St. Mary’s MalankaraOrthodox ChurchMaster Site Development PlanNE-23-23-28-W4M, being Plan 9411626; Block 1,municipally located on Glenmore View RoadExample of Interior of Religious AssemblyPintail Environmental Consulting Inc.Terran GeophysicsMagara Enterprises Ltd.Submitted, January 2019Revised, July 2019

Table of ContentsIntroduction . 1Scope of MSDP . 1Owners . 1Agent . 1Location . 2History . 2Legal Description . 2Aerial . 3Evaluation of Planning Policies . 3Rocky View County Municipal Development Plan (County Plan) . 3Land Use Bylaw . 5The Site . 6Building Placement and Setbacks. 6Agriculture Boundary Design Guidelines . 7Building Height and General Architectural Appearance. 8Phasing . 9Parking and Public Lighting . 9Landscaping for Visual Appearance and/or Mitigation Measures . 9Traffic . 10Potable Water . 11Pinchin West Ltd. . 11GRIT . 11Cistern for Water . 12Stormwater . 12Ghostpine . 14Pintail . 15Topographic Contours . 17Soils Mapping . 18Landscaping . 19Garbage Removal. 19Security. 19Operations Plan . 19Public Engagement . 21Conclusion . 23

Table of FiguresFigure 1: Location Map .2Figure 2: Aerial Images of Site .3Figure 3: Land Use Bylaw .5Figure 4: Structures, Park and Landscaping .6Figure 5: Suggested Vegetation Buffer and Fencing options .7Figure 6: Floorplan concept and rendering 8Figure 7: Phase 1 Church . .9Figure 8: Future 2018 Horizon year Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .10Figure 9: Geologic Cross Section A – A’ . 11Figure 10: Cross-section of Stormwater Pond .12Figure 11: Pre-development Drainage .13Figure 12: Post development Drainage .13Figure 13: Desktop Delineated Wetlands from September 2016 Imager (Ghost Pine) .14Figure 14: Delineated Wetlands from site visit November 4, 2018 (Pintail) 15Figure 15: Site photographs of Wetlands .16Figure 16: Topographic Mapping .17Figure 17: Soils Mapping .18Figure 18: Photographs from the Site 20Figure 19: Neighbouring Lands Aerial .21Figure 20: Story Boards of Open House .22

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Revised July 2019Project:St. Mary’s Malankara Orthodox ChurchMaster Site Development Plan in support of RedesignationLocation:NE-23-23-28-W4M, 11.33 ha (27.99 ac.)Glenmore View Rd. in Rocky View County (RVC)Proposal:Amendment to the Land Use Bylaw to redesignate lands from Ranch and Farm (RF) toPublic Service (PS) for religious assembly land use.IntroductionThis report is to satisfy Rocky View County’s (RVC’s) County Plan, Bylaw C-7280-2013 Section 29 andAppendix C, Section 3 that deals with Master Site Development Plans (MSDP). The County Plan requestsan MSDP for a Public Service District redesignation.Scope of MSDPThe MSDP emphasis is on site design with the intent to provide Council and the public with a clearidea of the final appearance of the development. More specifically, it is to address:a)b)c)d)e)f)building placement and setbacks;building height and general architectural appearance;parking and public lighting;landscaping for visual appearance and/or mitigation measures;agriculture boundary design guidelines; andanticipated phasing.An Operational Plan forms part of the MSDP to fulfill criteria previously mentioned, basically hoursof operation and how the facility is looked after.OwnersSt. Mary’s Malankara Orthodox Church – Calgaryof P.O. Box 68112, Crowfoot Post Office28 Crowfoot Terrance NW, Calgary AB T3G 3N8Rev. Fr. Binny. M. KuruvillaE-Mail: [email protected]: 403-202-3959AgentCarswell Planning Inc.: Bart CarswellE-Mail: [email protected]: 587-437-6750Office Address: #200, 525 – 28th St, SE Calgary, AB T2A 6W9 (Remax Complete Commercial)Mailing Address: P.O. Box 223, 104 – 1240 Kensington Rd. NW Calgary, AB T2N 3P71

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”LocationFigure 1: Location Map, shows the proposal is located in southeast Rocky View, south of GlenmoreTrail (Highway 560) and south of Chestermere in the country residential community of Glenmore View.Geographic coordinates are N 50o 58’ 30”, E -113 o 48’ 23”.HistorySt. Mary’s Malankara Orthodox Church was established in 2002 and has been fully operational sincethen. Currently, church activities are performed in a rented church facility and services are conductedregularly on Saturdays. Limited availability of the rental church is causing challenges as thecongregation is not able to conduct all spiritual activities and special services. The membership of thecongregation is steadily increasing and a permanent building is required. The church is growing, themajority of the church members are Indian origin and their families are established in the communityof Calgary, Chestermere and RVC.Legal DescriptionThe proposed church site is 11.33 ha (27.99 ac.), legal description Plan 9411626; Block 1, municipallyaddress unknown on Glenmore View Road.Figure 1: Location MapSubject Lands2

