Loading...
2014-09-29_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourr. City of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, September 29, 2014 6:00 pm Council Chamber Please use Chipman Hill entrance S'il vous plait utiliser 1'entree Chipman Hill Si vous avez besoin des services en francais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. Pages 1. Call to Order - Prayer 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of September 8, 2014 2 - 6 2.2 Minutes of September 9, 2014 7 - 8 2.3 Minutes of September 15, 2014 9-14 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Consent Agreement for Proposed Encroachment of Brunswick Pipeline KP- 15-66 23.525 (Recommendation in Report) 5.2 2014 Fall Debenture Issue (Recommendation in Report) 67-69 5.3 2014 Fleet Replacement - Tender Awards - Phase IV (Recommendation in 70-72 Report) 5.4 Proposed Public Hearing Date - 30 Stonegate Drive /65 Drury Cove Road & 168- 73-73 172 Belmont Street (Recommendation in Report) 5.5 Street Naming (Recommendation in Report) 74-76 1 Powered 6y: �`F►lL7 e 5.6 Saint John Parking Commission - Appointment of Rachael Gooding and Wayne 77-77 Cormier Canadian Corps of Commissionaires as By -Law Enforcement Officers (Recommendation in Report) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m. 9.1 Staff Presentation - Proposed Rezoning and Variances for 139 -147 Prince 78-89 Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street 9.1.1 Proposed Zoning ByLaw Amendment 139 -147 Prince Edward Street 90-115 and 36 -38 Exmouth Street 9.1.2 Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending 116-143 Rezoning 9.2 Staff Presentation - Municipal Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Variance for 55- 144-153 65 University Avenue 9.2.1 Proposed Municipal Plan and Zoning ByLaw Amendments 55 -65 154-155 University Avenue 9.2.2 Planning Advisory Committee Report Denying the Proposal 156-293 9.2.3 Letter of Opposition from K. BOschlepp re: 55 -65 University Avenue 294-296 9.2.4 Cobalt Property Investments Limited Letter to Withdraw Application for 297-297 a Muncipal Plan Amendment and Rezoning of 55 -65 University Avenue 10. Consideration of By -laws 10.1 ZoneSJ Public Hearing: Response to Public Input 298-506 10.1.1 ZoneSJ Council Briefing Presentation 507-519 10.2 Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - 1808 Hickey Road 520-526 10.2.1 Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment Haldor (1972) Ltd. - 1808 527-529 Hickey Road Potential Need for Rezoning 10.3 Third Reading - A Law to Amend a ByLaw Respecting Water and Sewerage 530-531 11. Submissions by Council Members 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 3 12.1 City Vehicles (Councillor Farren) (Tabled Aug 18, 2014) 532-532 12.1.1 Update on Fleet 533-565 12.1.2 Consultants Report - Fleet Evaluation Project 566-577 12.1.3 Fleet Usage Policy (Tabled September 15, 2014) 578-584 12.2 Summary of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Board of Directors and 585-608 Standing Committee Meetings, Saguenay, Quebec, September 3 -6, 2014 12.3 2013 Annual Report 609-676 12.4 Common Council Open Houses, Fall 2014 677-679 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission - Waste Diversion Program - Fundy 680-690 Region 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Supplemental Agenda 16.1 Larche Memorial Park (Councillor Norton) 691 -692 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Committee of the Whole: Judicial Review re Decision on the Preliminary Issues 693-693 18. Adjournment 3 City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, September 29, 2014 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant to the provisions of subsection 10.(2)(4) of the Municipalities Act and Council / Committee will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session: 4:00 p.m. 8t" Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Approval of Minutes 10.2(4) 1.2 Land Matter 10.2(4)(d) 1.3 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.4 Labour Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.5 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) 1.6 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) The City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 29 septembre 2014 Comit6 pl6nier 1. Ouverture de la seance Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. Chacun des points suivants, en totalit6 ou en partie, peut faire 1'objet d'une discussion en prive en vertu des dispositions prevues au paragraphe 10.2(4) de la Loi sur les municipalites. Le conseil /comit6 prendra une on des d6cisions a cet egard au cours de la seance publique 16 h — Salle de conf6rence, 8e 6tage, h6tel de ville 1.1 Approbation du proces- verbal — paragraphe 10.2(4) 1.2 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alinea 10.2(4)d) 1.3 Questions relatives a Pemploi — alinea 10.2(4)j) 1.4 Question relative au personnel — alinea 10.2(4)j) 1.5 Question financiere — alin6a 10.2(4)c) 1.6 Question financiere — alinea 10.2(4)c) 1.7 Question juridique — alinea 10.2(4)g) Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la reunion, suivie de la priere 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proces- verbal du 8 septembre 2014 2.2 Proces- verbal du 9 septembre 2014 2.3 Proces- verbal du 15 septembre 2014 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'inter6ts 5. Approbation du conseil 5.1 Convention de consentement relative a 1'empietement propose de la societe Brunswick Pipeline — Croisement KP- 23.525 (recommendation figurant au rapport) 5.2 Emission d'obligations de I'automne 2014 (recommendation figurant au rapport) 5.3 Renouvellement du parc de vehicules de 2014 — Adjudication des contrats, Phase IV (recommendation figurant au rapport) 5.4 Date proposee pour les audiences publiques visant le 30, promenade Stonegate /le 65, chemin Drury Cove et les 168 -172, rue Belmont (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.5 Attribution de nom de rue (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.6 Commission sur le stationnement de Saint John — Nomination de Rachael Gooding et de Wayne Cormier du Corps canadien des commissaires a titre d'agent d'execution des arretes municipaux (recommandation figurant au rapport) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques a 18 h 30 9.1 Presentation du personnel — Rezonage propose et derogations visant les 139- 147, rue Prince Edward et les 36 -38, rue Exmouth 9.1.1 Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant les 139 -147, rue Prince Edward et les 36 -38, rue Exmouth 9.1.2 Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage 9.2 Presentation du personnel — Modification du plan municipal, rezonage et derogation visant les 55 -65, avenue University 9.2.1 Proposition de modifications du plan municipal et de I'Arrete de zonage visant les 55 -65, avenue University 9.2.2 Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme rejetant la proposition 9.2.3 Lettre d'objection de K. Buschlepp relative aux 55 -65, avenue University 9.2.4 Lettre de Cobalt Property Investments Limited demandant le retrait de la demande de modification du plan municipal et de rezonage visant les 55- 65, avenue University 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 10.1 Audience publique concernant ZoneSJ : Reponse aux commentaires du public 10.1.1 ZoneSJ — Presentation du conseil a titre informatif 10.2 Projet de modification du plan municipal visant le 1808, chemin Hickey 10.2.1 Modification du plan municipal proposee par Haldor (1972) Ltd. — Necessite eventuelle de rezoner le 1808, chemin Hickey 10.3 Troisieme lecture de I'arrete modifiant I'Arrete concernant les reseaux d'eau et d'egouts 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Reunions trimestrielles pour les dirigeants des organismes de developpement economique (mairesse suppleante Rinehart) 11.2 Vehicules municipaux (conseiller Farren) (point reporte lors de la reunion du 18 aout 2014) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Vehicules municipaux ( conseiller Farren) (point reporte lors de la reunion du 18 aout 2014) 12.1.1 Mise a jour sur le parc de vehicules 12.1.2 Rapport du consultant — Projet devaluation du parc de vehicules 12.1.3 Politique sur ('utilisation du parc de vehicules (point reporte de la seance du 15 septembre 2014) 12.2 Resume des reunions du conseil d'administration et du comite permanent de la Federation canadienne des municipalites, a Saguenay (Quebec), du 3 au 6 septembre 2014 12.3 Rapport annuel de 2013 12.4 Journees portes ouvertes du conseil communal, automne 2014 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 13.1 Commission de gestion des dechets solides de Fundy — Programme de reacheminement des dechets — Region de Fundy 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance generale 16. Ordre du jour suppiementaire 16.1 Parc commemoratif Larche (conseiller Norton) 17. Comite plenier 17.1 Comite plenier : Examen judiciaire de la decision sur les questions preliminaire 18. Levee de la seance 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 /LE 8 SEPTEMBRE 2014 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — September 8, 2014 - 6:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon and Strowbridge Regrets: Councillor Reardon - and - P. Woods, City Manager; M. Tompkins, Solicitor; J. Hamilton, Commissioner Growth and Community Development; S. Forfar, Deputy Commissioner Growth and Community Development; Sgt. Andrew Beyea, Sergeant -at -Arms; K. Clifford, Fire Chief; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; P. Anglin, Deputy Common Clerk Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Norton called the meeting to order and Deputy Mayor Rinehart offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved with the addition of items: 16.1 Municipal Plan By -Law Amendment 16.2 Saint John Development Corporation Letter of Support for Zone SJ 16.3 Strescon Limited — Zoning at 101 Ashburn Lake Road Presentation to Council 16.3.1 Commercial Properties Ltd — Zone SJ 16.4 B. Beyea Letter of Opposition for Zone SJ 16.5 D. Hargrove, John Law Corporation, Letter of Opposition for Zone SJ 16.6 1905 Hickey Road, Saint John NB, PID 334524, Notice of Intention to Expropriate 17.1 Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointment for Director of the Municipal Emergency Measures Organization (EMO) Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that items 16.6 and 17.1 be brought forward on the agenda. Question being taken the motion was carried. 16.6 1905 Hickey Road, Saint John NB, PID 334524, Notice of Intention to Expropriate On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS Common Council, by resolution dated June 9, 2014, authorized the commencement of expropriation proceedings and the filing with the Expropriations Advisory Office of a Notice of Intention to Expropriate the lands and premises hereinafter described; 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 /LE 8 SEPTEMBRE 2014 AND WHEREAS the Notice of Intention to Expropriate a limited interest in the hereinafter described lands and premises was filed with the Expropriations Officer on August 1, 2014; AND WHEREAS no Notices of Objection to the proposed expropriation were filed with the Expropriations Advisory Officer within the time prescribed by statute; AND WHEREAS Common Council wishes to confirm the Notice of Intention to Expropriate; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council does hereby confirm the Notice of Intention to Expropriate and does hereby authorize the expropriation of a limited interest in the lands and premises hereinafter described and the registering of a Notice of Expropriation of the lands and premises described as follows: All that certain lot, piece and parcel of land located in the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, more particularly described as "Easement, Area 1959 sq. m." on a Plan of Survey titled "Plan of Survey Easement Required By The City of Saint John Hickey Road City of Saint John Saint John County, N.B." dated April 7, 2014, surveyed by Steven R. Saunders, N.B.L.S. #352, which plan was filed in the Saint John County Registry Office on June 19, 2014 as Number 33878308. AND FURTHER whereas Common Council has by resolution immediately preceding these presents authorized the expropriation of the hereinbefore described lands and premises; AND WHEREAS section 22, subsection (1) of the Expropriation Act, Chapter E -14, of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick 1973, allows an expropriating authority to take physical possession of expropriated lands and premises and occupation as an owner no sooner than ninety (90) days after the date of registration of the Notice of Expropriation unless an earlier date is agreed to by the occupying owner; AND WHEREAS the lands and premises described in the resolution immediately preceding these presents are now occupied by the owners; NOW THEREFORE Common Council does hereby authorize the taking of physical possession by the City of Saint John, the expropriating authority, of the lands and premises hereinabove described on the ninety -first (91) days after the date of registration of the Notice of Expropriation or such earlier date as may be agreed to with owners and the serving of a Notice of Possession upon each owner in occupation of the lands and premises. Question being taken, the motion was carried 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointment for Director of the Municipal Emergency Measures Organization (EMO) On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on September 8, 2014, Fire Chief Kevin Clifford be appointed as the Director of the Municipal Emergency Measures Organization, in accordance with Section 3(b) of the Saint John Emergency Measures Bylaw and Section 9(b) of the Emergency Measures Act for a sixty day term effective September 11, 2014 to allow the Nominating Committee to formulate a more detailed recommendation respecting the directorship of EMO. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations /Presentations 3 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 /LE 8 SEPTEMBRE 2014 9. Public Hearings 6:30 P.M. 9.1 Zone SJ and Related Housekeeping Amendments to the Municipal Plan — Recommended Process for Adoption J. Hamilton recommended that Common Council refer the proposed Zoning By -law and related amendments to Staff to consider the comments and requests made at the Public Hearing of September 8th, 2014 and report back to Council on September 29th prior to considering 1 stand 2nd reading. S. Forfar, Deputy Commissioner of Growth and Community Development, and M. O'Hearn, Planning Officer, outlined the five guiding principles of Zone SJ: modernize, predictability, clarity, flexibility and prosperity. M. Lanigan, Chair of PAC, commented on the Zone SJ consultation review process and he outlined the PAC recommendation on the Proposed Zoning By -law (Zone SJ) and the housekeeping amendments to the Municipal Plan (Plan SJ). The Mayor advised that the Public Hearing will commence by hearing from those appearing on the speaker's list first, adding that any other audience members wishing to speak will be given the opportunity after each person from the speaker's list has addressed Common Council. Robert Dow was called on to speak. Mr. Dow was not present in the audience Paul Moore, Commercial Properties Limited, presented as spokesperson for Strescon, a manufacturing facility located at 101 Ashburn Lake Road in the vicinity of Highway 1 / Rothesay Avenue. Strescon is objecting to Zone STs plan to change the zoning in the area of Strescon from Heavy Industrial Zone to Future Development Zone. The change will impede development on the site the company has operated since 1963. Al Williams, businessman and owner of a used car dealership, full service garage and home located on the HWY 100 / St. Stephen thoroughfare presented against the Zone SJ By -law. Mr. Williams obtained a change from B2 to Corridor Commercial (CC) Zoning for his property in the fall of 2013. In February 2014 his location was rezoned to GC, General Commercial Zone and his property status was changed from a permitted use to a recognized exception. The change will impede development and the conditions will appear as a financial risk to commercial banking institutions. Rick Turner of Hughes Surveys and Consultants, spoke on the Municipal Plan SJ process and the proposed Zone SJ and his assistance to AI Williams. He commented on the reversal from Fall 2013 to Spring 2014 of the CC zoning and the associated stigma associated to the terms accepted use and recognized exception. Mr. Turner suggested a revision of the CC zone in the area of Mr. Williams's business. Stephen Horgan, Solicitor, presented on behalf of for 3 property owners referred to as the Dowd and Hovey Companies. The properties are located in the vicinity of Somerset Street and the Superstore. Zone SJ would revise the 11 Light Industrial zone to GC Zone; a fundamental change that can greatly impact their business over 170 acres of land in a major development area of the City. Citing the Philosophy of Plan SJ is to locate Industrial uses in industrial parks, Mr. Horgan questioned how the rocky forested area with restricted access on Sam Davis Drive around the Superstore can be made suitable general commercial uses without enormous effort. Mr. Horgan named light industries in the area: Snowflake Lime, Department of the Environment construction waste disposal, Lafarge Concrete, Dowd