new correspondence for the public hearing regarding...

New Correspondence for the Public Hearing regarding RZ100470:

Page No.

1. Email dated March 20, 2015 from Dr. Firas Mansour of University Mountain View Estates Ltd. in response to the letter dated March 17,

2015 from L&M Engineering Ltd………………………………………………………..

2

2. Letter dated March 20, 2015 from L&M Engineering in response to the email dated March 20, 2015 from Dr. Firas Mansour of University

Mountain View Estates Ltd.…………………………............................................

3 - 18

3. Letter dated March 20, 2015 from Diane O’Grady, Sharene Brown, and Lori Orstad of 0753122 BC Ltd. in support of Rezoning Application

No. RZ100470 …………………………………………………………………………………

19

4. Letter dated March 23, 2015 from Dr. Firas Mansour of University Mountain View Estates Ltd.regarding concerns with Rezoning

Application No. RZ100470…………………………………………………………………

20 - 23

5. Letter dated March 23, 2015 from Diana Matheson in opposition to Rezoning Application No. RZ100470………………………………………………….

24

6. Letter dated March 23, 2015 from Jas Raji of Lithium One Homes Ltd. in support of Rezoning Application No. RZ100470………………………………

25

7. Letter dated March 25, 2015 from Kelly Orstad of 757053 B.C. Ltd. in support of Rezoning Application No. RZ100470………………………………….

26

1

From: Firas MansourTo: Morgan, HillaryCc: [email protected]; Wells, Ian; Dan Adamson; Dyer, Dave; Bob Radloff; Wasnik, DeannaSubject: L&M Eng. Ltd letter dated March 17, 2015- University Heights Rezoning Application RZ100470Date: Friday, March 20, 2015 8:23:50 AMAttachments: University Heights Summary Letter_17Mar2015.pdfImportance: High

Dear Ms. Morgan,

This email is in response to the attached L&M Eng. Ltd letter dated March 17, 2015. On page 3,

the letter stated that "Following the March 10th, 2015 meeting, L&M receivedconfirmation from R. Radloff & Associates that University Mountain View Estateswere satisfied with the above-referenced documents that L&M had completed. Noother concerns were identified by R. Radloff & Associates.”

This statement is inaccurate and does not represent the opinion of the University Mountain ViewEstates Ltd. and R. Radloff & Associates. The meeting between Radloff and L&M on March 10thwas for preliminary discussion. A meeting between UMVEL / Radloff and Infinity Properties / L&Mwas planned on either March 19 or 20th to discuss all the concerns. This meeting was cancelledby Infinity Properties / L&M unilaterally.

Although, the proposed changes may address some of the community and UMVEL concerns, itdoes not address all the concerns. Unfortunately, L&M and Infinity Properties actions do notfoster a productive and cooperative relationship between the property owners at the UniversityHeights Neighbourhood.

We will update the Mayor and Council with our concerns in a separate letter and subsequentpresentation at the public hearing on March 30, 2015.

Please include this email in the correspondences in regard to the public hearing on March 30,2015.

Best Regards

Dr. Firas MansourUMVEL President

2
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Date: March 17, 2015 File: 1273-19

City of Prince George 1100 Patricia Boulevard Prince George, BC V2L3V9 Attention: Hillary Morgan, Planner Reference: University Heights Rezoning Application RZ100470 March 30th Public Hearing Dear Ms. Morgan, Thank you for participating in the meeting which was held at the City of Prince George on March 3rd, 2015. As you know, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the concerns that were raised during the Public Hearing for the above-referenced application on March 2nd, 2015. Since the meeting with the City, L&M has prepared the following supplementary information which we believe strengthens the application for the proposed multi-family development. In addition to this meeting, we also met with the representative for University Mountain View Estates, R Radloff & Associates on March 10th, 2015 and have spoken with several other neighbouring property owners. As explained during the initial Public Hearing on March 02, 2015, this rezoning application represents an amendment to the existing RM3 Mutli-Family zone boundary in order to provide additional space that will ultimately allow for integration of single family, duplex and medium density townhousing. This integration of single to medium density housing will facilitate a smooth transition between the existing single family housing and the proposed multi-family development. Additionally, a wide greenspace has been dedicated to construction of a berm which will help shield existing and future development from the traffic on Tyner Boulevard. Please find enclosed the following information, which we would like to be included as supplementary information in the Staff Report to Council for Council’s review and consideration at the postponed Public Hearing scheduled for March 30th, 2015:

Traffic Impact Study Update

Conceptual Multi-Family Development Traffic Impact Study Update

During the Public Hearing on March 02, 2015, several concerns regarding the 2009 Traffic Impact Study were raised. The concerns included:

Impacts to daily users of Tyner Boulevard;

That the potential maximum density of 241 multi-family dwelling units, if achieved, would be too much traffic for the local road;

That the potential maximum density of 241 multi-family dwelling units, if achieved, would add

Infinity Properties Page 2 of 4 Date: March 17, 2015 L&M Engineering Limited L&M File No.: 1273-19

too much traffic to the existing University Heights subdivision;

That the existing intersection of University Heights Drive and Tyner Boulevard could not support additional traffic;

That the existing intersection of University Heights Drive and Tyner Boulevard already experiences traffic lining up into the existing University Heights subdivision; and

That the report, which was completed in 2009, may no longer be relevant due to the level of growth that has occurred since the report’s completion.

In response to these concerns, and under the advisement of the City’s Administration, Terry Fjellstrom the Senior Traffic Engineer at L&M Engineering Limited completed a review of the 2009 Traffic Impact Study (see attached Traffic Impact Study Update). The updated report includes a current traffic count at the intersection of University Heights Drive and Tyner Boulevard, completed during peak traffic hours in the morning and evening. The report also reviewed the original assumptions made regarding background traffic growth to confirm that the original assumptions are still consistent with the current traffic trends. The report concludes that due to topographical challenges and the desire to create larger wider lots, the number of total dwelling units that will be constructed on the property is 414 compared to the 571 units initially assumed in 2009, which represents an overall decrease of 27%. Further, the Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Drive intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service through the build out of the 414 units. With the total size of the development reduced, the recommendations within the original study remain just as valid. In addition to the Traffic Study Update, the configuration of Rowe Street was also amended so that it no longer connects through to University Mountain View Estates’ property. Instead, Rowe Street is now proposed to function as a crescent, which will connect back to University Heights Drive as shown on the enclosed Conceptual Multi-Family Development plan. Residential Development Yield

A conceptual multi-family development layout was not required and therefore was not included as part of the original Rezoning application. Further, the applicant wished to preserve flexibility due to the unknown future market demands for multi-family developments in Prince George. Infinity envisions single detached units and duplexes or a mix of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. During the Public Hearing however, numerous concerns were raised regarding the maximum permitted residential density for the RM3 zone. The main issue was that the proposed amendment area would facilitate the development of up to 241 mutli-family residential dwelling units at the proposed location which would not integrate well into the existing single family subdivision and would create unwanted traffic congestion. The applicant had no intention of pursuing maximum densities on the site as per preliminary discussions with the City. Despite our efforts to explain that we would not pursue the maximum permitted density of 241 units, the community’s concerns were clear in wanting to see this reinforced.


