The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-12-12_Supplemental Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour supplémentaireCity of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, December 12th, 2011 Location: Council Chamber Supplemental to Agenda 8.1(b) Presentation on Fleet Operations Assessment and Right- Sizing 9.1(a) P1anSJ Presentation Final Page 9.1(b) Letter from Genivar 9.1(c) Overhead map of Cambridge Estates 9.1(d) Uptown Saint John Revised Presentation 9.1(e) Canterbury Developments Ltd. Letter Re: Municipal Plan 9.1(f) G Stewart - Robertson Letter Re: Municipal Plan 9.1(g) P. Tippett Letter Re: Municipal Plan 13.1 Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointments to Committees 13.2 Committee of the Whole: Amendment to the Pension Act of the City of Saint John 13.3 Committee of the Whole: Saint John Development Corporation — Proposals for a Real Estate Recruitment Consultant City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 12 decembre 2011 Lieu: Salle du conseil Ordre du jour supplementaire 8.1b) Presentation sur l'evaluation operationnelle et le rajustement du parc de vehicules 9.1 a) Derniere page de la presentation du P1anSJ 9.1b) Lettre de Genivar 9.1c) Carte aerienne de Cambridge Estates 9.1d) Presentation revisee —Uptown Saint John 9.1e) Lettre de Canterbury Developments Ltd. concernant le plan municipal 9.1f) Lettre de G. Stewart- Robertson concernant le plan municipal 9.1g) Lettre de P. Tippett concernant le plan municipal 13.1 Comite plenier : Recommandations de nominations pour sieger aux comites 13.2 Comite plenier : Modification de la Loi sur le regime de retraite de la ville de Saint John 13.3 Comite plenier : Saint John Development Corporation — Propositions concernant un conseiller en recrutement (biens immobiliers) Fleet Operations Assessment and Right - Sizing City of Saint John Randy Owen, CAFM * Senior Vice-President Tony Yank vich Senior Kate VQ,,p M A * Senior Consultant A 0 l * Phase ! 3 m NMI * F The Fleet $47M 4o Employees Replacement $6.9M Operating 350 vehs q411i Average age = 85o Eqpt iz years FLEET LType _ # of Units I % of Fleet Construction 124 11.0% Grounds Equip 177 15.6% Other Pickup Plow Sedan Shop Equip 294 26.0% 65 u 5.7% 137 12.1% 100 8.8% 32 12 2.8% SUV Trailer Truck Van Total 1.1% 53 4.7% 9/7% 27 27 2.4% 1,131 � �Jti I Ir1;iti v�{�ar�ment 9 of units 1/6 or meet � 0.4% Carpenter Shop Fire Fleet Services 5 101 8.9% 43 3.8% General Admin 25 2.2% Leisure Services 187 16.5% Municipal Operations Parking Commission 468 3 41.4% 0.3% Police Commission 69 6.1% Saint John Water 230 20.3% Total 1,131 ►W11a21�1�12�� ALE KOHN Wi ::.;_ NAIVI Governance Objectives Financial Model Operations Methodology Information Request Site Visits and Interviews Performance Measurement Business Process Mapping Vehicle Statistical Reference System (VSRS) H�ivca�ivn Sedan, mid -size administrative use 1.0 Law enforcement sedan, full -size, "hot seat "' 2.5 Ate- Pickup truck, LID 1.5 VEUs for CSJ 11790 Low Speed Vehicle 1.0 .�•- i�r' Backhoe. MD 4.5 Street Sweeper, HD 6.5 VIA 10 I It Governance - Findings Centralization Authority Reporting Policy • • fleet responsibilities • Signed by Senior Management • Delineates Fleet/Customer responsibilities document • Between Materials and Fleet Management and all customers • Describe services, timelines, fees and standards • Table of Contents of recommended content provided 12 Financial Model - Findings Deficit Documentation N Transparency Cross- subsidization Efficiency Replace - • Service based model reflecting charge-back ••- actual casts P Separate . • • calculated on an individual cost portion vehicle basis Enhanced cost Accurate rates applied awareness consistently am Inuftel lei Build a New Financial Model Identify costs to be recovered Define the fleet - related services provided by Materials and Fleet Management Allocate costs to cost pools corresponding to services provided Define the rate structure Determine billable units of service Calculate rates Maintenance Operations - Findings Training ' Three I Second Facilities Shift FMIS I Cooperation' Staffing Levels * Develop, measure and report on KPIs * Improve management of work orders * Foster teamwork * Improve communications * Conduct regular meetings Conduct formal training I&W911" SAINI Parts Operations - Findings Manning Document Procedures Satellite Locations Order Desk Reporting Formalize Policies * Comprehensive written manual Direct policy for • Fast moving parts should be satellites stocked • - • Summary reports of key monthly - • • statistics &,I — io 19 SAIN, Ir),IN Vehicle Type # of Units Avg. Annual Usage (in Kilometers) # of Units with <5,000 km per year. Pickup Sedan 65 169450 5 100 19,876 4 1 11 2 S UV 12 Truck Van 110 27 1 .161468 14,265 _ 22,172 Recommend a right -size study to identify opportunities for savings. 20 Q�- SAINI It 14M Findings No formal program Reactive approach * Few meetings * Complaints * High downtime rues Delayed replacement of vehicles incomplete understanding of costs Recommendations Proactive approach * define service needs * Determine methods to meet needs * Account for costs * Involvement of customers * Hold regular meetings 21 f%, Findings * Basic functionality only * Detailed examples of lack of functionality detailed in report Recommendations —replace existing system * Long-term the fleet module dedicated FM system * Increase training 22 Q)_ ALI X-ft fts- XQV SAP"'I Findings Kern men ations * No strategic plan Develop pens including * No business plan * Goals * Few performance indicators * Costs * KPIs not formally tracked * Performance measure Findings Oic Main Shop — inadequate poor conditions * Water Shop -- productivity and safety questions East Shop — small hays and limited shop support * North Shop e sub- optimal size and configuration VAMA 24 * Require a Maintenance Facilities Master Plan Expansion of Shops 500 450 400 350 300 Vl 250 Q 200 150' 100 ,�. __—. �..�.._..........�_._._,____._ _- _..._...� _.___,...._.._,.. _�..____��,.._......_.......... 