HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-14-090 - Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations - PARTS - Phase 2: Project Summary and Central Stations Study Area Plan/Secondary Plan Launch Staff Report
I rTC'.�► t .R Community Services Department wmkitchenerca
REPORT TO: Community & Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: September 8, 2014
SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
PREPARED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy
Planning (519-741-2200 ext. 7648)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Wards 3, 9 and 10
DATE OF REPORT: August 20, 2014
REPORT NO.: CSD-14-090
SUBJECT: Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS)
Phase 2: Project Summary and
Central Stations Study Area Plan/Secondary Plan Launch
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) Phase 1: Project Plan and
Background Report concluded in December 2013 with report CSD-13-104 that
recommended proceeded with five corridor-wide initiatives in Phase 2. This report is a
summation of related reports CSD-14-025, -032, -88, and -89 and represents the
conclusion of PARTS Phase 2. This Fall will also mark the launch of the first rapid
transit Station Study Area Plan (PARTS: Central Plan) which was previously identified
as the highest priority.
REPORT:
Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) Phase 2: Project Summary
Phase 2 of the PARTS project is on time, under budget and was largely completed
using "in-house" resources. The initial work in developing the Project Plan identified that
there were efficiencies and benefits to conducting five initiatives for the entire Kitchener
portion of the rapid transit corridor. These initiatives were prepared from January-
August of this year and included several reports as outlined in the summary below.
12 - 1
Phase 2: Corridor-wide Initiatives -2014
Interim Communications Urban Sanitary Sewer Transportation
Direction Approach Design Capacity Demand
Guidelines Analysis Management
CSD-14-032 CSD-14-025 CSD-14-88 CSD-14-90 CSD-14-89
Interim Direction
This initiative resulted in an amendment to the existing Kitchener Official Plan to ensure
that development applications within the PARTS Study Area/Central Transit Corridor
are required to consider Transit Oriented Development (TOD) principles in advance of
the new Official Plan being in full effect. The amendment identifies a list of criteria to
consider when reviewing development proposals/applications in areas which are the
focus for intensification. The TOD principles include compact urban form, a connected
street pattern, development that is at appropriate densities, pedestrian-friendly design
and the provision of high-quality gathering places. The amendment also provides policy
direction for lands in stable residential neighbourhoods which are not the focus for
intensification and direction to consider the potential conversion of employment lands.
Communications Approach
The approach to community and stakeholder engagement for the individual Station
Study Area planning process includes opportunities for interaction at key milestones
throughout the project. The report associated with this initiative identified a "toolbox" of
engagement methods to utilize for different milestones including opportunities to
participate both in person and online through roundtable discussions, stakeholder
interviews, walking tours, surveys, live chats and town hall meetings. Engagement
would be supplemented with consultant facilitators and involvement from the University
of Waterloo. Each Station Study Area Plan will be conducted using an integrated
Planning Act (Official Plan Amendment/Secondary Plan/Zoning By-law Amendment)
and Class Environmental Assessment Act (Master Plan).
Urban Design Guidelines
A new PARTS Urban Design Brief is to be added to the City's Urban Design Manual to
implement new transit-oriented guidelines and to provide general direction in reviewing
development applications within the Station Study Areas. The Brief would apply to all
lands within the PARTS area (generally 800-1000m from a rapid transit station) with the
exception of land in a Mixed Use Corridor or Downtown which already have detailed
design guidelines. These guidelines will provide the design direction to allow the
consideration of compatible development opportunities in advance of the preparation
and implementation of Station Area Plans and to conserve stable residential
neighbourhoods from incompatible development proposals. The Design Brief is fairly
high-level and will be supplemented with specific standards for each Station Area once
the detailed planning and streetscape plans are complete.
12 - 2
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis
The City continues to utilize its sanitary sewer model to check potential capacity of the
trunk sewer system as it relates to existing conditions and future growth. Previous
growth management information was tested in the model and a high level review of the
system was conducted through PARTS Phase 1. The next step was to investigate
potential new density scenarios for the Focus Area locations of the PARTS Study Area.