We discussed this challenge during our meeting with Administration on March 3rd, 2015 to provide some reassurance to the surrounding property owners and Council. At present, the RM3 zone permits a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units per hectare, which is neither achievable nor desired by Infinity Properties as mentioned earlier. The most efficient solution discussed would be to volunteer to register a Section 219 Covenant, which would limit the density of the proposed multi-family development to 25 dwelling units per hectare. This proposed density of 25 dwelling units per hectare would permit the development of 100 residential dwelling units as shown on Conceptual Multi-Family Development. Together with the proposed amendment to the City of Prince George Multi-Family Development Permit Guidelines, we believe that we could still successfully achieve the 35% multiple family density target outlined in the University Heights Neighbourhood Plan, while ensuring that the proposed multi-family development is compatible with the existing single family subdivision. The enclosed Conceptual Multi-Family Development plan illustrates the maximum number of units that could be achieved in the proposed multi-family development. While the plan is only a concept drawing, we believe that the proposed density limiting Covenant and the Development Permit process will prevent future conflicts with the surrounding community because the density, form and character of the development would be regulated and subject to approval by the City of Prince George. While Infinity is pursuing the rezoning ∕ boundary amendment for the entire multi-family area, it has always been the intention to phase the proposed multi-family development into two, stand-alone projects. The first, southerly site was anticipated to develop with the Ridge Phase 5, while the second, northerly site was anticipated to develop with a future phase. This would further limit the amount of units being created at any given point in time. Infinity is committed to furthering the City`s vision for this master-planned community in ways that are measured, complementary, and appropriate. Community Engagement

The initial Public Hearing on March 02, 2015 was postponed by Council until March 30th, 2015 so that Infinity Properties could meet with University Mountain View Estates in an attempt to resolve concerns surrounding traffic and residential yield in the proposed multi-family site. Upon this recommendation, L&M Engineering met with R. Radloff & Associates on March 10th, 2015 to discuss the updated traffic report and the proposed density limiting Covenant. Following the March 10 th, 2015 meeting, L&M received confirmation from R. Radloff & Associates that University Mountain View Estates were satisfied with the above-referenced documents that L&M had completed. No other concerns were identified by R. Radloff & Associates. During the Public Hearing, neighbours of the existing University Heights subdivision in attendance voiced their concerns about the impact that this proposed multi-family development would have on their community and individual property values. Since the Public Hearing, we have received numerous phone calls from residents looking for more information and to express their concerns. Many of the questions are regarding the appearance and residential density of the proposed development. A recurring concern that has been specifically stressed is the lack of notification to the neighbours that a change was occurring in their subdivision.


In an effort to provide an additional outlet for residents to voice their opinions and concerns, we have proposed a Community Meeting for Thursday March 26th at the Columbus Centre in College Heights starting at 7:00 pm. The meeting will include a formal presentation by L&M followed by an informal question and answer period in an open house format. We propose to have maps and application drawings displayed around the room with Terry Fjellstrom the professional engineer responsible for traffic calculations and design; Jason Boyes the professional engineer responsible for subdivision design; and myself, the community planner responsible for overseeing the rezoning application ready to answer individual questions. We believe that by hosting this community meeting, we will be able to provide reassurance to the neighbourhood that this proposal will not negatively affect their lifestyle, and will ultimately enhance the overall community by reaching the City’s targets for varied housing choices. Summary

We would like to thank the Administration for their time and efforts in working collaboratively on this application. We appreciate the opportunity to revisit this application and have reviewed the 2009 Traffic Impact Study, suggested a density limiting Covenant and prepared a conceptual site plan to better illustrate the proposal, address the concerns of surrounding property owners, and provide reassurance that this proposed amendment to the Zoning Bylaw boundaries will not negatively affect the community. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, L&M ENGINEERING LIMITED Ashley Elliott, Community Planner Copies to: Terry Fjellstrom, P.Eng, President L&M Engineering Limited Jason Boyes, P.Eng, Associate L&M Engineering Limited Quentin Boulton, Infinity Properties Ltd. Enclosure: As Noted. G:\Job Files\1200\1273 - BFW\19 - Phase 4\00-Planning\Ltr to CoPG RE Postponed PH.doc

Date: 15th

March, 2015

File: 1273-20-00

City of Prince George

1100 Patricia Boulevard

Prince George BC V2L 3V9

Attention: Ms. Hillary Morgan

Planner

Reference: University Heights Neighbourhood

Traffic Study Update

Dear Hillary,

Further to your request, we are pleased to provide you with a review of the Traffic Impact Study

that we prepared in September 2009 for the University Heights Residential development.

1.0 2009 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

In 2009 Infinity Properties Inc. (formerly BFW Developments Ltd) purchased 52 hectares of

property from the City of Prince George (CoPG). In support of the rezoning of the property,

Infinity commissioned L&M Engineering Limited to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to

identify the impact of the development on the surrounding road network. The following three

intersections were analyzed:

1. Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Road

2. Tyner Boulevard/Ospika Boulevard

3. Tyner Boulevard/Highway 16

Utilizing a preliminary subdivision plan and maximum densities for the multiple family

developments the TIS was based upon 300 single family dwellings and 271 multi-family

dwellings. For the purposes of the study the development was analyzed over 2 phases. Phase 1

consisted of 63 single family units and Phase 2 was at full build out at 300 single family and 271

multifamily dwellings.

As is typical, the TIS analysis period is projected over a 15 year horizon. Background traffic is

counted and a suitable factor is applied to grow the existing traffic over this period. A 2.0%

linear growth rate was used in the study.

) University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015

Traffic Study Update File: 1273-20-00

The development traffic is then added to the projected background traffic to generate the total

traffic utilizing the individual intersections. The intersections were analyzed during an AM Peak

and a PM peak period to determine the effect of the development on the road network.

The 2009 Study concluded that the following improvements would be required:

1. Construct an eastbound left turn slot on Tyner Boulevard at the Tyner

Blvd/University Heights Drive Intersection to TAC standards with a minimum of 30

metres storage, 60 metres deceleration and appropriate bay tapers after the

construction of approximately 250 single family homes and 50 multifamily homes.

2. Construct a westbound right turn deceleration lane on Tyner Boulevard at the

Tyner Boulevard/ University Heights Drive intersection after the construction of

approximately 140 single family homes.

3. Lengthen the existing eastbound left turn lane on Tyner Boulevard at the Tyner

Boulevard/Ospika Boulevard intersection from 30 metres to 51 metres after the

construction of approximately 90 single family homes.

Subsequent to the completion of the study it was agreed upon with the CoPG and MoT to

register a covenant on the property requiring an update to the study once 420 building permits

have been issued.

2.0 2015 TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE

During the public hearing conducted on March 2nd

2015, Council questioned whether the study

prepared in 2009 is still valid. As mentioned previously, studies are analyzed over a 15 year

period and should account for growth in background traffic. To confirm whether the original

assumptions are still valid we have conducted new counts at the intersection of Tyner

Boulevard and University Heights Drive. An analysis was then conducted at this intersection.

The results are presented below:

2.1 Existing Background Traffic Counts

Traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday March 4th

2015 during the PM peak from

4:00pm to 6:00pm and on Thursday March 5th

2015 during the AM peak from 7:00am to

9:00am. The counts were conducted using standard vehicle classifications. The counts

were then compared to the existing counts conducted in 2008. The 2015 background

counts were generally within 10% of the counts projected from the 2009 study with the

exception of the westbound movement towards UNBC which was 50% of the volume

from the 2009 study. The count conducted on Thursday morning was after the

commencement of the strike at UNBC. It appears that the strike has affected the traffic

/ University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015


volume in this direction. The Wednesday count was not affected by the strike. To

compensate for this anomaly this movement has been increased by 130%.