50 1 1997 & 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2D03 2004 2005 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Before Model Year 4. $16 $14 $12 N $10 e $6 C $6 $2 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Year`%.. SA IN I ikm� l 27 Objectives Use Profile for the Fleet Specific Targets for Efficiencies Methodology Review current fleet utilization practices Develop detailed usage profiles by asset type Conduct web -based survey of users Analyze data to identify low usage vehicles Meet with Departments to review target vehicles Document and present findings and recommendations Vehicle Allocation Methodology (VAM) Utilization Criticality * Personal eligibility for a City vehicle * Service justification for vehicles * 'vehicle rotation and sharing * Vehicle suitability * Multi- purpose vehicles * Options analysis 31 ::) . Phase I I - Recommendations Retain current size Implement specific cuts Vehicle eligibility policy Replacement approval Replacement evaluation Annual review of vehicle assignments am Storage policies Multi- purpose vehicles * Randy Owen, CAFM * rowen@mercury- assoc.com * Tony Y nkovich * tyankovich@mercury-assoc.com * Kate vi neau, cAFM * kvigneau@mercury-assoc.com Lam WA 4�tiltiJ !a'roF�� Mercury Associates, Inc. 16o5i Comprint Circle Gaithersburg, MD 20877 301-519-0535 mercury- assoc.com q, / (01) • Based on community direction to manage rural sprawl and protect rural resources and natural areas • Three land use designations permit residential development in rural areas • Rural Resource Area designation protects resource lands and permits limited residential development on 4 hectare lots • Most rural residential growth is directed to Rural Settlement Areas where smaller lots will be permitted • In Rural Residential ,areas only limited subdivision of existing residential lots is allowed. Rura Resourr e Area ..� Rural 5r-ttlement Area Rural Industrial Area —4 FM Rural i Residential Area 6 '' q I(0 GENIUAR DA11465 December 7, 2011 Common Clerk City of Saint John 15 Market Square P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 41_1 Dear Common Clerk: Re: Submission - City of Saint John Municipal Plan 2011 We write on behalf of our client regarding the proposed new City of Saint John Municipal Plan. While we recognise the process carried out to date in developing the plan it is also important to create policy in a manner that does not necessarily prohibit an activity but rather outlines the policy issues or develops rules within the zoning bylaw that results in mitigating the concerns. This approach, in our opinion, creates a framework that achieves the objective based upon what we know today without limiting what tomorrow may bring. Hence, a planning document should be structured to enable the future without compromising the present. In Section 1.4.2 of the document there is reference to creating a pattern of growth that supports the development of more compact and mixed use communities which are more walkable and transit - oriented neighbourhoods. While our client supports this initiative it unfortunately can be taken out of context to mean excluding or prohibiting certain services related to the automobile vs creating complete street designs that seek to include all modes of transportation around higher density developments. Furthermore, the emphasis on the public space can certainly be more oriented to the pedestrian but does not have to exclude the automobile. The following policy speaks to this and leads to unnecessarily polarizing certain activities within our communities as a negative use_ The following is reference and comment to some of the proposed policy and where applicable suggested alternative wording: In the Uptown Primary Centre (see attached map) Policy LU -21: [Council Shall] Prohibit the development of automobile- oriented land uses in the Uptown such as drive-through restaurants and gas bars. (Page 61) 1 Spectacle Lake Drive, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada 13313 1X7 Telephone: 902 -835 -9955 Fax: 902 -835 -1645 - www_genivar.com 2 While we understand the context in which this policy is being proposed, (i.e. historic area that is built up or seeking to be built up) it is the language that is being used which is considered extremely segregated to a use and assumes that such a use could not fit into a historic built urban form. We are of the opinion the same objective could be achieved through using alternative wording within the zoning bylaw which provides further clarification on the expectations for the area: Policy LU -21: [Council Shall] seek to create a walkable, transit oriented urban built form in the Uptown that is sensitive to the historic character of the area_ In our opinion the zoning bylaw should refine the parameters around this policy including design principles that would avoid compromising the objective being sought in the area. It also avoids using language that could be viewed as bias towards certain industries that contribute to employment, provide a service to communities and generate revenue within the City. A planning tool that could assist the municipality in reaching its objectives is Form Base Code which focuses more on the form, function and design rather than use. General Policy applying to all zones Vehicular oriented Uses Policy LU -124 [Council Shall] Guide the design, layout and other spatial standards pertaining to gas bars / service stations / vehicle repair shops and drive - through restaurants through appropriate standards in the Zoning Bylaw and the following criteria: a_ The use is located on a collector or arterial street, as defined on the Transportation map (Schedule C) of the Municipal Plan; b. The development is sited to minimize its effect on any adjoining residential uses, c. The site shall not be located in the Stable Residential Area designation; and d. Appropriate site design features including landscaping and adequate buffering from adjoining properties is incorporated into the development. (page 98) The criteria outlined above relating to drive - through restaurants in our opinion further marginalizes the nature of the business operation. This is done without fully recognizing that such uses are designed to serve pedestrians and other forms of transportation that provide access to their customer base. In our opinion the restaurants are more designed for complete services (i.e. vehicle /pedestrian /cyclist /transit) and similarly we encourage our streets to be designed around "complete street" designs concepts. This concept is premised on designing our public right of ways for pedestrians, transit, bicycle and the automobile. Further, we advocate the focus on the drive - through restaurant should be based around form, function and design in context to their surroundings and in recognition that each site has different topology characteristics. The scale of these businesses can often be at a neighbourhood level and provide choice in services and accessibility to residents while M designing to fit within the surrounding area. Based on these principles we would recommend removing drive- through from this policy and focus on form, function and design of uses within commercial, neighborhood and mixed use areas as part of the zoning bylaw_ We appreciate your consideration of the above matters and would certainly welcome any engagement to further discuss the recommendations we have put forward. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the writer. Yours truly, GENIV ick Pryce, MCIP, LPP Project Manager /Senior Planner Cc: Susan Rosales, Planning Manager, TDL Group Corporation Mark Greatorex, Regional Manager, TDL Group Corporation � j� �� i� �Kf1'..�I' i ,r#fr. .. •f� r r q.(A) Successful City Cores Successful city cores are borne from Shared visions • Partnerships USJI applauds the City on PlanSJ • Inclusive and iterative framework • Cooperative development of this solid plan forms the basis of creating the best future possible for the City of SJ and its residents UPTOWN S n i B t j p h n 09/12/2011 1 Successful City Cores Do Exist They are a region's heartbeat! UPTOVIN, s a i rt i j o S n Saint John's Changing Demographics • Between 1986 and 2006 • City's core population ,� by 8,000 • Population 1L occurred in 9 inner -city census tracts • 700 dwellings became unoccupied (primarily rental) • 4,351 residents left • It's time to reverse the hollowing of the 5J City core • Implementation of the PlanSJ City Core Neighbourhood Plan is well - grounded • Improving the quality of life will strengthen City core UPT6AVN rc e 1 n I j h 09/12/2011 2 Overcoming Suburbanization Saint John has seen an out - migration to bedroom communities • Today, only 50% of CMA residents live in the core compared to 80% in the 1960s Creating a dynamic urban core will reverse the out - migration trend k� .mm EJr gWNT oe.M.Nh..cxw oa; da.`n m s m i n t i 0. h n .. SJ Staving to Turn the Corner Housing starts are tied to population and economic trends • SJ's economy is in an upswing, housing starts and population are T A00 UPTVvVN Hwy s a i n t J a h n 09/12/2011 3 5 SJ Starting to Turn the Corner • Rental vacancy rates show that SJ's economy is healthy • Vacancy rate shows that workers are flocking to the City core / i 1 \ r UPT417WNr f e i n t j a b n Will strengthening SXS.fity dery improve livf4g condition i - t USJ1 6e] ie ea it will 09/12/2011 4 The "New Urbanism" • Designed to reverse population declines in city core populations throughout North America Offer a variety of people a variety of opportunities • What is driving "new urbanism "? • Cultural attitudes • Seinfield and other sitcoms show that an urban lifestyle has much to offer • Economiclsustainability forces • People are more conscious of their impact on the environment — reducing commuting costs is also environmentally beneficial • Changing norms • The #livelifeuptown movement It's Happening in Other Cities • Montreal UFqWWN a 0 1 n 1 C a h n • Respected architect Phyllis Lambert launched an investment fund to revitalize housing stock • Vancouver • Affordable housing targets are set for the entire community and they are tracked by neighbourhood so that the best intentions do not deepen economic segregation • Saskatoon • Home - ownership co- operatives have revitalized many city blocks • Others • Numerous other North American cities offer a myriad of housing incentives and community development initiatives to strengthen their cores UPTOWN o h n r:.;. 09/12/2011 5 SJ's New Urbanism is Afoot . SJ has developers that are progressive in design details and they are making a difference by offering quality housing options I 'PROW We are strengthening and building upon our existing assets UPT " a x i rs t J a h n City Core Population Generators People want to move here! We can do more to attract people to the city core Offer housing alternatives other than single- family dwellings • Condos Varietv = Vitality Garden homes Infill housing • Repurposed heritage buildings • Upper floors development • Build on our existing assets.: Heritage Architecture Strengthen what we know best - Waterfront UPTVIuN a a l n f j o h n 09/12/2011 M City Core Population Generators • We can do more to attract people to the city core (cont'd) • Connectivity • Trails and bikeways • Public transit • Commuter options Culture Walkability Streetscapes • Restaurants • Entertainment venues Vibrancy will generate growth! UPTVvVN s a. a t j a R n SJ's New Urbanism is Afoot The City is actively working on connecting inner -City neighbourhoods and the outlying communities ,. SJ's culture is alive and thriving! UFTVN s a i n t 9. 09/12/2011 7 The PIanSJ Opportunity PlanSJ is the tipping point for Saint John • It provides the tools and roadmap to plan a progressive and sustainable future • USJI will assist the City where necessary We want to work closely with the City on the development and implementation of the City Core Neighbourhood Plan We have a dedicated and active team that is ready and willing to help • Great things are already happening • Now is the time to ride the momentum wave -- We can make significant advances by 2095 UPTOWN c e i n t j o h n 09/12/2011 N 60 ; CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. 