A "macro-scale" review was conducted that utilized several conservative assumptions
and included downstream considerations. The results are that the trunk sanitary sewer
system is well positioned to handle future growth within the Station Areas (see the
analysis memo attached as Appendix A to this report). Considering the long-term
potential for growth and the design of the existing system, there are two sections of
sewer that are recommended to continue to examine through future stages. A more
detailed analysis will be required to analyze the capacity of local sewers in relation to
future development scenarios during each Station Study Area Plan.
Transportation Demand Management
Ultimately, the City must balance growth with environmental sustainability, an effective
transportation network and fiscal responsibility. To do so, the City needs to develop and
implement TDM strategies which can encourage more people to choose active and
more-sustainable transportation options. The PARTS TDM Strategy is an overall
guidance document that provides direction on transportation demand management
initiatives within rapid transit Station Study Areas. A series of recommended directives
provide the necessary actions to include in the Station Area Plans, zoning, the
development process, and other TDM/parking policies and programs.
Launch of Central Stations Study Area Plan/Secondary Plan (PARTS: Central Plan)
With the completion of the five corridor-wide initiatives in Phase 2, staff is now in a
better position to begin the first rapid transit Station Study Area Plan — referred to as the
PARTS: Central Plan. The official public launch through notices, website updates, social
media, etc. is expected this Fall in advance of the first round of stakeholder and public
sessions tentatively being considered for November-December. As indicated in the
PARTS Phase 1: Project Plan report, a multi-disciplinary internal Working Team will
undertake the process to compile the plan along with the accompanying land use and
infrastructure recommendations. The Director of Transportation Services is now being
added to the working team. The Region, Ward Councillors, and Departments/Agencies
are part of the Review Team.
Increase in Scope since Phase 1 Work Plan
As identified in the Council resolution resulting from the Communications Approach
report, the PARTS: Central Plan process is to include information regarding residential
infill. This topic is broader than the PARTS process and has been the subject of other
reports/discussions. The addition of this work to the PARTS: Central Plan represents a
change in scope to the original project plan considered in the December 2013 Phase 1
report. Although it can be accommodated within the current budgeted amount, the
added work combined with more community/stakeholder engagement may mean that
12 - 3
the project could be completed 2-3 months later than originally intended. The expected
timeframe is now Fall 2014-March 2016 as indicated in the updated work program
attached as Appendix B.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The PARTS project primarily implements the Community Priority - Development. Many
aspects of the project, including the longer term implications, will help implement all of
the other Community Priorities within the Strategic Plan and will relate to many priorities
of an Effective and Efficient Government.
Corporate Business Plan
Phase 2 and the individual Station Study Area Plans are identified as Divisional Projects
within the Corporate Business Plan. The updated timeline for the PARTS: Central Plan
should be reflected in the next version of the Business Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Approximately $35,000 from the Planning Studies — Growth (Capital — DC) account was
utilized for Phase 2. Through significant staff efforts this equates to about one half of the
original budgeted amount. Detailed Terms of Reference for any consultant work
required in the PARTS: Central Plan is currently under preparation and is pending this
Fall. Any tenders will follow the Purchasing process.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This summary report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda
in advance of the council / committee meeting. The report will also be on the PARTS
webpage and sent to the industry information contact list.
CONCLUSION:
The five initiatives within Phase 2 of the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations
(PARTS) project provide the basis to now move forward with the plans for the individual
Station Study Areas. Similar to Phase 1, the PARTS Phase 2 project was completed on
time and under budget. The next step is to undertake the PARTS: Central Plan which
will start in the Fall of this year and will include a significant amount of stakeholder
engagement.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Kim Kugler, Acting Deputy CAO (Community Services)
Attachments:
Appendix A— PARTS Phase 2: Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis
Appendix B— PARTS: Central Plan Updated Simplified Work Program
12 - 4
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tchenexca
Date: August 6, 2014
To: Brandon Sloan
From: Eric Riek
cc: Linda Cooper
Subject: Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS)
Phase Two— Engineering Analysis
Background:
The City-led project, currently titled Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS), is
required in order to confirm what could develop/happen in the areas around the stations, to
protect our stable neighbourhoods, improve our streetscapes and further understand the
implications to infrastructure (engineering and community). We need to ensure that these areas
are developed in a way that is desirable. Proactive planning will allow for the appropriate
delivery of infrastructure and a better understanding of longer-term operating implications.