Roofing, and a storage facility. He stated that there is no space for commercial development without cutting into the rock face and trees. Mr. Horgan stated that making future applications for zoning changes can be expensive, time - consuming, create uncertainly, and prevents the property owners from responding quickly to market opportunities. Commenting on the by -law schedule of exceptions, Mr. Horgan stressed that exceptions are not permanent. A CG Zone with a list of exceptions is not as good as an Industrial rating zone. 11 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 /LE 8 SEPTEMBRE 2014 Michelle Luck, a Commercial Banker, business investor and resident in theTreadwell Lake Area spoke on the negative impact of Zone SJ in the 200 acre property her family has owned over 100 years. Zone SJ will change the zone to RU from RS 1. An RS zone requires 1 acre for development and RU requires 10 acres. Ms. Luck commented that this is an area that is attractive for residential not rural uses. Mike Francis, a self - employed Truck Driver, owns 143 acres in Ocean Westway. The land was purchased in 2008 for $250,000. The 10 acre development restriction negatively impacts his investment. Anne McShane spoke in favour of Zone SJ from the viewpoint of a former Plan SJ Citizens Advisory Committee status. Ms. McShane commented on the rigorous process over 2 years to create Plan SJ. Zone SJ is an integral part of Plan SJ and needs teeth. Plan SJ cannot be spot zoned to make the vision ineffective. MS McShane commented that sprawl is costly, noting that a formal application process still exists for individual properties requesting rezoning. Bob Darling, representing North Star Holdings, spoke in opposition to Zone SJ concerning secondary suites. He suggested section 9.13. should not be restricted to the requirement for the owner to reside in the building and he disagreed with the floor space percentages, stating that real estate should be considered as an avenue of investment. Bev Puritan, Land owner in Lakewood Heights area, has 130 lots outside the PDA and objects to the RR Zone and wants an amendment to allow for future development. The Mayor noted that the time was now 10:00 p.m. and asked if Council wished to continue the meeting. On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that in accordance with the Procedural By -law the meeting be allowed to extend beyond 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Norton voting nay. The Mayor advised that all the registered speakers on the list had presented. The Mayor called for members of the public wishing to speak against the proposed Zone SJ with the following presenting: Shawn Luck, resident in Quispamsis, and former owner of Lakewood Guardian Pharmacy and Prince Edward Guardian Pharmacy commented that East Saint John is a diamond in the rough, it is where people want to live and Zone SJ restricts this. David Griffin, resident of Red Head commented that the Zone SJ may be good for the City but not the Red Head area. The zone change in Red Head to light or heavy industrial is not good for the residents in Red Head because of the LNG and potential oil developments. Mr. Griffin stated that the City should buy us out or relocate us. The Mayor called for members of the public wishing to speak in favour of the proposed Zone SJ with the following presenting: Rick Turner, Hughes Surveys and Consultants commented in favour of Zone SJ and endorsed the good intercity development, the streamlining, compatible uses, less red tape, amenities space for interior and exterior space, and flexibility. Mr. Turner was impressed with the process of Plan SJ and Zone SJ for rationalizing the Irving properties based on industrial peer review and protecting heavy industry the backbone to the City of Saint John. Steve Carson, Enterprise SJ spoke in favour of Zone SJ and Plan SJ as an economic development strategy tool. Mr. Carson stated that Zone SJ was well thought through and provides increased opportunities for new investment. Mr. Carson also commented on the investment confidence provided in the One Stop Shop program and that the City's open for business attitude is reflected in Zone SJ. 5 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 /LE 8 SEPTEMBRE 2014 Kent McIntyre, SJ Development Corporation spoke in favour of Zone SJ applauding the consistency it provides developers, and that it streamlines the development process and decision making. Mr. McIntyre also commented that the One Stop Shop is a favourable development for an open for business approach. The Mayor noted there were no other speakers which concluded the Public Hearing portion of the meeting and advised that Council would move on to the next portion of the meeting allowing council to ask questions of staff. Councillor Fullerton moved a motion to have staff resolve the site specific issues identified in the public presentation in favour of the property owners, which did not receive a seconder. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that Common Council schedule a meeting in Council Chambers on Tuesday September the 91h, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. to allow further questions to staff concerning Zone SJ. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 10. Consideration of By -laws 11. Submissions by Council Members 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Supplemental Agenda 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor Strowbridge Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on September 81h, 2014 be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal X 99- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 9, 2014/LE 9 SEPTEMBRE 2014 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, and Strowbridge Regrets: Councillor Reardon - and - P. Woods, City Manager; M. Tompkins, Solicitor; J. Hamilton, Commissioner Growth and Community Development; S. Forfar, Deputy Commissioner Growth and Community Development; N. Jacobsen, Commissioner of Strategic Services; P. Ouellette, Executive Director; A. Poffenroth, Deputy Commissioner, Building and Inspection Services; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; K. Tibbits, Administrative Assistant 1. Call To Order The Mayor called the meeting to order. 1.1 Zone SJ Discussion Council members discussed the site specific zoning changes requested by landowners during the ZoneSJ public hearing. Staff responded to questions. Ms. Tompkins made the following comments: • The Community Planning Act sets out all authorities and processes relating to planning matters. • The Act governs the adoption of the municipal plan and any related bylaws. • The City is mandated to adopt a zoning bylaw subsequent to the adoption of a municipal plan. • The zoning bylaw must align with the municipal plan. • The purpose of the zoning bylaw is to carry out the intent of the municipal plan. • The policies under the municipal plan prevail when a conflict exists between the municipal plan and the zoning bylaw. • The adoption of a zoning bylaw requires a public hearing process. • The draft zoning bylaw is in line with the current municipal plan. • A municipal plan amendment is required to accommodate many of the site specific zoning changes requested by the landowners during the public hearing process. Ms. Tompkins explained that Council members should be cautious of expressing opinions respecting the site specific zoning amendments requested by landowners during the ZoneSJ public hearing process. A separate public hearing is required to consider the site specific zoning and municipal plan amendments. Ms. Hamilton recommended that in order to maintain momentum with the ZoneSJ process, Council approve the draft zoning bylaw and provide planning staff with direction for site specific considerations to be submitted to Council in a subsequent plan amendment process. She noted that Council could chose to proceed with one of the following options: • Move forward with ZoneSJ in its current form. • Make minor changes consistent with the municipal plan in advance of the plan amendment process for any site specific proposal. • Delay the adoption of ZoneSJ until the site specific plan amendments are considered. Ms. Forfar responded to site specific questions from Council members. 7 99- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 9, 2014/LE 9 SEPTEMBRE 2014 On motion of Councillor Merrithew Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that Council refer public input received at the September 8, 2014 public hearing on the proposed Zoning Bylaw, including input and advice from the PAC and members of the public who requested changes to ZoneSJ, for a report back on September 29, 2014; and further That the report back to Council address the requirement to initiate a Municipal Plan amendment process to give consideration of site specific requests of the property owners including options to waive application fees; and further That Council provide direction at that time with respect to the particular requests. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Fullerton and McAlary voting nay. 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor Norton Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on September 9t", 2014 be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal n. 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 15, 2014/LE 15 SEPTEMBRE 2014 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 - 6:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Norton, and Strowbridge Regrets: Deputy Mayor Rinehart; Councillors Reardon and Merrithew - and - P. Woods, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; C. Graham Comptroller; W. Edwards, Commissioner of Transportation and Environment Services; J. Hamilton, Commissioner of Growth and Community Services; J. Armstrong, Deputy Fire Chief; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; P. Anglin, Deputy Common Clerk. Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Norton called the meeting to order and Rev. John Paul Westin offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of August 25, 2014 2.2 Minutes of September 2, 2014 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on August 25, 2014, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on September 2, 2014, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved with the addition of items 17.1 Committee of the Whole - Partridge Island Study Refresh; and 17.2 Committee of the Whole — Recommended Appointment to Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan Board of Trustees. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Contract 2014 -5: Watermain Cleaning & Lining, Phase 10 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2014 -160: Contract 2014 -5: Watermain Cleaning & Lining, Phase 10, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 15, 2014/LE 15 SEPTEMBRE 2014 5.2 Refer to item 14.1. 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations /Presentations 9. Public Hearings 10. Consideration of By -laws (Councillor Farren withdrew from the meeting) 10.1 Third Reading Zoning ByLaw Amendment - 431 Millidge Avenue 10.1.1 Section 39 Conditions On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3250 square metres, located at 431 Millidge Avenue, also identified as being a portion of PID No. 00041483, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "B- 2" General Business, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Lowe voting nay. The by -law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the development and use of the parcel of land with an area of approximately 3,250 square metres, located at 431 Millidge Avenue, also identified as being a portion of PID Number 00041483, be subject to the following conditions: a) That the use of the property be restricted to a medical clinic or business office with a gross floor area not exceeding approximately 650 square metres; b) That all parking areas and driveways be paved with asphalt and enclosed by continuous cast -in -place concrete curbs to protect landscaping and facilitate proper drainage; c) No parking shall be located between the building and the street; d) That all disturbed areas of the site not occupied by buildings and vehicular areas must be landscaped; e) That the applicant's consultant conduct a traffic impact study and submit it to the City's Chief Engineer, or his designate, for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. The study must review the proposed location of the access and assess the risk of the proposed access, and provide potential mitigation measures. All required improvements identified in the report as necessary to enhance the safety of the site must be included in the design on the site plan and completed prior to the occupancy of the building for business purposes; f) The stormwater drainage for the site must be developed and maintained in accordance with a detailed stormwater drainage plan and design brief prepared by the proponent and subject to approval by the Chief City Engineer or his designate; g) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, 10 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 15, 2014/LE 15 SEPTEMBRE 2014 loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, landscaped areas, including location of planting materials and other site features; h) The approved plans mentioned in condition (f) and (g) above must be attached to the application for building permit for the development; and i) All work shown on the site plan and drainage plan must be completed by the proponent within one year of the building permit being issued. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Lowe voting nay. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3250 square metres, located at 431 Millidge Avenue, also identified as being a portion of PID No. 00041483, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "B- 2" General Business, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Lowe voting nay. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." (Councillor Farren re- entered the meeting) 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Quarterly Meetings for Heads of Economic Development Organizations (Deputy Mayor Rinehart) On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that Council direct the Board heads of the City's economic development organizations to meet at least quarterly with the goal of facilitating effective and efficient economic development. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11.2 City Vehicles (Councillor Farren) (Tabled Aug 18, 2014) The item was not lifted from the table. 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 2014 Safer School Zones Program Implementation On motion of Councillor Strowbridge Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2014 -158: 2014 Safer School Zones Program Implementation, Common Council direct the City Solicitor to put the following Traffic Bylaw Amendments into proper translated format for Council's consideration: • Add Article 23(1) with the following wording: "No person shall drive a vehicle within School Zones indicated in Schedule T -1 in excess of the speed indicated in Schedule T -1 during the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on the days during which the school in the vicinity of said School Zone is in session ", • Add Schedule T -1 - Speed Limits in School Zones, immediately after Schedule T, • Add the following to the newly created Schedule T -1: 11 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 15, 2014/LE 15 SEPTEMBRE 2014 o Union Street with Limits Crown Street to 315 metres westerly and Speed Limit of 40 KM /H o Loch Lomond Road with Limits 227 metres west of Courtenay Avenue to 200 metres east of Courtenay Avenue and Speed Limit of 40 KM /H, • Add Bayside Drive, East side, with limits Courtenay Avenue to Park Avenue to Schedule B (No Parking Anytime); and • Add Courtenay Avenue, Both sides, with limits Loch Lomond Road to 170 metres southerly to Schedule B. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.2 School Crossing Guards On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that that the report M &C 2014 -157 School Crossing Guards, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.3 Contract 2013 -13: Millidge Ave. and Area - Sanitary Sewer Installations On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that the report M &C 2014 -150: Contract 2013 -13: Millidge Ave. and Area — Sanitary Sewer Installations, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.4 Fleet Usage Policy (Tabled on September 2, 2014) On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that item 12.4 Fleet Usage Policy be tabled until the September 29th meeting of Common Council. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13. Committee Reports 13.1 City of Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan: 2013 Audited Financial Statements On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the report entitled City of Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan: 2013 Audited Financial Statements, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fullerton voting nay. 13.2 Saint John Board of Police Commissioners: Saint John Police Force 2014 Operating Budget - April Financial Results On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the report entitled Saint John Board of Police Commissioners: Saint John Police Force 2014 Operating Budget — April Financial Results, be received for information. voting nay. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fullerton 12 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 15, 2014/LE 15 SEPTEMBRE 2014 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 14.1 Transportation Strategic Plan On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that the report M &C 2014 -159: Transportation Strategic Plan, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fullerton voting nay. 15. General Correspondence 15.1 North Star Holdings Ltd Letter re Follow -Up to Proposed Plan to Stimulate Development On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that the letter from North Star Holdings Ltd re Follow -Up to Proposed Plan to Stimulate Development, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Partridge Island Study Refresh On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on September 15th, 2014, Common Council approve a contribution from the City of Saint John up to $5,000 toward the cost of hosting meetings, providing venues, advertising and final report printing costs to support an update of the 2004 Glen Group Study on Partridge Island. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 17.2 City Appointment to Pension Board Trustees On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on September 15th, 2014, the following appointment be made: Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan: to appoint Cheryl Nolan from September 15, 2014 to February 1, 2017. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor Strowbridge Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council of September 15th, 2014 be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. 13 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL SEPTEMBER 15, 2014/LE 15 SEPTEMBRE 2014 Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal 14 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL rf' f M &C2014 -168 tee. September 17, 201.4 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton .M City o€SWnt John And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Consent Agreement for proposed Encroachment of Brunswick Pipeline KP- 23.525 BACKGROUND The 2014 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program contains an approved project for the installation of a 250mm diameter sanitary force main as part of the Dever Road — Sanitary Lift Station "Y" Replacement project, which will cross the Brunswick Pipeline's natural gas pipeline located at KP- 23.525 near Dever Road. Brunswick Pipeline have reviewed the City's design drawings and have no objection to the crossing. A Consent Agreement is required. Brunswick Pipeline has delivered to the City the required Agreement. Staff reviewed the Agreement and there are no concerns or objections. The purpose of this report is to present the Agreement to Common Council for its consideration. REcommENDATIoN That the City of Saint John enter into a Consent Agreement with Brunswick Pipeline subject to the terms and conditions in the attached Agreement, for the purposes of facilitating the sanitary force main installation as part of the Dever Road — Sanitary Lift Station "Y" Replacement project and that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute the said agreement. Respectful l ubmitted h Camp e4,E�ng. unicipal Engineer Wm. Edwards P. Commissioner Transportation and Environment 15 13 CK�- - Brian Keenan, P. Eng. Engineering Manager J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager August 21, 2014 John Campbell, P. Eng. Project Engineer Municipal Operations & Engineering City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: Consent Agreement for your proposed Encroachment of Brunswick Pipeline KP 23.525, in the County of St. John, in the Province of New Brunswick Brunswick Pipeline "The Company" has reviewed the proposed Encroachment and will consent to it. In consideration of the Company consenting to the Encroachment, we ask that you agree to the following conditions precedent: 1. That you will comply with the general conditions for consent in Schedule "A ", attached hereto; 2. That you and your contractor will install the Encroachment strictly in the manner described in the Company's Transmission Guideline TG- 1OC, attached hereto; 3. That the Encroachment will be designed and constructed strictly in accordance with your drawing (Dever Road Lift Station Y Replacement, Civil Plan Dever Road Sta. 0+000 to 0 +180, stamp dated 8/7/2014) approved by the Company attached as hereto; 4. That the Encroachment will be completed within one (1) year of the date of this letter, otherwise this consent will terminate and a new application will be required. 5. That as per Schedule "A ", Section 5, Encroacher shall submit certificates or other evidence of such current insurance to the Company prior to any work commencing for the Encroachment. 6. That Green tape be installed across the width of the Brunswick Pipeline right of way 46 cm above the force main. Please sign and return all four (4) copies of the agreement, including the four (4) copies of the enclosed drawing and schedules. We will subsequently sign the copies of the agreement and will return two (2) for your use. Please ensure that a copy is sent to the persons who will be performing this work and that it is available "on- site ". Installation of the Encroachment can then proceed after giving a minimum of three (3) business days advance notice to Andrew Langille at 506 461 5681 or our Brunswick Pipeline call centre at 1 888 410 2220. 16 This Encroachment Agreement and Schedule "A ", TG -10C and any attachments constitute the entire Encroachment Agreement between the Company and the Encroacher and any change or alteration hereof shall be made in writing between the parties. Your very truly, BRUNSWICK FIPELINE Andrew L.angille, M.Sc., P.Geo. Lands, Public Awareness and Emergency Planning Coordinator Read and agreed to at Saint John, New Brunswick, this day of 2014. Encroacher: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Mayor Common Clerk Common Council Resolution: .2014 17 SCHEDULE 'A' General Conditions for Encroachment Consent 1. In this agreement: (a) the term "Encroacher" refers to the person(s) who will own, operate and maintain the Facility; (b) the term "Contractor" means the person(s) who constructs and installs the Facility; (c) the term "Facility" refers to the works of the Encroacher as described in the covering letter- agreement to this Schedule; (d) the term " Encroachment" refers to the Encroachment of the Company's pipeline(s) by the Facility at the location described in the covering letter - agreement to this Schedule. 2. The Company consents to the Encroachment to the extent that it has the right to do so and the Encroacher shall be responsible for obtaining all other applicable approvals, permits, orders and permissions required to construct and install the Facility. 3. Encroacher agrees to comply with all applicable rules, orders, regulations, codes and guidelines of any competent government body or organization affecting the design, installation, construction and operation of the Facility. 4. Encroacher agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Company against any claims, demands, actions, suits, proceedings, damages, injuries (including injuries resulting in death) that may arise as a result of the construction, installation and operation of the Facility. 5. In connection with Clause 4, above, Encroacher, or Contractor, at its own expense shall carry and keep in full force and effect; (a) Comprehensive General Liability insurance with an inclusive limit for personal injury and property damage of Five Million dollars ($5,000,000.00), and; (b) Automobile Liability Insurance (`owned" and "non- owned ") with an inclusive limit for bodily injury (including passengers) and property damage of One Million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Encroacher shall submit certificates or other evidence of such insurance to the Company prior to any work commencing for the Encroachment. 6. Encroacher agrees to personally perform the installation and construction of the Facility or else to closely supervise its installation and construction by a duly qualified contractor(s) and to ensure that said contractor(s) complies with all terms and conditions of this agreement. in 7. The Encroacher shall pay forthwith upon presentation of an invoice by the Company, all reasonable costs incurred by the Company for: (a) Review, approval and inspection of the Encroachment; (b) Reinforcing, modifying or relocating the Company's pipeline(s) to accommodate the installation of Eneroacher's Facility or the maintenance and repair of its Facility; (c) Any reasonable incremental costs inured by the Company in the operation, maintenance, replacement and repair of its pipeline(s) which are caused by the Encroachment. 8. The terms and conditions of this consent shall apply to the construction and installation of the Facility and any future maintenance work that may be required. 9. This consent is for the Facility only as approved by the Company and any additional works or facilities proposed by the Encroacher shall be the subject of a separate agreement. 10. Encroacher hereby agrees and acknowledges that its rights in the Encroachment are subordinate to the easement agreement(s) of the Company that have been registered or obtained prior to this date and Encroacher shall cooperate with all reasonable requests made by the Company related to the operation, maintenance and repair of the Company's pipeline(s) within the easement(s). 11. In the case of default by the Encroacher to carry out any of the provisions of this agreement or if the condition of Encroacher's Facility has deteriorated and adversely affects the operation of the Company's pipeline(s), the Company may give written notice thereof. If the Encroacher fails to take all reasonable steps to remedy the default or the deterioration of the Facility within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the written notice by the Company, the Company may take such steps necessary to remedy the default or deterioration and Encroacher shall be liable for and shall pay forthwith all reasonable costs incurred by the Company in this regard. 12. All notices required to be given hereunder shall be delivered by registered mail or facsimile to the addresses shown on the covering letter - agreement and shall be deemed to be received on the fifth (5a') day following mailing thereof or upon confirmation of facsimile transmission. 13. This agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the province in which the Encroachment is situated. 14. Neither party to this agreement shall assign or transfer their rights and obligations hereunder to a third party without first obtaining the written consent of the other pay 19 15. The rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall terminate upon the earlier of: (a) two (2) years from the date hereof if the Encroacher has not completed the construction and installation of the Facility and restoration of the lands affected by the Encroachment; or (b) upon the proper abandonment or removal of the Facility and restoration of the lands to a condition acceptable to the Company and the owner of the property where the Encroachment is situated. 16. If any part of this agreement shall become null and void by virtue of law or governmental regulation, it shall be severed from the agreement, but the remaining terms and conditions shall remain in full force and effect. 20 Brunswick ' pe&,e rTaruuaissian cuideltaes Technical Manual r n9 _ deline Name: Y Requirements for Construction GuideHae Number: TG-010C G _Near Com, a� ,FipeT�nes_ , Dace: 06/20/1Al2^ Page: 1 of - ii - 1.0 PURPOSE This guideline presents the requirements for construction activities in the vicinity of Brunswick Pipeline's pipeline(s) or pipeline right -of -way and the movement of heavy vehicles or mobile equipment within or across the right. -of --way by parties other than Brunswick Pipeline. Brunswick Pipeline is herein referred to as the Company and includes Spectra Energy as the operator. These requirements are general in nature whereby specific circumstances may necessitate special considerations. These requirements have been developed to meet Section 5 of the National Energy Board's (NEB) Pipeline Crossing Regulations, Part II. Information regarding the approval and timing of applications depend on the nature of the encroachment under consideration and is included in this document. If you have any questions regarding this information, how it relates to your encroachment request, or for any other assistance, alease call the Company at the nearest Operations Centre listed below: Fredericton Operations Centre 26 Alison Boulevard Fredericton, NB E3 C 2N3 (506) 462 -4600 (telephone) (506) 462 -4B11 (fax) Attention: Lands, Emergency Planning and Public Awareness Coordinator Contractors considering excavation activities within 34 metres of the Company's pipeline right -of -way are encouraged to obtain a E' COar=HT 5recraA EMMWYC0Xr 2W7au RlRM NMUVM UPPMVMON OF A" ?0"10N & STRXMY rROMMMM 21 BrmasiTick Pipeline!, Tmnsmission Gui&fivar Tschniral Manual GuldeHne Name: Requiremena for Construction Gwdefine Number: T"1 0C ,� _Near Com an�Pi�relines _ T Date: OSROI2fl12— Uge: 2 of 46 __J copy of the NEB Pipeline Crossing Regulations and Excavation and Construction Near Pipelines documents available can the NEB website ('tiTjww.neb- opc.gc.ca) , In accordance with Section 112 of the National Energy Board ("NEB-) Act, the unauthorized crossing or construction or excavation across, on, along or under a right -of -way or excavation using power - operated (mechanical) equipment or explosives within the 30 metre (100 ft) safety zone is illegal. The following areas are addressed. 1.0 Purpose 2.0 Pre- Construction Approvals and Notifications 3.0 Site Visits To Locate Facilities 4.0 Items to be Provided for Review Process 5.0 General Requirements 6.0 Excavation 7.0 Blasting 8.0 Facility Crossings Appendix A - Drawing Requirements Appendix B - Typical Crossing Drawings Appendix C - Forms and Agreements Appendix D - Summary Checklist For Potential Excavators If any of the conditions stated in this document can not be satisfied, the Company representative shall be advised immediately. Q corrwarr $Pacrx4 ZN&wrCOAPJ007Arcwanrs xmmvw JWPwMRC"ON OF AW PVXVQV raST&WZX ypgWiarTBD 22 �' Transmisdan Guidelines Brunswick Pipeline ^ TechrrW Manuid Guideline Name: Requirements, for Construction Guiddiue Number. TG -OlOC� Near Com an ernes D.W.- 06izofi012 Pn e: 3 of 46___ -- _ _._.F..t _ g._ _ 2.0 PRE - CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS AND NOTIFICATIONS 2.1 Activities Requirina_qoapa4y Approval Prior to commencing work, the encroaching party (Encroacher) will require the Company's written permission for any proposed excavation, construction or temporary crossing upon, along, over, under or across the Company's pipeline or pipeline right -of -way as described below. Crossing with anything larger than a standard passenger vehicle or mobile equipment outside the traveled portion of a highway or public road. (Normal farming activities are not covered by this guideline. Refer to the Company's TG-- 113, "Evaluation of Shallow Cover in Cultivated Fields" and the Company's Lands, Emergency Planning and Public Awareness Coordinator. Construction of a facility such as: New permanent buried facilities - water, gas, oil, sewer, electrical, fiber optic, drains, etc. New permanent aboveground facilities -- power, telecommunication, cable tv, etc. New road or railroad installations or improvements New developments, grade changes, structures, parking areas, ditches, etc. Minor excavation activities - fences, trees, facility maintenance, etc. Excavation using explosives or power - operated (mechanical) equipment within the Company's pipeline right -of -way or within the NEB 30 metre safety zone. e carraxM sr=aa EMWGY CORP2MI ALL Sma" MUJIVEn 86PAWUCa7ON OFANY AO"IIvNZ STWCnYraosrsrrea 23 _ti__ _ _. Trans Tech rt Guidelines �3nunswick Pipel�ne ', �� _ Technfcal M_ aaua_1 Guideline Name. Requirements for Construction Fc� iaeline Numher: TG -010C _ Near Compaq�Ftelines _ _�nate: oUn0n012 J rage: 4 of 46 Seismic activity within 40 metres of the Company's pipeline right -of -way If the Encroacher is considering an activity which is not listed above, they should contact the Company representative to determine if their activity requires written permission and subsequent approval. 2.2 Request for Encroachment The Encroacher shall contact the Company to discuss details of the proposed construction or crossing activity and the information required for the Company's review. Copies of any proposed plans and /or drawings prepared in accordance with Appendix A - Drawing Requirements may be required for certain construction or encroachment activities and shall be submitted to the Company for review with the Encroacher's request. Examples of various types of crossing drawings are shown in Appendix B - Typical Crossing Drawings. 2 -3 C2MSRX Ras onge for Encroachment Requests Where the Company receives a request for permission for construction, excavation or crossing activities pursuant to paragraph 4(b) or 6(b) of the National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations, Fart I, the Company will inform the Encroacher within 10 working days of receiving the request, of whether or not permission is granted. Additional time for technical analysis may be needed for certain, construction projects affecting the integrity of the Company's pipeline(s). The Company representative will make a determination of the complexity of the proposed activity and the level of Company C COPYJUCHT SPECTRAENCRGT CORP2W ALL dNGMU REYERY&D REPRODUMONOPAMYPORTION 1S5TNCTLYPR0R1MrED 24 Brunswick Pipeine t2 Transmission Guidelines _ Tecn cal Manual ���e Nun: TG -010C rGzdenName: m ction Near Com n Y PhveUnes Date: iWii—ozi, 2 Page: s�of 46 approval required. 