Loading...
1991-02-04_Minutes 82-769 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Monday, the fourth day of February, AD. 1991, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. present Elsie E. Wayne, Mayor Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling, Gould, Knibb, Landers, Rogers, A Vincent and M. Vincent - and - Messrs. G. Taylor, City Manager; F. Rodgers, City Solicitor; D. Wilson, Commissioner of Finance; C. Robichaud, Assistant City Manager - Operations; J. C. MacKinnon, Commissioner of Environment and Infrastructure Services; S. Bedford, Director of Community Planning; S. Armstrong, Director of Engineering; W. D. Todd, Director of Housing and Property Management; W. Butler, Director of Water and Sewerage Services; S. Galbraith, Director of Supply and Services; R. McDevitt, Fire Chief; J. McNamee, Assistant Deputy Chief of Police; M. Hanlon, Purchasing Agent; C. Campbell, Manager - Policy Planning; J. Baird, Manager, Development Division; R. Smith, Administrator, Parking Commission; Mrs. M. Munford, Common Clerk; and Ms. C. Joyce, Assistant Common Clerk. Pastor David Jamer of Saint John Alliance Church offered the opening prayer. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor M. Vincent RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on January 28, 1991, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Her Worship the Mayor proclaimed the month of February 1991 to be Air Cadet Month and Cable Television Month in the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor M. Vincent RESOLVED that the request for a grant for the New Brunswick Police Curling Bonspiel (which was considered in Committee of the Whole earlier this date) be added to the agenda for consideration at this meeting. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to (a) a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, the following properties from Medium Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification: 354 Main Street (L.R.I.S. Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (L.R.I.S. Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (L.R.I.S. Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (L.R.I.S. Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (L.R.I.S. Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue (L.R.I.S. Number 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (L.R.I.S. Number 368852), 80 Douglas Avenue (L.R.I.S. Number 368845), and Chesley Drive and Main Street (L.R.I.S. Number 363613); (b) re- zoning all of the above-noted properties from "RM-1" Three-Storey Multiple Residential to "ID" Integrated Development classification, except that portion of L.R.I.S. Number 373613 on Chesley Drive already zoned "ID" Integrated Development classification; and (c) amending the proposal adopted on July 3, 1973 with respect to that portion of L.R.I.S. Number 373613 on Chesley Drive presently zoned "ID" Integrated Development classification, to permit the development of a multi-use proposal involving an office building, retail space, indoor parking facilities, apartment building and hotel 82-770 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 development, as requested by Malcolm Thorne, Douglas Thorne and Thorcor Holdings Ltd., and that 32 letters of objection were received in this regard, and that a letter of support was received from The Board of Directors of the North End Residents and Business Association, as well as a letter from the Preservation Review Board regarding the proposal. Consideration was also given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of the Planning staff report and ten letters of which nine are in opposition and one is in support of the above proposal, which were considered by the Committee at its January 29 meeting, at which two persons other than the applicant spoke in favour of the proposed mixed commercial and residential development, and a number of residents spoke for those in opposition to the proposal citing concerns related to scale, traffic, safety, drinking establishments, and the need to maintain the residential environment of Douglas Avenue, and a short presentation was made by the Preservation Review Board indicating its intention to pursue the initial designation of a large portion of Douglas Avenue, including that portion of the subject site which fronts on Douglas Avenue and Main Street; advising that Committee members discussed with the applicant the concerns raised at the meeting and noted that the staff report suggests that a modified development proposal could address these concerns and that, when questioned whether the applicant was open to working with staff toward a modified proposal, Malcolm Thorne noted that he would be open to nominal changes but wished to proceed with his application; and recommending that the application be approved. Mr. Thomas O'Neil of 272 Douglas Avenue appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of a number of concerned residents of Douglas Avenue in opposition to the above-proposed change in the Municipal Plan and the proposed re-zoning on the basis that the size, scale and scope of the project is not appropriate; advised that significant concern exists for traffic, safety and the need to maintain the residential environment of Douglas Avenue; and also advised that, despite two apparent misconceptions, Douglas Avenue residents are not opposed to development and change and are in favour of development in keeping with the present, and sympathetic with, the residential environment of Douglas Avenue, nor is it the case that residents' concerns are based upon support for the development of the heritage management zone and opposition to the proposed demolition of three or four structures in that the Thorcor proposal as the heritage management zone are separate distinct issues and should not be confused. Mr. O'Neil explained that residents' concerns relate to the following issues:- (1) the City presently owns, of the 6-acre site in question, in excess of 3 acres and it is the residents' understanding that Thorcor has no option, nor agreement of purchase and sale in respect to the City land, and further that Thorcor has rejected the terms and conditions upon which the City has offered to sell the land, in particular, the City's repurchase option if the property is not developed within a specific timeframe and is proposing that the land vest fully in Thorcor once it applies for and obtains a building permit in excess of $100,000, which would mean that Thorcor would then be free to sell the land and stop the development without having taken any action on the property; (2) Thorcor has no specific development timetable for the site, with no start date for any phase, no tenants signed up, no financing in place and no detailed feasibility studies done concerning any aspect of the project, and serious questions exist as to the overall feasibility of the project and the developer's ability to complete it, and further that the vague proposal put forth by Thorcor and Mr. Thorne's statements about senior City staff make it virtually impossible for them to work together to come to an acceptable proposal with respect to this site or a Section 39 agreement. Mr. O'Neil further advised the Douglas Avenue residents' concerns to the three-part application dealing with a proposed Municipal Plan amendment, a re-zoning, and a Section 39 agreement are best stated in the Planning staff report; expressed the opinion that the present proposal, with its degree of commercial development of the site, does not meet the policy in the Municipal Development Plan related to permitting major development outside of the central area in that the Thorcor project could severely prejudice the viability of the Mercantile Centre project which is to proceed on Union Street, and there is vacant space in Hilyard Place, the Zellers' building on Lansdowne Avenue and in buildings on Main and Metcalf Streets and, as well, Thorcor's proposal for a destination inn and condominium hotel suite tower is being put forward in a market where the hotels in the uptown area of the City are having a most difficult time; therefore, the commercial designation into the residential area in question should not be allowed as it would have significant impact on the other commercial areas of the 82-771 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 City, and suggested that the Thorcor proposal is also incompatible with other planning statements of the City, such as the North End Urban Renewal Scheme and the North End Neighbourhood Plan, and that the existing commercial development in the City's North End would be more enhanced by residential development, rather than commercial development, the Scheme having provided for residential development which has not taken place, while commercial development has occurred as a result of the Scheme, including Hilyard Place, Keddy's, Place 400 and Howard Johnsons; and that a small commercial use fronting on Chesley Street would be acceptable, with additional residential use and that this could form a revised proposal for the area in question. With respect to the