Decisions we make now could put the City in a better position to respond to and capitalize on
the changes that rapid transit will bring to our community. Phase One of the project was
completed by the Planning Division and analyzed station area boundaries as well as planning
implications. (Source: Council Report CSD-12-150). See Figure in Appendix A for proposed
station area boundaries.
Objective/Process:
Phase Two of the project requires the Engineering Division to review the sanitary sewers within
the proposed boundary areas (as well as downstream) to determine if there are any capacity
concerns with the proposed intensification. The Planning Division provided two preliminary
scenarios to analyze which will help determine the population increases within each station area
catchment moving forward. Scenario One projects an approximate 45% increase in resident and
employment lands within the station area plans. Scenario Two projects an approximate 51%
increase in resident and employment lands within the station area plans. The intent of this
preliminary analysis is to investigate the sanitary sewer constraints on a macro scale and not
local sewer issues which will be examined in subsequent stages. As a result, flows were
predominantly inputted at trunk sewers downstream of station areas to illustrate that the
downstream sewer could accommodate the specific increase in flow, See Figures 1 & 2 below.
See Table 1 in Appendix A for planning scenarios within each station area catchment.
Sanitary sewer design sheets were completed for the existing conditions as well as each
proposed scenario, refer to Appendix A. The difference in flow from existing conditions
(compared to worst case scenario-100% growth) was inputted into the InfoSWMM® sanitary
sewer model for analysis.
Page 1 of 11
12 - 5
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services Department www.k►tchener.ca
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made:
1. Existing flows were calculated as residential flows as well as residential and commercial
flows based on existing densities provided by the Planning Division and GIS. Further,
the same density was assumed over the each specific focus area. Due to multiple
catchments draining to the same trunk sewer, it is difficult to obtain accurate existing
flows from the InfoSWMM model.
2. The majority of growth was assumed to be within the Focus Area component of the
Station Study Areas. The following density scenarios provided by the Planning Division
were used to calculate projected flows:
Midtown 70
N/A 150
Central:
Urban Growth Centre 155 225 250
Fringe 66 150 175
Rockway 41 75 125
. ... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Block Line 36 55 75
-,
Fairway 76 100 150
3. 350 litres/person/day (I/p/d) was assumed as the residential sewage generation rate.
Standard infiltration rates were applied (0.15 litres/second/hectare).
4. Since the station area boundaries do not match existing sanitary sewer catchment
areas, assumptions were made for splitting proposed flows within the station area
boundaries, specifically the Rockway and Central station areas. See Figure 1 below.
5. To be conservative, the 100% growth scenario was used for analyzing ultimate flows
within each station area catchment. This growth scenario was developed in consultation
with the Planning Division and considers growth and intensification for ultimate build-out
conditions for the City.
6. The existing assumed flow was the average between the residential only and the
residential/commercial flows.
7. Based on consultation with the Planning Division, for both growth scenarios, residential
populations were increased as follows:
a. Midtown Area residential portion of flows increased by 5%
b. Rockway Area residential portion of flows increased by 10%
c. Central Area residential portion of flows increased by 10%
8. Per standard City Engineering practice, trunk sewers will be flagged for further analysis
when over 85% full.
9. Flows from any other trunk sewers that connect to this study area were considered.
Figures 1 & 2 below illustrate the PARTS boundary areas, associated sanitary drainage
catchments, direction of flow as well as sanitary maintenance holes where flow was inputted for
modelling purposes, see Appendix A for full size versions.