3 Donald Road, Rothesay, New Brunswick E2S 1A7 Telephone 506 -847 -2690 email: inquiries @canterburydevelopments.com 1K December 12, 2011 Your Worship and Members of Common Council, I am speaking as owner of Canterbury Developments Ltd. in support of the Municipal Plan although k do have some concerns. The Proposed Municipal Plan is a bold and seemingly necessary move being proposed. I agree with many of the general principals and the commitment that has been voiced that the plan will be reviewed at specified intervals. From recent applications that have come to council I see that a degree of flexible is being exercised in staff's recommendations where conditions warrant it and that also gives me cause to speak in support. With the inclusion of regular reviews going forward and the approach by staff to exercise flexibility where warranted I can support the proposal. I mentioned that I do have concerns. They are with respect to infill development of Brownfield sites. This is both in general and specific to a property we own. Our property is a fully serviced Brownfield site adjacent to an Intensification Area at Chesley Drive that we have spent a number of years preparing to develop ( PID # 55093983 & 55172068). The correspondence I distributed outlines the level of effort we have put into this site and our reasoning as to why it would be beneficial to encourage its development as part of the North End Intensification area. In short form this is how I would describe the site: A five (5) acre Brownfield opportunity site with over 900 feet of recently rebuilt oversized and under - utilized water and sewer lines extending through it, fronting on Chesley Drive an existing public street in an area that has all essential services and conveniences available and will soon see additional capital investment adjacent to it as part of harbour cleanup (you can refer to the handout 1 distributed for more details). It is widely recognized that one of the best investment opportunities that can be encouraged by a municipality is the redevelopment of a Brownfield site. The benefits are even greater when the site is in the urban center core area that already is being provided with essential services and conveniences. Such an opportunity exists with the above noted property. We have made substantial efforts to prepare for its development and would like to see our investment come to fruition. We recently received notice that the city is in the process of establishing a pumping station adjacent to our property as part of the harbour cleanup initiative. For the last seven years we have carried out other projects both in and outside of the city while waiting for harbour cleanup to take place. We did not want to contribute to the dumping of raw sewage into the harbour and the potential controversy for doing so. "Building : >: • Communuty visic)r,z IvwEV. car,ter6urydevelopments. t We are pleased to see that the infrastructure investment is underway for this area of the city and we would welcome the opportunity to move forward with a project that would utilize it. Promoting development where major capital investment has taken place is a principal of the Municipal as I understand it. Development of this site will contribute to the tremendous cost invested by the city for harbour cleanup through payment of water and sewer user fees to the utility budget and expanded tax base. The designation of "Stable Area" for this site gives us little comfort that a proposal that we intend to make in the future would be supported and approved. it would be our preference to have the Chesley Drive Brownfield site given a more definitive designation. I respectfully request the following designations in the Municipal Plan be considered: 1) On Schedule A - Designate it as an extension to "Area I — Mixed Use Center ", or - Designate it as an extension to "Area E -- Primary Center" 2) On Schedule B designate it as an extension to the "Medium to High Density Residential — Intensification Area" classification extending from the North End to Chesley Drive where our site is located. These designations would be compatible with the sites present Integrated Development zoning. I had requested a meeting with the Plan SJ consultants and asked if I could make a presentation to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) in January 10, 2011 to provide details but that did not work out. I would still like that opportunity to meet with the Citizens Advisory Committee and staff as believe there is a compelling reason to give this area further consideration. Regretfully I was not able to attend the PAC meeting to provide this information. Plan Saint John has been an interesting process and I agree with many of the general principals and the commitment that the plan will be reviewed at specified intervals. I appreciate the degree of flexible being exercised in staff's recommendations where conditions warrant and look forward to coming forward with many applications in the future to test the new Municipal Plan. Thank you for your consideration and I certainly would try to address any clarification required as a result of my presentation or questions about the property I have referenced. CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. 67V lela-�' Richard Turner 2 Rick Turner From: Hamilton, Jacqueline [ Jacqueline _hamilton @saintjohn_ca] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 20119:09 AM To: 'Rick Turner' Subject: RE. Chesley Drive Site Resubmission of Information Rick, Thanks for your response. The PIanSJ team and the Citizen's Advisory Committee will be carefully considering all input in developing the final growth strategy. All the best, Jacqueline From: Rick Turner [mailto:tumers @nbnet.nb.ca] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:57 PM To: Hamilton, Jacqueline Cc: Forrest, Ken; Pollock, Randy Subject: Chesley Drive Site Resubmission of Information Jacqueline, Thank you for your response dated Dec 2, 2010 to my submission with respect to our proposed plans for Chesley Drive and your offer to further discuss my concerns and suggestions. The purpose of my writing previously was to have our site considered for designated as an Opportunity Area or a Committed Development Site. What prompted my previous communication was what was presented at a public session for Plan Si. I was surprised to see, when mapping was presented to the public, that our Chesley Drive site was not designated as an Opportunity Area considering its many positive attributes. That being said I was further surprised when I noted the site was also not labeled as a Committed Development Site. As my previous submission, which was brief, was rejected I felt it necessary to prepare this follow up reply. I understand staffs rational for only going back 10 years