proposed re-zoning, Mr. O'Neil explained that the basic objection to the change in zoning is that the size and scope of the proposed project is too great and is the wrong use of the property in question and not sympathetic to the residential nature of the adjoining neighbourhood; referred to the Planning Department's report relative to staff's observation with respect to the residential nature of Douglas Avenue, the matter of parking in that a spill-over onto neighbouring residential streets would be anticipated with the present proposal, traffic in that the proposed destination inn component would have the potential to increase traffic volumes by 21 per cent alone on Douglas Avenue, and that a re-evaluation of the project and a detailed traffic impact evaluation should be considered during the redesign process, the general urban design in that streetscape of the project is not appropriate as its size and scope do not blend into the existing neighbourhood, nor is the use of glass and steel in the exterior building compatible with the neighbourhood, and design issues which become more important when it is considered that the site is part of a significant heritage area. Mr. O'Neil also suggested that the portion of the project for a proposed office building should be re-evaluated as the space is located outside the central business district and is contrary to the policies in the Municipal Development Plan and the recently-adopted Goals For Saint John, the design of the office development does not respond to the characteristics of the neighbourhood, the parking and traffic generated by the office must be managed so that it does not impact on Douglas Avenue, and the scale of this portion of the project is completely out of character, size and scope and should not be supported; and with respect to the proposed condominium hotel development, expressed the opinion that this will have a significant impact on the presently under-utilized hotels in the central business district of Saint John, the commercial nature is not appropriate as part of a residential neighbourhood, and the height, scale, location and design detail of the hotel are not appropriate for the area and are insensitive to the nature of the residential neighbourhood, and traffic, as presently set up, will be directed from the hotel towards Douglas Avenue; and, concerning the proposed destination inn, expressed the understanding that this would create the second largest hotel accommodation in the City after the Delta Brunswick Hotel, in an area where the hotel market is not that strong, and that the proposal and number of accommodations would create a major commercial complex, again not in keeping with the residential nature, with insufficient parking for the rooms provided and the proposed restaurant, banquet and lounge facilities, and traffic flows would increase greatly. Concerning a proposed Section 39 agreement, Mr. O'Neil suggested that such an agreement would have to be very site specific and detailed in nature, and it is of great concern that the developer has indicated that he cannot live with the terms and conditions in the City's offer to sell the land, as is Thorcor's attitude toward City staff in that it would make it virtually impossible to negotiate and complete any reasonable Section 39 agreement. Mr. O'Neil concluded his presentation by requesting that the subject application not be granted. In response to Council queries, Mr. O'Neil advised that, while there is no formal neighbourhood organization, he represents a great many residents of Douglas Avenue and, in fact, having spoken to many residents and attended a meeting on February 3, he is unaware of any Douglas Avenue resident who is in favour of the above proposal, other than Mr. Douglas Thorne; explained that, with respect to the possible effect on the proposed Mercantile Centre of the Thorcor project, tenants would be split and neither project would be viable if both proceeded and that, based on his understanding, the Mercantile Centre still has much vacant space, even with Provincial tenancy, and that other projects could be harmful to its viability; and expressed the understanding that Douglas Avenue residents in concept, while they would like to see a specific proposal, are fully in agreement with some commercial use of the site in question, although not of the size, scale and scope of the present Thorcor proposal. Ms. Valerie Evans of 303 Douglas Avenue appeared in opposition to the 82-772 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 above-proposed amendments and, reading from a prepared brief (a copy of which she subsequently filed with the Common Clerk) explained that, while she is an advocate of heritage preservation for Saint John, it is not for this reason she is before Council at this time but that she is present because of what she does not know about the proposal, having attended the Planning Advisory Committee meeting in this regard and having heard Mr. Malcolm Thorne speak about the project without describing it in any real terms, nor indicating what would happen to the subject property if the re-zoning were approved. Ms. Evans asked what the applicant intends specifically to do with the area if it is re-zoned; suggested that, as it now appears that the applicant has two different proposals for the site, it should be determined which plan is under consideration at this time; and asked if it is the intent for exits/entrances to the proposed buildings and the parking lots to be on Douglas Avenue or Chesley Drive. Ms. Evans recommended that, if this proposal is seriously being considered, Council should refer the matter to City staff for insertion of conditions and clarification on a number of issues, including traffic routes, the exact amount of retail space, and the exact number and types of restaurants and lounges which will be included; and asked Council to consider the following questions: (1) if a large portion of the property in question belongs to the City, has the City called for development proposals from other developers to maximize the return to the City; (2) why the City is considering changing the zoning on land which technically still belongs to it; (3) what are the results of the market survey with respect to vacancy rates of hotel rooms, office space, condominiums and executive apartments in the Saint John area; (4) is the City, as in approved development projects in the past, considering including a provision for an agreement for a firm completion date for this project and if that date is not met will the project be discontinued; and (5) if the re-zoning is approved, would the City put in a condition that all of the Chesley Street area be wholly developed before beginning the destruction on Douglas Avenue. Mr. Dale Russell of 170 Douglas Avenue addressed Council in opposition to the above application and expressed concern, if the project is approved, about (a) ensuing problems associated with the traffic increase, such as more accidents, noise, pollution and parking; (b) possible further commercial re-zoning resulting; (c) possible damage to properties in the area, such as the case during blasting for the Saint John Harbour Bridge which resulted in damage to his residence, which could result; (d) whether or not existing watermains will be adequate for both Douglas Avenue and this project without diminishing services on the basis that there is now a noticeable drop in pressure in the area during peak demand; and (e) how the lifestyle of residents in this area could be interrupted and inconvenienced by the number of licensed drinking establishments proposed for the project. Mr. Russell stated that he has no objections to improving and developing the North End or Douglas Avenue; however, he truly believes that the Thorcor proposal, as it stands, would not be good for the City or the North End. During discussion, Mr. Russell advised that he has a pump and a holding tank in the basement of his residence to increase the water pressure in his home and that his property is approximately 20 feet higher than the Thorcor property which is approximately 130 feet above sea level, and that it is his understanding that a two-inch line will laid off the existing ten-inch watermain on Douglas Avenue. Mr. Mark Smith of 149 Douglas Avenue addressed Council in opposition to the above proposal on the grounds of its viability and need; expressed concern about the total lack of basic data connected with the project, and asked why the applicant would want to build an 11-storey office tower in excess of 126,000 square feet in an area which already has in excess of 75,000 square feet of vacant office space. Mr. Smith noted the problem of selling condominiums in the City, as well as the difficulty hotels have in keeping their occupancy rate up; questioned what recourse there would be for citizens, business and churches should damage occur from blasting for the project; and expressed concern about the increased traffic in the area should the project proceed. Mr. Smith referred to questions related to how the proposal fits with the City's development plan, whether