Page 2 of 11
12 - 6
r
1 n ternal; em o
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tclhenexca
SpyMo-1 3 3a8'1 l �
c
MH 3D4
LEGEND..
ROW DIRECTION IMH 10657 �,.
SANITARY DRAINAGE CATCHMIENT � '4
STATION AREA
INPUT MANHOLE
Figure 1 —Sanitary Sewage Catchments— Midtown, Central and Rockway Station Areas
r
11AH. IT577 — r
S LEGEND
FLOW DIRECTION
SANITARY DRAINAGE CATCHMENT' f
----
STATION AREA - �.,. FIGURE-2
1�
INPUT MANHOLE
Figure 2 —Sanitary Sewage Catchments— Block Line and Fairway Station Areas
Page 3 of 11
12 - 7
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tchener.ca
Scenario One Analysis:
Scenario One flow data (see design sheets in Appendix A) was inputted into the sanitary sewer
model to determine if there would be any downstream surcharging conditions that would exist in
the 100% growth scenario including the proposed intensification due to rapid transit. See Table
2 below for numerical modelling data. Note, the pipe downstream of MH 306574 is showing a
theoretical surcharge (161.18% full), however, due to the capacity in surrounding pipes, there is
no actual surcharging present in the model. This pipe was installed at a relatively flat slope
resulting in much less capacity, the pipes upstream and downstream were installed at proper
slopes, as a result the hydraulic grade line balances out and the pipe is able to convey the flow.
See Figure 5 below for pipe profile with hydraulic grade line. A few surcharge conditions exist,
however it should be noted that these exist in the 100% growth scenario prior to inputting
additional flows.
Figure 3 illustrates two existing areas which are shown as being over capacity, however, this is
likely due to GIS errors as there has been no evidence that these pipes are over capacity. The
problem area shown at the north of the figure would not be impacted from PARTS
intensification.
Figure 4 illustrates capacity concerns along Fairway Road, however, these flows will be diverted
to Wabanaki Drive trunk sanitary sewer which will alleviate any surcharging concerns, this work
is in the Capital forecast for 2016-2018. See Figures 3, 4, 5 & 6 below for Scenario One
modelling results, full size versions can be found in Appendix A.
Base
Scenario
Existing 50% 100% New Parts Percent
Flows Growth Growth Scenario New Full
(with 25 Scenario Scenario (additional Total (worst
Station year stm) Flows Flows flow) Flow Pipe case
Area (1/s) (1/s) (1/s) (1/s) (1/s) Capacity scenario)
Central
MH 305485 18 58 100 14 114 3636 3.13%
MH 301603 98 195 293 10 303 881 34.40%
MH 301107 18 115 159 29 188 222 84.68%
MH 306393 325 1190 1380 87 1467 1658 88.48%
Rockway
MH 306574 530 1908 2380 57 2437 1512 161.18%
MH 300641 390 670 982 19 1001 2169 46.15%
Blockline
MH 300577 990 2758 3615 41 3656 5198 70.33%
Fairway
MH 302873 1200 2950 3856 30 3886 5319 73.06%
Table 2— Scenario One Flow Data
Page 4 of 11
12 - 8
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tchenexca
TOxO
Vol
V
`-�
1
' LEGEND
c5096 PIPE FULL
50-75° PIPE FULL c v 3 f 3 rrp
75-90%PIPE FULL i
FNJ
>95%PIPE FULL �v�� � �,�^•
W
v °r� , F11G&�FE 3
Figure 3 — Modelling Results — Midtown, Central and Rockway Station Areas
NMI {
l
Xv "
v
r7 r
J
LEGEND _
<50I PIPE FULL
nn 50-75%PIPE FULL
75-90%PIPE FULL 'N s�\lV\
>95%PIPE FULL
f7' r FIGURE 4
+r1 1
Figure 4 — Modelling Results — Block Line and Fairway Station Areas
Page 5 of 11
12 - 9
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tchenexca
HGL Profile with Maximum Data of Links 107090,107097,..,1118001
......1 1ewe1'1. /-k /Flade p®Nepth /Head sS Input S—h-,6epfh
386455
317.]