The traffic counts are shown in Figure 1. A copy of the traffic count is shown in Appendix

A.

2.2 Projected Background traffic

The background traffic counts were projected to 2023 using the 2.0% linear growth rate

used in the original study.

2.3 Existing Development

An inventory of the current development was conducted with the flowing results:

• Occupied houses 61

• Houses constructed but not occupied 5

• Houses under construction 21

The traffic counts conducted included the houses currently occupied

2.4 Current Development Plan

An overall subdivision plan has now been prepared for the entire rezoned property. 264

single family homes and 150 multifamily dwelling units can be constructed on the

property. Due to larger lot sizes, topographical constraints and lower density multi-family,

the actual number of dwellings that can be constructed is considerably less than was

assumed in the original TIS which was based upon 300 single family and 271 multifamily

units.

2.5 Trip Generation

The trip generation rates used in this study were obtained from the Institute of

Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 8th

edition. The rates give an indication of the

range of vehicles expected to enter and exit a particular land use site for various peak

traffic flows.

The ITE Code (210) for Single-Family Detached Housing was used to develop trip

generation volumes for the proposed single family lots and strata lots. For the multi-

family development the ITE Code (231) Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse

was utilized. The rates and trip generation for each land use are summarized in Tables 1

and 2.

5 University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015


TABLE 2

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC

PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATES

Phase Land Use Peak

Period

Development

Size

Traffic

Generation

Variable

(x)

Traffic

Generation

Rate

(vph)

%

In

%

Out

1 Existing

Development

a.m. 61 Dwelling Units Dwelling Units * 45 55

p.m. 61 Dwelling Units Dwelling Units * 33 67

2

Single Family

Housing

a.m. 203 Dwelling Units** Dwelling Units T=0.70(x) +9.74 25 75

p.m. 203 Dwelling Units** Dwelling Units T=0.90Ln(x) +0.51 63 37

Multiple

Family Housing

a.m. 150 Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 0.67 25 75

p.m. 150 Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 0.78 58 42

TABLE 3

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

TOTAL TRIP GENERATION

Phase Land Use Peak Period

Inbound

Traffic

(vph)

Outbound

Traffic

(vph)

Total

Traffic

(vph)

1 Existing Development a.m. * * *

p.m. * * *

2

Single Family Housing a.m. 38 114 152

p.m. 100 59 159

Multiple Family

Housing

a.m. 25 75 100

p.m. 68 49 117

* Trip generation for existing development is included in the traffic counts conducted on March 4th and 5th 2015.

** The total dwelling units account for the 61 existing units (i.e. 239-61=178 units)

2.6 Trip Distribution

The trip distribution assumed in the original study was compared to that observed in the

March 2015 counts. With the exception of the southbound egress during the PM peak all

other movements generally were in accordance with the original study’s assumption of

80% of the traffic would originate from the east and 20% from the west although slightly

more weighted towards the west. The PM peak egress showed more traffic heading west

than east. Given the small sample size of the March 2015 count this movement was

adjusted to 60% from the east and 40% from the west. The trip distribution is shown in

Figure 3.

> University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015


2.7 Total Traffic

The projected background traffic volumes as shown in Figure 2, when added with the

development traffic shown in Figure 4, results in the 2023 Total Traffic shown in Figure 5.

2.8 Method of Analysis

To analyze the performance of the study intersections and calculate the capacity and

"level of service" of each intersection, the Synchro Studio Version 7 Software has been

used. This software was developed by Trafficware Ltd. and is based on the methods and

procedures in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.

Computer printouts showing the detailed calculation for each individual movement at

each study intersection are provided in Appendix B.

The concept of "Level of Service” is defined as a qualitative measure describing

operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists. A level

of service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed

and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience,

and safety.

The six levels of service are defined in the Highway Capacity Manual as follows:

• Level of Service A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the

presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to

maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and

convenience provided to the motorist is excellent.

• Level of Service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the

traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively

unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic

stream from Level of Service A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is

somewhat less than at Level of Service A, because the presence of others in the traffic

stream begins to affect individual behavior.

• Level of Service C is the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of

flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by

interaction with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the

presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial

vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines

noticeably at this level.

A University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015


• Level of Service D represents high-density, but stable, traffic flow. Speed and freedom

to maneuver are severally restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of

comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational

problems at this level.

• Level of Service E represents operating conditions at, or near, the capacity level. All

speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within

the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle

to "give way” to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are

extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this

level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow and minor perturbations within

the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.

• Level of Service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists

wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can

traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. Operations within the queues

are characterized by stop-and-go waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may

progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop

in a cyclic fashion. The Level of Service F is used to describe the operating conditions

within the queue, as well as the point of the breakdown.

Levels of Service Criteria, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual, are illustrated in

Table 3.

TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Level of Service

Impact on Street Traffic Unsignalized Intersection

Delay(s)

Signalized Intersection

Delay(s)

A Little or no delays 0 – 10 0 – 10

B Minor delays 10 – 15 10 – 20

C Average delays 15 – 25 20 – 35

D Long delays 25 – 35 35 – 55

E Very long delays 35 – 50 55 – 80

F Undesirable > 50 > 80

2.9 Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Drive

The Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Drive intersection is an unsignalized T-

intersection with the stop control on University Heights Drive. Tyner Boulevard at this

location is a two lane arterial road and University Heights Drive is a municipal collector.

C University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015


The Synchro analysis is summarized in Table 4. Detailed results can be found in Appendix

B.

The analysis shows that for the existing background traffic, the southbound lane on

University Heights Drive operates at a LOS B during the AM and PM peaks. This LOS

coincides with the visual observations conducted during the traffic counts with a

maximum of 2 vehicles queued on University Heights waiting to access Tyner Boulevard.

During the 2023 Total Traffic scenario, the southbound movement operates at a LOS D

and C during the AM and PM peak periods respectively.

The intersection will perform substantially better than originally assumed in the 2009 TIS

due to the reduced number of lots being constructed.

The intersection will perform satisfactory through to the year 2023.

2.10 Auxiliary Lanes

The 2009 TIS made recommendations for improvements to the Tyner Blvd/University

Heights Drive intersection based upon certain development thresholds being achieved.

Given that the background traffic growth is basically at the rate assumed in the original

study, these assumptions are still valid. The improvements include:

• Construct a westbound right turn deceleration lane on Tyner Boulevard after the

construction of 140 single family homes.

TABLE 4 TYNER BOULEVARD / UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS DRIVE

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND

LT/TH LT/RT

los delay los delay

A.M. PEAK

2015 Existing Background Traffic A 0.6 B 12.9

2023 Total Traffic A 1.4 D 26.8

P.M. PEAK

2015 Existing Background Traffic A 0.7 B 12.1

2023 Total Traffic A 2.2 C 24.8

D University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015


• Construct an eastbound left turn slot on Tyner Boulevard at the Tyner Blvd/Road A

Intersection to TAC standards with a minimum of 30 metres storage; 60 metres

deceleration and appropriate bay tapers after the construction of approximately 250

single family homes and 50 multifamily homes.

3.0 SUMMARY

The development density assumed in the original 2009 TIS was very conservative and was not

based upon a subdivision layout but rather maximum allowable densities for multifamily

dwellings. Due to topographical challenges and the desire to create larger lots, the number of

total dwelling units that will be constructed on the property is 414 compared to the 571 units

initially assumed in 2009. That represents a decrease of 27%.