for purposes of doing your calculations. I think a more important factor is whether the "Committed Developments" from the past are actually being pursued. This warrants consideration. The benefits the committed. sites bring to the city should also be weighed and I will address this through two questions. What committed sites are best for the city? What committed sites are being actively pursued? First to the question "What committed sites are best for the city ?" The Chesley Drive site has the following attributes that are positive from a development standpoint as compared to most other Committed Development Sites: • It is an area that was included in the Inner Harbour Plan and has been promoted as a residential opportunity area $ The site is presently zoned Integrated Development (I -D) with Section 39 conditions approved by Common Council by Resolution dated May 4, 1992 (we require a further predeveiopment Section 39 amendment) O Existing water and sewer services run through the complete length of the site that were rebuilt in the 1990's with capacity for the project • Because of its close proximity to the harbour storm water retention issues are minimal therefore will not contribute to flooding • Natural gas and adequate utility infrastructure are adjacent to the site • The site has a topographic separation from existing Douglas Avenue properties thus minimizing its impact on the existing established stable neighbourhood • The site is in the Barbour Passage capture area • The site connects directly to an arterial roadway for access * This is a prime example of potential Brownfield development that can enhance tax base and utilize existing services at minimal cost to the municipality As compared to many of the other committed sites the Chesley Drive site has superior attributes and does not have many of the negative aspects such as requiring servicing extensions, pumping stations or contributing to outright sprawl or "scatterization" as I have heard it referred to. The subject area is a Brownfield Site highly suited to infill development. It became vacant through urban renewal initiatives in the 1950's. Secondly to the question "What committed sites are being activelV pursued ?" Our level of commitment to the development of Chesley Drive has been consistently moving forward since we acquired the site though a city proposal call. This has not taken place without some setbacks along the way. Some of the steps we have taken to clear the site for development are as follows: • After at least 2 proposal calls Canterbury Developments Ltd. acquired the site when it was offered by the city for development proposals ■ We have investigated municipal infrastructure and made provisions for easements in favor of the City of Saint John • Applied under the "Stopping Up and Closing of Streets" to have a physically abandoned street incorporated into our plans (Edward Street) o Acquired Edward Street once closing was completed which went through a Public Hearing process • Various conceptual design plans and costing have been reviewed with city staff • After selecting a conceptual design had a rendering prepared that was submitted to the Waterfront Development Partnership. Subsequently our site was included in the Inner Harbour Land Use Plan and Implementation Strategy prepared by Urban Strategies Inc. as was proposed as a potential development site Y We are currently working on building and suite layouts with respect too costing • Environmental work is completed 0 Currently in the process of having a transportation engineer address site access requirements • Negotiating with a long term user for the proposed Phase 1 building in preparation for finalizing Section 39 predevelopment provisions. Most of these activities have taken place in the last 10 years or less and are completed or currently being actively pursued. A major setback came in 2004 when in effect a moratorium was placed on projects discharging untreated sewage through the municipal system direct to the harbour. Background on this is in the Planning and Development Departments files for 430 Prince Street West_ The Department of Environment took a position at that time that "N.& Department of Environment and Local Government advised that the proponent should not proceed with the development of the site (430 Prince Street West) without the provision of water and sewage (collection and treatment) by the developer or the Municipality. The Department would confirm that an Approval to Construct, issued by the Minister may be required prior to construction of the necessary infrastructure to ensure sewage treatment. This effectively placed our project and various others around the city on hold until it could be confirmed that treatment of sewage could be provided with commitments on dates. It was apparent that no further new development would be able to proceed until arrangements for a project like Harbour Cleanup were in place. This being the case, we pursued two other projects through a partnership arrangement; the development of an existing site at 37 Somerset Street for a 21 unit apartment building and the Blue Rock Residences Project in West Saint John which contains 52 apartment units_ These projects are completed, Harbour Cleanup is now underway and we are once again concentrating our efforts on moving the Chesley Drive site forward, possibly through a partnership arrangement. I would be pleased to meet with your department and your consultants so there is a clear understanding of each other's position. I would also appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation to the Citizens Advisory Committee as I understand they are an important component to the decision making process. I have in the past and continue to have good support in the community for following through on our development plans. Surely this is a reflection of the community's interest in the site. With respect to current status Section 39 predevelopment conditions a statutory amendment is required and we have been preparing for it. We are presently not ready to make the application but can be in a relatively short timeframe. would much sooner make the application with the support of the Plan SJ team with respect to future direction of the plan. Based on the context