39F11d
316.4 ,,.... ...
315.1',,.
Pipe is approximately 98% full
W
A6654
18]096
WPM
m7li3
3.6
11880H
3Ni.3
3N6.N
0D %5.1 1.12.2 25%.8 1&14 410.5 518.& fi027 &&6.8 114.4 88ti.0
Di.taHC'I:"i.)
Figure 5— Modelling Results
Downstream of MH 306574 — Pipe Theoretical Surcharge worst case scenario
HGL Profile with Maximum Data of Links 903345,9118319,...,119005
/G,.—d Level /Link /PROde „p"Depth i H-d „v"Inqut Depth
302852 94281]
289.8
Pipe is approximately 85% full
135 362878
838
10 315
W
39284@
294.&
118318 11
1 R8aH0 362'876
9001
295.5 ..
118085.
292.4
lu.
291 Y
b.0 1842 206.4 3125 416.3 521.8 625.2 M4 B33.6 9378 1642D
6isla1lce(a1N
Figure 6— Modelling Results
Lower Scheider Trunk Sewer Profile Downstream of All Proposed Flows (worst case scenario)
Page 6 of 11
12 - 10
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tchener.ca
Figure 5 illustrates the pipe that shows a theoretical surcharge (161.18%) under the worst case
scenario. As previously explained, this pipe does not surcharge due to capacity in the upstream
and downstream pipe runs.
Figure 6 illustrates that the trunk sewer downstream of all proposed development (Lower
Schneider Trunk Sewer) can convey the ultimate growth projections of the City, including the
station area intensification populations proposed in Scenario One.
Scenario Two Analysis:
Scenario Two flow data (see design sheets in Appendix A) was inputted into the sanitary sewer
model to determine if there would be any downstream surcharging conditions that would exist in
the 100% growth scenario including the proposed intensification due to rapid transit. See Table
3 below for numerical modelling data. Note, the pipe downstream of MH 306574 is showing a
theoretical surcharge (164.48% full), however, due to the capacity in surrounding pipes, there is
no actual surcharging present in the model. This pipe was installed at a relatively flat slope
resulting in much less capacity, the pipes upstream and downstream were installed at proper
slopes, as a result the hydraulic grade line balances out and the pipe is able to convey the flow.
A few surcharge conditions exist, however it should be noted that these exist in the 100%
growth scenario prior to inputting additional flows, these locations are noted in the figures below.
See Figures 7 through 11 below for Scenario Two modelling results, full size versions can be
found in Appendix A.
Base 50% 100% New Parts Percent
Scenario Growth Growth Scenario New Full
Existing Scenario Scenario (additional Total (worst
Station Flows Flows Flows flow) Flow Pipe case
Area (1/s) (1/s) (1/s) (1/s) (1/s) Capacity scenario)
Central
MH 305485 18 58 100 17 117 3636 3.22%
MH 301603 98 195 293 13 306 881 34.68%
MH 301107 18 115 159 34 193 222 86.94%
MH 306393 325 1190 1380 104 1484 1658 89.48%
Rockway 0
MH 306574 530 1908 2380 107 2487 1512 164.48%
MH 300641 390 670 982 34 1016 2169 46.84%
Blockline 0
MH 300577 990 2758 3615 53 3668 5198 70.57%
Fairway 0
MH 302873 1200 2950 3856 65 3921 5319 73.72%
Midtown 0
MH 304909 6.5 4.5 8 50 58 445 13.03%
Table 3— Scenario Two Flow Data
Page 7 of 11
12 - 11
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tchenexca
4
0# `
p, Mom-
. 4
GN N d,
k44 � ky z ,
Ji
LEG NO
<501%PIPE FULL
b016%PIPE IF''ULQ
75-90 PIPE FULL
a
>95%PIPE:F'UII L
a,�r• � F "M,�rW',k9�4 �� � .w r:+� lU�� �."�F,�wa »��W �r�fl>��I� �J� ��ry " FIItYFkE 7
I
Figure 7 — Modelling Results — Midtown, Central and Rockway Station Areas
fi I Z
� 7
✓.