The Tyner Boulevard/University heights Drive intersection operates at an acceptable Level of

Service (LOS) through the build out of the 414 units.

Although the size of the development has been reduced from the initial assumptions the

recommendations in the original study are still valid.

The required improvements that are:











4.0 CLOSURE

This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Infinity Properties and the

City of Prince George. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or

decisions to be made based on it are the responsibility of such third parties. L&M Engineering

Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of

decisions made or actions based on this study. The information and data contained within this

document represents L&M Engineering Limited’s professional judgment in accordance with the

E University Heights Neighbourhood Date: 15

th March, 2015


knowledge and information available to L&M Engineering Limited at the time of the report

preparation. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Yours Very Truly,

L&M ENGINEERING LIMITED

Mr. Terry Fjellstrom

President

Copy to: Mr. Quentin Boulton Infinity Properties

Enclosures: As noted

G:\Job Files\1200\1273 - BFW\19 - Phase 4\00-Planning\TIS\2015 University Heights Traffic Study Update.docx

1210 FOURTH AVENUE

PRINCE GEORGE, B.C.

V2L 3J4

TEL. (250) 562-1977

FAX (250) 562-1967

MULTI 1

LEGEND

3

I & ~ 1210FourthAvenue •--· Prince George, B.C. V2L 3J4 Tel. (250) 562-1977

ENGINEERING LIMITED Fax (250) 562-1967 PLANNING CENTRE

City of Prince George 1100 Patricia Blvd Prince George BC V2L3V9

Attention: Hillary Morgan, Planner

Reference: University Heights Rezoning Application RZ100470

Date: March 20, 2015 File: 1273-19

Response to University Mountain View Estates Email Dated March 20, 2015

Dear Ms. Morgan,

Further to the email sent by Dr. Mansour on behalf of University Mountain View Estates (UMVE) dated March 20, 2015, we would like to briefly respond and summarize the actions we have taken.

Following our meeting with Administration on March 03, 2015 it was recommended that we meet with UMVE to discuss their concerns regarding the above-referenced rezoning application. The following week, L&M met with the representatives of UMVE on March 10th to discuss their concerns. Following the meeting, the proposed traffic study update, the proposed density-limiting covenant and the proposed site plan showing the reconfiguration to Rowe Street were completed. On Friday March 13th, 2015 L&M received an email from the UMVE representatives confirming that UMVE was interested to receive written confirmation from L&M indicating what is intended to be proposed at the March 30th hearing so that UMVE could plan to support the application at the upcoming Public Hearing. Subsequently, L&M prepared the attached letter to the City and forwarded a copy to the UMVE representatives as requested to provide written confirmation of our proposal. At the time that we had received the email from the UMVE representatives and submitted the subsequent summary letter to the City, we maintain that L&M had not received any written indication of additional concerns held by UMVE.

To date, neither L&M nor Infinity have received any formal request for an additional meeting with UMVE or their representatives. We do not have a record of any formal request for a meeting on March 19th or March 20th. L&M and Infinity Properties remain open to a meeting to further address in person any concerns held by UMVE with respect to this rezoning application. Infinity Properties is committed to creating a complete community in The Ridge and to working with the community throughout the process. Together, L&M and Infinity Properties have made several attempts to resolve the concerns of the community including: an update to the 2009 traffic impact study, proposing a density limiting covenant, preparing a new site plan which shows the reconfiguration of Rowe Street, holding a community meeting with all property owners of The Ridge, and speaking individually with any concerned property owners to discuss the application .

4

I&~ ENGINEERING LIMITED

PLANNING CENTRE

The Community Meeting is proposed for March 26th, 2015. The purpose of the Community Meeting is to foster continued communication on this rezoning application with the neighbours of University Heights. L&M and Infinity Properties voluntarily proposed to host this meeting in an attempt to further reach out to the neighbours and to ease their concerns surrounding new multi-family development in their area. UMVE are also invited to attend the Community Meeting to discuss any further concerns they may have regarding this rezoning application prior to the Public Hearing. If UMVE are unable to attend the Community Meeting or if they would prefer a private meeting with Infinity Properties or L&M Engineering on behalf of this rezoning application, we remain open to meet at their convenience as we have since the outset of this application.

If you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned directly.

Sincerely, L&M ENGINEERING LIMITED

Ashley Elliott, Community Planner

Copies To: Quentin Boulton, Senior Development Manager, Infinity Properties Ltd. Terry Fjellstrom, President, L&M Engineering Ltd . Jason Boyes, Associate, L&M Engineering Ltd.

Enclosures: As Noted.

Infinity Properties Page 2 of 2 L&M Engineering Limited

Date: March 20, 2015 L&M File No.: 1273-19

5

I ---~ 1210 Fourth Avenue ~ Prince George, B.C. V2L 3J4

Tel. (250) 562-1977 ENGINEERING LIMITED Fax (250) 562-1967

PLANNING CENTRE

City of Prince George 1100 Patricia Boulevard Prince George, BC V2L3V9

Attention: Hillary Morgan, Planner

Reference: University Heights Rezoning Application RZ100470 March 30th Public Hearing

Dear Ms. Morgan,

Date: March 17, 2015 File: 1273-19

Thank you for participating in the meeting which was held at the City of Prince George on March 3rd, 2015. As you know, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the concerns that were raised during the Public Hearing for the above-referenced application on March 2nd, 2015. Since the meeting with the City, L&M has prepared the following supplementary information which we believe strengthens the application for the proposed multi-family development. In addition to this meeting, we also met with the representative for University Mountain View Estates, R Radloff & Associates on March 10th, 2015 and have spoken with several other neighbouring property owners.

As explained during the initial Public Hearing on March 02, 2015, this rezoning application represents an amendment to the existing RM3 Mutli-Family zone boundary in order to provide additional space that will ultimately allow for integration of single family, duplex and medium density townhousing. This integration of single to medium density housing will facilitate a smooth transition between the existing single family housing and the proposed multi-family development. Additionally, a wide greenspace has been dedicated to construction of a berm which will help shield existing and future development from the traffic on Tyner Boulevard.

Please find enclosed the following information, which we would like to be included as supplementary information in the Staff Report to Council for Council's review and consideration at the postponed Public Hearing scheduled for March 30th, 2015:

• Traffic Impact Study Update

• Conceptual Multi-Family Development

Traffic Impact Study Update

During the Public Hearing on March 02, 2015, several concerns regarding the 2009 Traffic Impact Study were raised. The concerns included:

• Impacts to daily users of Tyner Boulevard;

• That the potential maximum density of 241 multi-family dwelling units, if achieved, would be too much traffic for the local road;

• That the potential maximum density of 241 multi-family dwelling units, if achieved, would add

6

too much traffic to the existing University Heights subdivision;

J&~ ENGINEERING LIMITED

PLANNING CENTRE

• That the existing intersection of University Heights Drive and Tyner Boulevard could not

support additional traffic; • That the existing intersection of University Heights Drive and Tyner Boulevard already

experiences traffic lining up into the existing University Heights subdivision; and

• That the report, which was completed in 2009, may no longer be relevant due to the level of growth that has occurred since the report's completion.

In response to these concerns, and under the advisement of the City' s Administration, Terry Fjellstrom the Senior Traffic Engineer at L&M Engineering Limited completed a review of the 2009 Traffic Impact Study (see attached Traffic Impact Study Update).