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”AerialFigure 2: Aerial Images of Site, shows the site in NE-23-23-28-W4M, RVC and an accompanying insetof the property itself showing the proposed layout.Figure 2: Aerial Images of SiteIt is the intention to preserve the wetlands on the northern portion of the property with sufficientbuffer to the proposed layout showing the buildings and parking area to be described later.Evaluation of Planning PoliciesRocky View County Municipal Development Plan (County Plan)RVC’s County Plan, Bylaw C-7280-2013 provides for development within the County. As per Section11 of the County Plan, the use is an institutional land use that benefits residents and contributes to thecommunity by serving religious needs. Goals include institutional land uses being appropriately locatedand well designed and enhance the local community, while being compatible with surrounding landuses. Policy suggests this use is encouraged to locate in country residential communities. It is on theperiphery of the Glenmore View.Section 11.3 directs that the “Proposals for institutional and community land uses that are not withinhamlets, country residential communities, or business centres may be considered if the following isaddressed:a.b.c.d.e.justification of the proposed location;demonstration of the benefit to the broader public;compatibility and integration with existing land uses or nearby communities;infrastructure with the capacity to service the proposed development; andthe development review criteria identified in section 29.The proposed location is in the vicinity of RVC’s country residential dwellings, south of the City of3

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Chestermere and east of the City of Calgary and is expected to draw from those catchment areas forthe church. This lets most get away from the noise and business of life in the City to encounter Godthrough silence and solitude. The country setting allows parishioners to quiet their minds, pray andlisten with their spirit. This is the reason people go to spiritual retreats. For St. Mary’s, this isopportunity for having their own church in the setting of their choice and not leasing a space in theCity on a day other than their day of worship.In the first phase, a church benefits the existing parish and provides an outreach to residents in thearea. In a future phase, a community centre is envisioned for the benefit of the area where such usesmay be: community get-togethers, social groups, scouting/guiding/4-H clubs, daycares, and receptionscould be held for the broader public.Compatibility involves landscaping, plantings and retention/enhancement of wetlands intended to addto the beauty of the rural setting. This is a low density development with structures setback fromGlenmore View Road for greater privacy to neighbouring residents.Infrastructure is addressed later in this MSDP. The Phase 1 Groundwater Site Assessment concludedthat there is sufficient quantity of water to meet the needs of the proposal without causing adverseaffects to existing groundwater users in the surrounding area. Sanitary sewage is handled by a holdingtank as per County policy. The Traffic Impact Assessment concluded that there is no adverse impactof the proposed development on Glenmore View Rd. or the intersection with Glenmore Trail.Section 29 makes reference to Appendix C on matters of County interest. An MSDP,29.6 “where applicable shall guide the implementation and sequencing of development permitapplications, as determined by the County”29.7 “ should address all matters identified in Appendix C, Sections 1 and 3”.Note, these matters are addressed through this MSDP and supporting documentation.Section 11.5 for “redesignation applications for institutional land uses should provide:a) an operational plan outlining details such as facility hours, capacity, staff and public numbers,facility use, parking requirements, garbage collection, and security; andb) a master site development plan, as per section 29. The master site development plan shalladdress servicing and transportation requirements and sure the site is of sufficient size toaccommodate the parking requirements as set out in the Land Use Bylaw.”4

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Land Use BylawFigure 3: Land Use Bylaw, shows the current land use district and the neighbouring country residentialdevelopment to the west. To meet the uses proposed, redesignation from Ranch and Farm (RF)District to Public Service (PS) District is recommended. In this instance, PS District benefits residentsand contributes to the community by serving religious needs.Land use definitions that best fit the uses proposed would be Religious Assembly. This is adiscretionary use in the PS District.“Religious Assembly means a development owned by a religious organization used for worship andrelated religious, philanthropic, or social activities and includes accessory rectories, manses, meetingrooms, classrooms, dormitories, and other buildings. Typical facilities would include churches, chapels,mosques, temples, synagogues, parish halls, convents, and monasteries.”Minimum parcel size for a PS District is 0.50 hectares (1.24 acres). The site is 11.33 ha (27.99 ac.) andeasily meets this requirement. Another requirement is a minimum of 10% of the site area shall belandscaped. Landscaping adds to the impression of the church grounds and is intended to be pleasingto neighbouring residents. Figure 3: Land Use Bylaw, shows the parcel is east of land use districts thatare country residential in character.Figure 3: Land Use BylawSubjectLands5