d
m
LEGEND
<50%PIPE FULL ��
ti
50-75%PIPE FULL r ��
75-19U PIPE FULL � l 11 '"Ua
M >95 r PIPE FLU LL
1
� FIGURE 8
Figure 8 — Modelling Results — Block Line and Fairway Station Areas
Page 8 of 11
12 - 12
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.k►tchenexca
HGL Profile with Maximum Data of Links CDT-69,119014,...,CDT-57
/Ground L.-f /Link /Hade p°Depth /Head 31nput 8wr M gee Depth
325.
363TZ3
324
...... .......JCT-94
JCT-96
323.. 30.3]98
JC7-5r'p BC-64
JCT-54
J @�ByT9L_2`1'.
E
c 321
Pipes are approximately 102% full
320,
a
319
CHT-69
318.
CDT 6T 317...... i 10.4908
CUT 51
31fi.
315 ....... ..
0A 701 1404 210.6 286.8 351.6 421.2 4944 561.6 6340 702.0
Dist..,-1mq
Figure 9—Scenario 2—Area of Concern #1
HGL Profile with Maximum Data of Links 106959,107096,...,118001
Ground L—l'. /L4,nk /Had. F7 @ pth Heed M"Input 8urche,rge Depth
319.9.
so6a56,
31'.7.7.
390648
70'5+457 i
.. !! 30711,4
3164
fl,
316.1. ,•
Pipe is approximately 100% full
E
312.5
111.2..I ...
106959 �:�1.165T4
10T096
30'8.9 10109]'.
167100
sg7116
308.6
118004
107.3. Mli�
I� �Ili III'"i
a.0 400.6 215.6 323.4 43.1.2 539.0 6468, 754.6 862.4 976.2 1078..9
Distance
Figure 10 —Scenario 2 —Area of Concern #2
Page 9 of 11
12 - 13
r
Internal Memo
ER Infrastructure Services department www.kitchenexca
HGL Profile with Maximum Data of Links 103262,119012,..,119003
Ground.Level /Link /!bode Depth i H—d! yO 4nput Surcharge,Depth.
305.0.
303005
303.7
3024
3014 ... ... 3924.57.. .... W2277', ... ... ...
E
23 Pipe is approximately 88% 11
S 197262'. 711,4,35 902870
119442 3 2839 .
797.2....: .... ... ...
1.09915
296.91 .,.
294.6 •• 11891'9
293.3
2920
4 9'.5 190 285 380 475 570 565 F50 8.55 9.50
DM.,-
Figure Figure 11 — Modelling Results — Pipe Profile Downstream of All Proposed Flows
(Lower Scheider Trunk Sewer)
Figure 9 illustrates the pipes downstream of the Midtown and Central areas which are shown to
be approximately 102% full. This surcharge condition is quickly relieved as you proceed
downstream.
Figure 10 illustrates the pipe that shows a theoretical surcharge (164.48%) under the worst case
scenario. However, this pipe is approximately 100% full in scenario two due to capacity in the
upstream and downstream pipe runs. As the figure shows, this full pipe condition is quickly
relieved before entering the downstream pipe run.
Figure 11 illustrates that the trunk sewer downstream of all proposed development (Lower
Schneider Trunk Sewer) can convey the ultimate growth projections of the City, including the
station area intensification populations proposed in Scenario Two.