The updated report includes a current traffic count at the intersection of University Heights Drive and Tyner Boulevard, completed during peak traffic hours in the morning and evening. The report also reviewed the original assumptions made regarding background traffic growth to confirm that the original assumptions are still consistent with the current traffic trends. The report concludes that due to topographical challenges and the desire to create larger wider lots, the number of total dwelling units that will be constructed on the property is 414 compared to the 571 units initially assumed in 2009, which represents an overall decrease of 27%. Further, the Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Drive intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service through the build out of the 414 units. With the total size of the development reduced, the recommendations within the original study remain just as valid.

In addition to the Traffic Study Update, the configuration of Rowe Street was also amended so that it no longer connects through to University Mountain View Estates' property. Instead, Rowe Street is now proposed to function as a crescent, which will connect back to University Heights Drive as shown on the enclosed Conceptual Multi-Family Development plan.

Residential Development Yield

A conceptual multi-family development layout was not required and therefore was not included as part of the original Rezoning application. Further, the applicant wished to preserve flexibility due to the unknown future market demands for multi-family developments in Prince George. Infinity envisions single detached units and duplexes or a mix of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. During the Public Hearing however, numerous concerns were raised regarding the maximum permitted residential density for the RM3 zone. The main issue was that the proposed amendment area would facilitate the development of up to 241 mutli-family residential dwelling units at the proposed location which would not integrate well into the existing single family subdivision and would create unwanted traffic congestion. The applicant had no intention of pursuing maximum densities on the site as per preliminary discussions with the City. Despite our efforts to explain that we would not pursue the maximum permitted density of 241 units, the community's concerns were clear in wanting to see this reinforced.

Infinity Properties L&M Engineering Limited

Page 2 of 4 Date: March 17, 2015 L&M File No.: 1273-19

7

I&~ ENGINEERING LIMITED

PLANNING CENTRE

We discussed this challenge during our meeting with Administration on March 3rd, 2015 to provide some reassurance to the surrounding property owners and Council. At present, the RM3 zone permits a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units per hectare, which is neither achievable nor desired by Infinity Properties as mentioned earlier. The most efficient solution discussed would be to volunteer to register a Section 219 Covenant, which would limit the density of the proposed multi -family development to 25 dwelling units per hectare. Th is proposed density of 25 dwelling units per hectare would permit the development of 100 residential dwelling units as shown on Conceptual Multi-Family Development. Together with the proposed amendment to the City of Prince George Multi-Family Development Permit Guidelines, we believe that we could still successfully achieve the 35% multiple family density target outlined in the University Heights Neighbourhood Plan, while ensuring that the proposed multi-family development is compatible with the existing single family subdivision.

The enclosed Conceptual Multi-Family Development plan illustrates the maximum number of units that could be achieved in the proposed multi-family development. While the plan is only a concept drawing, we believe that the proposed density limiting Covenant and the Development Permit process will prevent future conflicts with the surrounding community because the density, form and character of the development would be regulated and subject to approval by the City of Prince George. While Infinity is pursuing the rezoning/boundary amendment for the entire multi -family area, it has always been the intention to phase the proposed multi-family development into two, stand-alone projects. The first, southerly site was anticipated to develop with the Ridge Phase 5, while t he second, northerly site was anticipated to develop with a future phase. This would further limit the amount of units being created at any given point in time. Infinity is committed to furthering the City's vision for this master-planned community in ways that are measured, complementary, and appropriate.

Community Engagement

The initial Public Hearing on March 02, 2015 was postponed by Council until March 30th, 2015 so that Infinity Properties could meet with University Mountain View Estates in an attempt to resolve concerns surrounding traffic and residential yield in the proposed multi-family site. Upon this recommendation, L&M Engineering met with R. Radloff & Associates on March 10th, 2015 to discuss the updated traffic report and the proposed density limiting Covenant. Following the March 1ot\ 2015 meeting, L&M received confirmation from R. Radloff & Associates that University Mountain View Estates were satisfied with the above-referenced documents that L&M had completed. No other concerns were identified by R. Radloff & Associates.

During the Public Hearing, neighbours of the existing University Heights subdivision in attendance voiced their concerns about the impact that this proposed multi-family development would have on their community and individual property values. Since the Public Hearing, we have received numerous phone calls from residents looking for more information and to express their concerns. Many of the questions are regarding the appearance and residential density of the proposed development. A recurring concern that has been specifically stressed is the lack of notification to the neighbours that a change was occurring in their subdivision.

Infinity Properties L&M Engineering Limited

Page 3 of 4 Date: March 17, 2015 L&M File No.: 1273-19

8

l&!:d ENGINEERING LIMITED

PLANNING CENTRE

In an effort to provide an additional outlet for residents to voice their opinions and concerns, we have proposed a Community Meeting for Thursday March 26

th at the Columbus Centre in College Heights

starting at 7:00 pm. The meeting will include a formal presentation by L&M followed by an informal question and answer period in an open house format. We propose to have maps and application drawings displayed around the room with Terry Fjellstrom the professional engineer responsible for traffic calculations and design; Jason Boyes the professional engineer responsible for subdivision design; and myself, the community planner responsible for overseeing the rezoning application ready

to answer individual questions.

We believe that by hosting this community meeting, we will be able to provide reassurance to the neighbourhood that this proposal will not negatively affect their lifestyle, and will ultimately enhance the overall community by reaching the City's targets for varied housing choices.

Summary

We would like to thank the Administration for their time and efforts in working collaboratively on this application. We appreciate the opportunity to revisit this application and have reviewed the 2009 Traffic Impact Study, suggested a density limiting Covenant and prepared a conceptual site plan to better illustrate the proposal, address the concerns of surrounding property owners, and provide reassurance that this proposed amendment to the Zoning Bylaw boundaries will not negatively affect

the community.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the

undersigned.

Sincerely, L&M ENGINEERING LIMITED

~ ~,\~~ Ashley Elliott, Community Planner

Copies to: Terry Fjellstrom, P.Eng, President L&M Engineering Limited Jason Boyes, P.Eng, Associate L&M Engineering Limited Quentin Boulton, Infinity Properties Ltd.

Enclosure: As Noted.

G:\Job Flles\1200\1273 - BF\-\1\19 - Phase 4\00-Plannlng\ltr to CoPG RE Postponed PH.doc

Infinity Properties Page 4 of 4

L&M Engineering Limited

Date: March 17, 2015 L&M File No.: 1273-19

9

I _a_ t:=11210 Fourth Avenue ~ Prince George, B.C. V2L 3J4

Tel. (250)562-19TT ENGINEERING LIMITED Fax (250) 562-1967

City of Prince George 1100 Patricia Boulevard Prince George BC V2L 3V9

Attention: Ms. Hillary Morgan Planner

Reference: University Heights Neighbourhood Traffic Study Update

Dear Hillary,

Date: 15th March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

Further to your request, we are pleased to provide you w ith a review of the Traffic Impact Study that we prepared in September 2009 for the University Heights Residential development.

1.0 2009 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

In 2009 Infinity Properties Inc. (formerly BFW Developments Ltd) purchased 52 hectares of property from the City of Prince George (CoPG). In support of the rezoning of the property, Infinity commissioned L&M Engineering Limited to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify the impact of the development on the surrounding road network. The following three intersections were analyzed:

1. Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Road 2. Tyner Boulevard/Ospika Boulevard 3. Tyner Boulevard/Highway 16

Utilizing a preliminary subdivision plan and maximum densities for the multiple family developments the TIS was based upon 300 single family dwellings and 271 multi-family dwellings. For the purposes of the study the development was analyzed over 2 phases. Phase 1 consisted of 63 single family units and Phase 2 was at full build out at 300 single family and 271 multifamily dwellings.