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”The SiteBuilding Placement and SetbacksFigure 4: Structures, Parking and Landscaping, shows the building placement well back from GlenmoreView Road. Landscaping is shown next to the road and next to parking. Recommendations fromneighbours included Schubert Chokecherry for trees @ 6 m spacing, Green Ash and Spruce suitablefor the acidic soils. Suggested shrubs included Saskatoon Berry. Grasses would be planted next theparking area to soften the edge. Phase one would include 83 parking spaces including accessibleparking for handicapped, expectant and new moms with babies. Parking stalls and aisle separationshall be to RVC standards. Agricultural Boundary Design Guidelines shall be followed on the easternproperty line with a vegetated buffer and fence as discussed in the next section.Figure 4: Structures, Parking and Landscaping6

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Agriculture Boundary Design GuidelinesAgricultural boundary design guidelines would apply to the eastern boundary of the proposal. Theapplication of the Agricultural Boundary Design Guidelines (ABDG) may be beneficial in buffering thereligious assembly land use from the agricultural land uses to the east of the parcel. The guidelineswould help mitigate areas of concern including concern over fertilizers, dust and normal agriculturalpractices.The predominant use of lands in the area is residential to the west and agricultural to the east.Glenmore View Road, a gravel/paved road, separates the country residential to the west from thesubject lands. The proposal does not prevent access to surrounding lots. The type of agriculturaloperation to the east is cultivation/cropping as evident from aerial images and confirmed by RVC.Prevailing winds would have any dust and odours from the neighbouring agricultural operationsdirected downwind and away from the subject lands.Recommendations to meet ABDG could include various designs to provide compatibility. Site layoutcould include: setbacks, building placement, and location of a small wetland providing a buffer. Edgetreatments could include: landscaping, fencing and berming within the property line next to landsdesignated as Ranch and Farm (RF). Figure 5: Suggested Vegetative Buffer and Fencing Choices,shows a vegetative barrier in the 15-metre buffer area adds visual separation. It will also reduce dust,trespassing, and noise.On the agricultural side of the property line there is a substantial wetland that acts as a buffer to theproposal. Farm operations are further away from the property line and offer greater compatibility.Figure 5: Suggested Vegetative Buffer and Fencing Choices7

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Building Height and General Architectural AppearanceFor all intents and purposes, the building height and general architectural appearance is proposed tobe in character with the surrounding area. Phase 1 for the church is a modest structure with a 484sq. m (5,207 sq. ft.) footprint. Figure 6: Floorplan Concept and Interior, shows a main congregationhall of 232 sq. m (2,500 sq. ft.) with a foyer, small kitchen, washrooms, sanctuary room on the mainfloor. Building height and general architectural are yet to be determined. It is expected that theentrance and foyer would face west towards the proposed primary parking area and avoid wetlands,while providing landscaping.Figure 6: Floorplan Concept and InteriorPhase 1: ChurchPhase 2: Community Centre8

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”PhasingFigure 7: Phase 1 Church, shows greater detail of the west side’s layout, parking and landscaping.The church would have a footprint of about 484 sq. m (5,207 sq. ft.). The intent is to focus on gettingthe church built to alleviate the limited availability of the existing rental church that is causingchallenges as the congregation is not able to conduct all spiritual activities. There has been a financialcommitment from the members, the church and other sources. Initially, the land was acquired. Nowat this stage, planning permissions are being sought. It is the hope of the congregation that theproposed church can be built in Phase 1 before Phase 2 can proceed.Figure 7: Phase 1 ChurchProposedOverflow ParkingEntranceProposedPrimary Parking AreaProposedChurchPhase 2 could be a community centre with associated parking and landscaping. Being next toagricultural lands, setbacks, berms, vegetation and fencing are proposed at the eastern property line.Figure 4: Structures, Parking and Landscaping shows Phase 2 Community Centre on the east side’slayout. It appears that the Community Centre would be about 1,108 sq. m (11,920 sq. ft.) with onlya main floor, twice the footprint of the Church. It would serve the immediate community in RockyView County as well as neighbouring municipalities.Parking and Public LightingApproximately 70 families attend services at the church for a congregation of 100-150 adults andchildren. The proposed primary parking area could accommodate this. Additional overflow parking isalso proposed. Initially proposed parking would be gravel with paving anticipated later. In keepingwith the character of its country setting, lighting is proposed to be dark sky friendly.Landscaping for Visual Appearance and/or Mitigation MeasuresLandscaping is proposed to enhance the property and screen the parking area. Additional landscapingis proposed near the buildings and near the eastern property line as a buffer to agricultural operationsas presented earlier.9