With the exception of two localized capacity constraints (Figures 9 & 10), the above figures
illustrate that the trunk sewer downstream of all proposed development (Lower Schneider Trunk
Sewer) can convey the growth scenarios, including the station area intensification populations
proposed in Scenario Two. It is noted that the 100% growth scenario used to analysis the
proposed flows is ultimate projected City growth which may not occur for 100+ years. The
results shown above also assume that full build-out of the City as well as all the intensification
due to rapid transit happen concurrently. Considering the very conservative
Page 10 of 11
12 - 14
Internal Memo
K R Infrastructure Services Department wmkitchener.ca
approach taken, it is likely that these sewers would never encounter the flows that are shown in
the above figures and tables and therefore would not surcharge,
Conclusions:
Due to the assumptions made to divide flows for the Rockway and Central Station Area
catchments, the growth, assignments for these catchments will be further analyzed with respect
to what areas the growth is applied. Site specific intensification figures were not available at the
time of this analysis.
used on the above analysis, the Engineering Division confirms that both Scenario One and
Two projected populations can be accommodated in the downstream trunk sewers. A more
detailed analysis will be required to analyze local sewer capacity constraints, which was not part
of this exercise.
As part of the next stage of analysis, the following tasks should be completed:
0 If necessary, complete flow monitoring at known pipe capacity constraint locations to
confirm existing flows (2 month minimum monitoring period). Possible locations for flow
monitoring include:
• Maintenance Hole 306574
• Maintenance Hole 303798
• Maintenance Hole 302877
• Maintenance Hole 306393
• Maintenance Hole 301107
• Analysis of local sewer capacity constraints, which may result in further flow monitoring.
Regards,
Eric Riek, C.E.T.
Project Manager, Development Engineering
0:\Genera ITARTS Phase 21Sanitary Capacity\Engineering\Parts-Engineering Analysis-Phase 2-Memo Revised-Aug.
2014.doc.doc
Page 11 of 11
12 - 15
APPENDIX A
12 - 16
b 1 A
i
r
>Ui il a,/� lfj�pa
"
��, �jjJ'9�n7tt ,V�>✓�ru t^ ^/ jJ /�/ j � � � �,a ^,� 1,' �/j
db,l 11111 !„ ��,7��u i ;,x"14 Ur9' G����iv�� ����°'���P�, li�l4a� !l/14�/(✓���Il a�(,),o aas,-�"�JlI r 4 I � ���IIIY� l� �' ��I!o���i%aUf����%��!i
DW
/
r rl
12 - 17
VIIVp
p�
m O
�n m
v
o' j o
v
N
0 o[1,
uo
I- m i Q
N i
3
E > o
E
o 3
0
0
a
o W
q r,,� m m o
w Q m
mvmi
o a
-
O u
A >' 0 3 0
3 `0 o
lo
`o
-Oo
',. N[O n[mm 0 N o o
N i
T O
0 3 3 °
o
v
z
o ° v
° o o
` v
`v `0 0 3
a
III v
10 u 1 p
E
° ° o
m m o
- o
o oo
xo
o 0
o
F o
O 0 o
� f o
m 0 '�° o
N m � N �I1"3
o
w 3 0 o
`o c
lo
0[°0 0 m m[ E
0-� -� i0 N o m
!IIIIIIWII'llill v v
O
m io[ 3 > v
ni° tiiio a€ �
G
E a o
Z o = Y
0[M I` 0[m m m
N N[
D m
v
�j
Y
VIII 30
w CIS
12 - 18
+
\
\ '
goo
62u
20 �
\ o ;
OU
\ a �
LU
\
/ � �
\ \ \ `
o
o
/ }#
\ ) {\ f
12 - 19
L,
0
0
W
U
LL
Uq ,�
y �
wv
r...
, ,• 1
LU
�y
�L
W
o"
Z Z W
D �
W Q Z
0 Ir Z
LU
wed
U O z Q
W
W J Q H Z
J LL (n (n
u �
12 - 20
N..
W
w� LL
MOO
Clo
mi W b�
p
{
u y w
i
�s
W
d 0
w
W
Q J
� W O
p�
0 Q Q
O� Z
Z
LD
w ~
O O Z Q a
LU m
i ?
...