2.3.1 High Risk or Complex Activity Approval if the encroachment is approved, the Encroacher will be required to execute an Encroachment Agreement outlining the Company's requirements and conditions prior to beginning any work (See Appendix C). If the encroachment is refused, the Encroacher will be provided with the reasons for refusal. The Encroacher then has the right to contact the NEB to review the request as provided by the NEB Act, Section 112, The Encroachment Agreement must be completed, executed by both parties and returned to the Company prior to initiating any work. Additionally, three (3) working days (72 hours) notice is required before any activities can begin on site so that the Company may locate its pipeline(s) and have a field representative present during any excavation or construction activities. 2.3.2 Low Risk Activity A roval Approval for certain low risk encroachment activities will require the Encroacher to complete an On -Site Approval Agreement (Form 142) outlining the Company's requirements and conditions prior to beginning any work. The On -Site Approval Agreement form must be completed, executed by both parties and returned to the Company prior to initiating any work. Additionally, three (3) working days (72 hours) notice is required before any activities can begin on site so that the Company may locate its pipeline(s) 0 CVPVJWbT SPECTRA ENERM CORP2W ALL JuGra REsB&vm RRPROOMMONOF ANYPoxn&N is nwicrLY P1toHlaI 75D 25 MA ranswi- k F1 p€Ulie » .. (. Trwmmission Guldellnes _ Tedwkal Mammal Gi— Wdeline Name: Regurrements for Construct ion Guiaei a Number. TG-010C Near Company PY�elines _� , Date�Qb/�1�2012 Page: 6 of A6 and have a field representative present during any excavation or construction activities. 2.3.3 Emergency ActivL :6p2roval In the cape of emergency repairs to critical public infrastructure or for public safety where it is not practicable to undergo the standard 72 hour notification process, the Encroacher will be required to complete an Emergency Work Request Agreement (Form 200). 3. D SITE VTgT'rg R'n r.nraOrrP raarrr.TmriPa 3.1 The Company considers it essential that landowners, builders, utility companies, developers and contractors know the location and depth of the Company's pipeline(s) and requires that the pipeline(s) be shown on any plans or drawings. 3.2 If requested, the Company will field locate and mark its pipeline(s) at selected points in accordance with federal, provincial and local requirements at no cost to the contractor, developer, builder, utility company, or landowner. However, if the Company representative requires the pipeline be located by excavation, the cost to excavate the pipeline and restore surface improvements (e.g., pavement, landscaping, and sidewalks) shall be the responsibility of the contractor, developer, builder, utility company, or landowner. Note: A Company representative must be present during any excavation to expose the pipeline. During this period, accurate survey data of the Company's pipeline(s) shall be obtained by a qualified OCOPYAUGNTSPECM ENERGYCORP2007ALLBra97SAEMVED A" AmUCr IONDPANYPORTION!SMUCTLYPItu marrED 26 Brunswick pe.ne l", "ffi Tiianrnliasion Grtideliirea _ _ _ _ Technical Manual Guideline Name: Requirements for Corntruetcon Geideline Number: TG -OlOC Near Company P>:petines Lnale: 06lUM12 Page: 7 of 46 surveyor provided by the contractor, builder, developer, utility company, or landowner for the preparation of plans, sections, and profile drawings. 3.3 in addition tc complying with the above requirements, developers, contractors, builders, utility companies, and landowners shall comply with the provisions of all federal„ provincial and /or local one -call regulations relating to excavation and demolition work in the vicinity of underground facilities. 4.0 ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED FOR REvIE'W PROCESS Simple residential driveways cr utility crossings of the pipeline right -of -way may not be subject to all of the requirements of this section. The Company's Lands, Emergency Planning and Public Awareness Coordinator will determine what information is required to be submitted for review by the Company on a case by case basis. At a minimum the following information shall be provided with a request to the Company to determine if equipment crossings and associated construction activity can be approved. a drawing or sketch showing the pipeline in relation to the proposed construction activity excavation plan including the method of installation of all foreign facility crossings equipment description with weights and track /tire dimensions of any equipment that may be need to cross the pipeline during construction activity In addition, any construction activity that requires the submission of drawings to a permitting agency for construction a COPYMif! SPECTRA ENERGY CORD 2$07 All Y[GM R6SE1lV® RBPRODUCMN OFANY PORWONis IrRwrLP pROHISMD 27 Brunswick Pipe fine 7. . Transmiuion Gui&U„da _ _ _ _ rechniM Maraud rGuideiiae Name; Requirements for C'onstructwn Guideline Humber: T_G_010e ►_ _ . __,___ 4 _.._yeQl Co�gpy Avelines - - -_ , Date: 067MO12 Page: S of 46� _ adjacent to or encroaching on the Company's pipeline or pipeline right -of -way must include the information regarding Company facilities and pipeline right -of --way specified in this oeetion. 4.1 Upon review of this specification and the incorporation Of all applicable requirements, a complete set of design drawings showing existing conditions and proposed alterations shall be submitted to the Company for review. 4.2 Upon final approval from the Company, four (4) sets of the final (definitive) design drawings and an electronic copy shall be provided to the Company. The Encroacher shall provide as -built drawings of all installations to the Company within 45 days after completion of the project. 4.3 The Company's pipeline(s) and pipeline right -of -way limits shall be accurately shown on all drawings. Upon 72 hours advance notice, Company personnel will locate and mark the location of the Company's pipeline(s) . The Encroacher'e survey crew can then accurately locate the facility by a field survey. 4.4 The Eneroacher'm survey crew will be responsible for laying out the proposed foreign facility in the field and locating the Company's facility horizontally and vertically, accurately representing it in the plan and Profile views on the drawing(s) per the requirements in Appendix A. The Company's Region Technical Staff will evaluate field data to determine whether additional ss AMUCrMN OFAMPORT101,15 srr =y f1 WUWrED Brunswick Pipes; Transmission Guidelines Technical Man_ Hal Guideline Name: Requirements for Construction � Guideline Number: T"10C I Near Com any ehnes Hate: 0�r::Ji ' ram: of 46 _ __. .�_ _..._�P___ _. _ _ i . design requirements are necessary for areas of proposed equipment /vehicular travel. 5.0 GMMRAL R$ OIRMMTS 5.1 For encroachments within the Company's pipeline right - of -way, the Encroacher shall maintain the integrity of the Company's pipeline(s) by ensuring the Company's pipeline is in compliance with the specifications and requirements of the current edition of CSA 2662 and other local /provincial regulations. 5.2 No buildings, structures or other obstructions may be erected within, above or below the pipeline right -of- way. If requested, the Company will furnish pipeline easement information which describes the pipeline right -of -way width. 5.3 Wire type, stockade, decorative and similar type fencing that can be easily removed and replaced may cross the pipeline right -of -way at or near right angles. Fences crossing the pipeline right -of -way must have a 3.7 in (12 ft) gate for access. No fence shall be allowed within the Company's pipeline right -of -way parallel to the Company's pipeline(s). 5.4 Planting of trees is not permitted on the pipeline right -of -way. The Company may side trim trees that overhang the Company pipeline right -of -way to eliminate obstruction of right -of -way visibility from the ground or air. In certain situations, some trees may be allowed as defined in the landowner letter of r, COPYRIONT SPECTRA $YERQY CORP 20V ALL RIGM RESERVED REPRODUMON OF ANY PO$TIONISSrNCnYPR0N79I" 29 Brunswick Pipenne t�i •. ? : D- ansmusion CW&hnss Technkat_ManuAl Gufdeli;e Name: Requicrements fpor�Construction Guideline Number: TG-OIOC _ _BQT CO 71'8rili8S Date: OG/20f1Q12 Page: XO o146 E commitments. 5.5 Planting of shrubs, bushes or other plants associated with landscaping on the Company's pipeline right -of -way in subject to Company approval and shall not exceed 1.2 m (4 ft) in height at maturity. 5.6 No drainage swales and no reductions in grade are permitted on the Company's pipeline right -of --way. Limited additional fill may be deposited with prior written approval from the Company. Proposed landscaping grades shall provide 0.9 m (3 ft) minimum cover over the Company's facility. The Company shall determine the maximum cover allowed over a Company facility based on pipeline specifications and local conditions, including such issues as soil types. Proposed landscaping grades shall not exceed the Company's maximum allowable slope of 4:1 longitudinal with the facility and /or 9 :1 crass - slope. The Company reserves the right to modify these cover /grade requirements if deemed necessary. Proposed grades shall not restrict Company access to the right - of -way or cause ponding of surface water on the Company's pipeline right -of -way. Proposed grades shall not redirect the flow of water on to the Company's pipeline right -of -way or generate any amount of erosion on or near the Company's pipeline right -of -way. 5.7 A Company representative shall give prior approval for kJ COPTBlCRT SPEcr— RNMROY CORP 2007AU AVOWS RMRYED REPRODUCTION OF"" POK"ONM 37WCTLY P&WJBrM 30 Brunswick Pipeline TrmimbsiDn Guidermes Tethm*al Manua! GufdeUne Name: Requirements for Construction Guideline Number: m4ioc Near Cam an R' alines Date: fi of 46 mobile equipment /vehicles to cross the Company's pipeline(s) at any location. Maximum and minimum depths of cover for all areas of equipment /vehicular travel (e.g., highways, roads, railroads, construction access, driveways, parking lots, etc.) will be determined by the Company and local, state, provincial and federal requirements. For this purpose, cover can be defined as the distance from the top of the pipe to the finished grade_ Mitigative methods where the cover is insufficient will be determined on a case by case basis. Temporary bridging such as additional cover, construction mats, or temporary structural spans shall be installed for the protection of the Company pipeline at any point of construction equipment crossing unless approval to cross without protection is specifically granted by the Company. 9.8 Test pits are performed to supply the contractor /developer with accurate elevations of the Company's pipelines) and to determine the quality of the fill material around the pipeline(s). At the discretion of the Company, test pits may be required in areas where equipment /vehicle crossings and /or foreign facility crossings are proposed. For additional information on test pits reference Section 6.0. 5.9 Parking areas should be planned so as to avoid covering the pipeline right -of -way if possible. O coPYwr,nT SPBcnu HNEJWYCORP20V ALL RIOfl7S RRSERYED RBPRODUMONOMA"PORTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED 31 � unsw k e AM Winn Guidelines _ _ Tsehl�lcat Manua! rCuidellne Name. -- equiremen for Conshuc �yJ4 - tion Guideline Number: mG -910C L_.. _ Near Co L �x felines _ _ _ Hate, nsnorioii � : 1� era ^ 5.10 No roads, foreign lines, or utilities may be installed parallel to the Company's pipeline(s) within the Company's pipeline(s) right -of -way. 5.11 All foreign lines, roads, electrical cables and other utilities shall cross the Company's pipeline right -of- way at an angle at or near right angles, if practical. 5.12 If, in the judgment of the Company, the proposed work necessitates the installation of casing pipe and /or other alterationa to protect the Company pipeline(s), the contractor, developer, builder, utility company, or landowner may be required to pay the Company the estimated cost prior to the Company beginning the alterations. Once the actual costs have been incurred and tabulated by the Company, cost variances shall be settled. 5.13 At the discretion of the Company, concrete slabs or other protective devices may be installed over the Company's pipeline(s) to provide necessary protection. Drawings for the concrete slabs /devices and their installation will be provided upon request. 5.14 All design standards mandated by federal, provincial, and /or local government agencies shall be satisfied. A letter shall be submitted to the Company stating that all appropriate federal, provincial„ and /or local permits, authorizations and /or approvals have been granted or obtained for the subject project The Company's final approval is contingent upon compliance with this requirement. 4 COPYRJUB TSPECnL4 'UNEROYCORP2007 ALL MaMRMERVED REPRODUCTION OF ANT PORZ7'ONISSTIfCZLYPROMIarr O 32 Bruns wick pelhae Po Transmission Guidelenes r- _ _. _ _ . . _ .� _ _ - - _ Technical Manual I Guideline Name: Requirements for Construction Guideline Number: TGA10C uo oanv Pipelines -- - bate : _06/2012012 Page: 13 of 46„ 6.0 EXCAVATION Excavation operations shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines set forth below. 6.1 No excavation, crossing, backfilling or construction operations near the Company's pipeline or pipeline right -of -way shall be performed unless the Company representative is on site. The Company representative shall have full authority to stop the work if it is determined that the work is being performed in an unsafe manner or if a foreign object is spotted, 6.2 During the period of April 15 - November 1 test pits may be performed by the Encroacher provided Company personnel are present. Test pits can be scheduled by contacting the Lands, Emergency Planning and Public Awareness Coordinator. The Company will make every effort to accommodate the Encroacher's schedule for excavation of test pits. Such scheduling however, may be subject to availability of Company personnel, weather, field operating conditions, etc. 6.3 During the period of November 1 - April 15 test pit excavation of the pipeline by means of mechanical equipment is not allowed. In instances where the developer must expedite the design process, pipeline elevations may be obtained, depending on field conditions, by hand digging or soft digging equipment. The developer must contact the Company's Lands, Emergency Planning and Public Awareness Coordinator to coordinate these activities. 6 COPYWOMr SPECTRA EMEWY CORP 2041 ALL WGIM REUR VED )U4PRODUMON OF ANY PORTION 6 STRICTLY n(owalTED 33 Brunswick A Tmmmission Guidelines rG�aidelfne Name: Repdremeno for Construction - Cn1ae�Ine ���; TGO10hnical Manual Near Company Pipelines Date: 06r?A/2012 Page: 14 of 46 _ 6.4 Excavation shall not be permitted within the Company,B pipeline right -of -way or the 30 metre NEB safety zone until an excavations plan has been reviewed and approved by the Company representative. The excavation plan may be a written document or a verbal discussion with the Company representative. At a minimum, the excavation Plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Backhoe set -up positions in relationship to the pipeline Need for benching to level backhoe Required excavation depth and length Sloping and shoring requirements ingress /egress ramp locations minimum clearance requirements for mechanical equipment Pipeline location and depth Verify bar has been welded onto backhoe teeth and side cutters have been removed Spoil pile location o Compliance with Canada occupational Health and Safety regulations 6.5 The use of mechanical equipment in the vicinity of the Company's pipelines shall be directed by the Company representative in accordance with company procedures and applicable regulations. The tolerance zone for excavation by third party personnel using mechanical equipment is 3 m (10 ft) until the pipeline is visually located. Hand tools or soft dig equipment shall be used 0 carrRtcer3PffcM XMJZR0rCaxP2W7ALL WQM AWR VM RAPRODUMIONoFAWPI MONUs7&rcrLypWglFllxD 34 Brmodek Pipeline � cu�dana _ _ _ �'sclrufcal MaRnal �Gui�eline Narne:N Requirement$ for Conatructaon M c�iaeiin; x�mber: Ta i Z � I Near Com►n elfnes - _ more: 06oria12 Page: 15 of r_ to complete the final excavation of the pipeline inside the "restricted" mechanical equipment limits of the excavation. 6.6 The use of a trenchlese excavation method (i.e., bored crassings) shall be employed in such a way as to ensure a minimum radial clearance required by applicable standards is obtained between the new facility and the Company's pipelines) 6.7 Federal regulations require that the Company's pipeline be inspected whenever it is exposed. Canada occupational Health and Safety regulations pertaining to excavations must therefore be met to ensure the safety of the Company representative who must enter the excavation. Furthermore: ample time should be provided to allow the Company to perform relevant inspections prior to proceeding with backfill operations. 