of current by -laws and the status of the site I would expect the amendments would be positively received. This does bring to mind a question I would like addressed. At what stage does the Municipal Plan go before Common Council? Will there be opportunity for public input, comments or a submission at that time or is that later in the process? When applying to have the predevelopment Section 39 conditions finalized an aspect of the application will be to reduce the scale of the previous proposal to reflect a transition between the various uses that exist in the immediate area. I will not elaborate in this communication but if more information is required to further explain this please advise. The Chesley Drive site is warranted to be reflected as an Opportunity Area or a Committed Development Site in the Municipal Plan. With a better understanding of the intent of these designations I would be in a position to suggest our preference should it be considered as appropriate. Since using a 10 year cutoff date for Committed Development Sites serves no legal precedence I respectfully request consideration of this submission based on the information provided and my offer to make presentations as outlined above. My previous submission is appended below for the convenience of the reader(s). A copy of the site diagram and site rendering will be forwarded under separate cover. I look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully submitted, CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Richard Turner TEXT OF PREVIOUS SUBMISSION BY CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. BELOW Hi Jacqueline and Cindy, Further to the Oct. 14th Plan SJ sessions I just want to bring to your attention a site that I believe should be included in the Opportunity Area adjacent to the inner harbour. The property is known as PID # 55093983. This is a significant Harbourfront /view site containing over 2 hectares in area. Following is my response to the question "Would you add or make changes to the Opportunity Areas ?" as it relates to this property. The reasons I believe it should be included as an opportunity area are as follows: - It is an area that was included in the inner Harbour Plan and has been promoted as a residential opportunity area The site is presently zoned Integrated Development (1 -D) with Section 39 conditions approved by Common Council by Resolution dated May 4, 1992 (we may require a further Section 39 amendment) - Concept plans have been developed Existing water and sewer services run through the complete length of the site that were rebuilt in the 1990's with capacity for the project Because of its close proximity to the harbour storm water retention issues are minimal Natural gas and adequate utility infrastructure are adjacent to the site - The site has a topographic separation from existing Douglas Avenue properties thus minimizing its impact on the existing established stable neighbourhood - The site is in the Harbour Passage capture area - The site connects directly to an arterial roadway for access - This is a prime example of potential Brownfield development that can enhance tax base and utilize existing services at minimal cost to the municipality We have been working with a development group for some time and hope to have a Memorandum of Understanding for development of the property in the future. Having the area identified as an "Opportunity Area" places more focus on the site thus enhances the prospects of its eventual development. The development would be proceeded with based on market demand. A visual illustration of the proposed first building is shown below. 4 1.. WI4 i' �r ,tea Chesley Drive Property (click hRre for an enlarged image) r+ The red - coloured building is a proposed four -story apartment / condominium complex. The proposed building will have two levels of parking in the under the four stories of residential space. Background. St. Luke's Church (right) and Homeport Inn (left on the hill) Foreground: Chesley Drive, the Overpass at Hilyard Street and Harbour Passage signage adjacent to HMCS Brunswicker The red - coloured building is a proposed four -story apartment/ condominium complex. The proposed building will have two levels of parking or a mix of parking and commercial use under the four stories of residential space. Background: St. Luke's Church (righl) and Homeport Inn (left on the hill) Foreground: Chesley Drive, the Overpass at Hilyard Street and Harbour Passage signage adjacent to HMCS Brunswicker J - - RiOtrat;on bota d 0--p W.k 11122 �• Y / / _+• / (i / I ]M'r.:10• a]1u a0i MS .I]]R qB! Mri a, lea y M - �"•� .i rr J Y�'` ; LeM WIN, f s0e ]I, leap. hIMO. I +V B ro' y � r �{ al4w .I Gw1. II W] e10 IIl llyly.r l K1 INrrMf 14 aM �+ L6 >• e� r / �� I. T. ON a it I S7 e•ea!em 4q•i K t � `' . a� � id�4 ?`�' �aam �' ljo I, r.a•, 11 I.x,+e earl nme el r+wne era f.rw as +« x+a.re nm ra•eM � yr rre r 10 1�� pp / /!' fJ� la]e+r1 r a of 3,r,Xa• ..nl a'•Y 3; IfrX, ...t,,. �:'' sj" • °i �3 °., � � °e as � _ X rlln - •acclo 1.,5,000 ` T l eD IIllne•, va r eDfr , k Pxv a ayria w +wn� . sr h •• / - .l * air a f+ ala�' /.b y� 4' � # e. ./ � `.� /\. + a Ivp'rJ Inn�w�] weu��'AYlnnl Mwnsnx P � J Q I �� F`� %/ � ' eP 1� fi • \ liae� eeNi""e..Y6ri" ,a.ro mu 1• all aewaF allA ia•Ir x �- � /' // % ' �•� ay�j° �R � �\ Irl I`°:.'�'."';."m.". «ialw Ir rXewu r "til sea A M he.VS 4 ~ °ji' `'" . ` `' c,r � \''�� , / s. �� / o°b "y °a�'� .i � I a•.. - � c`w�..r., IDm ...IeMe Im . ergs aw.] ,o,Wary, a] � I :vr Dl..x � I ] • .. e,. -.. ..<l:.� :"..e ` w � I al ,"•Nu4 i ml i r PTOVALS rya @, .D. he F l a t to i C�tli XraxnT or cauaapa y , rO9a/ 9 ;v ce]an 9�i pO JT, J''e , PQ�•L �'a'�. /,, H 'Y ��„ / � �t` ' crd� � as �B 3' v:.lco 3" aY 8 Oi LLVrilf per.. ,{° Ds^ 0 y�,l '^= e 1 yep k / �. alf' °0 •T NC m Oep aF erNYCa. ya. aK s 3QO1 ve�e�)o'':i + ama`�ca �'' �'.- �.1�%�i,•. °: -, ^J� I a w., rt.uw vu. Diaaer aF "aJ tQ °Ya,S'.. i',E J�, � N.& slid )i3 me.ev 401 via, ]eu la +."0, ++ to atf ul eN.en as 6N.YL6 iLn Tui street l3J 061.9!6 'f3 �ir0O A00 a)�rue apa se "`i ee 'iii u�" 36 ]] i63 FDi.a0] eye P4 mlVaKl �. Harrison {�6friean I (;aef aliMe i J9 ] 00f.9w iG 011.ea1 v� 333 ist'ioi cii ii'i3a Pa+ SIK. \ .