or not the project will add to the growth of the North End, and how the project will affect downtown development; and asked Council to squash the project for the protection of Douglas Avenue, the citizens and the City of Saint John. Mr. Ray Butler of 169 Douglas Avenue appeared in opposition to the 82-773 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 above application and suggested that, as the civic administration and staff have worked in the citizens' interests in the development of goals for the City's future as evidenced in the Municipal Development Plan and so on, the City should be firm in insisting that developers keep these goals in mind when initiating development with the City and that, while new development should be welcomed, it should be in sympathy with the goals of the City and massive changes to the goals should be carefully scrutinized. Mr. Butler expressed the opinion that the project is too large for the size of the subject property, the buildings are not in scale, nor is there any semblance of buffer zones between the office and residential sections; expressed concern about the potential traffic and parking problem and concurred with the concerns broached in the Planning staff report. Mr. Butler suggested that, while development of Dean's Hill, Main Street and Douglas Avenue is possible, desirable and even welcomed, care should be taken in balancing the scale where commercial developments meld into residential neighbourhoods, and that a parking lot between the new residences and the older-type homes on Douglas Avenue is not going to meld. Mr. Butler also advised that, although some onus should be on a developer to design with municipal standards and regulations in mind, the concerns have not been addressed by the applicant to the area residents; and concluded that the Thorcor proposal, as it is now presented, should not be an appropriate development in the Douglas Avenue area. Mr. Mark Hayward, Chairman of the Preservation Review Board, appeared in opposition to the above application and, referring to the above-mentioned letter from the Board, commented on the status of the study of Douglas Avenue as a preservation area, as well as on the Thorcor proposal with respect to possible demolition of buildings with the Board's position being that, if demolition is pursued, the process set out in the Preservation Area By-Law be followed and that, if the third and least desirable course were pursued, which would be full demolition and wholly new construction, the Board recommends that the new construction meet the criteria of the current Preservation By-law and be compatible in size, scale, proportions and materials to nearby buildings or, in these respects, similar to those demolished. Mr. Hayward also commented on the scale of new condominium/hotel development proposed, the retention of deBury House and its front yard to Main Street, and the proposed destination inn; and expressed the opinion that a substantial portion of a development like that proposed by Thorcor could be accomplished while retaining the very significant qualities of Douglas Avenue. Mr. Hayward noted that the Board strongly advocates the retention and rehabilitation of existing buildings and substantial reduction of the massing of new construction as it affects the Douglas Avenue streetscape, and recommends that a redesign consider placing any larger buildings further down the hill. Mr. Malcolm Thorne, President of Thorcor Holdings Ltd., appeared in support of the above application; and explained that the objective in the development of Dean's Hill is to create a significant urban development that, architecturally and functionally, would provide the City of Saint John with much-needed facilities in concert with an outstanding architectural statement and that, in developing the proposal, concerns were identified that had to be addressed to meet the City's objectives, the first and foremost being the creation of a structure and space which would provide a unique urban forum with a variety of colours, textures and contours that stimulate and excite the beholder while maintaining and upgrading three buildings deserving of preservation and commercial enhancement; the second being to provide for mixed uses that result in an economic return and also support day and evening active use of the property throughout the week; the third being the creation of residential living, offices and visitor accommodation of a class and style largely unavailable in the City of Saint John; and the fourth being the provision of public space where people can relax and interact well, appreciating the magnificent views of the Saint John core, the Harbour, the River systems, and much more within the vantage point of the site. Mr. Thorne suggested that parking requirements are well recognized in the development plans and that sufficient parking has been designed to meet the needs of people destined for expanding commercial areas of downtown Saint John, and that the Thorcor proposal meets the City's criteria in every way that is reasonable, logical and appropriate. Mr. Thorne referred to a drawing of the proposed project (copies of which were distributed to Council members during his presentation) and commented on the proposed office building, condominium residence, urban inn, parking garage with its principal means of entry/egress to be Chesley Drive, and the site's potential for additional condominium development. Mr. Thorne made the observation that Thorcor's original application for re-zoning of approximately 10 1/2 to 11 acres was changed, at the City's discretion, to 82-77 4 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 become 6.4 acres of land and that, within the plans, much of the green space parklands to impact with the benefits of the urban inn destination resort came with the additional parcel of land which is included in the transfer agreement for which Council has made an agreement in principle to sell to Thorcor; and that Thorcor was not advised of this, nor did it give its consent, in this regard. Mr. Thorne noted that the proposed development will provide major contributions to the City's economic base in terms of municipal taxation and direct employment; also advised that urban design principles are employed to create a public open space that will be pedestrian-friendly, with a substantial portion of the site to be landscaped open space and that the floor area ratio is about one-to-one and in terms of density is akin to a single-family residential area, taking into account the approximate 6.4 acres of land in question and in terms of built-up real estate of which the approximate area is about 280,000 square feet including the retention of 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue and the deBury House. Mr. Thorne commented further on the preliminary design of the project; expressed the intent, if the re-zoning is approved, to bring the project on line in 1991, and, with respect to landscaping, noted the design attempt to maximize the slope without measurable destruction or excavation. Mr. Lawrence Cheslock, lead architect for the project, commented on the elements of the proposed development, including an office and condominium tower, and a destination resort facility featuring the restoration of 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue and, referring to a site plan drawing, explained the features of the proposal beginning at St. Matthew's Presbyterian Church on Douglas Avenue, along Douglas Avenue past the Douglas Avenue Christian Church at the corner of Douglas Avenue and Main Street with the plan being to celebrate the deBury House, and past the deBury House toward and along Chesley Drive. Mr. Cheslock advised that it would be necessary to demolish five buildings on Douglas Avenue to accommodate the project and that, while the majority of parking for the residential hotel complex will be serviced from Chesley Drive, there would be access for the parking garage from Douglas Avenue. Mr. Cheslock, in response to Council queries, advised that, although the matter is not finalized, it is likely that the project would be serviced from Chesley Drive with the exception of 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue which possibly would be serviced from Douglas Avenue; and that, with respect to the required distance between a liquor licensed establishment and a church, the applicant is aware that the distance is not adequate, there being four churches in the area of the site; and further that approximately 3.5 acres of City land are required for the project. With respect to the possibility of reducing the size of the project in view of residents' concerns, Mr. Cheslock replied that the project is constantly being studied in an attempt to utilize good planning principles regarding land usage, make the project financially viable and also make it attractive and worthwhile; and that, concerning Planning staff's indication that traffic on Douglas Avenue would be increased by 20 per cent with the parking garage and the development of 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue, advised