7.0 HLAST1NG Blasting operations shall be performed in accordance with the minimum guidelines set forth below. 7.1 The Company shall be advised of any blasting proposed within 60 metres (200 ft) of the Company's pipeline, 150 metres (500 ft) for large scale quarry -type blasting. No blasting is permitted within the Company's pipeline right -of -way, and no blasting shall occur outside the Company's pipeline right -of -way if the Company determines that such blasting may be detrimental to its facilities. o CO"RWJVr SPAMRA SNERQY CORP 2W Au. RW7S RESER VED MPROM CMN Of ANYMN770N L4 SrIUCPLY PX0MJftlrEQ 35 AA - i '.DFipeHne Trummrission Guldellnes ' - _ _ . -. -. - - _ . _. TechMcal Manual Giaddine Name: Requirements for Consh- ucchon '� Guideline Number: TG -0100 1Vetxr Comte y 1°ipelines_ _ _ _ _ neee: o6nunaii �Page�l6 of 46 _ 7.2 The Company reserves the right to require the party responsible for blasting furnish a detailed blasting plan at least ten (10) working days prior to blasting to allow for evaluation and to make arrangements for a Company representative to witness the blasting operation including drilling and loading holes, Blasting codes shall be followed in all cases 8.0 FACILITY CROSSINGS All buried facilities shall be installed as noted below and as stated in Sections 5.10 and 5.11, as appropriate. 8.1 Buried facilities shall be installed below the Company's pipeline(s). The Company requires a minimum of 30 cm (12 in) of clearance however in some situations this may need to be increased in circumstances, such as bored crossings. Additional separation may be required in marshy areas or other areas where insufficient clearance would have a potential to cause future problems. 8.2 If the normal crossing requirements present undue difficulties, buried facilities may be installed above the Company's pipeline(s) with prior approval from the Company representative. All such facilities shall be installed with a minimum of 30 cm (12 in.) of clearance. The Company will not be responsible for any damage or required repairs which are caused by the Company's operating and maintenance activities when ;Foreign facilities are installed above the pipeline(s). Protective measures such as a concrete encasement, REPRODUCTION OFANY AORTIoN 18 STNCMy PROEJBfTBD 36 Brunswick Pipeline ~< � � Pransm�SSEon cuura�� { Guidclfne :Maine: Requirements for Construdion Guideline Number. TG -010C � Near Company Pt ernes- Date: 06/20/2012 1' Page. 17 of '46 _ - _. ditch marking tape, and/ or above ground markers may be required as deemed necessary by the Company representative. 8.3 Suitable backfill shall, be placed between the foreign facility and the Company's pipeline(e). Suitable backfill is backfill free of rocks, refuse and any foreign material including, but not limited to, skids, welding rods, pipe rings, trash, trees and shrubbery limbs. In the case of anticipated crossing by mobile equipment /vehicles the contractor, developer, builder or utility company shall provide specific material and compaction specifications for review by the Company. 8.4 The installation of test leads (two No. 10 THWN black insulated copper wires) attached at the point of crossing for corrosion control monitoring may be required for metallic lines as directed by the Company representative. Test wires shall be routed underground and terminated at a point specified by the Company 8.5 The following requirements shall be met for fiber optic cables which encroach upon the Company's pipeline right -of -way. 8.5.1 High capacity fiber optic cable shall be installed in a rigid non - metallic conduit or covered in 15- 20 cm (6-8 in) of concrete which has been colored with an orange dye extending across the entire pipeline right -of -way. Other protective measures may be considered for non -high capacity cables. 10 COPYRIGHT 5PAC RA ENERGY CO RP AW ALL RIGM RMEAVED REP RODUC7701V OFANYPORTIQVISsmcrLYp &0mz I7SD 37 rurswlck Pipeline a 4� _ _ _ TransmiJJ>;ioncW& _ Tedmical Manual �G►utdeliue Name: Requirements for Construction Guideline Number: TG -0100 Near Co_a� Pipelines Dare: O ono12 PJige: 11i of 46 8.5.2 The fiber optic cable shall be installed a minimum of 30 cm (12 in) below the Company's ninelinefRl across the entire width of the pipeline right -of- way, unless approved by the Company representative. 8.5.3 Orange warning tape shall be buried a minimum of 45 cm (IB in) directly above the fiber optic cable across the entire width of the Company's pipeline right -of -way, where practical. 8.5.4 The fiber optic cable crossing shall be clearly and permanently marked with identification signs on both sides of the Company's pipeline right-of- way. Markings shall be maintained by the foreign party for the lifetime of the facility, 8.6 The information listed below shall be furnished to the Company for all proposed electrical cables which will encroach upon the Company's pipeline right -of -way. + Number, spacing and voltage of cables 0 Line loading and phase relationship of cables n Grounding system Position of cables and load facilities relative to pipeline(s) 8.7 Specific installation, requirements for cables carrying less than 600 volts shall be determined by the Company on a case by case basis. 0 cPrYJUG" SPZCTRA EMB&GV COM26VALL JUGHn eJSSRRVED MPRODUCIZaN 0W ANY PORITOVJ'S SnucrLY pjtoHWffj D 0 Branswek Pipeline ttn s Tmmmuston Guldees _ _ _ _ Tec7uuegl Manual F6Q&line Naz e: Requirements for Construction Guideline Number. TG -010C I Near Com an lkeqi es Date: 061ZO/Z012 Page: 19 of 46 ^ I 8.8 The following installation requirements shall be met for buried electrical cables carrying over 600 volts but less than 7,600 volts. The Company's Region Technical Staff will determine the installation procedures for buried electrical lines carrying voltages over 7,600 volts on a case by case basis. 8.8.1 The electrica non - metallic thickness of been colored entire width way. I cable shall be installed in a rigid conduit covered in a minimum 5 cm (2 in) of concrete which has with a red dye extending across the of the Company's pipeline right -of- 8.8.2 The electrical cable shall be installed a minimum of 30 cm (12 in) below the Company's pipeline(s) across the entire width of the Company's pipeline right -of -way, unless approved by the Company representative. 8.8.3 Each phase conductor should be surrounded with a spirally wound, concentric neutral conductor. The neutral may be within the outer cable jacket 8.8.4 Red warning tape shall be buried a minimum of 45 cm (is in) directly above the electric cable across the entire width of the Company's pipeline right -of -way, where practical- 8.8.5 The electric cable crossing shall be clearly and permanently marked with identification sigr_s on G COPYRIGHT SPECTRA ENERGY CORP1007Aa RIGHTS RESERVED REPRMULTION OF ANYPORTION IS STRICT6YPROHIHITPA 39 .41'. Trwumisslon Guidelines Brunswick Pipeline 941-J •�`� Technimi manual i Guideline Name: .requirements CGuideline o Number: TG.o10c — _._ Near Company amines Dace: o6rzonolz 1 Page. 20,of 46V. bath sides of the Company's pipeline right -of -way. 8,9 Overhead power line and telephone line, telecommunication installations shall be reviewed by the Company on an individual basis. 8.9.1 Prior to construction, the Encroacher shall determine if electrical interference between its facilities and the Company's Pipeline(s) will occur. If so, the Encroacher shall be responsible for providing mitigation design to a level 15 volts maximum A.C. Steady State; in accordance with CSA Standard 022.3 No 6M (most recent version), "Principles and Practices of Electrical Coordination Between Pipelines and Electric Supply Lines ". 8:9.2 The vertical distance between the lowest wire of an overhead line catenary and the surface of the ground within the pipeline easement shall not be lees than the minimum vertical clearance distance set out in that part of the Canadian Electrical Code Part III (CSA Standard C22.3, "Overhead Systems and Underground Systems "). 8.9.3 Overhead lines shall be installed with a minimum clearance of 7.62 m (25 ft) above the grade of the Company's pipeline right -of -way. The installation of poles and guys will not be permitted on the Company's pipeline right -of -way, and not within ten (10) metres from a Company appurtenance, e carrerour5recnu R)vsJtGrCoxr2gffALLx HTSxssanvan RVR0DEX770N&FAVV PDItTION F$ SMCMy pWffjVlrE,U .N Brunswick ��� � ck Pipeline a � r � Technical Manual_ ` Guidetine Name: Requirements for Construction Guideline Number: TG- OIOC _ ' Near Com an ' alines n,�ce: odaorml2 p L __� __- q__: zI or as unless assurances are made that the encroachment will not affect the Company appurtenance as a result of a fault or failure. 8.9.4 The Encroacher, where directed by the Company, shall install aerial warning devices on an overhead line for the protection of the Company's personnel and equipment conducting aerial patrols. O cotrarGNrSracrax Emsxcrcoaraoa7ALLRza na gmaRvaa RMMDDDCZMW ofMrPornownnWCrarrWjWUW o 41 Brunswick peliIIe ,; . Tratumi lion Guidelines rechnlcal Manual Ff Gum efi a Nom: Teg— wremenl'8 for Construction Guideline Number. TG -0100 R ._ -- Near Com�ap ► elutes _o�zo5o12 , a e: 22 of a6. APPMMIx n Drawing Requirements The following information is required when preparing drawings for encroachment approval applications. The Encroacher should contact the Company at an early date for information and to discuss requirements with respect to the proposed activity. The Encroacher shall provide the Company four (4) copies of all drawings, in addition to PDF or other standard electronic format document. Show and identify: In Metric - scale of 1:500 or at a scale which clearly defines all details of the Encroacher's facility; Accuracy to one tenth (0.1) meter or better; Facilities which tie dimensions to lot or survey line (preferably along the Company's pipeline and /or pipeline right -of -way boundary). Show location of Company's piPelirie(a), pipeline appurtenances, markers, cathodic test facilities and right -of -way and other utilities and utility easements; 4 Angle of the crossing (measured to the Company's pipeline easement) ; * Property lines; * Width of road and Encroacher's facility; road limits in the vicinity of the G COPY=RT SPECTRA ENERar CORP 2007 ALL JUGBTS RESERWO REPRODUCHON OF ANYPORTIoN!s sTRrCTLr pjWHIBJTBD 42 B i un tai% Idle `` Trantmission Guidelines - -- -- _ - _ _ -- -- - Technical Manual I Guideline Name: Requirements for C`onslruction - �GWde-Um- Numb er: TCY-0100 Near Company Pipelines te: 06/2M12 - Pine: 23 of 46 For parking lots, storage yards: show nearest building which tie dimensions to nearest Company pipeline and /or pipeline right -of -way boundary; For parking lots, storage yards: describe barrier preventing access to unaffected portion(s) of Company's right -of -way (e.g., fence or concrete curb). PROFILE /CROSS SECTION VIEWS) The section view is to be along the proposed utility that crosses the Company's pipeline. The profile view is to be along the Company's Pipeline(s) and is only required if the Encroacher's facility is on the Company's pipeline easement for a definable distance (i.e., parallel encroachments such as roads and any grading of the easement, etc.) Show and Identify: In Metric - vertical 1:100, horizontal 1.200 or to a scale that clearly identifies all details of the Encroacher's facility; • Accuracy to one tenth (0.1) meter or better; Any relevant Company pipeline appurtenances; location of cathodic test facilities (if applicable) • Existing and proposed grades Depth of the Company's pipeline; Vertical distance of the proposed utility below grade; * Clearance to the Company's pipelines) j Diameter of each of the Company's pipeline; Diameter(s) of pipeline casing (if applicable) ® COPY& G HTSPECTRAENSRGYCORP2007 ALL iurff inzsERYSD RFPROWCTRAV OF ANY POR770NlS BTRJCMT lROjU9JTKa 43 B'x'mswiGk Plpefne ! .. eW-Transmission Guidelines F i -- _ _ _ T4chnkal Manud Guidefte Name: Requirements for Construction C Number: TG -0100 _. _ _ Near Com anvPivveRnes _ �ngi�. OUM2012. �i Page: 2 of 46 �l Company pipeline right -of -way limits; If elevations are assumed, then reference the point of the assumed datum; Distance of the Company's pipeline(s) in relation to the Company pipeline right -of -way limits; Ground surface profile for the 20 metres on either side of the Encroacher's facility; Details of Encroacher's facilities with minimum clearances from each to the Company's pipeline(s) [minimum clearances - roads /parking lots /storage yards - 1.3 m (4.26 ft); railways - 2.0 m (6.56 ft); ditches - 0.8 (2.62 ft); underground utilities - 0.3 m (1 £t)] Details of any protective devices for Company's pipeline or Encroacher's facility (i.e., concrete slabs, casings, pads, temporary structures, etc.) if requested by the Company and shown on the plan and profile. LOCATION PLAN VIEW Show and Identify: In metric, scale of 1:12000 or so a scale that clearly identifies the location; C Distance to the nearest town of major geographic feature to 0.1 of a kilometer; Relevant streets, highways, roads, etc. TITLE BLOCK show: ° Name of the Encroacher and the name of the engineering company who compiled the drawing (where applicable) ; Drawing number and the date of the drawing; COFMGHTSPECMENENG7CO"FAB Au swim zuuven R$PRODUCTION RP AM MnON lS 3TI My rdf1111111TAW M. Brmswick Pipeline i gym. Tlransmisinn GukkUnu ,;W _ _ Technical Mwival Guideline Name: Requirements far Construction urGWdeUne Number: TG-010C Near Cow HPCBnes_ �Date: 06n0f2012 pa$e: 25 of 4 e Revision dates (if applicable); Signature of the Encroacher and the engineering company; Legal description of the location of Encroacher's facility; Date of the survey ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Show: All specifications of the Encroacher'a facility (i.e., diameter, wall thickness, material to be conveyed, minimum yield strength, operating pressure, field test pressure, mill test pressure, materials, protective devices to be installed and the method of installation); Note referencing compliance with all applicable CSA standards and the National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations; Include a North Arrow and Scale on all drawings; Legal description of location of the Encroacher's facility (i.e., property metes and bounds, PID, parish, town, village, etc.: on all drawings. ENCROACHER'S FACILITY DESCRIPTION Show and Identify: Roads, parking lots, storage yards: wheel loading, surface, subgrade, name or number designation of roads (if any), materials to be stored (if any) ; Ditches, open drainage systems: width - top and bottom (existing and proposed) , name or designation (if any) ; Underground facilities: materials; diameter; maximum voltage; pressure; conduit structure - duct size, use and configuration - size and reinforcement (if any) OCoPYjuGHrSp5a, AENMGYCORP2007Att)!errsjasuYED FEP$oDUMMV OFAlff roarl0,V lS SMCrLy pRolfalra) 45 BW, Technim[Mannal ° Transmission Guidelines �ur����ei� i'�peli><xe ._�..._� .. _ _ _. _ -.- _ __ _ ._ r Guideline Name: Requirements for Construction Guideline Numben TG-010C Near Co manyipeIines _ nHtz: ohtiorxo�x Page 26 of 46y NOTE: The Encroacher'a drawing (a) must be available for reference on site. For reference, typical crossing drawings with these minimum requirements are included in Appendix B. 0 C&MMUTSPECM ExEmar C8xr2WAu xICm nsnvsa RsP MVCRMOFAWPORrjrMvX BnxICTLYlMWMrM M T' Brunswick Pipeline d- �,_ Transmission Giddelines _ TeehnicalManual_ F Guidelfne Name: Requirem _ ents for,Canetruc_ tian Gufaefim Number: TG_OloC µ � NearComany Pipelines n�: o6tzaizax2 j ram: 27 of d6 _j APPENDIX H Typical Crossing Drawings C COPTHMHT SPECnU ENERGY CORP AW AU R GIM RMRVEa REFAMICrION OF ANY POR770YV 13 5TRICTL Muzonm 47 `' Js Brunswick Pipeline Tr=smission Ga&ahnes �-- . �.__ .. _ _ T�clenlcul Manual i Guideline Name: Requirements for Construction Guideline Number: TG -0lOC .... _. _ ... _ _ Near Comp ny pelines ` Date; 06/20=2 rage: zs of 46_ too L It INN tit r� $ G� r COPYRIGHT SPECTRA BNERGYCORP 2007 ALL RICiM RWERYM REPRODUCTION oFANY PORTION IS STRICTLY PR07i7R7TEO a i r `l� L iJl i s Brunswick � IP611* ,,.. —t' Transmission Grtidelines _� ` "_ Technical Manuuf GuideWxe Fame: Requirements for onsiruclion���uideUne Number: TGO�OC _I Near Comte Pipelines _ nate: 06/2012012 ^Page; 29 of 46 _ I Ld I Q j IL �h Va Job y 01 I r I � � rq• aw Oil I as m wn I I I � I i Y � aro� COPYRIGHT SPECTRA ENERGY CORP 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED REPRODUCTION OF ANY PORTIONIS STRICTLY NtOHIBI tED I • llir=swicL P1'pehine 1 Trammissian Guidelines Te_ehnicat j ~M_.a._ n_ u. al 6 line Name. Guideline Number: TG-010C nns;LCwn Near Corn uny Pipelines F Date: 46120/2012 Page: 34 of 46 ~ I A �Z as I ja J J w Y le) COPYRIGHT SPOCANAAMOY CQXP $007AU RKiim umRvw REPRODUCTION OF ANYPOR77jWm srMCTEY PROHffiITW 50 �3 a 4 Mill, '� • • Transmission Guidelines _ _ _ _ Technical Manual j Guideline Nacre: Requirements for Construction � Guideline Number: TG -0100 -- _ Neal Company 'ilpt?lines Date: 06(2012012 Page: 31 of 46 R [[[ I W IL a Mir PLO bit `lip 0!; IL y I � m E � I IL; rf rr a ¢, CQPYIJ(;IIT sP--m .EAROY CDRP2007Au araurs RR wwav ASPRODUM01v OF ANY PORTION IS Srxx7LYPR0818d7'8a 51 Brumvviek PIPeUne u-i Transmission Go Mano T'ec�r�ie�rlll�snuul Guideline! Nauw: Requ mme) for Consftwgon Garr a Number: TG -eloC __. _._._. linesn oorioszs of R1� L$ Y a f a ,j r s e� i . + .t J a i .ri r x r Vj d 4 S - W 4� O tJ COPYRIGHT SPECTRA EIVEROY CORD 1007ALL NGIM RMERVED REPRODUCTIO,YOFANY PO)MON 18 9TRIC7ZYPROWNTED 52 I IR Y31 lip F am '�• n ri �,,,.