrl
an
500 s0
10
2.1
21
C - Medium Apartment (1000 sf)
50
19
95
33,725
0,40
0.33
425
141
0.12
001
80
1.2
96
34,080
040
034
425
1.45
o.12
0.01
1.46
212
75,260
0.89
0.7s
3.22
0.36
0.03
3.25
0.09
0.08
4.38
0.36
0.34
002
038
o.47
0.40
423
1.70
0.34
002
1.72
430
091
0.34
o.o2
0.93
2.97
1.03
0.06
3.03
(1
Subtotal
140
Cum MDD = 370 m3 or 4.35 L/s

C - Large Apartment (1500 sf)
C - Medium Apartment (1000 s
Subtotal
10
2.1
60
19
50
1.2
120
21
7,455
114
40,470
60
21,300
o25
0.21
195
69,225
0.81
0.69
MDD = 440 m3 or 5.16 L/s
Page 1 of 3
,l
McEllranney
20'1
5-09-15
Mackenze Village - Water Demands & Sanitary Flows by Phase

SANTARY
WATER
Population
Flow Calculations
Design
(ha)
Design
C - Large Apartment (1500 sf)
)q
21
EA
'18,815
0.22
(Us)
0.1 I
431
0.82
082
0.05
0.87
ts
C - Medium Apartment (1000 s0
80
1.9
152
53,960
0.63
053
4.19
2.23
0.82
005
2.28
UI
30
12
5b
12,780
0.1 5
0.1 3
4. C
057
082
005
062
85,555
1.00
0.85
3.62
2.46
0.15
3.77
013
0.1
048
0.55
0.04
0.52
0.70
0.55
004
0.74
't.18
1.10
0.08
1.26
Subzone - percent buildout
t!
I
l!
Units Cap/Unit
't35
Subtotal
Total Cap
241
MDD
{Uday)
MDD (Us)
ADWF
Peak
Factor
PDWF (Us)
Area
Flow (Us)
PWWF (L/s)
Cum MDD = 530 m3 or 6. 16 L/s

@
uJ
o-
/ F - Sngle Famly / Duplex
10
E / F - Single Family Townhouse
15
Subtotal
25
3.0
30
30
45
75
'10,650
5,975
0.19
016
26,625
0.32
0,27
'1
436
a
^

D - Split
fownhouse
D - Single Family Townhouse
20
Subtotal
55
3.0
105
37,275
044
o.37
4.24
1.57
0.76
005
1.62
30
60
21 ,300
o.25
021
4.30
0.91
076
0.05
096
0.69
0.58
2.
1.51
0.10
2.58
165
58,575
Cum MDD = 610 m3
o
uJ
U)
-(!
or7
17
lls
D - Split Townhouse
45
J.U
'135
47,925
0.56
047
4.21
'1.98
0.59
004
202
10
3.0
30
10,650
0.1 3
0.'1
436
048
0.59
o.o4
o.52
Subtotal
55
58,575
0.59
0.58
2.46
1.',t7
0.08
2.54
165

D - Splt Townhouse
65
U)
30
I
f!
Subtotal
95
ul
J.U
195
69,225
081
068
4.16
2.83
090
0.06
289
90
31,950
0.37
0.32
4.26
137
0.90
0.06
1.43
101,'175
1.18
L00
4.20
1.80
0.12
4.32
285
Cum MDD = 770 m3 or 9 04 Us

N
uJ
u,
15
30
45
15,975
0.19
016
4.33
0.70
109
o.o7
o.77
E / F - Single Family Townhouse
30
3.0
on
31,950
037
032
426
137
1.09
007
144
Subtotal
t5
47,925
0.56
0.18
2.07
2.17
0.14
2.2',l.
9.60
8.14
34.80
14.28
0.99
35.79
E / F - Sngle Family
/ Duplex
135
Cum MDD = 820 m3 or 9.6 L/s
Total Buildout
1,178
2,302
817,210
Page 2 of 3
,(\
McEllranny
20 1 5-09-1 5
Mackenze Village - Water Demands & Sanitary Flows by Phase