As is typical, the TIS analysis period is projected over a 15 year horizon. Background traffic is counted and a suitable factor is applied to grow the existing traffic over this period. A 2.0% linear growth rate was used in the study.

10

The development traffic is then added to the projected background traffic to generate the total traffic utilizing the individual intersections. The intersections were analyzed during an AM Peak and a PM peak period to determine the effect of the development on the road network.

The 2009 Study concluded that the following improvements would be required:



metres storage, 60 metres decelerat ion and appropriate bay tapers after the








Subsequent to the completion of the study it was agreed upon with the CoPG and MoT to

register a covenant on the property requiring an update to the study once 420 building permits

have been issued.

2.0 2015 TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE

During the public hearing conducted on March 2nd 2015, Council questioned whether the study prepared in 2009 is still valid. As mentioned previously, studies are analyzed over a 15 year period and should account for growth in background traffic. To confirm whether the original assumptions are still valid we have conducted new counts at the intersection of Tyner Boulevard and University Heights Drive. An analysis was then conducted at this intersection. The results are presented below:

2.1 Existing Background Traffic Counts

Traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday March 4th 2015 during the PM peak from 4:00pm to 6:00pm and on Thursday March 5th 2015 during the AM peak from 7:00am to 9:00am. The counts were conducted using standard vehicle classifications. The counts were then compared to the existing counts conducted in 2008. The 2015 background counts were generally within 10% of the counts projected from the 2009 study with the exception of the westbound movement towards UNBC which was 50% of the volume from the 2009 study. The count conducted on Thursday morning was after the commencement of the strike at UNBC. It appears that the strike has affected the traffic

University Heights Neighbourhood 2 Traffic Study Update

Date: 1st March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

11

volume in this direction. The Wednesday count was not affected by the strike. To compensate for this anomaly this movement has been increased by 130%.

The traffic counts are shown in Figure 1. A copy of the traffic count is shown in Appendix A.

2.2 Projected Background traffic

The background traffic counts were projected to 2023 using the 2.0% linear growth rate used in the original study.

2.3 Existing Development

An inventory of the current development was conducted with the flowing results:

• Occupied houses 61 • Houses constructed but not occupied 5 • Houses under construction 21

The traffic counts conducted included the houses currently occupied

2.4 Current Development Plan

An overall subdivision plan has now been prepared for the entire rezoned property. 264 single family homes and 150 multifamily dwelling units can be constructed on the property. Due to larger lot sizes, topographical constraints and lower density multi-family, the actual number of dwellings that can be constructed is considerably less than was assumed in the original TIS which was based upon 300 single family and 271 multifamily units.

2.5 Trip Generation

The trip generation rates used in this study were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 8th edition. The rates give an indication of the range of vehicles expected to enter and exit a particular land use site for various peak traffic flows.

The ITE Code {210) for Single-Family Detached Housing was used to develop trip generation volumes for the proposed single family lots and strata lots. For the multi-family development the ITE Code {231) Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse was utilized. The rates and trip generation for each land use are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.


Date: 151 March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

12

TABLE 2 PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTTRAFFlC

PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATES Traffic Traffic % %

Phase Land Use Peak Development Generation Generation In Out

Period Size Variable Rate (x) (vph)

Existing a.m. 61 Dwelling Units Dwelling Units * 45 55 1 Development 61 Dwelling Units p.m. Dwelling Units * 33 67

Single Family a.m. 203 Dwelling Units** Dwelling Units T=0.70(x) +9.74 25 75

Housing p.m. 203 Dwelling Units** Dwelling Units T=0.90Ln(x) +0.51 63 37 2 150 Dwelling Units Multiple a.m. Dwelling Units 0.67 25 75

Family Housing p.m. 150 Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 0.78 58 42

TABLE 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TOTAL TRIP GENERATION

Inbound Outbound Total

Phase Land Use Peak Period Traffic Traffic Traffic (vph) (vph) (vph)

a.m. * * * 1 Existing Development

p.m. * * *

a.m. 38 114 152 Single Family Housing

100 59 159 p.m. 2

Multiple Family a.m. 25 75 100

Housing p.m. 68 49 117

• Trip generation for existing development is included in the traffic counts conducted on March 4th

and 5th

2015.

** The total dwelling units account for the 61 existing units (i.e. 239-61=178 units)

2.6 Trip Distribution

The trip distribution assumed in the original study was compared to that observed in the March 2015 counts. With the exception of the southbound egress during the PM peak all other movements generally were in accordance with the original study's assumption of 80% of the traffic would originate from the east and 20% from the west although slightly more weighted towards the west. The PM peak egress showed more traffic heading west than east. Given the small sample size of the March 2015 count this movement was adjusted to 60% from the east and 40% from the west. The trip distribution is shown in Figure 3.


Date: 151 March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

13

2.7 Total Traffic

The projected background traffic volumes as shown in Figure 2, when added with the development traffic shown in Figure 4, results in the 2023 Total Traffic shown in Figure 5.

2.8 Method of Analysis

To analyze the performance of the study intersections and calculate the capacity and

"level of service" of each intersection, the Synchro Studio Version 7 Software has been

used. This software was developed by Trafficware Ltd. and is based on the methods and procedures in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.

Computer printouts showing the detailed calculation for each individual movement at

each study intersection are provided in Appendix B.

The concept of "Level of Service" is defined as a qualitative measure describing

operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists. A level

of service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed

and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety.

The six levels of service are defined in the Highway Capacity Manual as follows:

• Level of Service A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the

presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to

maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and

convenience provided to the motorist is excellent.

• Level of Service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the

traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively

unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic

stream from Level of Service A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is

somewhat less than at Level of Service A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior.

• Level of Service C is the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by

interaction with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the

presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial

vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.


Date: 151 March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

14

• Level of Service D represents high-density, but stable, traffic flow. Speed and freedom

to maneuver are severally restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of

comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational

problems at this level.

• Level of Service E represents operating conditions at, or near, the capacity level. All

speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within

the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle

to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are

extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this

level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow and minor perturbations within

the traffic stream will cause breakdowns .

• Level of Service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists

wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can

traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. Operations within the queues

are characterized by stop-and-go waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may

progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop

in a cyclic fashion. The Level of Service F is used to describe the operating conditions

within the queue, as well as the point of the breakdown.

Levels of Service Criteria, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual, are illustrated in

Table 3.

TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Level of Unsignalized Signalized

Service Impact on Street Traffic Intersection Intersection

Delay(s) Delav(s)

A Little or no delays 0-10 0-10

B Minor delays 10-15 10-20

C Average delays 15-25 20-35

D Long delays 25-35 35-55

E Very long delays 35-50 55-80

F Undesirable > 50 > 80

2.9 Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Drive

The Tyner Boulevard/University Heights Drive intersection is an unsignalized T-intersection with the stop control on University Heights Drive. Tyner Boulevard at this location is a two lane arterial road and University Heights Drive is a municipal collector.


Date: 15t h

March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

15

The Synchro analysis is summarized in Table 4. Detailed results can be found in Appendix B.

The analysis shows that for the existing background traffic, the southbound lane on

University Heights Drive operates at a LOS B during the AM and PM peaks. This LOS

coincides with the visual observations conducted during the traffic counts with a

maximum of 2 vehicles queued on University Heights waiting to access Tyner Boulevard.