{, "" Transmissian Guidelines Brunswick _ -- 1 -1 s _ _ _ __ ' _ _ Technical Manual Guideline Name: Requirernents, for Construction �k«Guiddine Number: TG -0100 Y Near Coql&an __.. . ! fl Page: 33 of 46 _...s wrM �i o II i .r �f 4 Si lht n it, ' � r e } Y� +J�• w �,cu as �s,�m ,� t !I 4 r 10 F Q� a caP1'wmff SpwrRA BWAwv coRr7ovACL RrOli7'8 Rgmvm WRODULT/ON OFANY POWTOv 18 RYaWny PROVflljrM 53 I 1 a i i Zz pk Ul a z O¢4� Brcroswick Pipeline, .F . Tran missionGuidelmes TeCjj/2iCQ1 MQllnAl Guideline Name: Requirements for Construuciiart GoddelinelNumber: TG -0100 _ Near Com ny Pip Ui es _ nac�Aa anaix _ P � -- or a� APPENDIX C Forme and Agreements On -Site Approval Agreement (Form 142) Emergency Work Request Agreement (Form 200) Encroachment Agreement Sample 0 C0"NGHr5PWM EN&KGrC0xP2807AU, xniJM Aa ERVEn REPMWMTION OFAHYPOxrron lsrrxlc7LrrAMArrPn 54 !•i 3� w C `� Trnnsmisslon Guidelines Technical Manual I Guideline Name: Requirements foi- Construction � �at e. aideluee Nnrttber: 46-010C _ Never Cow flit Pi elines _ _ 06120lZ01Z " r Page: 35 of 46 Form 142 (Page 1) w:ZU; :4`�1't'C; FJPttiN� l�f�tin'nl�Y On -Site Approval A - reemnent no KI2 Fin .—�— t Sketctr;prmringAttwtwd size Proltnee Y Ptwb Attaatxd PERBOWCOMPANY RECARIMNS PM-ISSION ('&OMONCHM) TWO of Approvril Fax �— t ocalh Rec�x to It is hemby acUrmw tedyed tttat wodt s nM to faits place iR ttie vrdrrHy of 8n.- �+wicu Pipel e'a (cr: -yary; t`:.- kxfirsa a p�vr+r,4 right - f Kay Lx'A W A Coa?ary r t3tjyp Is on site to ngx Ibm "4xaa4atirm a:tW h4d621 actv'5as. and Z, Nor'. Treat oomMy W4h the regaeenm -,% 0 Cumpwls G3=deN -w TC-1 G w rd hrm been deemed orrt to mquiffe an Eno"oaotrrtuntAarmy nLand 3. The Cbrnparry has premvided a Copy of ttw Nadmul Erret;}y Ba_zd pV& rr• C^uswV Rear. ittgrrs to tt� Erorvw*%,G and f. Ttte Efaw� Ctaarty under Mands m maLf'�P kA by tttr COrpasp ard t#-e arras -i iiW di war ti not pmntffxd, mtdrta +t a Company rcpreseotaddrn bw�r pCS ;+.r t+A> jM •=.3 sa d wrk and 8 The Er+2wd+er shatH p mwW ttx C«npany O rm 01 : M*bg dais noun 91 �cr st 317f t 19 Any rm k n eb vwjrdy of the COrt PRW3 fa h't2s. iidudhq thep pteme dSh:r&-" C°orPa'rlr f1�"sbs pesr WI*JdR tot* Frwrr4X rertu wnsbuatand Win dry Er =oad-e"s Waft subj0 d trp ttw foloav I ems a 7d�rrdttiorts. 1(V Etx„ &armtderstwids .id agrees to- the Gwwrd Tames and Mars "P- A' amwh dj 811d x t ;,caLtdta 0'M Natintsa: Er4NM Board P px a emsdnU RepuEatars. Part 1, Sew 4 (rV), the En=sd w nay assign the toaftdF:arty ` m P74" Cry pwguwous"Corrxry aAe grAs iwuc Pm.-ded AORM) AND C?ONSEMEf1 b this Clay of Mry Adttfxr of pnwhlee a.° —_ - -- - , for the peread �iattlre br may_ oat* pad* RMN03ak4 t Repnrtanhave ,69sa[_ss & M- VW"& _.If -M am :Dow a rd.-fir A Alrat v-rniw.- ��AC'� -,r s.A7rer^rd �avl�} -llgr 1- 14f2..F+'aa O COPYRIGHT SPECTRA &NFRGY CO RP 2007 ALL AIOh-M RESERVED REPRODUCTION OF ANY PO=O,y IS STRICTLY PIONIJUTED 55 ;sgr�ee: tm, att-` �-r*5Act.:CAaa1ewFrd Bimn,,wick 'Pipeline o,,,j Transmission Guidelines _ _ TmhnicidManual Guideline Name: Requirements, for Construction r�d_et;m Nun__ r: Tc.e10c l Near Com any Pipelines � _ � _ � Dace: 0612012012 ��Page: 3� _of a5 Form 143 (Page a) SCHM)UEW aaNElnLIMU aaE:couoeort� renc�ete��rs er�•aerea ltye{x�raAes= o.ebtbra.ae*Moft'*ctrererg.'nRM rcarmm MdMdC-0j �ntQWgftrtyc AOerrsn fooftrr,se.eraeWWjawo weMrnre "�rY+se� bre<e vet ee 8�e ltr�gete A¢tefraa. a rinorlw�ua, :.: metier cfev «e a fdr�cet !i nrffe 4 PMxIIItlws vttres r rm.ar -Q.ro eopa aHtgt+p .ntl� maaslmr Ir+aka aua a acmrtit.+cr.Xe � a•s. AS.afo� aYr.amni vrrs '� entaetts e4tratrbfoef �[ arID. d 's�rewttepnsrtrr,+/r�trlydlg►e�c� W-eaN pt rrEhmfal0efjlf tttfeafart ferUe Cmrpsybexe blusdtar�ttftretatlataem�Crp ery Yaks'0®h/agKd e!pu ed.D�iref ea tntts »��•yredetYeteaegetedres tMrtfettYlrf■eaftie>lfetrlegpwef W.� rc wyletbrymorr7rAVMWre tf ele PRiefAePftAe Mytre*+Law tbOnlurlf!leeRltleeryt b#�aeldna��s b+raels�stottrfnmpa. b!'t�>alforeffh ffsnf. w ry frt�searle Bouaaorr Yarweae►�weem'�ci dflf efbaa�gt,e�tr 4 tsars fLt it CriIM °bt A ft Or AM AM INS WvWWj em M »psi Yu.mip IrM WW No am=" Y VWXe9 b l91omdsYf s»ttrer� a14i �n Rd t» %M =10MM t"** MmPMM w A%F 01 rJ CO W"s W esdl M IC Is Gw4ft AWv it dame' ' =1!!1: Mid M" - RWh'W% 6'd� ertat•ratrae>rIf . eU riffftaltt1tWM?ry RS�ltllefinepi fteaaYetmfA vtetif.f llddl�RlERts ie7ltl afS4e�Nd6tli"xR iac:e�0eta�oeiai to ¢lC � ftenema4r„xweah �Irapt7�tryltorbmeom .acwn.glKR�4fnAper.�nera�c "! �'evice�a* her. Can�aa. tihe siwovarswarlsr�ee�sd�rst* �. meseraria�Oneaa •apsrredraumv.aYwutr •�' eemxee�aatsnlfrtaetefretr0ars� .A+enrt antl ftattarfetsme'ia�a.t ttienu Yl�va.•Hlf�oed,grr, sra r'i I�raftrf Ce Caw^q ray' nautn rn ttttett w p metY 4PA!!V Eibf CecoLq b, efamfit b ItRRt Q otr� enrla lie eawri A{ban` AOrarere �r et!'fa�+f :ut tlerr@Wtn 7Ef tlft>1v eNret'bdpe'tiLtehe eeO�ftfE.�eli�ftN�'yftfMoR VCMd[ls M1!esptildggwlDefuchr"cr t ftm= w sm 4r gepr��wrev"�s ltl+ trtYn ,tre- apcq�aaoa:yAeileedI.pral oes TItCo ry ■rcfreter�.cavA 4ffNg ettritef�.f4o pf�ceMtae etnetelotlCddes >tinsttlll'CfQdq,Ya1�'f7b�14 itr0 U: pbeeef. remltdrmeri Xtt- istemeC a "-t llOte�t�f6vlele� f'ft 4efn'ar:':1 i0atT�2 ?Se,fM4�e4rrCa'W�i'tneenIe - Y+OfCfegf/lmts deffpleepaptl, f! sutam4�a SUa'�6Ttrrl�Cpi�frt'rtvcaue n<ryanlm p[lip�Q ams"'e�.Otitbeara0d eep8ra rne�Hfcaer a If�Attf tt•tft�Ify am aatttnr-feet ufe rgrAfesfeoei feef�atte p�grgt ,bfsy.ea�s�asoaoedt�atwrayvef ttaw+s�hx a+<u+bed tYept gray nweihp tbysreoOtAOt afiorr ��nefyasa�tlawtr �i`1Ylro�lrh wvlfeteiteinfcr�im>tettoc>t1ul ar eM eterftn"�ti*+c..+ mfr, �baalereww 'aretfacidte]mroeelerstreref Ilt�rtytftYee�mytpescxIIteCa !>pf;+11/�Ye! 1ns�fedrxW=Mnm wftft w *.wombs PWW* n*A=F aeeM0qcMvft- as 36 eEaoCiCrwtaLf beO.sfey wp oft erafteerrtae Uehfbb msevcwtbaaemwbtemse a>mlerbAMMMSAOtef"tYr':Meit�e+x Ta -o.ea eReaet� as iyssareb etanotelanPfimlfroff wata� m�It*aup m ee�R..ate tr �>� ft�c0otfvm tr: antr�ntb� m e,e Ou!�e7t!>Q btftft mete d+lbfab, erefrdiftgn atf;firabt.s �t'+'trb>a^Ceb md�efQmne� '�1e1tRAtb�nGfed�ellhf �b0e ta.peu ��v as eoe> aehrie O¢�Aba ayeb r�erwtmgmeetraamattft� grwxneo.00lranrreb etr�rt grace .am u�s�arwnwo'+aortrfat rr�Yownrte>b aq ueC�+t*+ttwt.� b�ti ��t� aeaatfa ttlLYtltff fnemil7 eteeeeutw•f: (fetR �a+ tr�rwafrr, em��p� .,#+,tr,,,rtmm�essaa�eetue+,�e ��t���+ oro,. ar +.fefa�ru.c�rar,�ruro.caeroe�t. +�r� bs@feeaaf by rrtllot bba�t�r p yC�t�pfl4bsRrtr�ft��ls �mrr.tlwdllsCOe'faq s Came . 0 1 .aeal�rewa.+n:am.a,aetw�vv+� a.eaeh�onr�v..aematfs v�ttdneea+martee: asre:atd��mralaf Iefmreme aYhot9tMfe F�rno>aMrdr:�urr,�'tate a' a *sR�+a4®eCUI�}gR tss l':�w�Qe�Y)�b7re mRlass^76'! dxbea�tuetprsd�ataslyyYltyfs Tbt CV- �ershr/ Idherf�wateetrafexatt�Rsre :�w+eseetrea+. ' m4b�rAehas/ 1�e +�ebftmafre.erprwtnasc+stlera fetareleb eekf ax.�+t+e�eeaw �lmp.ymar�mpn�grinwlct{�rrama oWersr= e7ttyGrrprrere� etretro,a,.ft 1ltrea feMe Lawetafre:�eawerc 4 lot �eos/ttr�NmO[fd.Y�ff4a�f lrrs treC'Ies�YtfotyF.a letCS:CYt>tedatpbyYelfe �rrw,mweeaaonMeaa.�erfeF ptQ fensew :�!>Ae[UfYa?H fe0tlixalsettiflta 'opctfCSlAialset meeleetltdeb ]W7t�oo�Rpt�f.'t7�'SR"s�0 1ri4fufhtffllppCat t�la'es.toMe �o�atifnrpm: bfa�tber. o�rbee�eeerfaa�tesat�e�ta :sa�tatutetre�Yr errs /mfpuelme►t:.oMre 1rRifpadpa6 :ifeY>pete0!♦b1eCO'pargba� -fs CaTj•" at�tealeeCarsl� "inemipfooryabOrTrASaf t7rotfrJ7ifeflerAe �'� -%VO re Ap fRefRllltr7vsNa4' elG OCWt+- yA}lblrl OWN wow �trediltaefe�. tltitmewbtlftlei7 �eQli�( ,y�e}tR.�OV10Q�htgi'fftl!'!•1'Rt cMw"wc@wPM lt}If1 " e.as>;mof➢ttbl..,e „ enrte N peetheteert�cmr b saraegary, r# e�16 >daCttserQry�ablo�plmmbrwsaw: taaabOambssartawA elbessadCOeOLtte dcsblhfeteegemCfet1r19eeIttfweilp�seWdemef ==ditpat.*WwMw f,Qttwft d�imC+tea+�v.Iee>pethaeb fna tfe?,araaCe.t �as.,�.•�• aQ- teattaf; mc�ps>R+r� 7 tb...alxiefafyOeydldf meO'lei QP�Orff>re Amf 4si.• �Aglll. al�7!!' 4flt�ma41> Z” AptCO1C�C�Sh >at�i�Y12w�SRil�rpQ!aDifeq ml6ii kel67fasftwtftts A+ eer frtaefwbalfe$ ervletTJfftllfrtvarlfCt3atpuf (e- ybafbAYfr3d�daretaJyrsOleS'1 V 7Ce �iLtr r�'Mr•etehfOt7MMfirOCa�t7kel Wr ke.�p' yptieele' stt>: rtriG+ �aLt�alCl 'ltf�frstl[Cr..�wY�01NwrRtale me4��rtsdfL�taf1 �•FltfCtMyb! Il 41�. rlf FY'tf�Y�^70l fltfmt Cj'seelYy raL'f�Im if4eQ*R�Ag7ad �P'Z!"R°.ib�lR7)<^�c.f617 CIa11foR4msptppy �ls[wfmQSla eachfP4� se��etxefS}�gard setersy a cor YRraxrSrscrs48n +sRGrCVRp30o7ALLRraxrsmERvsa REPRODUCTION OFANYPORria.v1SSf&F TLYPRON78fTID 56 Rrunswick Pip6he:'v; Thutsmission Guideftnes Technkal Manual i.:�ine Number: '1 G.OIOC Geideiine iiame: Requirements or -Constru ;Td N ec� n I * eUnes 4�r C_ m —6ate: 06/5 i2 Page: 37 of 46 Form 200 (Page 1) PiPELI*. Emergency Work Raquest /A9 A --reement hkk KP MD Y- QMMWDfZWV Atnh*d 04M — prCwrxs - - - - C-Mty r Phab Aixted PERSONA=--AAXYFWGJEMThO PUNSSON rS*MDACHEM) FAX I m" R"Uwd P10. Aak TVO@ r"xffiors Of Awmva' 11 Is himby adffKFff&N$W ftt 1. -9-En=adwisndirpmsmiancffasVmdErcma&m&*AUWivert" 2- Sn—bkk FVO&L" fC4wPR-Y) has PrmddW a O*y rif dw rakwx ErwW 8az�rd Plpd le CrEnskq Requiebris to it- enamachtv-, W4 3 -he Bwmachw reWasts bjm-&4* pwrmsw Cr Qwduct wMMnfl*m awtes in t* Vdnay or CoMparyr fad 6W k%kdM PIPROM 00+d-wW. cnd + Iw2Wu*m ev Ibr pWj sdey and a is " prjcsc7A-k w undnW ttn st�-A=d 72 how nc.Wk,3fiw pnvoss, and 3. -Iw Er-VO20harsW ghm mink& netceas p-j=A2b;adDtr4C4mpwvywy b7muork is Wt*e pLwa an the CaffWaV51's PO&W rNft4f-%W. wd v"R sIM3 "CA tAt Pam an f t ezv�&-Eq adow a COMPZM flW&wd3fvQ is Prowt 10 Ob5sw wv mwavidw ffd bmS5- scer6m amd fL -& byam Cw-VwA and *a 4Man,-jj. ch wmt is vvi t"'10 FWMI v wm s3w vwk TIr-z Cotpay wwt� ft pwnLss;m ID to Ummadw tb a-d maman die ann--* &% waft m4ad � ft L F) Enwulhw wxhrsbnds and apees to e)e Cen-YW Tems w-f Ccn&Am-nibr PqWme ErvrxxPmwt . (Sdmw* 'A, smad4bm wd Pt --VA-A to tY- %AwIW qww DOX4 P*Lts* aassrs RrOafffm Pwt 1, TrzFLi 4 (nyjl- t* Swaadier mV asssn b W.-Ovdmwt b a " paty. $4a RW- Ou" pwoub4mm P&Qjwdals ard cwq:,Tv kiwu,*fA Twac PTWAdW AGRSW AND CONSENTEn tro thb_ Ltay a 12L� at "ta xhuic4mft CR Pta*,we of for the PeMd Date nzift 'r-COPYRJGHTSPECT&iEiVggf;rCORP2007ALLR-TGHTSRMKRVED REPRODUMON OF ANY PORT70N 15 STRMTLY PROWNTED 57 Brtmswick PipeHne - AM Transmission Guidelines Tachnical Malt" Guideline Name: r'te . _ . —:. -- - - - - -- — -- - - --- -- -� -- -- ^ — �---� quirements for Construction Guideline Number: TG -OIOC Near Corn pan Pipelines � -�` _ ^ � Form 200 (Page 2) SCHMD1 -R W Gf9ER�ii.TBCiFi a!m car�tioHSt�is>�cROn ' �tr��Ealtyf i74 da�U7adb Cil' JQ7LT 7Ndfxedt�:nttraRetQlff�ttit�ma Qbb�]71Ot RlAt7d:ilQli{ lest {iRStiORtbWN!7Q0�lLQIW�hl10 MIf 9!fie111e»�MLt/Cf6 N MW vop0 V..da RWrxft ADf "ft Z d3lraseb:it YSr.. 9 artrrtf �ytlaU Yd1YQC7 YFf�t�¢•bQnPPtCILd tVtrl�!`b<YY1e�Lgoa7 C1��CRt7'Q 146 �iiM�7Qf.1L9R7CitO bl iCD^.ti(IRfYMl wwl re➢l�sbb^1, �t1C7 aUbs. W.' b4M. tlfbl.itemyMaNE�"Idtl6AtR:tlebrY ltaSR14'b1t1rO�1Cb/Q:�r. La Q71a7frltl �_ ". tY,Si�L- yi'+RIJQII�OC�ligtll BraLfIRRO'li"`!L/!t! ftT%a&h" NOMA to Swundw7 waft nwviwe Ut(N awprr �tYQif�l7fli k!!$eCO�PQJ�lp ri@.7E6b "GI t14�"s afpraeee+!'asltra hall ffigapClq. SlyfA fl¢.7 BaCa�'1tlaRihms efts la7cR � fiNiQOr{ gltbl/s �d �YilQ7afr7. bYfifbip9ear >~sa,aaan aGw�'alh �sstlrr .dentat►4>taemta 4 q�earJClo Giaa7olers tWrC d 1+.leffataalftg7itlxprctsla f`�nbbleArHptrm4=7tApa{CMYSERS atfartlfmtl bb4dk{o>maas�wu ma �+NtaebDt�CabS[�q><rs {1f71tt�[ a76m'afr�ytb'! aaa Qatitldl mlOStlaa 111d�1aa�stra pr�.'<f61 a1 "bF�3ad �tltlof6dIIle O1M�!!s� atvtwsgctpwpeamsf- ant sWe atetrv�s�q me71 T� sad Lbai�ply it m10i6:YlhpacfN Y.Vial1lFNab W44' II11�d�IISa�cY .fia/1L1e><Oaffie7r+ogdC�G B�acf[R+eattooEtr l7+,art .14: ir>0�'tt:?QIl mldlbM1! <Gfa h bAaRJt <trDtlartObltNeraaf.CPfbltRm'�tA dtaCmmeyfReic • -�}Ved by bie Cae�7 R1ra 11V114c7'77)esAeGbl lt'Dt>Da1Ql+a of am Ctfw#Qi><C�It�lrltuWwl ar i+YSCO<11Sf'Abd. y was a{ tmiitbmCZAwafm orRcmew�YYnMaanaatNp- esbgA�pamteri %1opMOa➢dtmtllmlrarrpti em .4 rs-Lyssl We Zo- �yww��e�s .raael;afamad<ftrArfrf�sa rx'- yarrs{saatilbQbvys7�df >Qewa lr�Q�e �AtQQlfy f.WlR tte4�t I=TTr•er�rq afasatens.lb Cnll►+ws Tlla@maap np y�efer s���,ipelfy 7.vtapanrn »rt7pett traefyw■ w f� rrrma � ifl�a �worrir med 4n�lotede°RYtlte Ca'NrSrEn arxler if�Qela fa7tamat<tas@+ertuaas�ttle CaSQ4rifs�nerbQa snd &M-cara-6 f pue.*+atb t fdfbiq wRequtt et7� m'bfootlfQACVL�isa�Olhe Y:�a rt6ivm�rl7 ,rc>Qetaa,�i - amC —parv- fC-Fw'ladw Ifa, wo ME 4bri'c7,Y7:'aaa+t7 aa- rem-"'IWJ!1-4T -I= atdamon Ca'#1nts -w=vAt Au Esbta4.a4stmepa+4 PortleplyesaafrhltVrdRa' r�j�tYe��artwadaefa4beto3amaeaeayorl <kosneabArdnirVnatrd 1rntw�u a1.11b and tam �'n -lftlf ad{IDS sddr. d '"- "°���rb and salaRarr+�laQ Carays7im ad ��M al1¢n.oetrAQm.'�asmemeaa- �re�ta waq,iey�•etar saeaaetr�r�o:yaeyar�rttww7mowmewmrnfmcmarrrea@=nmrwac.-=evwmgo- xeeenatrefarmr<s4oajaw..s rti< a n kdRJMwo -JTAXo rafaQ rtarft.aruaff l tam r&4M r!s lot iearrrf!l�dssrttlr Campmr 4�fa�7lmtlar11 sp7t�ta {aretatl ga['F7wtAkaravmvvm penbllhr 7NG4��Q 1lTC!' in•sNakid&e7aa�f'1 +Koff. 3 'al- .aa��kr 10�"iitlr s0'.o4d��- +desal�ll tari' aQmd>• it�kt�1- 9�A.1altE�'� ?- s�tyrlAaRl?gra �Qe�f<rY�n47MlilTCmy a7d Cat'd�tre;stiFIDOt.aAEtl7 bai'711tJa ia! �: a.t waR�a 7.lbbtlZn{+�'7YV♦Af@C�NbI+lIG�� �1� 7axpaY/ d mlat. an twOke wska mSZAsomataevn ,",bpapLfartaa4aflmoramcrfwm g=AefatlsadOwrodowda Mbt. Cn�am-"Zdlwf beale#bp7.CNINS wCRYW R*"-%R Ooeea.t) m9<mOftGfkda ap tA"UKU r%tdMftto- og$X"hAkrli ov iif679i/YQI>IOQr/IO r1atLl�'jlf{DIRCd'F>f Cm dPW`ff. Ca'ryry RQ'Etitaf�Rtf Q,II'f7Y11]LM"�A 7aRiaq'C1kpC'�faaY. A' m:rvO[a41nd1'rW �aEQ[aty yp11Q t<b¢bfrl mQ,paR�lt >Ut CR i1rF '7rli swwQ!rr=w w>a, browrA4�7 se7�Sfs�r- ,eb�eraaal RrltuCa Amlorll.t.» bnv tssebGfnatfcrti $maGlr V aibsal�er: Vn>aa:x7tt3asdlota Ca -pary Wbte *'Ig +armJl>a'+�tQr7n ttftlla tQ'IlrDr- .r'�<pR llerymCAl l�fi'm7ClfunaLL a: QS 1>rpeavtOrC<saaatClt varcSrs VansUt L- gwe drK7rgna..if49ntrwtm shfrge�,eAey¢ ,xgtYsfrwWrcrrur�sre arstr poCtr�teQw mfr Cisalb hnvrajwWbft �'"'+ t4rt�4td >rEpar<fAVDiarrirYlCNa�1Cl M'p� The f,�ae1'stu9atQC4 erbgRisaea7rdwm+te!vat�rsp�p� ' ttriCr+ Qe.' q'. ts+ a Downiaermusite .�waoatm+rt<rm�ee- er�lbay.w+� �••_ 9JwaoalresdCteRN�ineh dtiC+sapmrfdf�aaef:Mg7lYrob <ttlu a6�.ca- 1!.a[�, fsrit<sy C+s 3 Taal eatsd bae3er:Q7alt �aewar' xrafat> ni�aaQaT6t�' �t 'RMl�aibn<srasaOri�atbooi�.sing 7eR L�avta sysb- 'sar&tdfaQ.F16ra1ptga WNW Wfbt brerdbftVkA -W eq:irsR.WM�C -^wv VUSaW nlf�WAdaova"..Ift e17dCa 1r44eO1�Yd7st dil^aarbpai Qla Oq�pryaaQt..btal f>r,�afifls C6' paeaf >o¢'a14.a1O71Nfin�>anasrrary tl7me >4><t 7a11C' br a7i]fpiSaa �7 sdbtbsM]f ai�1 tQt! amttb CaM1Ebae�RPr[�" r'7Pt>Qe1Rw taad6pt ebtCaanb Yrfmadf �aeaarCa)> baepe�ralAattl< s. ftlJ b-s ra+ �ar�0 +rs:samNanat[szhtm�OCYS�ayyltS �ieu�dfw:Mfar part MY 'r =bi�4t �1rk31ern>d7- e�'.aS PR►ON Lela �R�W G�7rfNOtlE� f3q�}O�Rffi+ap�fJf latataai�iQAE9CCSafp�Q<4 �fis<arOCSr Naem6fgftfs nos¢ra;�s m � s Nm ridsbs�rwaCSet� f1,4aeasp>rd stie- tj*bmim7�aamme Ca�nrara stpoadv .:, ers,.> a. p�. qunMtaeacmd�,rarndafe:= nenamoc. & wmm�but> ginam�ra- rrpr�vrcft�cr{�am;eemdwsr'h,as itl clww mrt Wc.tn Wtaen7itdmdie mfa!<p X41+t'lf�lutsfsra7s.liffter fsfs ea i adb"armrs ssnaaSMS so"lows ! hbaa�arapire[arriafatn�a:st arpnp:an sT tfef gexys> c�wsk# e�tApm •ra.>.b`rseT�amr�p�7tdlhlts elk#arbe tttdn0 vpo *■ 77tq�ba til tlbR�d'"'�'ibt AvbhertYlaarVata -lames d.f7atUr.:ffs+letftrst�4y'y -b 7MS*asfclalsirslMV CrZare eresa y]."isle 7P.p�ta'AG11tGgl.,.yrae -at mdttealTeLY e0i GtadltaB lbSLbe. 4'!m7 —=Y s== rt:_%QRba7ofbla RG14C¢ O1r4>SY 9rra.+NO<refmr�YafrC ipei of CaR1Ca sd>:waearea. `• ra�"'Yf7*b<'P">rd ur"va Yf�as �atlfli>Yie+efrf:sndi3 lr'�acY'80rY Tts�A{�eRt- erS�liet'[b'naW C.o�trlsafl ttda�ba'e 1CAbRT+ec tfslrhlmglaissmaYltl7s, peat' afd7efss f 40 cOPYRIafir SPECm RNKRGY CORD 2GV Au jwffTS REsERYRa REPRODUCTION OF ANY PORUON fS STXCTLY PROMR/TW i Transmission Guidelines B-m-luwIck Pipe"e o- E Technical Manual GuldeHne Name: Requirements ConStraCijo­ Guideline Number: TG-010C No!ar_Cqptpqff_,Pipelines Hate: 06/20t2012_ IPage; 39 of 46 Encroachment Agreement (Page 1) (Date) (Eacroadier) MW Opt) (Ad&ea) SUBJECT: Consent.4"ment for you pvnpou4 Encroachment of Emusvdfk np&ne TO to LT- hL Iffie County Of In the Poorhmeof BnmswLek Pipeline the Company' has verim-rd the pmpose4 Eucrogehment and %vdj CIDWXW tO it. In cOnsuk"hon of the Cougmy coasmfmg to de Errmcfimew we ask that you apft to the following cmdffi= Inmdent, I - That you WIU cm*y with The geaeral conkfiers for consent in Sdiechde 'A", attached halo; 2. That yon =d your =*wkc wm i—bj; dj. . desmbed in The Canpay'c Tnmmimm Gadelme TG -IOC, wnached heretv 3. Uat the EumscImAd will be deaped itod tanshu0nd stdcfly in arcordmxe with your (Drawbig NmWkr) app"rvdby dbe Conpxy attzdwd as hereto; 4. That the Enavacbmtent inU be wmpletBd WdM one (1) YW of *0 data of ft letter, OffiarwLw this emmal WJI Ummate and a new apphc&au wJU be reqWmd. 