�� r ys n. o Sa2% " )a IS L�i'Po' ,G3 361.101 i L�aMa , f / Amending Subdivision Plan 1Ti iv siLm ip em n3o )r aas n fr .. � .......Frr w a�.r •fe. oa iwaxl .,� ,^%,a The City 3 si, — R: aeli y of Saint John $ubdlvlalon :1>i le u:Dii ei A ra.:.'.:..' .'.ara: rysra. Main Street and Horrison Street , 90S 3l> 111 .1i. u] 9W.DTe i' ]Wl CR Ir. .. P+IX au iii i54']3i 661 ne.vJ ei� ]v] � .. o.-, ar IDr•r ew] t —MOL City of SOlnf John - Saint Bohn G6aMy , la1 9e fe3 i��.soo Dl.° Tu] w Province of New Brunswick . aas e]s.iu a3 n ac, �.'.' ::�. Iwl• au 1)) ' .Hi m3 .133 uaa , � • .. . iei Inaa3n3 isi i]]i•G01 CeD h lam ; .:,... .. ri•iwl . r w ....n /v�. FWInn rye i CewJienlf L}e. 003 �]1 LSi. e01 s 9•].e Pilo Tfia =" • • •'.'.'.eYi'�' I V0 .r / r0 n �ivn / 6r. ame m.� l � , . ,err W Ql O' ne 3• r evniee 4 r%X��M. -� B90 3]l 15a.'tl ifi 91,. DI] tu3 Sw wmiie erg e3 13 9•i.f01 I ki Ha.11i Y.e. Xpe. ... .Fr.Yevrveel f � IAA" ]Gea iii DDS.i33 Y] e1•Jf0 a,a. IIOD. ,G ... . hee] ,ell. •Ir L� 1!31! iii De].SDI 10f eJi.Tlf r,a. XDa. : i. � �. Coved IvY e,\ V / Ia b� Isa0o - .. t•r ie°a• 4)ael s.emds e � / (rte P^ s I S elu .D.I a• IIXye L011• a . ! 151.11P 1] _. q,t(�) Chown, Jeanne From: External - CommonClerk Sent: December -13 -11 8:57 AM To: Chown, Jeanne Subject: FW: Submission of feedback on PlanSJ From: Graeme Stewart - Robertson Lm_ ailto:darkharbour(dmac.coml Sent: December -12 -11 2:17 PM To: External - CommonClerk Subject: Submission of feedback on PlanSJ Submission of feedback on PlanSJ The world we live in is one defined by specific moments in time, those that resonate with our emotions, those that can capture our imaginations, and those that can take hold of our worst fears or apprehensions, and transform them into our greatest opportunities. For the people living, loving and learning within the boundaries of the City of Saint John, there is no better example of such a moment than today, as we look to adopt a new Municipal Plan which will define our community not just for 20 or 30 years down the road, but for every decision we make together along the way. It has been my pleasure over the past two years to follow, contribute to and engage with, this immense project we SO succinctly dub PlanSJ. From the very beginning, this process has sought to bring together our community like nothing else before it, and at every turn this goal has been met. From the quality and quantity of input received at every public session, to the establishment of a PlanSJ storefront which is the envy of planners across the country, this new municipal plan has been assembled with the interests of every stakeholder taken into consideration, from the largest corporate entity to the most modest of suburban residents. In addition, the establishment of a Citizen Advisory Committee, who have been part of an ongoing dialogue since the beginning of this process, is a clear indication that the directions, growth strategies, design guidelines and visions contained within this new municipal plan are those shared by a greater proportion of Saint John's citizenry than ever before. Saint John has had, and continues to have, countless obstacles which it must overcome along the way to solidifying its potential to become a preeminent city of Canada. It is these obstacles however, that also define us as a community, and in many cases give us something we can rally around and can call our own. Whether it is the decline of once vibrant urban areas, the state of our environment or the cost of servicing our large geographic footprint, these challenges are, in fact, nothing more than occasions for our region to innovate, invigorate and invest. Here once again, it is my firm opinion that the team behind PlanSJ has not only taken up the mantle of these challenges, but has succeeded in addressing them in every sense of the word. Whereas a planning department of old could look you square in the eye, fully aware of the conviction and optimism gleaming within you, and plainly state, "that will never happen," the team behind PlanSJ exuded a palpable excitement and a passion for Saint John that was finally up to par with the spirit of its inhabitants. From the establishment of broad, city -wide growth boundaries, to the individual minutia of urban street scape design, PlanSJ has the potential to set this city on a path that takes the faults and liabilities of the past and turns each and every one them into a pieces of what can become the most vibrant and dynamic urban centre in our region. The entire process behind this new municipal plan has been thoroughly constructed with not only the latest knowledge and research on urban planning, but also with the city staff and their consulting colleagues handling each of these facets with a prudence, grace and aplomb that would put even the most magnanimous of us to shame. To deny our citizens, those both present and future, of the remarkable opportunity to adopt and adhere to this most diligent of oeuvres, would be a disservice to everything they desire Saint John to be. PlanSJ was not just a municipal planning exercise, it was our moment in time where we stood together and set a course for a city that would guide it into the future. When it comes down to it, there are no physical limitations to what we can accomplish here, the only limitations we see before us are those we have built for ourselves, and the time has come to stop building limits and start building a city. Sincerely, Graeme Stewart - Robertson Mobile: 506- 721 -6760 Email: darkharbour(cDmac.com q, CgJ Final Written Comments on Plan SJ by P. Tippett In developing Plan SJ citizens have worked together to plan for the challenges of the future, to change the city to enable people to live healthier, safer lives; to try to provide for everyone's needs in a more efficient manner. The plan tries through zoning changes to bring more housing and business into the downtown core to increase efficiency, maximize use of existing infrastructure, and , hopefully, reduce taxes. The new municipal plan is a good start. It will take a long time before all city neighbourhoods are safely "walkable ", before all areas of the city are safe for cycling, before public transportation is organized so that people in all parts of the city can conveniently travel to their destination by bus in a timely manner. Some routes, like