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”TrafficLSL Engineering Consultants Inc., Oct 2018 (revised July 2019) Traffic Impact Assessment StudyReport was prepared for the St. Mary’s Malankara Orthodox Church development. GlenmoreTrail/AB560 and Glenmore View Road Intersection is minor street Stop Controlled on the northboundGlenmore View Road approach. There are no dedicated eastbound or westbound left-turn lanes onGlenmore Trail/AB560.Glenmore Trail/AB560 is an east-west two lane paved roadway with one travel lane each direction andnarrow shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Glenmore Trail/AB560 has a posted speed limit of100 km/hr. Glenmore View Road is an unpaved, north - south gravel road immediately adjacent tothe proposed St. Mary’s Malankara Orthodox Church Development. It has a stop sign control at theintersection at the north end and a dead end on the south end. Figure 1: Location Map, showsGlenmore View Road serving lands to the end of Section 23, about 1600 m (1 mile).On Sunday September 16, 2018, between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. turning movements were collected toestablish a database of existing conditions. Peak traffic was 12:45 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. for the studyintersection. Counts were 1 leaving eastbound, 3 vehicles leaving westbound; and 4 enteringeastbound, 0 entering westbound. Meanwhile traffic counts on Glenmore Trail/AB560 were 227eastbound and 239 westbound.Addoz Engineering Inc., 2019 supplemented and validated the Traffic Impact Assessment through apeer review and came to similar conclusions.The Alberta Transportation Highway Geometric Design Guide requires three warrants are all requiredto justify a right-turn lane installation at the ‘T’ intersection. Further analysis concluded that anexclusive eastbound right-turn lane would not be warranted under the 2028 future horizon total trafficconditions as it only meets one warrant. In conclusion, traffic impacts would be consideredinsignificant. Minor street stop signs at the intersection and at the driveway entrance onto the roadare suggested. Alberta Transportation should have the revised Traffic Impact Assessment reviewedfor determining the intersection configuration prior to approval of a Development Permit.Figure 8: Future 2028 Horizon Year Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes10

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Potable WaterPinchin West Ltd.Pinchin West Ltd., March 2014, submitted a formal Groundwater Assessment to St. Mary’s MalankaraOrthodox Church. A number of water well records were examined and categorized based on distancefrom the site.Within 100 m of the site, drilling records reported clay to an approx. depth of 8.5 m. The clay wasunderlain by alternating layers of shale and sandstone bedrock to an approx. depth of 105 m. Thestatic water level in the well measured approx. 20 m below the ground surface. Further analysis wasprovided in a subsequent study by GRIT.GRITKen Hugo of Groundwater Information Technologies Ltd. (GRIT), December 2018, submitted a Phase1 Groundwater Site Assessment based on Alberta Water Well data searches in the area( The purpose was to understand aquifer resources in thearea as they relate to the future development of the property and water requirements.Figure 9: Geologic Cross Section A – A’, shows the sandstone channel aquifers and their varyingdepths and water levels, indicating they are not all hydraulically connected to one another. Agroundwater well in the same quarter section as the site (indicated by a pink star) is completed withindeposits belonging to the Lacombe aquifer. Based on pump yields in the area, an anticipated yield of5 - 75 m3/day (0.8 – 11.5 imperial gallons/min) can be expected. The church would use about 1,000m3/year (3 m3/day) to meet the needs of parishioners, staff and kitchen facility.A moderate amount of the groundwater supply is currently supplying groundwater users in the areaand sufficient quantities should exist for the proposal without causing adverse affects to existinggroundwater users in the surrounding area.Figure 9: Geologic Cross Section A – A’11