SANITARY
WATER
Population
Subzone -
buildout
Units
Cap/Unt Total
Cap
MDD (L/day)
Flow Galculations
Design
MDD (Us)
ADWF
(Us)
Peak
Factor
PDWF (Us)
Area
(ha)
Flow (Us)
Design
PWWF (L/s)
NOTES:
SF/D
3.0 people/unit
SF Town
3 0 people/unit
Split Town
3.0 people/unit
1. Design Population based on:
500 s0
2.1 peopleiunit
Med Apt (1000 sf)
1.9 people/unt
Lge Apt
(1
Sml Apt (s00 sf)
2 people/unit
3 5 employeeiunit
Retail Comm.
- lndoor (Domestc) Use =

- PeaklrrgationUse=
- Peak Daily Flow (Maximum Daily Demand) =
250
ltresicapita/day
4.8 hectares x 50 m3/hectare/day
105 litres/capita/day,basedonatotal irrgationareaof:

355 lihes/capita/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)
Peak Factorcalculated usingformula: PF= 1+ 114

lnfiltration volume calculated using.
300 litres/capiiaiday
l(4
+ sqrt(P) )1, where P isthepopulation inthousands
5,000 litres/hectare/day (for pipes not in water table)
1
2
Phase3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase6
ha
ha
0.58 ha
0.59 ha
0.36 ha
1.03 ha
Estimated areas: Phase
0.76
Phase
0.75
7
I
Phaseg
Phase 10
Phase 11
Phase 12
Phase
2.46 ha
Phase
1.10 ha
Total
14.29 ha
1.51 ha
1.17 ha
1.80 ha
217
ha
Page 3 of 3
0929468

Mackenzie Village
BC Ltd
Appendix
.
.
Figure
1-
- Context Map
Map C - Proposed CD Zones
o Map G - Greenways, Nodes & Parks

o Map | - Proposed Phasing
o Civil
2437-4680I-Ot
I - Utility Schematic
PaCe B
/)l
nacelhanney
Gontext Map
ure
ArswDr
ir
-'...'..E---t
l-.t42 l-ecto'e
D
-ll
3li l-er-lcr;;i
4.Zi- lrs':'!o:.r
I
I
{r? lrurluriit
?J.
lJr,:lc:+l
--l
iI
l-4r l-ls,ilcr.er
l
I
1
l
t
I
I
I
,1
I
I
I
I
,'**--
-,-.1
-F
L-'
i
I
tt
;
a
l-
I
a
I
t
lr
IJ
-{..-t
-O-'.4.
.J
l-I
I
i
L-
'-'
-_
-'--_
t
-r
!.
o o
--i'-,ti,.. j'C,.,'r'
II
:,".
_l'-
I
E
--+--------a-D---
flfftslEd
r-a
I_ f\L/I_
JEJ
I \I\l\
uuno
PROP9ED PARK/
POTENTIAL eIoRHUJATER
I.IANAGEI,IENT
O.4 HcIars
0.4 Hctors
.'.
4.2 s.clors
I
'
NODE
4.7 He.cIars
1.2 Hclars
1.5 Hclors
j'
i
i/
' ':,
I
'Accss Crnwoys
PROPgED OPEN gPACE

gLOPE PROTECTION AREA
RECREATION
i NODE
ETITTF*EI ElI=EIETX
r Joy
NET
LlJoy
!
I
rl
I
f
TRAIL
CONNECTION
FROTI jCHOOL q
RECREATION
NODE
NIC{.]OL ROAD
[["gEEE
gIDEtUALK/TRAIL
fl
il
I
I
)1v1,
- .l
Kootnoy Dislrici
.J
.d
Sr*
o8
I
llli
L--.-.-iNErGt-{BOURt-IOOD
NDE