�u till'
12 - 21
+
\
\ '
co 6 11 11
\ § -
/ §
6ou
y = �
\ G
\ : ; ; _
o
o
o
LU
ID
/ \ \ !
o
o
/ }#
) ) \) 7 ) } ) {
12 - 22
LU
Al
LL
IN
I � —
k xy L�
• n�t .'
x y
w
{` an
5 � 6
r,Vl V Nr�p
M'
Nub "
wo
m,
a m
w
ow J J J
J J
ryi
LL W W LL
� .
O
LO
W LO O LO rn
J V LO r— A
I w�
ryr."w
,r
4it
�'�w ;war'•
� 5
12 - 23
LU
IL
f
4
r4 d: NI
ta
- J J
—i
n � LL L �
LL LU LU LL
0 0
'RT, O ti
LO CD
\LO
—
NI LU LO o LO rn `f
J V LO r— A
%r ,
. 44
',.: �"�.wrm aimuuwm'.,rnrvfa�wnudaui�f i "
oM� +�"�•�.FrX f. 7k
12 - 24
w
a
c
CL
CD LO
CD
CL
(w) uoize i3/ae @H 12 - 25
0
d'
0
III
CL
CD "
co
W
CD
16
I�1
E
CL
4r
(uu) uoijeAo1 1'lae8H 12 - 26
+
\
\ '
\ § -
/ � §
6ou
y = �
\ G
o
IQ
/
/ }#
\ ) {\ f J6
12 - 27
-r
ti?�rr1�.
�W
a yy
LU
{ ,
All
a.
w
fi Imo'
Ilwl
tl' m Ir
h
I
N
w,
IL
'b /� y J J
LL LL
LL LU LU LL
" z \ \
LU O
o O o
LU LO O LO rn
h,
J V LO r— A
f
f
L 5 71 tlk
12 - 28
00
mow/
h
r
LL
Jol
y �I
r
r" Bn
,,
�oz%
4
o
GM? �" r
a
e � a
r,
„✓,,,,,,,,,
6
J J
LL LL
�Me LL W W LL
— w W W
w LLI
LO O
W
LO O LO (Y)
v LO r— n
^�
v o y
K!, � �Y
M
��M"' p
... ff
,1
12 - 29
Ilia
lip
FL
0
U
Ch
FL
D
U)
4 S
6
E
:3
EL
F- ''
2
LO
m
(W) UOPASHI/PeGH 12 - 30
CL
co
E
E
x
CL
LO
Nam
_� LO
ua
a
c�
(m) u011e i /PeOH 12 - 31
i
i
q
w
,W
rL
CCD
CD
D
V,
w
� 7 E
6
LO
l�
i
i
i
(m) uoilei /pe @H 12 - 32
v
o ,
W
),
O',
0',,
6
'O OD
od p
Ul
a
E E
W
ZI
W T
O O m
E T
U E — U
rn
� O �
Ul
C C
m rn
'0 y o
3 3
m
E v
v
Y
—
,cC cC cC lu
-o -o m m m
i. oo 0 0 n =
o a oo ti ti ti
-o c c 2 m c m
Q
Y m a u p u
c W W m e a p
c W m m p a 3 y 3
3 C
w C• ° ° a v
M m m
v
CL a i c u u O m m o w o
E
ao v c o w -o a
c ?+ 0
O Y L a u Q E m c
3 C N L O O C 3 d m IA O m Y m o Vf m O
> > y
c '^ v L N O\ 3 u c a a -o !_^ •� N •� U m m E c E lu m c m m c o m - u w u 0 o z o c c c a o c c n m o w c m v
omo c m Z c 2 c E °u > c 3 c a E o n m a °p
c '6 W ° > of •`-' '6 �i LL a a Q c
CL
E 4 E m E m N m a ni -a m m c " m m c `m m a o _ m m m .n'.....
,,U W E j w a c a a+ O W c a •� O c �y a L c '6 c W m m a c a In O
Z m in o m c o _ y in m m v '^ w u r u
'p = v o: a v a ii o: = N a o: in = a in in o: _ •o w a a z m a
w
CL a a D a a Z 0 a....
y V ifl lD
w
O I� O W Ol O W Y