that this matter is currently being studied and that it is possible there would be a right turn only on exiting the destination resort towards Main Street. Mr. Douglas Thorne, in response to a question related to servicing, advised that, during the 1990 reconstruction of Douglas Avenue, Thorcor applied for a permit to have installed a new sewer line and two water lines at the entrance to the driveway at 60 Douglas Avenue, and that there are presently 2 two-inch lines in place, one to serve 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue as the urban inn, and the other to serve the 130-unit destination resort located on the downslope, with the sewer line to be taken from the high level elevation down to Chesley Drive. Mr. Cheslock advised that the completed project construction costs would be between $35 million to $40 million and that the design will be cost controlled in that it is being prepared very rapidly on computers by a very large design team. During discussion, Mr. Thorne commented on the status of the property matter between Thorcor and the City in that an agreement of purchase and sale was not provided to Thorcor by the City, nor was a legal description of the lands to be transferred by the City to Thorcor received and other matters pertaining to the agreement were not resolved, such as an accommodation related to parking for Douglas Avenue Christian Church, which he understands has now been resolved by way of a gentlemen's understanding in that Thorcor will provide to the Church parking sufficient to replace that which it has had on its leased land from the City for a number of years, with the Church also having a bonus insofar as utilization of Thorcor's parking facilities on off-hours, especially on Saturday and Sunday, is concerned; and that, while 82-775 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 a purchase price for the property was agreed upon by Thorcor and the City, there is a major concern as to what constitutes the City's option to repurchase lands for which Thorcor, in terms of a consolidated site, has invested considerable sums of money, with his position as given Mr. Todd being that Thorcor is prepared to transact an agreement of purchase and sale provided it has a legal description of lands to be conveyed and that, relative to lands to be transferred, Thorcor is prepared to prepare the site which would involve the expenditure of considerable sums of money for the purpose of putting on the buildings as per the City's design plan before a transfer is consummated, if that is what Council so desires; however, Thorcor is not prepared to build the buildings or start construction of any part of those buildings until Thorcor has the land clearly titled to it, and that it is fundamental for the success of the project for the lands to be transferred clearly to the project proponent before the proponent unwisely spends money to start construction and that, other than that, the conditions in the agreement entered into in 1990 are largely addressed and acceptable to both parties. Mr. Thorne added that, until the land is clearly titled to the project proponent, nothing will start in terms of construction, save and except any buildings which may be constructed on land owned by Thorcor, which is possible, but what constitutes development on Dean's Hill poses a major question insofar as what might satisfy Council is concerned with respect to the condition to return the land to the City. The Mayor expressed the understanding that Thorcor's solicitor has advised the City that its selling price for the property and the buy-back provision are acceptable to Thorcor and that Thorcor is to advise the City with respect to suggested terms and conditions for the buy-back provision, the latter to which Mr. Todd advised that he received earlier this date a verbal proposal from Mr. Thorne in this regard and, concerning a request for further information detailing the City's obligation to the Church, Mr. Todd advised that he provided this information to Mr. 1. McGloan, solicitor for Thorcor; and that the road specifically deleted by Council from the balance of the lands to be sold was not a concern to Mr. Thorne. Mr. Thorne, in response to a question of whether or not accommodations can be made to modify the project as proposed in the Planning staff report, advised that there are many aspects of the project which, between now and the time it is built, will be changed, although not dramatically but in terms of improvement; however, the fundamental purpose of real property development is to ensure that the investment made is sound and that, based upon studies of the project, it has been found that the scale, the massing and the size of the project is akin to a good overall mixed-use development which is economically sound; and added that Thorcor is open to modification relative to discussion with City staff in November 1989. Mr. Thorne also advised that, if the process is gone through and a land transfer takes place within the next 60 days, Thorcor is ready to proceed with the project within 90 or 120 days from now vis-a-vis the urban inn and that, around or about completion of the urban inn, two buildings on Douglas Avenue would be demolished, the former Kennedy house and what he believes to be 56 Douglas Avenue, which would allow the site to be cleansed somewhat, meaning to say that site preparation, roadwork and other major changes to landscaping could be done to obtain a viable urban inn that looks people-friendly and that, coincidentally with all of that, a team would be set in motion for the condominium and, coincidentally again with that marketing effort, a return would be made to pursue a marketing and leasing program for the office building. Mr. Edward Delaney of 15 Clarendon Street, President of the North End Improvement Association, appeared in support of the above application on behalf of the Association on the basis that, as indicated in the above-mentioned letter, the proposed development would bring life back into the area, and he noted that the Howard Johnson building on the opposite corner to the site is 9 storeys in height. Mr. N. Barfoot of 100 Kennebecasis Drive appeared in support of the above proposal on behalf of the Trustees of Douglas Avenue Christian Church and, having noted the presence in the Council Chamber of Mr. Wes MacKnight - Chairman of the Church's Board of Trustees, explained that the Church is in favour of the proposed development provided that the Church parking, which presently exists on lands rented from the City between the Church and Main Street, is continued in the same location, and also provided that no building is erected on the Main Street frontage between the side of the Church and Main Street. Mr. Barfoot read from a prepared brief (which he subsequently filed with the Common Clerk) and advised that, as Mr. Douglas Thorne recently confirmed that the building along the Main Street frontage, which had been planned some months ago, has now been eliminated and therefore the parking as now located would be continued with surface improvements, the 82-776 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 objectionable features of the development have now been eliminated from the Church's point of view. Mr. Barfoot suggested that the new residential component of the development will bring people back to this area of the North End, which would benefit the Church and the North End; and advised that, as for the commercial aspects, although the Church was not in favour of the previous proposal because it would have encroached upon the effective operation of the Church, there is now a new proposal and the Church's objection to the office building has been overcome; however, the Church would be very much opposed to this zoning if there were to be a tavern or drinking establishment within the development. During discussion, Mr. Barfoot clarified that, while a written agreement is not in place with respect to parking, it is not the Church's intention to delay the proposal but that it would be the Church's intention to obtain an enforceable written agreement and, if the development is to proceed, it is the part of both parties to negotiate to achieve the desired end as parking is essential for the Church's operation at its current location. Mr. Bedford, in response to Council queries, explained that the floor space index or ratio referred to by Mr. Thorne is an alternative method of defining density in zoning terms which is not used in the municipality of the City of Saint John, and that the City's concern about the site in question, using a floor space per site area ratio, is not totally overall floor space but the impact of height and access to the abutting streets for the development proposed and further that, if a floor space ratio were being used in this situation, the City would have initially proposed height controls to go along with the floor space index. Mr. Bedford also explained that part of the issue for the site in question is that the proposed zoning is integrated development which means that the specific proposal is reviewed, rather than relating it to other zones within the City; therefore, each proposal on the site is being evaluated as it impacts both the site and the area; and Mr. Robichaud advised that it will be necessary for the City to review total service drawings by the developer, although there should be adequate water in the area to accommodate the proposal. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that the application of Mr. Malcolm Thorne, Douglas Thorne and Thorcor Holdings Ltd. for a Municipal Plan amendment, re-zoning and Section 39 amendment, with respect to properties on Douglas Avenue, Chesley Drive and Main Street, be denied. Councillor A Vincent asked if the application is legally before Council and is it in order to vote on the re-zoning of a property which the applicant does not own or have an agreement to purchase, to which Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that the application is properly before Council as it deals with a proposed Municipal Plan amendment and re-zoning of land owned by Thorcor, the City, and another person for whom Thorcor is acting on behalf, all of which is permitted under the Zoning By- Law; and he confirmed that a simple majority vote of Council is required to adopt the above motion. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillors Davis and Knibb voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the correspondence regarding the above application be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillors Fitzpatrick and M. Vincent withdrew from the meeting.) Following a two-minute recess, the Council meeting resumed. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was 82-777 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land at 427 Prince Street (L.R.I.S. Number 382374), from "R-1 B" One-Family Residential to "IL-1" Neighbourhood Institutional classification, to recognize the existing special care home as a permitted use of the property, and to permit the construction of an 8 foot by 12 foot addition to be used as a staff kitchen/rest area, as requested by Beverly Rideout, and that no written objections were received in this regard. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee advising that it adopted the recommendation in the submitted Planning staff report at its January 29 meeting, and granted variances for lot occupancy and side yard to permit the proposed addition; and recommending that the City of Saint John Zoning By-Law be amended by re-zoning a parcel of land at 427 Prince Street (L.R.I.S. Number 382374), from "R-1 B" One-Family Residential to "IL-1" Neighbourhood Institutional classification, subject to a resolution pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act limiting the use to a group care facility for a maximum of eighteen residents. Mr. Myles Rideout of 429 Prince Street appeared in support of the above application, and noted that it is the intent to construct an addition to the property to be used as a staff area. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor A Vincent RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law Of The City Of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land at 427 Prince Street (L.R.I.S. Number 382374), from "R-1 B" One-Family Residential to "IL-1" Neighbourhood Institutional classification, subject to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor A Vincent RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law Of The City Of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land at 427 Prince Street (L.R.I.S. Number 382374), from "R-1 B" One-Family Residential to "IL-1" Neighbourhood Institutional classification, subject to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that the letter from the Planning Advisory Committee regarding the above-proposed amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to a proposed Street Closing By-Law amendment with respect to closing a portion of North Street and Drury Lane, and that no written objections were received in this regard. No person was present to speak in opposition to or in favour of the proposed amendment. 82-778 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A By-Law To Amend A By-Law Respecting The Stopping Up And Closing Of Highways In The City Of Saint John", with respect to North Street and Drury Lane, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law entitled, "A By-Law To Amend A By-Law Respecting The Stopping Up And Closing Of Highways In The City Of Saint John". On motion of Councillor A Vincent Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A By-Law To Amend A By-Law Respecting The Stopping Up And Closing Of Highways In The City Of Saint John", with respect to North Street and Drury Lane, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law entitled, "A By-Law To Amend A By-Law Respecting The Stopping Up And Closing Of Highways In The City Of Saint John". On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor Wayne asking the status of a report requested by Council on August 20, 1990 with respect to the possibility of installing pumps at the Forebay, as well as the Building Inspector's review of the prohibition in the Flood Risk Area By-Law concerning persons residing on the flood plain filling in land for lawns -- be referred to the City Manager for a report to Council. Mr. Taylor advised that a report, which staff has been preparing over the last few months, is being given a final review, with a response expected in the next two weeks. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor Wayne submitting a letter from New Brunswick Safety Council Inc. and the Governor- General's Safe Driving Week Certificate for 1990 to the City of Saint John for being one of the few Canadian municipalities with a population of 40,000 and over which remained fatality-free during Safe Driving Week from December 1 to 7, 1990 -- be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Flewwelling Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, authority be granted for payment of the following construction progress certificates, namely:- 1. Contract 90-10 - Construction of PRV Vault - Dufferin Row QM Construction Ltd. Original estimated value of contract $ 37,960.00 82-779 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Total work done, Estimate Number 2 Retention Payments previously approved Sum recommended for payment, Progress Estimate Number 2, dated January 28, 1991 Final holdback release 36,282.40 Nil 28,919.55 $ 7,362.85 2. Contract 90-25 - Germain Street West Sewer Construction Dean Construction Limited Original estimated value of contract Total work done, Estimate Number 3 Retention Payments previously approved Sum recommended for payment, Progress Estimate Number 3, dated January 24, 1991 Final holdback release $ 59,505.00 59,076.00 Nil 50,214.60 $ 8,861.40 3. Contract 90-16 - DouQlas Avenue Reconstruction QM Construction Ltd. Original estimated value of contract Total work done, Estimate Number 3 Retention Payments previously approved Sum recommended for payment, Progress Estimate Number 3, dated January 29, 1991 Partial holdback release $429,381.00 438,753.62 6,550.00 344,295.39 $ 87,908.23 Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a letter from the City Manager submitting a letter from the Saint John Parking Commission to the Deputy Commissioner of Finance referring to discussions between the Administrator of the Commission and the Corps of Commissionaires in order to establish the 1991 rates for services rendered by Corps' members as By-Law Enforcement Officers for the City of Saint John, such rates having been anticipated in the 1991 Commission budget approved by Common Council at the time of the Commission's 1991 Operating Budget approval; expressing the opinion that the City is convinced that, because the cost (including benefits) of the Corps' service has been reasonable and the City has continued to have good co-operation with the Corps Officer in Saint John, this is the most economical means of having performed the task of policing the City's parking meters, writing tickets and dealing with violators; advising that the proposed rates represent an increase of approximately 3 1/2% at the Sergeant and Corporal ranks and slightly over 8% at the Warrant Officer rank, and explaining that, because in some respects this represents a contract between the City and the Corps, Council is being asked to adopt the submitted resolution. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the City of Saint John hereby agrees to pay the Corps of Commissionaires the following rates for Commissionaires utilized for By-Law Enforcement during the calendar year 1991: Warrant Officer II - $11.84/hour; Sergeant - $1 0.63/hour; Corporal - $1 0.03/hour; and Commissionaires - $9.42/hour. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a report from the City Manager advising that, with regard to the tender for municipal castings which was tabled at Council's last meeting, staff of the Purchasing, Supply and Services and Water and Sewerage Departments have carried out a review of the tenders and considered the problem encountered during the past year with the recommended bidder and is satisfied that the tenders for castings have been evaluated on all the factors and staff cannot alter the recommendation contained in the report to Council on January 28, 1991; and recommending that this report be 82-780 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 received and filed and the report on the tender for municipal castings be taken from the table and the recommendation contained therein to award the tender to Central Castings Ltd. of Amherst and Canada Iron Castings Ltd. of Saint John, as indicated in the submitted bid summary, be adopted. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor A Vincent RESOLVED that tender for the supply of municipal castings be awarded to Canada Iron Castings Ltd. of Saint John. (Councillors Fitzpatrick and M. Vincent re-entered the meeting.) Councillor Fitzpatrick expressed the understanding that Canada Iron Castings Ltd. supplied 75 castings, rather than 45 as indicated in the above report, having supplied 15 on August 27, 15 on August 30, 15 on September 5, and 30 on September 12, and advised that he could apprise staff of the purchase order numbers, and discussion ensued during which time it was suggested this matter should be tabled for review as a result of Councillor Fitzpatrick's information. On motion of Councillor M. Vincent Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the above matter be laid on the table for one week. Question being taken, the tabling motion was carried with Councillor A Vincent voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Vernon O'Dell of Hampton, N.B., at the prices as indicated in the submitted bid summary, be accepted for cutting and removal of timber in the Loch Lomond watershed area. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager submitting a bid summary of the four tenders received for the supply of work clothing for the outside labour force and members of the Fire Department, and advising that the lower priced units offered by Fairville Department Store on item 4 are of a different material than was specified and therefore do not meet specifications. The report explains that, although awards have always been based on the lowest bid for each of the five different sections, the slight price difference has altered the recommendation as Fairville Department Stores is the lowest bidder on 4 garments and is only $22.92 higher on the total cost of the fifth item, and that this contract in 1990 was awarded to one supplier and resulted in 20 orders being placed during the year for a combination of the five garments; also explains that, if this year's award were split between two vendors, the number of orders would increase, possibly by 100% to 40 orders in 1991 and result in that many more invoices being processed and cheques being issued which, in staff's opinion, would not be in the City's best interests from either a financial or administrative position; and submits a recommendation for the tender award for only one vendor. On motion of Councillor Flewwelling Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Fairville Department Stores, at the unit prices indicated in the submitted bid summary, be accepted for supplying work clothing for the City's 82-781 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 outside labour force and members of the Fire Department. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager advising that five companies responded to the tender for a replacement boiler at the Rothesay Avenue Works Complex, for which the City's estimate was $70,000, and that Lawton's Limited, the low bidder, subsequently advised that it had made an error of approximately $10,000 in its tender and asked to be permitted to withdraw it; explaining that, having agreed that the request of Lawton's Limited should be supported, discussions centered on the next two bidders whose prices were within $978 of each other and their qualifications to perform this contract, with the consultants' opinion being that, given the slight price difference, the City would be better served by awarding this contract to Security Mechanical Ltd. which is more experienced in this type of heating system; submitting a copy of the consultants' letter in this regard; and recommending that (1) the request of Lawton's Limited to withdraw its tender for a replacement boiler at the Rothesay Avenue Works Complex be granted; (2) the tender be awarded to Security Mechanical Ltd. at a cost of $67,838; and (3) the amount of $67,838 be charged to the 1991 Capital Budget. Consideration was also given to a letter from Lawton's Limited requesting to withdraw its tender for the above project as an error was discovered in listing its subtrade prices as explained. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Davis RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, (1) the request of Lawton's Limited to withdraw its tender for a replacement boiler at the Rothesay Avenue Works Complex be granted; (2) the tender for a replacement boiler at the Rothesay Avenue Works Complex be awarded to Security Mechanical Ltd. at a cost of $67,838; and (3) the amount of $67,838 be charged to the 1991 Capital Budget. Deputy Mayor Gould asked if it is staff's indication that the second lowest tenderer, Campbell's Plumbing & Heating, is not able to do the job, to which Mr. Hanlon replied that information he received indicates that Campbell's experience is more in hot water heating than in steam heating and that, apparently, there is a particular expertise required to do the steam boiler work in question and that the Property Management Branch and the consultants concurred with the above recommendation; and Mr. Todd added that Eastcan Consultants Ltd. has indicated that the project in question is somewhat more complicated than the normal work a firm such as Campbell's performs and, in Eastcan's opinion, the City would receive a better job by awarding the contract to Security Mechanical which has more experience in doing this type of work and that, rather than saying that Campbell's cannot do the job, the consultants are indicating that they would be more comfortable, because of the additional experience Security Mechanical has in performing this type of work, with Security Mechanical undertaking the job in question. (Councillor Coughlan withdrew during the above discussion.) Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor Gould voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Gould Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that the letter from Lawton's Limited regarding its tender for a replacement boiler at the Rothesay Avenue Works Complex be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a letter from the City Manager submitting a letter from Mr. H. Meinhardt, Chairman of The Market Square Corporation, with respect to the necessary 82-782 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 documents to finalize the Market Square restructuring, and advising that, from the City's standpoint, the policy associated with the necessary documents has been negotiated through the Corporation in conjunction with the Director of Housing and Property Management, and have been approved as to legality and form by the City Solicitor. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute all documents applicable to the City which are with the Bank of Nova Scotia Properties Inc. and Cadillac Fairview/JMB Properties, in connection with the proposed restructuring of the Market Square Complex and any related matters. (Councillor Coughlan re-entered the meeting) Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Landers Seconded by Councillor M. Vincent RESOLVED that with regard to the request of the Organizing Committee of the Saint John Police Force for a grant to assist in the New Brunswick Police Curling Bonspiel to be held in Saint John on February 8 to 10, 1991, a grant in the amount of $300 be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read report of the Committee of the Whole (as follows) To the COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Saint John The Committee of the Whole reports Your Committee begs leave to report that it sat on January 7, 1991, when there were present Mayor Wayne and Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling, Knibb, Landers, Rogers and A Vincent, and your Committee submits the following recommendation, namely:- 1. That as recommended by the Nominating Committee, the following persons be appointed to the Rockwood Park Advisory Board for a term of one year: J. M. McNamara, Ronald C. Watters, Francis Hughes, and Raymond Richards. February 4, 1991, Saint John, N.B. Respectfully submitted, (sgd.) Elsie E. Wayne, C h air man. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that the above report be received and filed and the recommendation therein be adopted. Her Worship the Mayor asked that Councillor M. Vincent be her designate on the above Board, as she is unable to attend the meetings. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read report of the Committee of the Whole 82-783 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 (as follows) To the COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Saint John The Committee of the Whole reports Your Committee begs leave to report that it sat on January 21, 1991, when there were present Deputy Mayor Gould and Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling, Knibb, Landers, Rogers and M. Vincent, and your Committee submits the following recommendation, namely:- 1. That as recommended by the Nominating Committee, George J. O'Brien and Ralph D. Poley be appointed to the Power Commission for a three-year term effective February 15, 1991. February 4, 1991, Saint John, N.B. Respectfully submitted (sgd.) Arthur L. Gould, C h air man. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that the above report be received and filed and the recommendation therein be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read report of the Committee of the Whole (as follows) To the COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Saint John The Committee of the Whole reports Your Committee begs leave to report that it sat on January 28, 1991, when there were present Mayor Wayne and Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling, Gould, Knibb, Landers and Rogers, and your Committee submits the following recommendations, namely:- 1. That as recommended by the Nominating Committee, Louis Duguay be appointed to the Working Group on Race Relations. 2. That as recommended by the Nominating Committee, Gerry Taylor, P. J. (Pat) Barry, Murray Beesley, G. Forbes Elliot and Mayor Wayne be appointed to the Fundy Region Development Commission for a term to expire December 31, 1992. 3. That as recommended by the Nominating Committee, George A Keith be appointed to the Power Commission for a three-year term effective February 15, 1991. 4. That as recommended by the Nominating Committee, John Kern be re- appointed to the Rockwood Park Advisory Board for a term of one year. 5. That as recommended by the City Manager, (1) the City of Saint John consider a liberalized transborder air agreement between Canada and the United States as the basis of a framework for promoting market access between the respective areas, and for improving business and pleasure travel; (2) the City of Saint John inform The Honourable Minister of Transport that, in negotiating a new bilateral air agreement, the concerns of the Saint John area and the interest of Canadian airlines must be addressed; and (3) the City of Saint John not support the granting of cabotage rights to foreign carriers, which would permit them to seriously threaten domestic Canadian carriers. 82-784 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 6. That as recommended by the City Solicitor, the two Solicitor II positions in the Legal Department be reclassified from Group 3 to Group 5, Step A, and that the Solicitor III position in the Legal Department be reclassified from Group 5 to Group 7, Step A 7. That as recommended by the City Manager, the following management jobs be reclassified as shown: (1) Deputy Building Inspector Grade 5; (2) Safety Officer Grade 3; (3) Administrative Officer Grade 5; (4) Operations Engineer Grade 5; and (5) Operations Engineer Grade 5. 8. That as recommended by the City Manager, a call for proposals be made to carry out a job evaluation of all managerial/professional positions in the civic administration. February 4, 1991, Saint John, N.B. Respectfully submitted, (sgd.) Elsie E. Wayne, C h air man. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that section 1 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Gould Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that section 2 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fitzpatrick voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that section 3 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor M. Vincent RESOLVED that section 4 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that section 5 of the above report be adopted. Councillor M. Vincent advised that, further to Council's consideration on December 27, 1990 of the above matter, he is now in a position to support the above motion as a result of his discussion with Messrs. R. Murray, Senior Transportation Policy Advisor, and D. O'Leary, Director of Economic Development. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick 82-785 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that section 6 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that section 7 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Fitzpatrick and Flewwelling voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that section 8 of the above report be adopted. Councillor Knibb, who initially proposed the above motion which was seconded by Councillor M. Vincent and subsequently withdrew as mover, asked the estimated cost of the evaluation and whether the review would be performed locally or by a national firm, to which Mr. Taylor replied that, while at this point in time he does not have a specific estimate, the cost might be in the range of $40,000 to $50,000 and that a request for proposals will be put out on a national basis, with local input as well as input from outside persons. Councillor Rogers suggested that, if the above evaluation is not carried out in conjunction with the organizational review which hopefully is presently underway through the City Manager and the Human Resources Department, it will not be known how efficient the incumbents of managerial/professional positions are or what job is being performed; therefore, data should be available to back-up where the positions should be within the organization. Mr. Taylor replied that the intent is to advertise the proposal for the job evaluation and at the same time initially, internally, a process will be put in place to evaluate the organizational structure of each department, some of which has started, relative to Council's concern with respect to efficiency of some jobs and how they function within the family of jobs, and that it is hoped that, when the initial proposal of evaluation is completed, the other information will be also available; and concluded that, over that same period of time, an information package will be prepared for Council's consideration to specifically explain what is being done and how it will tie into the overall structure and, if Council feels that what staff is trying to do internally, initially, is not appropriate, staff would subsequently be looking at something more advanced relative to the concerns. With respect to a timeframe, Mr. Taylor advised that staff anticipates that the process will be completed by six months, with a report to Council within a month on the process of reviewing the overall efficiency of the approximate 110 management positions. In withdrawing as mover of the initial motion, Councillor Knibb advised that he was not satisfied and would vote against the proposal. Councillor Fitzpatrick asked if the Department of Human Resources could perform the proposed job evaluation to which Mr. Taylor replied that he would recommend that the evaluation be done by someone totally separate from the operation on the basis that the process influences the overall morale of the operation in many respects and, even being totally unbiased and fair in evaluating the positions, there could be perception otherwise if the evaluation were carried out by City staff, although the evaluation could be carried out inside but it would take much longer. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillors Gould, Knibb and A Vincent voting "nay". (Councillors Gould and M. Vincent withdrew from the meeting as they were not present for the January 7 public hearing with respect to the proposed Zoning 82-786 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 By-Law text amendment relative to 15-25 and 43-55 Exmouth Street.) Read a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee regarding the application of the Saint John Parking Commission for a Zoning By-Law text amendment regarding 15-25 and 43-55 Exmouth Street, which was tabled at the January 7, 1991 public hearing with no readings given; advising that the applicant met with the local residents and agreed to proceed with only one of the parking lots and that, as part of the Committee's approval, conditions were imposed as a conditional use which required upgrading of the site and limiting the proposed parking lots to a five-year period; and recommending that Section 310(2)( c)(iii) of the City of Saint John Zoning By-Law be amended as follows: "(iii) notwithstanding (i) above, a surface parking area, located at 43-55 Exmouth Street (L.R.I.S. Numbers 13078, 13060, 15842 and 13502), may be used for the purposes of providing parking for uses which are not located and permitted in the same zone.". Consideration was also given to letters from (a) Marion Osborne, (b) Dawn Perkins, (c) William C. Balemans, and (d) D. Palmer requesting to address Council at this meeting with respect to 43-55 Exmouth Street. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor A Vincent RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, by amending Section 310(2)(c)(iii) as follows: "(iii) notwithstanding (i) above, a surface parking area, located at 43-55 Exmouth Street (L.R.I.S. Numbers 13078, 13060, 15842 and 13502), may be used for the purposes of providing parking for uses which are not located and permitted in the same zone.", be read a first time. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the above-named persons be invited to address Council at this time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Ms. Marion Osborne appeared before Council and explained that, as there was some question about residents' signatures being on two petitions, her purpose at this meeting is to clarify their position. Ms. Osborne also explained that, after the first petition was taken, a neighbourhood meeting was held at which Mr. R. Smith of the Parking Commission was present, and the decision was made to concur with the proposed amendment for the parking lot at 43-55 Exmouth Street, which led to the circulation of a second petition which includes 35 residents' signatures. Ms. Osborne advised that the reason for choosing the lot at 43-55 Exmouth Street over the lot at 15-25 Exmouth Street is that the latter lot is too close to the corner of Richmond Street and problems have resulted every winter due to parked vehicles on both sides of the street making it impossible to turn on or off the street at certain times of the day; and expressed the opinion that, in view of the number of vehicles which park on Exmouth, Richmond and Waterloo Streets, there is a real need for a parking lot at the said location. Councillor Coughlan suggested that, if the property at 15-25 Exmouth Street is not utilized as a parking lot as proposed, problems could result from inappropriate and improper use of the lot, to which Ms. Osborne suggested that there might be some way that the property could be closed off. Ms. Dawn Perkins appeared before Council and, having commented on past parking problems on Exmouth Street which were alleviated for approximately half a year after initiation of the Residential Parking Program, suggested that the creation of a parking lot on Exmouth Street to accommodate 55 cars at $35 per month would lead to additional traffic problems as the lot would be used predominately by non-local persons arriving at and leaving the lot at the same time neighbourhood children are on their way to school or playing in the streets and during rush hour. Ms. Perkins also suggested that, as the no parking signs are disappearing from Exmouth Street, it is 82-787 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 only a matter of time before non-local cars will again be parking on both sides of Exmouth Street and, with the addition of a parking lot, the traffic problem would be increased greatly, and requested Council not to allow the parking lot. Mr. William Balemans addressed Council in opposition to the creation of a parking lot on Exmouth Street; and questioned the propriety of the building being demolished on the property and the erection of Parking Commission signage prior to approval of the amendment and before area residents were notified about the proposed parking lots on Exmouth Street. During discussion Mr. Bedford confirmed that the Planning Advisory Committee forwards notices of its hearings to residents abutting and within 300 feet of property which is the subject of a proposed Zoning By-Law amendment and that this was done in the case in question; and Mr. Balemans expressed the opinion that Mr. Bonnell, a member of the Planning Advisory Committee who resides on Waterloo Street opposite Mr. Baleman's residence, should not have been present at the Committee meeting during consideration of the subject Zoning By-Law amendment on the basis that Mr. Bonnell verbally complained at the meeting about the noise caused by Mr. Baleman's pulp truck, and asked how Mr. Bonnell could be considered to be neutral in this regard. Mr. Balemans confirmed that he is opposed to the creation of a parking lot at both 15-25 and 43-55 Exmouth Street, which is strictly a residential street, noted the traffic problems in the area, and asked if Council is aware that the Parking Commission is charging persons to park on Exmouth Street without having a legal parking lot. The Mayor expressed the opinion that, in view of Mr. Baleman's suggestion that proper procedures were not followed in this matter, the matter should be tabled for one week for a full report from staff, and Councillor Rogers asked that this report also explain a suggestion to the residents that Exmouth Street would be plowed quicker if a parking lot were created on street. Ms. D. Palmer addressed Council in opposition to the creation of a parking lot at 43-55 Exmouth Street on the basis of her concern about the additional traffic that such an endeavour would bring to this residential Street, especially at periods when children are going to and from school; and commented on snow plowing difficulties on Exmouth Street as a result of vehicular parking. Ms. Palmer asked Council to seriously consider this matter as presented and make a responsible decision that considers everybody's well being, especially the children's safety, and filed a copy of her presentation with the Common Clerk. (Councillor Coughlan withdrew from the meeting during the above presentation. ) On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that the above matter be laid on the table for one week for a report from the City Manager. Question being taken, the tabling motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that the letter from the Board of School Trustees, School District No. 20, advising that, further to December 17, 1990 Council resolution regarding signage in the area of the school crosswalks on Union Street at the approaches to St. Joseph's and Prince Charles Schools, the Board has instructed staff to discuss the matter with the school principals involved and have students reminded of the safety requirements of crosswalks; and requesting that the City examine the signage in the area and, if required, post the proper school zone signs -- be referred to the City Manager. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillors Gould and M. Vincent re-entered the meeting.) 82-788 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that the letter from the Board of School Trustees, School District No. 20, advising of its receipt of a report regarding the lack of sidewalks in both the eastern and western sections of the City which have an effect on children who walk to school; and requesting that the City include in its next capital construction budget a provision for sidewalks in the following areas: (a) eastern section - from the grocery store to Eldersley Avenue for students who attend Lakewood School; and (b) the intersection of Manawagonish Road and the entrance to Westgate Park for students who attend Island View School -- be referred for consideration in the Capital Budget. (Councillor Coughlan re-entered the meeting.) Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor M. Vincent RESOLVED that the letter from the Saint John Track Club advising that Rorri Currie was voted New Brunswick's Male Athlete of the Year (1990) and will be representing the City of Saint John at the Canadian Senior Indoor Track & field Championships in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on February 16-17,1991; and requesting that the City grant Mr. Currie $200 to assist in this regard -- be received and filed and a grant of $200 be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the application of Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd. on behalf of Louis Doucet for an amendment to the May 24, 1988 Section 39 resolution with respect to the re-zoning of 3840 Loch Lomond Road be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation and that the necessary advertising be authorized in this regard, with the public hearing to be held on March 18, 1991. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Flewwelling Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the letter from Mr. J. W. (Joe) Flynn advising that he must resign as Chairman of the Major Tournament Committee and that he would be willing, if Council wishes, to remain as a Committee member -- be received and filed and Mr. Flynn's resignation as Chairman of the Committee be accepted, and further that Council accept with appreciation Mr. Flynn's offer to remain as a Committee member. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that the application of Manford M. Thompson Construction Company Limited for the re-zoning of property on Sand Cove Road be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation, and that the necessary advertising be authorized in this regard, with the public hearing to be held on March 18, 1991. Question being taken, the motion was carried. adjourned. 82-789 COMMON COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4, 1991 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that this meeting be Question being taken, the motion was carried. Common Clerk