250.837.3550
risk.
Sincerely,

Wildlife Biologist
--l--;-
---
I
-__
--r
PHASE 1(l:
l {
--
Plt[9E
I-
t ,
a
I ,
15
30
135
t2:
SingleFamily/Duplexes
SlngleFamilyTownhouses
Residents
.r
I
I
I
325)
PHASE
35
20
9r
Townhouses ,
165 Residents
I
li
50
60
t0
6:
47m'zApartments
93m2 Apartments
140m'zApartments
195 Residents
285
SplitTownhouses
SingleFamilyTownhouses
Residents
PHASE
30
80
25
240
F=Ct!r-
F-
iil
PHSE
30 SplitTownhouses
90 Residents
.-T-.1
EtrFltr
-F.]FE
lfi Fg - H'srtrn'f
Ir-I|---r-rr
r
l
PHASE
-----f--r----lr
2:
90 4Tm2Apartments
60 93m'zApartments
10 140m2 Apartments
5 80m2 Commercial Unlts
243 Residents
l8 Employees
+ - -\ - r.qrr.lFT --I---I-_--
reF.',-s'.
PHASE5:
80
50
l0
212
47mr Apartments
93m2Aartments
140m2
Residents
PHASE 3:
Apartments
rr,r
9o
9d
oi
ES
QP
_
'E'
e'
Residents
:
|
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
47m'?Apartments
93m2 Apartments
'140m2 Apartments
II-
.-i+4iit -*grE
PHASE4T
100 4h2 Apartments
60 g3m2Apartments
l0 140m2 Apartments
255 Residents
I
!M, Kootnoy Dstrct
I
J--,
"
f
I
II----r
I
I
F5?
J -r,l+re.i*,,a,
I
II
fl
PHs8
5
30
I
I
t-
TI
PHASE
Split
Slngle FamllyTownhouses.'
I
I
I
o *
U ot.=
.=:
sq
E93R
I
I
I
80 47m2 Apartments
50 93m'zApartments
10 '140m2 Apartments
3 B0m2Commercial Units
212 Residents
1t Employees
I
I
I
I
rJ
m
T
al
lrI
PON
a
1:,.
SCALE 1 :2500
i
)./t-.,,
1(-'
'..'f"'
.i
t:
11
',i;
EXIST,
HYDRAN
ASP
NC
ESCI NT
ti
il
!l
t.!
/i
50
SUB
"s
L-,
t_
(,
I
200
2OO STUB
489.J67
444.642
NI
SAN PVC O o.54%
488.642
490.79
r i
375 SAN PVC @

tNV 489.J67
RtM 493.777
HOL RO
300
O.54%
tNV 490.078
RtM 494.862
@
tNV 490.270
RtM 495.480
,,t
PVC SAN @ 0.16%
McEllranney
Consulting Services Ltd.
Figure 13
250.837.3550
risk.
Sincerely,

Wildlife Biologist
Figure 14

Nichol Road Housing Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nichol Road Housing Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Revelstoke

His Worship Mayor McKee and Members of City Council

Dean Strachan, MCIP, RPP

January 15, 2016

Financial Impact Assessment

Dean Strachan, MCIP, RPP

1849 1877 1893

OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA

McKinnon Rd McKinnon McKinnon Rd

OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA

McKinnon Rd McKinnon McKinnon Rd

OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA

Community Consultation Plan

Proposed Development Project:

Community Consultation Plan Summary

Mayor McKee & Revelstoke City Council,

Narrower and fewer roads - Narrower roads provide several benefits:

Flexibility & Intended Build-Out

Submitted: December 2nd, 2014

Drawings Prepared by:

MacKenzie Landing Sustainable Development Principles

On-Site Environmental Development Principles

Link the road network to surrounding neighbourhoods where feasible

Consider snow removal and storage in laying out roads

Preserve existing trees where possible

Building Development Principles

MacKenzie Landing Development Concept

Use local materials and climatic architecture to develop a Revelstoke Vernacular

Nichol Road Right-of-Way

MacKenzie Landing Development Concept

Nichol Road, Revelstoke, BC

DRAFT - Road Sections

MacKenzie Landing Development Concept

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

Variable Unit Sizes and configurations

Potential Setback Fourth Storey

Walk-Up Apartments with a variety of unit sizes

Row house units with a variety of unit sizes and configurations

Suites may be built

Residential CD Zones (C-F)

Flexible Unit configurations allow for different housing types

Walk-up apartments with standard unit sizes to mimic single

MacKenzie Landing Development Concept

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

Results Quick Navigation Menu:

Click on the cost category of interest.

Initial Capital Costs

PRIVATE COSTS &

INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS

POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES

Distribution of Initial Capital Costs

Potable Water Distribution and

Return to Results Menu

ANNUAL O&M COSTS

Total Costs (Excluding School Costs)

Distribution of Annual Operating Costs*

School O&M Costs

Because of their large magnitude, school costs have been

ANNUALIZED LIFECYCLE COSTS

POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES

Total Costs (Excluding School Costs)

Annualized Lifecycle Costs* (Residential Portion)

* Excludes School Costs