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Cistern for WaterCurrently and in keeping with RVC Standards for institutional use, a cistern is proposed to handle peakdemand when ceremonies take place once a week, then pumped from the well to replenish the water.The water would be treated to deal with total dissolved solids, notable sodium chloride and calciumsulfate. An application has been submitted to the Province (Alberta Environment and Parks) for a waterlicense to supply the St. Mary’s Malankara Orthodox Church.Sanitary SewageRVC Servicing Standards 507.2 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) Private WastewaterTreatment Systems and Disposal Systems notes, "The County generally requires sewage holding tanksfor IC&I PSTS. Where proposed, the septic field method of sewage disposal must be fully engineeredand justified for all IC&I lot developments. The use of septic fields for other than normal domesticsewage will not be supported by the County." For institutional use, a holding tank is proposed as ameans to collect and temporarily store sewage, for subsequent removal and transport to an approvedtreatment and disposal site.StormwaterStormwater Solutions, September 2018, submitted a stormwater management plan for this parcel.Stormwater management is to be designed at a scale the services the property in accordance with theShepard Regional Drainage Plan. One of the goals is to allow the wetlands to attain approximatelythe same amount of runoff volumes and peak flows to preserve them.The property lies along a typical prairie chain of topographical depressions that contain water forvarying durations. One of these depressions lies in the west portion of the property as an overlanddrainage generally flowing from east to west. Offsite discharge is limited to pre-development ratesand volumes. To accomplish this, a stormwater pond was designed to collect overland flow from thedevelopment with ditching along the parking lot.Figure 10: Cross-section of Stormwater Pond, shows the design with the following parameters:Depth from bottom to normal water level is 2.0 m,Depth from normal water level to high water level is 1.5 m,Freeboard is 500 mm minimum,Side slope from depth from bottom to high water level is 5:1,Discharge from the stormwater facility is through a control structure at normal water level.In addition, the roofs, paved areas and an effective drainage conveyance system such as ditches andunderground storm sewers where necessary will direct flow to the stormwater pond. Figures 11 and12 show the overland flow pre- and post-development on the property. The natural topography ispreserved for the most part with minor diversions in the parking area and where structures are located.Flow would be directed northward to the proposed stormwater pond.Figure 10: Cross-section of Stormwater Pond12

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Figure 11: Pre-Development DrainageFigure 12: Post-Development DrainageDetail AProposedStormwater PondGravel flow-spreaderadjacent to wetland toprevent point sourcedischarge to wetlandExistingWetlandArea13

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Environmental Component and WetlandsGhostpineFigure 13: Desktop Delineated Wetlands from Sep. 2016 Imagery (Ghostpine), shows work byGhostpine Environmental Services Ltd., submitted September 2018 as a desktop environmentalassessment for the proposal. The site is part of the Foothills Fescue (Grassland) natural region andthe sharp tailed grouse, sora, sensitive raptor (bald eagle, golden eagle, prairie falcon) wildlife region.Rare plants were not previously identified in the vicinity. Approximately 5 wetlands and 2 ephemeral(temporary) waterbodies were identified within and/or adjacent to the parcel. A field assessment wasrecommended to confirm. Additional work was contracted out to Pintail Environmental ConsultingInc., initiated November 2018 before snowcover.Figure 13: Desktop Delineated Wetlands from Sep. 2016 Imagery (Ghostpine)14

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”PintailPintail Environmental Consulting Inc., November 2018 submitted an additional desktop review for theproposal and a preliminary site visit November 4, 2018 during snow free conditions. The purpose ofthe site visit was to confirm the presence of the wetlands, waterbodies and their boundaries. Figure14: Delineated Wetlands from Site Visit Nov. 4, 2018 (Pintail), shows a comparison of wetlandidentification. Figure 15: Site Photographs of the Wetlands, shows what these wetlands look like in thefield. Further field work is required during the growing season should wetland compensation beconsidered. The proposal is not considering a reduction/removal of the wetlands, but choosingavoidance in its layout and where buildings and parking is located, where possible.Figure 14: Delineated Wetlands from Site Visit Nov. 4, 2018 (Pintail)15

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Figure 15: Site Photographs of WetlandsWetland 1 looking northWetland 2 looking east-northeast to 3Wetland 4 looking eastWetland 5 looking west-southwestWetland 6 looking west-southwestWetland 7 looking west-southwest16

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Topographic ContoursFigure 16: Topographic Mapping, shows the proposal is flat to undulating due to glacial collapse andhas with a gentle slope towards the northwest being less than 5 m elevation change across the site andat an elevation around 1,024 meters above sea level (m asl). No land grading is proposed that wouldchange this.Figure 16: Topographic Mapping17

Mobile 587 437 6750”No Hurdle too high”Soils MappingFigure 17: Soils Mapping, shows mostly Cla

Orthodox Church Master Site Development Plan . NE-23-23-28-W4M, being Plan 9411626; Block 1, municipally located on Glenmore View Road . Example of Interior of Religious Assembly . Pintail Environmental Consulting Inc. Terran Geophysics Magara Enterprises Ltd. Submitted, January 2019 . Revised, July 2019