During the 2023 Total Traffic scenario, the southbound movement operates at a LOS D

and C during the AM and PM peak periods respectively.

The intersection will perform substantially better than originally assumed in the 2009 TIS

due to the reduced number of lots being constructed.

The intersection will perform satisfactory through to the year 2023.

TABLE4 TYNER BOULEVARD / UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS DRIVE

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND

LT/TH LT/RT los delay los delay

A.M. PEAK

2015 Existing Background Traffic A 0.6 B 12.9 2023 Total Traffic A 1.4 D 26.8 P.M. PEAK

2015 Existing Background Traffic A 0.7 B 12.1 2023 Total Traffic A 2.2 C 24.8

2.10 Auxiliary Lanes

The 2009 TIS made recommendations for improvements to the Tyner Blvd/University Heights Drive intersection based upon certain development thresholds being achieved. Given that the background traffic growth is basically at the rate assumed in the original study, these assumptions are still valid. The improvements include:

• Construct a westbound right turn deceleration lane on Tyner Boulevard after the construction of 140 single family homes.


Date: 151 March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

16

• Construct an eastbound left turn slot on Tyner Boulevard at the Tyner Blvd/Road A

Intersection to TAC standards with a minimum of 30 metres storage; 60 metres

deceleration and appropriate bay tapers after the construction of approximately 250

single family homes and 50 multifamily homes.

3.0SUMMARY

The development density assumed in the original 2009 TIS was very conservative and was not based upon a subdivision layout but rather maximum allowable densities for multifamily dwellings. Due to topographical challenges and the desire to create larger lots, the number of total dwelling units that will be constructed on the property is 414 compared to the 571 units initially assumed in 2009. That represents a decrease of 27%.

The Tyner Boulevard/University heights Drive intersection operates at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) through the build out of the 414 units.

Although the size of the development has been reduced from the initial assumptions the recommendations in the original study are still valid .

The required improvements that are:











4.0CLOSURE

This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Infinity Properties and the

City of Prince George. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or

decisions to be made based on it are the responsibility of such third parties. L&M Engineering

Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of

decisions made or actions based on this study. The information and data contained within this

document represents L&M Engineering Limited's professional judgment in accordance with the


Date: 1st March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

17

knowledge and information available to L&M Engineering Limited at the time of the report

preparation. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Yours Very Truly, L&M ENGINEERING LIMITED

¾8dls~ Mr. Terry Fjellstrom President

Copy to: Mr. Quentin Boulton Infinity Properties

Enclosures: As noted

G:Vob Files\1200\1273 · BFW\19 • Phase 4\00-Planning\TIS\2015 University Heights Traffic Study Update.docx


Date: 151 March, 2015 File: 1273-20-00

18

__!\

~ ;; I . ... '\ \

~ "

'

19

\1ard1 20, zu 15

07:U 122 BC Ltd. 21 l !O I 5 Austin Avi.111~-Cvqui1lam, BC V1K '.!\l9

De-.ar \fayor & Cot111

University Mountain View Estates Ltd. P.O. Box 23034 College Heights 5240 Domano Blvd March 23, 2015 Mayor and Council City of Prince George 1100 Patricia Boulevard Prince George, BC V2L 3V9 RE: Rezoning Application RZ100470 (Bylaw No. 8597)

Dear Mayor and Council, We are the owners of the parcel immediately north of the land that is the subject of rezoning application RZ100470 (Bylaw No. 8597). We are residents and long-term investors in Prince George who are excited to see progressive development of this neighbourhood for the benefit of all residents. We see tremendous opportunity and growth potential in Prince George, and wish to encourage a collaborative and coordinated response to this land development demand. However, as expressed in our letter to you on February 23, 2015 and at the public hearing on the rezoning on March 2, 2015, we have significant concerns that we need to bring to your attention. At the March 2, 2015 hearing, Council passed a resolution postponing the hearing until March 30, 2015 in order for the owners of UMVEL and the applicant (L&M and Infinity Properties) to meet and address the concerns about the proposed RM3 rezoning including an updated Traffic Impact Study (TIS). On March 6th, 2015 we met with senior staff at the Department of Planning and Development. Mr. Ian Wells advised us that the applicant was welling to meet with us to address our concerns. We understood that a representative from Infinity Properties was not able to come to Prince George until March 19-20. We agreed that our agent would meet with L&M Engineering before to discuss all technical issues before the planned meeting on March 19-20. A meeting was held with our agent and L&M Engineering on March 10th, 2015 to discuss their proposal to address some of our concerns relating to the RM3 rezoning. The discussion focused on the proposed covenant limiting density to 25 units per hectare (maximum 100 units total) for the proposed RM3 zone and redesigning Rowe Street so that it would not continue into the UMVEL property. At that time we agreed that this proposal would address some of our concerns regarding the RM3 rezoning, however it was our understanding that a meeting was going to be scheduled between the owners for either March 19th or March 20th. Soon after the March 10th meeting, our agent informed UMVEL that Infinity had decided not to meet with us. Therefore, we remain concerned about this rezoning and the ability, allowed within the proposed RM3 zone even with a covenant, to affect the neighbourhood and our future development.

20

It is clear that the Infinity Properties owners have no intention to address our other concerns and to discuss how we can better share information and better coordinate the planning of both developments. Before I provide information about our specific concerns, I would like to point out a few statements in the letter from L&M Engineering of March 17, 2015, addressed to Hillary Morgan at the City, and attached to the Council agenda package.

First, on page 3, their letter states that no other concerns were raised by our agent at the March 10th meeting. This is misleading, as the intent of the meeting was to discuss the proposed covenant and road redesign. The meeting on March 10th was not intended to discuss all the issues and concerns that we have, as this was the purpose of the March 19th or 20th meeting with the owners that was declined by Infinity Properties.

Second, the L&M letter does not provide information about our (UMVEL) offer to L&M Engineering / Infinity Properties to share the costs of a full Traffic Impact Study (TIS) by an independent transportation engineer that would assess the future traffic impacts with consideration to the full build out of the current UMVEL and Infinity Properties developments. This would allow lead-time in planning for future traffic impacts. This offer was declined by Infinity. In discussions with the City, it is our understanding that Administration is planning to undertake a road network study this fall, which may assist. We would like to receive written confirmation that this will proceed.

Third, the letter from L&M provides the City and Council with information about their update to the 2009 Traffic Impact Study. Council should be aware, as this was not provided in L&M’s letter, that their traffic count was under-taken when UNBC was on strike, which would have resulted in less traffic along Tyner Blvd.

Fourth, the L&M letter makes suggestion about a Section 219 Covenant (“…the most efficient solution discussed…” and the redesign to Rowe Street (“…the road design is now proposed…”). We are concerned that, after the March 30th hearing, either the City or Infinity Properties could make changes to these suggested proposals. In effect, they are not written as solid commitments that we feel provide security for our development. This is of particular concern as these matters are dealt with in the subdivision phase between City administration and University Heights, and do not come before Council for deliberation.

Given what has transpired over the last couple of weeks, we remain concerned and opposed to the rezoning of the RM3 parcel, because there remain a number of outstanding issues with how the Infinity Properties development will impact the University Height Neighbourhood. First, we would like to provide our specific concerns and requests on the proposed RM3 rezoning. We support the road redesign to avoid connecting Rowe Street into UMVEL property and request that City administration provide their support for this in writing to us. Rowe Street is a local road that is intended to move traffic through single family residential areas and would not be conducive to the movement of traffic through a multi-family area.