the Loch Lomond Road, will not be safe for cycling until there is a bicycle route separate from the highway (as found in the Netherlands). Citizens must continue to work for the changes we need, and try to prevent setbacks like the recent cuts to bus routes. One of the main reasons in the past that many people gave as their reason for moving out of the downtown core was air pollution. Although rezoning in the new municipal plan is intended to separate heavy industry from residential areas, the screening of proposed downtown developments for potential adverse health and environmental effects does not seem to be in place. For areas outside the downtown core, the plan seems to favour heavy industry, including "extractive industries" while trampling on the rights of people already living in communities there, (as the City has done in the past, according to citizens in peripheral areas of the City, i.e. Latimore Lake, Red Head, Old Black River Road and Mispec). Under "Land Use Designations outside the Primary Development Area, Page 90 on: I object to Policy LU -100 "consider requests to redesignate lands from Park and Natural Area to Rural Resource Area..." strongly disagree with "disposing of ", "selling off" or "repurposing" city parks and recreation areas. Many Saint Johners, including children, have serious obesity problems, and need more access to parks and recreation areas, not less. The quality of some popular parks, Lakewood Reservoir, for example, has been degraded by City Council by allowing ill- advised "extractive industry" to continue in spite of community opposition. Even in their "neglected" state, our parks, like Mispec Park, Tucker Park and Black Beach are considered spectacular by tourists. Many people who come here appreciate being able to walk along the shore and take photos of the scenery. Accessible "Tot Lots" and playgrounds are vital for parents of young children, especially downtown, who often do not have access to other outdoor recreational opportunities for their children. People moving out of the downtown in recent years have given crime, break -ins, lack of safety as their reason for leaving. Cutting parks and recreational services will worsen this problem, since many of the break -ins seem to be due to young people with drug problems, who might not have turned to drugs if they had had better things to do with their spare time. Under: "Rural Settlement Areas" It is unfair that only a few of the historic Saint John communities have been identified in the Municipal Plan as Rural Settlement Areas. I have already objected to the fact that "Treadwell Lake area" (actually the historic community of Loch Lomond) has been designated while other historic communities like Red Head, Old Black River Road and Anthony's Cove have not. People in these areas should be equally entitled to their "lifestyle choice ". They have a right to have their communities designated as Rural Settlement Areas. The Mispec community and Mispec Park, although apparently outside the municipal boundary are also entitled to protection, and not classed on the map, Schedule B as Rural Industrial. I object to Policy LU -108 and LU -109, page 94. City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John ' New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 December 12, 2011 Deputy Mayor and Councillors Z?A Subject: Recommended Appointments to Committees City of Saint John The Committee of the Whole having met on December 12, 2011, made the following recommendations as appointments to a committee: Finance Committee: to appoint Councillor Higgins from December 12, 2011 until the end of her current term on Council; to appoint Councillor Norton to replace Councillor Mott during his absence. Sincerely, Ivan Court Mayor City Solicitors Office Bureau de l'avocat municipal The City of Saint John Section 10.2(4)(f,g) COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE In Closed Session December 12, 2011 Committee of the Whole of Common Council of The City of Saint John Mayor Court and Committee Members: Re: Amendment to the Pension Act of the City of Saint John Following upon the Committee's meeting on Saturday December 10, 2012, the following is the draft text of a resolution requesting the Provincial Government to recall the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of dealing with the amendment to the City of Saint John's Pension Act Resolved that the Provincial Government be requested to resume the 2nd Session of the 57th Legislative Assembly prior to its scheduled resumption in March of 2012, for the purpose of enacting amendments to the City of Saint John Pension Act and associated enabling amendments to the Pension Benefits Act, as soon as possible following the City's satisfying the relevant procedural requirements of the Legislative Assembly's Standing Rules on Private Bills as well as any such requirements of the Pension Benefits Act. Respectfully Submitted, John( Nugent City Solicitor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 �CJCir The City of Saint john Section 10.2(4)(f,g) COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE In Closed Session December 12, 2011 Committee of the Whole of Common Council of The City of Saint John Mayor Court and Committee Members: City Solicitors Office Bureau de l'avocat municipal Re: Saint John Development Corporation - Proposals for a Real Estate Recruitment Consultant The following is the text of a resolution for the Committee's consideration, arising out of the Committee of the Whole Closed Session held on Saturday, December 12, 2011: Resolved that the Saint John Development Corporation be authorized, on behalf of the City of Saint John, to call for proposals for a Real Estate Recruitment Consultant to provide service respecting the advertising for the recruitment and initial screening of qualified developers /investors for the development of the so- called Canadian Coast Guard Lands fronting on Water Street and Saint John Harbour, as well as providing assistance with the development of the proposal call associated with the aforesaid recruitment initiative. Respectfully Submitted, V .1— Jo L. Nugent City Solicitor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint john, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1