21

In terms of the proposed RM3 rezoning, we are requesting the following changes to what is currently suggested in L&M Engineering’s March 17, 2015 letter:

That an RM2 zone, with a Section 219 Covenant limiting density to 25 units per hectare, would be more appropriate for what L&M Engineering is proposing. The RM2 zone would allow for their proposed multi-family development, but would also ensure that large apartment housing would not be allowed as the RM2 limits the number of dwellings per building to six (6). There is no such specific limit in the RM3 zone. Since, L&M Engineering and Infinity’s proposal would be accommodated in an RM2 zone, and this would afford us a greater certainty in reducing the impact to the neighbourhood, we request that this be pursued by City administration and L&M Engineering / Infinity.

If the Council and City administration are not agreeable to pursuing the RM2 zone, and intend to proceed on approving the RM3 zone, then we request a change to the proposed Section 219 Covenant such that it limits the density to 25 units per hectare of the buildable area and limits the maximum number of units in a building to four (4). We request that if this is agreeable, then UMVEL receives written confirmation that this will be pursued.

Second, we would like to provide to Council, a few of our other key immediate concerns, since Council does not see nor approve subdivision plans for their phased development, and we remained concerned that our issues will not be addressed, given past practices. Many of the potential and avoidable impacts to UMVEL will occur through L&M Engineering & Infinity’s work with City administration in subsequent subdivision planning. In the past, it has been extremely difficult to obtain information that would allow a better coordination so that both development properties (and future development towards UNBC) will be well planned for the future. For example, the current University Heights Phase 4 plans show the elevation of the sewer line along Chancellor Blvd to be designed too high to properly accommodate a sewer line upstream into UMVEL and beyond. Designs that reduce development costs for Infinity Properties ends up creating engineering and development challenges and reduces options to UMVEL. This is just one example of the types of planning issues in the subdivision phase that needs better coordination and planning between the properties owners, their agents and the City administration. We also have concerns about the push by L&M Engineering and the City administration to plan for local roads that would enter UMVEL. While we agree with the redesign of Rowe Street, there is another planned local road as well as a collector road (Chancellor Blvd.) The interconnection of these collector and local roads is of particular concern to us. While we support the extension of Chancellor Blvd into UMVEL property, the other local road to the east may not need to extend into UMVEL property from a traffic flow perspective. Other options that need to be considered for interconnections include walking and bike paths that support Active Transportation policies of the City. Therefore, there is a need for the City administration to work with us to ensure that the interconnections of the roads and pathways work for both Infinity Properties and UMVEL, not just one developer. Our intentions are based on a desire to provide a safe, efficient and convenient road network for future residents, whether they live on our property or the neighboring property.

22

There are other important planning issues that need to be addressed. For example, the timing of the extension of the sewer will greatly impact the future development of the entire neighbourhood. The Department of Planning and Development has refused to address this issue. The sewer line currently ends around 200 meter from our property line. In addition, we understand that the City is completing an assessment of the drainage in this neighbourhood, the results of which may not be available for some time. We strongly encourage the timely completion of this work. We are aware of the natural drainage courses that run through our property and the need to manage drainage flow with our future development. In summary, the Council should see that not only are there outstanding issues with the proposed rezoning, but many outstanding issues related to the coordination, planning, engineering and information sharing with us. We ask the Council to evaluate the merit of this proposed rezoning not in isolation to the surrounding areas but rather as major part of this subdivision that could have a significant negative impact on the entire neighbourhood. We believe early and ongoing consultation between the City and adjacent land owners will help minimize potential negative impacts, and support financial, economic and socially sustainable decision making consistent with Council’s myPG vision, the goals and policies of the Official Community Plan, and University Heights Neighbourhood Plan policies. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely,

Dr. Firas Mansour President UMVEL Cc: Ian Wells, Director of Planning & Development Dave Dyer, Chief Engineer Natalie Payne, Approving Officer

23

-

March 23, 2015

Mayor and Council

1100 Patricia Blvd

Prince George, BC V2L 3V9

Re: Rezoning Application No. RZ100470

Dear Mayor and Council,

We wanted to reach out as very concerned resident of the University Height Subdivision. It has come to our

attention that there is currently a request to re-zone the large parcel of cleared land from RS2 to RM3, Multiple

Residential. We are highly against this proposition.

This developer has already destroyed the serene landscape of our neighborhood. We do not understand why the

City allowed clear cutting on such massive scale. We did not hear of any potential environment impacts either?

This developer has proven lack of moral accountability in continuously changing covenant rules. I moved to

University Heights as an Investment opportunity for me and my family. The Introduction of 240 MDU units will

most definitely lower our property values. With MDU developments comes a high number of rental properties.

We pay some of the highest taxes in Prince George and paid premium house prices to be in this neighborhood.

This is not what we signed up for. We would like to understand what accountability the City assumes in ensuring

that applications that are approved are in the best interest of its residents and city landscape. It would appear that

things are being rubber stamped with no real thought into potential impact.

More importantly we read that there would not be a Traffic Impact Study until there is a total of 420 units in the

development? With an average of 4 people per household this is a potential of 1680 people with no change in

current traffic structure. There is one feeder route into and out of University Heights, no lights or crosswalks. This

development was advertised as the premiere subdivision for families and professionals. Not only did the

developer pull back on the school plans but this congestion does absolutely nothing to support family living and

safety.

All we ask is that Council act in the best interest of the Residents of PG, not the developers that come in and

destroy our landscape. What has been done to our area is terrible. Trees should have been left at property lines

at the very least.

As a lifetime resident of Prince George I ask that you please deny this re-zoning application and hold these

property developers to a higher level of accountability. They divvy up their land, sell it to the highest bidder and

then they are gone. There is no assurance that the lands will be maintained and not rented. There is a covenant in

place but what good is it if it can be arbitrarily changed at anytime?

We look forward to attending the March 30th

Council Meeting in regards to this issue.

Sincerely,

Diana Matheson 2553 Kenney Crt.

24

25

March 23, 2015

Mayor and Council City of Prince George 1100 Patricia Boulevard Prince George, BC V2L 3V9

Dear Mayor Hall and Members of Council,

RE: Rezoning Application No.: RZ100470

We are very much in support of the above rezoning application because we believe it will continue to make the community on the hill even more complete by adding different housing types.

We feel the proposal as it stands today is appropriate for the subdivision and would fit well into the neighbourhood.

We are a local, family-based company who have been proudly building quality homes in the City for over 20 years We are a leading builder up at University Heights in particular, having built in the Ridge, Parkview and Landon Heights strata subdivisions.

We look forward to continuing to build quality homes throughout Prince George for many years to come.

Yours sincerely,

Lithium One Homes Ltd.

~i Jas Raju Office: (250) 596-0490 Website: lithiumone.com

Lithium One Homes Ltd 1618 Ogilivie Street South Prince George, BC Canada V2t-,J 1W9 Phone 250-596-0490 Ernail: [email protected]

26

March 25, 2015

Dear Mayor and Council,

This letter is regarding the multi-family rezoning proposal at University Heights- RZ100470.

As a stakeholder in 160 acres off Kimball Road situated in the community plan area, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am in favour of the proposal.

More density is needed in the neighbourhood, especially as you go up to the university.

Thank you for your time.

elly Orstad

757053 B.C. Ltd.

new correspondence for the public hearing regarding...

Documents