5. That as per Sdmdtde 'X, Sectua 5 ELaoarbrr sh7Z snbmd caSEcatm or other endance of such cment munzwe to the Coa4j6ay pw to any wart: commal6ng for &E facmanu= Plane ,sign and ream all ftft (3) cq= of ffie -AMME&I. —+x1mi &e bur (4) of I!z enclosed drawing and seboUes We vnI SRUNpwdy Op her C*N TOZ 2vMWteOt and all reran taro a)ft3OUuse T.Mse MSUM&H Reopiq Selo to the PUSOM VhD %iJ be Fftfinx=9 this WO& and that it Ls avaelable - an-sike. hubdo6w of the E=Mcbmat can then proceed afta p7M a noaaaa>nr of ftm CI) bwanm days S&mm notice to ad This Enamehment Agrew=2 tEA Scbc&k - A7 TO-16C and any atfachmc= cmOavle 0- adut E=vadmomt Agmetnoat -MK - = da CaLpany zad & Encrobff and any change 01 61tuadw hereof sbA be =pSe m wnbngbebrem the parties. Yc= vWY k*, BRUNWICK PUqUXN7E 10 CvPYRIrJIrSrWM ENERGY COW 2D07AL& RwHnRESMM AVROMMON OF AWPOR"ON IN 87WICTLY PAOMMIrW 59 Birunswick Pipefineq',j Tmnsmirsion Guidelines _ Technical _Ma_ nual i Guideline Name: Requirements for C©nshuC&n -T Guideline Number: TG -ozoc k Near C'om�an Pines _ i T DateY OG/20/2012 Page: 44 of 46 Encroachment Agreement (Page 2) (name of approver). NO Read and agreed to at, ts►a day of { { { QNmwdbs ar7 I bave tine mdO&y to bind die carpasatioa 0CaP9= HFSPRCrxa6NEWrCORP2007AUMOhnR88 VIM MWJWjjDMWON OPA" PQRMJV is STxMTLY pWMIRnW •N L "V'IJ Transmission Guidelines Brunswick Tlpel- e Technical SfimuW GuidefteNnme- Requirements for Construction Guldeline Number: TG-OIOC L Near Company Pipelines Date: 06120/2012 Page. 41 of 46 Encroachment Agreement (Page 3) SCMUM IN GweW Cations forExacachment Consent 1. ruff ss axement (4) the ten "M=owW refers to the pawa(s) w1w wM owa, operate and miritair, &S raeffity-, WthO UM ''Contractor" M=3 the paw*,' vein consUw* mid m3hus the Fnmkty; (C) the tm 7rac0y' x9in to the waAs of the E=owher as desmUd. in the cvvftms ieua4waamt to this schwak, (d) the tam ' E=wd=wf xfm to fhe E=mdhaeut of dm C=pauy's p4wWie(s) by the Facility at the location deunbed in do emwing IeW- avesuad to this Schedule, 2. The Company coma is to A& E=wdmwmt to &e exted that it has the right to do so and the Rmacber shell be resp=l& &r obtizW all other applicable qTwv2h, pawft, ordm and pemmai=xeqah-edtD caamw and install fie Facgity- 3, E=mcber qpw ID cmmpE r with all qn&cab3e Wes, aukxi, regulations- codes and guidelinn of any competent govemmmi bmb, cw mpmawim a&cfmg the design, msbdlatwn, comshuctm sad opembm of the Firfty 4- achu agrees to bdmui� md save hmmikm the Cmp=y 2odad auy dffftln Qcxim- nsddug in dealW 69 my w= as a n=k of flee COSUMCfink MoaUfum =a Op-rdwn of fir Fadfity ht emmection with Clum 4, above, E=c-Aer, or CQwzactor, at its stun op!]m Shan cauy and kftp m fiff f=e aid eft&, (a) COU*rRUMEW GM&W 12ALhly nmm=e wah an M&Hm 'finif for PMOL31 *jwymd damage at Five MMim W= (35A=3, 00% =d, i i y 3 ammice ("owned" sad -VmAmmA) vith an mchisive limit fix bodily MM (mdafmg pjnmVj3) aad Xqcdy Ump of One Wim dDUM 3 1,000MO00) Encroacher shall sdbtW cemduags ar odka evidemee if such ===-* to the Company pner to CT wmt cum ft the Er=O=I-nwL 6 Eacroacter spew to penma2y Vedb= the snOttism and =dhuchm of &e Exafty cur else to closet} supsvfse lib msWlaw and cow=fion by a dub, qmaMad couftadu* md to em=e tbA srd caavataps) compbes with aU k= aid COMdihOM of d3iS ape " COPYRIGHT SPEcm ENERGY CORP 2007 ALL RIGffff SEURVED REPRODUCTION OF ANY FORUDIV is sTVCrLr PROMIaMD 61 Bx7n 0 M&O runswick Pipe M-n i;>-- Tmwmission Guldeftnes 14.1 Ll iR J.-I Guideline Name: Requirements for Consthwlion rGuideMne Number: TG J r Page: 42 of 46 —0-�h� – - _ _ _LDs�ls.: l06120/2012 Page: Agreement (Page 4) 7- The Eaacacha shall pay ft�¢ prexaedatiaa of as imoiQe by �n Company RU MmmWe costs iacmied by the Compay fi,,- (11) Reww' 8PFwM Mid b4ftim Of jht amwhmaat Rcinforang, momyjAg or retweing the cowp=y-s pipeii ) to amomodde the MM@hm of &Macws Fxi* or the >mintmanoe =A repak of its (C,,Fecw- its ,.:v namiablo i3Oa�esital Coft nntred by the Cqmpmy in the cprsfioj, Mlmtl�'=M w0wMent nA regain of * piped) wlwl we =used by the EUUD&dM=lt- 9 The tem md cozdAuw of this comas{ ban " to The consftuctim and UwtRHBt= Of 60 FicflitY and mY Mm mgnb--aaace wau dw maybe mqWre& 9- This eras®{ is fur the Fac"y only as qrpwvM by dw Compy and any additional vml?m or fichtiw proposed by The Fhavadw do be t1m sect of a qWzte axrftmmt to. Faaaadw hereby Mmes and tbad its rights is *.a Ew=clmint are subordinate to the to aplem"s) Of ME ComPaY 60 haw beem repshm4 or obtaiBtd POw 10 this i 4e and ED=wcher stall coopwate with ail reamkie reqw!!ih ma&s Camp my retried to the arxagjm; =kwa= m xqair of the wd= &e cast=zwijj 11. in the case of dewh by the E=ovcha to cwy cad any of fhe pwvisu=,Df this 95memmi OT Mike tOvdifift GfE=Ivachces Ekilay has &-taiumW and adtwsely AffWft the apmadan of IU UMFEMY 5 SJ ft C"rW MY shv WUM QLMOE If the Enauwt,,jr juls tp take IR Imunale sbqn to reinedy the defindt or the deterioration of fie F.aahy , fiftm (15) dsp d�t.Mcejpt of go vmUm notwe by &z Coo qmmT tb- Ccfflq=y RW take w& Vtcp aepmmy to MZGdV the dEftUh cff 'Jd=t3h= and B=mdlr ztzU be b2l& for and awn pay far&wA all reawmble costs 12. AD natm required to b.* Sim her,=&w!jbaM E. d&vard by reSW ficumde to dw addmsw shmn on #w an E. ,md Mg or OUR9 cad d" be deemed to be awned an the Zft ,36) day fiavwgg =mjwS thereof or upon confimsfiva offar=ie wMMdM&M 13- This VeMIW sbjlg be VMwd ]n X=d=e va be no of &E Fovimca m Ullith the Enaoadmuml n skntvd i 4. Ned= patty to this ggammW gmn p w ft=dw then lWt =d obTVfi= hwamlw to a lhiW pally z &St aatm* the CMS=I Of the cam puty- a COPr&*Nr SPECTM ENAWYCORP2WAU AMM )tM=Vw REPMWMFRWOFAWPOR77OW1S377tWnyi,gomWM 62 :13r+uns ck 14pe —Kne Transmission Guidelines Teelmical Manual Guideline Name: Requirentt'rtis for Construction Guideline Number; TG -010C L _ ��.� __ Near Comr any felines � � _ Date: Ot t28t2012 I Psge: 43 of 46 - —.- -- - .. j Encroachment Agreement (Page 5) 15, The rights a" obligW= of *e parties hudo shall tmaiatate epos the ea ier of (a) two (2) yam ft m the date hueof if the teacher bas not completed the conttxuctioa and mstatlalion of the Fwilq and restandim of the lands acted by the Fk=whmenk or (b) upon the proper abandamaw or n mavd of the FamIq and restarabon of the lands to a coakbon, acceptable to the Company and $rs owner of the property when the aa=A is situated. 16. H awry W of Oda ag =9d shall became null and void by v7due of law or gauammentd regdahmft shalt be wm-ed fw= the agttemcid; but the reuuigieg terms and condition shall rmmim m W ;brae =a effiYt 0 GV"JBGf rSPSCn" ENERGY CORP 3D07AUJOaNTS MUM dlCML►tAMMOFANYfoRTIOm 11 STHmnypxoRIWAD 63 Brunswick peline ti Thmmission Guidelines _ Technical M_anu_ai Guideline Name: Requirements, for Cons"etionr T auidane rru>��: TG-010C 1Vear Company Pipelines - ��naz�: 06/2ot2012 -j gage: as at ae - APPENDIX n SVMMKRY CHECKLIST FOR POTENTIAL EXCAVATORS An Encroachment Agreement or an On -Site Approval Agreement is required by the Company for all third party excavations occurring within the Company's pipeline right -of -way or 30 metre National Energy Hoard (NEB) Safety Zone. The third party shall adhere to the requirements of the Company's TG -10C, "Requirements For Construction Near Company Pipelines- and the M Pipeline crossing Regulations. A minimum of 10 days notification is required prior to beginning any construction activities within the 30 metre NEB Safety Zone. No excavation or backfill activities are to occur without the C2Lupany re resentative onsite to monitor these activities. Preliminary Third Party Responsibilities The third party shall ensure notification is submitted to the Company via one -call where available or by calling 1-88$-410 - 2220 to allow the appropriate time for response by the involved parties. The third party shall designate a spotter dedicated solely to excavation and backfill activities_ The third party shall provide an excavation plan to the Company representative for approval prior to beginning any excavation activities as outlined in this document, The third party shall review this document with all participants in the excavation and ensure the understanding of the requirements. Third Party Excavation & Backfill Activities Bucket teeth shall be barred and side cutters removed. The third party shall ensure the excavation is in compliance with COSH and NEB regulations P' COPYRICIiT SPECIAA ENERGY CORP 100?' AU RIGHTS RESERY&D REPRODUCTION OF ANY PORTION 19 STR(CTLy PRDIfIRMW •' Brunswick Pipeline z : _ Trassntissioa Guidelines Technical Mama! Guideline Name: Requirements for Consfr C on GiddeUne Number: TG-010C , _ __Near Compan�Parelines _ Hate_ o�nar�nl2 Page: 45 of 46 j • The excavator shall be positioned parallel to the Company's pipeline to safely excavate the pipeline. A line locator and /or probe bar shall be used to maintain the minimum tolerance zone until the top and side of the pipeline is exposed. • Soft digging equipment shall be required at the third party's expense for excavating within the minimum tolerance zone unless otherwise agreed. « The third party shall continue to probe during the excavation process to ensure no unknown facilities are damaged until the final ditch grade is achieved. v Ample time shall be provided to allow the Company representative to perform relevant inspections prior to proceeding with backfi.11 operations Third P&rtY Documentation 6, An as -built drawing /sketch of the final completed foreign facility shall be provided to the Company as outlined in this document. Cam an Rena onsibilitles • The Company's representative will ensure the excavation plan and safety requirements are reviewed with the third party equipment operator prior to any excavation activity. • Provide third party with a copy of this document and the NEB Pipeline Crossing Regulations. 6 The Company representative shall have the authority to stop work at any time. 1 COPYBlWrSP8YMEN8norCORP2WAURM MrsRUUVan AEP,RODUCTroNOPANPPDST aNiNgnUCn yPmaw,81TZW 65 Drumwick Flpef ule ]5 �,; i Transmission Gaidelines _Technka[M_anuw GufdeHae Name: Requirements for Construction' Guidefrme Number: TG -�IDC 1Vearr Com�anI - ' elilees - -- r Dens OUM20 z j page. 46 of 46 - +� The Company representative shall establish the tolerance zone for use of mechanical equipment in the vicinity of the Company's pipeline as outlined in this document, # The Company is required to notify the National Energy Board of any unauthorized excavations within the NEB 30 metre safety zone or an unauthorized crossing of the Company's pipeline 0 COPrR7 W SPECM ENERGY CORP2W AU XIGffn AWRV8a RRPROOUCIMOPANYPORMN ISSTMGMyPROnlarlBD •• _> REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C — 2014 -162 September 16, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: 2014 FALL DEBENTURE ISSUE BACKGROUND: City of Saint John The New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation is planning a bond issue in the near future. While the issue will not be sold until the Corporation feels that rates are reasonable, they have provided ranges within which the issue could be sold. These are as follows: Interest Rate: Not to exceed an average of 4.50% Price, Net: Not to be less than $98.00 per $100.00 of debenture Term: Serial form to mature in equal annual amounts over a term not to exceed 15 years for the General Fund and 20 years for the Water & Sewerage Utility. Notice of motion was given at the August 25, 2014 meeting of Common Council regarding the need to borrow $16,900,000. In order to proceed with the debenture financing it is now recommended that the following be adopted. 67 M &C- 2014 -162 -2- September 16, 2014 RECOMMENDATION Whereas occasion having arisen in the public interest for the following public civic works and needed civic improvements, that is to say: GENERALFUND General Government $ 250,000 Protective Services $ 1,000,000 Transportation Services $ 500,000 Economic Development $ 1,250,000 Parks and Recreation $ 1,000,000 $ 4,000,000 WATER & SEWERAGE UTILITY Water System $ 2,000,000 Wastewater System $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 REFINANCE DEBENTURES Debenture No. AR 11 -2004 $ 3,940,000 (General Fund — 5 years) Debenture No. AR 12 -2004 $ 4,680,000 (Water & Sewerage — 10 years) Debenture No. AR 13 -2004 $ 280,000 (Transit Commission — 5 years) $ 8,900,000 TOTAL $ 16,900,000 .: M &C- 2014 -162 September 16, 2014 -3- 1. Therefore resolved that debentures be issued under provisions of the Acts of Assembly 52, Victoria, Chapter 27, Section 29 and amendments thereto to the amount of $16,900,000. 2. Commissioner of Finance be authorized to issue and to sell to the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation (the "Corporation ") a City of Saint John bond or debenture in the principal amount of $16,900,000 at such terms and conditions as are recommended by the Corporation. 3. And further that the City of Saint John agrees to issue post -dated cheques to the Corporation, or other such arrangements as the Corporation may from time to time accept, in payment of principal and interest charges on the above bond or debenture as and when they are required by the Corporation. 4. And further that the Commissioner of Finance be hereby authorized to receive an offer in connection with the foregoing debentures at a price not less than $98 per $100 of debenture, at interest rates not to exceed an average of 4.50% and at a term not to exceed 15 years for the issue related to the General Fund and not to exceed 20 years for the Water & Sewerage Utility. For refinancing debentures from 2004, term not to exceed 5 years for the General Fund and refinancing term not to exceed 10 years for the Water and Sewerage Utility. 5. And further that the Commissioner of Finance report to Common Council the exact values for price per $100 of debenture, interest rate and term in years, together with the date of the issue. Respectfully sub Yeomans, CGA, MBA ner of Finance and Administrative Services Patrick Woods, CGA Manager IM REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2014 -167 September 22, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: 2014 Fleet Replacement — Tender Awards — Phase IV BACKGROUND d The City of Saint John In April, 2014, Common Council approved the procurement of vehicles and equipment for the 2014 Fleet Replacement Plan. The final phase (phase IV) of this tendering is now complete. The purpose of this report is to make recommendations to award the latest tendered vehicles and equipment. Please note that the items contained in this report are in addition to the items approved by Common Council at its July 7, 2014 meeting (Phase I items) July 21, 2014 meeting (Phase II items) and August 18, 2014 meeting (Phase III items). Three - Quarter -Ton Pickup Trucks Saint John Water currently operate multiple pickup trucks which serve many purposes in their operational areas including, but not limited to, equipment and tools transporting, materials transporting, towing, etc. Two existing vehicles are beyond their useful service life and are being replaced with this award recommendation. Side - Loading Refuse Trucks Transportation and Environment Services utilize refuse trucks to collect solid waste (refuse and compost) five days each week. Side loading units are commonly used to maximize collection efficiency on wider streets and enhancing safety of personnel by not having to continuously cross high traffic and congested streets to collect from both sides of the street at the same time. Two (2) existing refuse trucks are beyond their useful service life and are being replaced with this award recommendation. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES — MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Materials Management facilitated two (2) separate publically advertised procurement processes as follows: 1) Tender no. 2014- 232012T for the supply of two (2) three- quarter -ton four - wheel -drive extended cab pickup trucks was issued on August 6, 2014 and closed on August 20, 2014 with the following submissions (excluding HST): 70 2014 Fleet Replacement — Tender Awards — Phase IV September 22, 2014 Report to Common Council, M & C 2014 - 167 Page 2 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES CONT'D... COMPANY NAME TENDERED PRICE Downey Ford Sales Ltd. $42,545.00 Dobson Chrysler-Dodge $46,151.00 Staff of Materials Management, Saint John Water and Fleet Management have reviewed the tenders and have found them to be complete and formal in every regard. Staff believes that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. 2) Request for Proposal (RFP) no. 2014- 232002P for the supply of two (2) side - loading refuse trucks was issued on August 7, 2014 and closed on September 4, 2014 with the following submissions (excluding HST): Saunders Equipment Ltd. — Fredericton, NB Shu -Pak Equipment Inc. — Cambridge, ON A review committee, consisting of staff from Materials Management, Transportation and Environment Services and Fleet Management reviewed the submission for completeness and compliance with the RFP requirements and selection criteria consisting of the following: 1. Quality and Completeness 2. Equipment and Performance Specifications 3. Delivery 4. Service Response Time 5. Value Added 6. Cost The proposal submitted by Saunders Equipment Ltd. met all of the requirements set forth in the RFP at a cost acceptable to staff and within the budgeted amount. While the proposal from Saunders Equipment Ltd. is not the lowest -cost proposal, the proposal submitted by Shu -Pak Equipment Inc. did not meet the minimum requirements as set out in the RFP document. The above processes are in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Materials Management support the recommendations being put forth. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If awarded as recommended, the cost to supply the following: 1) Two (2) three- quarter -ton four - wheel -drive extended cab pickup trucks; and 2) Two (2) side - loading refuse packers 71 2014 Fleet Replacement — Tender Awards — Phase IV September 22, 2014 Report to Common Council, M & C 2014 - 167 Page 3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONT'D will be $519,690.00 plus HST. This is a planned expenditure for which funds are included in the 2014 Fleet Reserve Fund. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council award the tenders as follows: 1) Two (2) three - quarter -ton four - wheel -drive extended cab pickup trucks at a total cost of $85,090.00 plus HST to Downey Ford Sales Ltd.; and 2) Two (2) side - loading refuse packers at a total cost of $434,600.00 plus HST to Saunders Equipment Ltd.; Respectfully submitted, Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. Commissioner Transportation and Environment Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 72 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -165 September 22, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Date — 30 Stonegate Drive /65 Drury Cove Road & 168 -172 Belmont Street City of Saint John As provided in Common Council's resolution of August 3, 2004, this report indicates the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications received and recommends an appropriate public hearing date. Details of the applications are available in the Common Clerk's office and will form part of the documentation presented at the public hearings. The following applications have been received. Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason Applicant Zone Zone Dennison 30 Stonegate Drive/ `BP" Section 39 To permit an Properties Inc./ 65 Drury Cove Road Amendment owner's apart- NY Thermal ment in the Inc. existing building Diesel Power 168 -172 Belmont Street "R -2" "R -4" or RL To permit an Service Ltd. existing 4 -unit dwelling RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council schedule the public hearings for the rezoning and Section 39 applications of Dennison Properties Inc./NY Thermal Inc. (30 Stonegate Drive /65 Drury Cove Road) and Diesel Power Service Ltd. (168 -172 Belmont Street) for Monday, November 10, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the applications to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Growth and Community Development Services JH/r 73 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager M &C -2014 164 September 17, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Street Naming BACKGROUND: A new seniors' care facility is being developed by Shannex, in Millidgeville. This campus style development consists of multiple buildings with private drives off of both Millidge Avenue and University Avenue. $J.: City of Saint John Because of the nature and configuration of the development, it is Staff's opinion that the private drives should have their own unique street names in order to reduce confusion for emergency service providers. Therefore Staff has asked the developer to suggest street names for the two private drives (see attached site plan). The developer has suggested Vitality Way and Bloom Lane as street names for these private drives. ANALYSIS Both Vitality Way and Bloom Lane meet NB 9 -1 -1 guidelines and are, in Staff's opinion, acceptable. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council amend the list of Official Street Names and approve the following changes: 1. Add the name voie Vitality Way; and 2. Add the name allee Bloom Lane. 74 M&C- 2.014 -80 -2- May 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted, YL [Me Hamilton, MCIP, RPP J. Patrick Woods, CGA issioner City Manager i and Community Development Services 75 Off \ [f.7 a °\ ��v n r f l 1- ��� } .a :.. as I I ` -N�! f \ [f.7 a °\ ��v Saint John Parking Commission Commission sur Ile stationnement de Saint John September 24, 2014 Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council City of Saint John 8`h Floor, City Hall Saint John, NB Mayor Norton and Members of Common Council: 11 th Floor, City Hall, 11 i6me Etage, Hotel de Ville P.O. Box 1971 / C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.B. /N. -B. E2L 41-1 Tel / Tel: (506) 658 -2897 Fax/ Telecopieur: (506) 649 -7938 E -mail / Courriel: parking@saintjohn.ca RE: Appointment of Rachael Gooding and Wayne Cormier Canadian Corps of Commissionaires as a By -Law Enforcement Officer We are requesting that the following resolution be approved: "Resolved that pursuant to Section 14 of the Police Act of the Province of New Brunswick, the Common Council of the City of Saint John does hereby appoint the following members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires as By -Law Enforcement Officer with the responsibility and authority to enforce provisions of the Parking Meter By -Law and the provisions of Section 5 Section 5.1, Section 7, Section 8, Section 15 and Section 16 of the Saint John Traffic By -Law, namely: Rachael Gooding and Wayne Cormier. And further, that this appointment shall continue until such time as the appointee ceases to be a member of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires or until the appointment is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first." Yours truly —J sh'ith I Manager RJS /vf 77 www.saintjohn.ca Jody Kliffer, Growth and Community Development Services • To construct an approximate 1,390 square metre building containing training rooms, office spaces, meeting rooms, a social enterprise cafe and a rooftop terrace /green space on a series of existing vacant lots. Existing Site Conditions 1 4 -1 _ Growth and Community Development Services , 2014 Proposed Development: Front Elevation 79 # - R ,- SAINT JOHN All 79 # - R ,- SAINT JOHN • The subject site is located in the "Waterloo Village" neighbourhood of the City's urban core area. • The site consists of five vacant lots that have a combined total area of 1,224 square metres, and approximately 37 metres of lot frontage on Prince Edward Street. • This area of the City has a mixture of commercial, residential, community facility and park zones. Growth and Community Development Services September 12, 2014 �R SAINT JOHN :e " SAINT JOHN Designated Medium to High Density Residential: • The land use designation recognises the compatibility that small scale commercial land uses have with the residential intensification areas. • The intent of the Plan is to help foster the development of "complete communities" over time • Staff are of the opinion that the proposed Rezoning conforms to the intent of the Municipal Plan :. SAIN'r JOHN • Public Notification - 50 letters sent to landowners in vicinity of site -, Advertisement in Telegraph Journal - Tuesday September 2, 2014 One written comment received in opposition of the application Growth and Community Development Services September 12, 2014 �, ) SAINT JOHN That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the following variances from the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw that would: • reduce the minimum rear yard setback to approximately 5.9 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a setback of 7.5 metres; • increase the maximum height of a building to approximately 15 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a maximum height of 14 metres; and, • reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces to zero, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 25 spaces. Growth and Community Development Services September 12, 2014 srtilNT Jt } }t ., • That approval for the above variances be subject to the following conditions: — That the developer provide a minimum of 22 off - street parking spaces at an off -site location within 200 metres of the subject site, and that proof of such arrangements be attached to the application for building permit for the development, and be provided to the Development Officer, if requested, on an annual basis; — The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer; Ts The approved plans mentioned in condition (b) above must be attached to the application for building permit for the development; and All work shown on the site plan and building elevation plans must be completed by the proponent within one year of the building permit being issued. ; September 12„ 2014 S,%Ivr JOHN That Common Council: 1. In the event that By -law C. P. 110 has not been repealed, Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1,224 square metres, located at 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street, also identified as PId Nos. 55192157, 000125349 00129145 55086060 and 0001 526, from "RM -I " Multiple Residential infill to T -2" General Business. 2.In the event that the City's proposed new Zoning By -law has been adopted, and By -law C.P. 110 has been repealed, Common Council rezone the above -noted parcel of land from Urban Centre Residential (RC) to General Commercial (CG). Growth and Community Development Services W. September 12, 2014 SAINT JOHN That Common Council: 1. In the event that By -law C.PW 110 has not been repealed, Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1,224 square metres, located at 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street, also identified as PID Nos. 55192157, 000125347 0012914, 55086060 and 00012526, from "RM -I " Multipie Residential Infill to "B -2" General Business. 2. In the event that the City's proposed new Zoning By -law has been adopted, and By -law C.P. 110 has been repealed, Common Council rezone the above -noted parcel of land from Urban Centre Residential (RC) to General Commercial (CG). r SA[NT JOHN The PAC approved the following variances: Reduce the minimum rear yard setback to approximately 5.9 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a setback of 7.5 metres; Increase the maximum height of a building to approximately 15 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a maximum height of 14 metres; and, Reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces to zero, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 25 spaces. SAINT JOHN .. PAC Approval: Conditions BY -LAW NUMBER C.P.110- A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ARRETE No C.P. 110 - ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors dune reunion du conseil John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a follows: The Zoning By -law of The City of Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of December, A.D. 2005, is amended by: 1 Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1224 square metres, located at 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street, also identified as PID numbers 55192157, 00012534, 00012914, 55086060 and 00012526, from "RM -IF" Multiple Residential Infill to `B -2" General Business - all as shown on the plan attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2014 and signed by: Mayor /Maire decrete ce qui suit : L'arrete sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, decrete le dix -neuf (19) decembre 2005, est modifie par: 1 La modification de 1'annexe « A », Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier la designation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1 224 metres carres, situee au 139 -147, rue Prince Edward, et 36 -38, rue Exmouth, et portant les NID 55192157, 00012534, 00012914, 55086060 et 00012526, de zone d'edification de logements multiples sur terrain intercalaire RM -IF » a zone commerciale generale B -2 » - toutes les modifications soot indiquees sur le plan ci joint et font partie du present arrete. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal First Reading - Premiere lecture Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture .c :3 r Advertiser Name: Saint John Common Clerk Advertiser Code: S71206 Size: 4.00 x 14.50 in. Sales Rep: Doug Thomson PROPOSED TONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT RE 139 -147 PRINCE EDWARD STREET AND 36-38 EXMOUTH STREET Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider amending The City of Saint John Zoning By -law at its regular meeting to be held in the Council Chamber on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 6:30 p.m., by! 1. In the event that By-law C.P. 110 has not hem repealed, rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1224 square metres, located at 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street, also identified as PID Nos. 55192157, 00012534, OOD12914, 55086060 and 00012526, from "RM -IF" Muklple Residential Intill to "11-2" General Business, as illustrated below; or 2. In the event that the City's proposed new Zoning Byelaw has been adopted, and By -law C.P, 110 has been repealed, rezoning the above -noted parcel of land from Urban Centre Residential (RC) to General Commercial (CG). REASON FOR CHANGE: To permit the development of an approximately 1400- square- metre building for non - profit organizatiorss, V „l micro - enterprises and social enterprises. The proposed amendment may be impeded by any interested ' person at the office of the Common Clerk, or in the office of Growth and Community Development Services, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a -m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday thmugh Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hall. If you require French services for a Common Council meeting, please contact the office of the Common Clerk- Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk 658 -2862 PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE L'ARRETE SUR LE ZONAGE OBJET: 139 -147, RUE PRINCE EDWARD ET 36 -38, RUE EXMOUTH Par les pri sentes, on avis public est dmrr6 par lequel le Conseil communal He The City of Saint John idique son intention d'6tudier la modification survante 5 I'anet6 stir le zonage de The City of Saint John, brs He la reunion ordinaire qui se tiendra Hans la salle du consel le Irmdl 29 septembre 2014 8 10 h 310: 1. Dam 1'eventualit6 ou I'arret6 CY 110 n'a pas it6 abrog6, le iezonage d'une parcerle He terrain dune su erficie d'environ 1 224 mares cams, situ6e au 139 -147 rue Prince Edward, et 36-38 we Exmouth, et portant les NID 55192157, 00012534, 00012914, 55086060 et 00012526, He zone d'idlflcation de logements muklples Sur terrain Intercalaim.. RM -IF » J� zone commerdale 96nkrale « I5-2 w, comme le momre la carte u- dessous; Oki 2. Dans Mventualit6 ou le projet d'amete sur le zonage a 6t6 adopt6 et Farn8t6 C.P. 110 a 6M abro96, le rezonage He la parcelle He terrain pmcil6e, He zone r6sidentlelle du Centre- ville (RC) h zone commercJale gEnErale (CG). RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Permellre le d6veloppement d'un batiment d'environ 1 400 metres canes pour les organisations 5 but non lucratif, les micro- entreprises et les entreprises sociales. Toule persernne int6ress6e peut examiner le projet He modification au bureau du greffier communal ou au bureau du service He b cronsance et du dNeloppement communautaire 5 I'h6tel He ville silu6 au 15, Market Square, 5 Saint John, au Nouveau. _Brunswick, entre 8 h 30 el 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf les jours furies. Veulrei taire part He vos objections au pmjet He modification par 6crit 3 I'atlention du smssign6 a I'h6tel He ville. Si vows avez besoin des services en franpis pour one r6union He Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal. Jonathan Taylor, Greifier communal 658 -2862 Ad Number: A172677 Ad ID: 6981599 Ad Legacy: 7301193 Current Date: Aug 28 2014 04:19PM Start Date: 9/2/2014 End Date: 9/2/2014 Color: B/W Client Approval OK ❑ 91 Corrections ❑ W, (puss! d!VoaIX2 cn --pe e- AppAntion M6'idp.1 PJ,. Amelkaectt L-j Subdivision Similar / Compatible Use Zoning By -law AMendmeM Variance j Temporary Use j Am dmcnttoScction39CondWow Cmnditonal Use Change I Re-establishment of Zoning Confirmation Lena f7i Letter for Liquor Licensing NM-ConRxxning use Li Home Telephone umber,—.6 c-) 6 Ib c , . wo&Tele—phane Number C Mailing A&kcw (with Postal. Coda) ------- - --- ------ qp� "' Prosiwty InfurfnaWn '7 %R 337 f 2 IS 7 a 0,-q 125'3 LI 0 �q L ,,Ck ocation V\ L� Ex4fing A= DasWaftw of Property Krd/14 'r _e 5, roposed Plan Designation oProperty ! CAMV- ihortlptlm ,.f ApplIcat' 'CtI Desm*c what you propose 10 do (attach additional Pages if necessary)• 4, SICXI�--k NOTE: If the applicant is NOT the owner, dwOwnaes sipaureL.tild(in Writing) to submit v roquirW- Sipwb= of Owner Date i—n.—Office Use Only I Information Accompanying Application: LettcrofIntent L Tentative Subdivision Plan 7", �-Or Plans Site Plan Z --BiW*g Elevations F1 signDrawings P.O. Box 1971 SaIntJohn, rYD Canada EX 4UI www.saintjohn.ca C.P. 1971 Saint John. N.-IL Canada E2L 4LI 93 Mwr FOHN Saint John Community Doan Fund Invrstirs;, in Peoplr - lnt"li»„ in Community BOARib OF t?i1tCQT0l Z'1 August 13, 2014 Pta�,st�u:st Saint John Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John f7t:flf rA d ^` Ail a—.. Ga, . in!,.:_ t'= Re: Re- Zoning to Build the Social Enterprise Hub Adapt lrtrter I17'f:n {.it Please accept this letter and the attached City of Saint John Planning and �,,r.;; ,e _ • , , Development Approvals Application to re -zone 139 -145 Prince Edward St, to allow the building of the Social Enterprise Hub. The Social Enterprise Hub is a project of the Saint John Community Loan Fund. It will be a 3 story 15,000 square foot of; 4:3 building filling three vacant lots. The Social Enterprise Hub will leverage creativity and entrepreneurship for poverty reduction. It will house enterprising non - profit organizations, micro - enterprises, and social enterprise startups. This project addresses the goals outlined in Plan SJ: to intensify mixed use development in the Waterloo Village and the Prince Edward St. arterial; to attract new investment to the community, and ensure home -grown industries are retained and expanded; and to develop a culture of entrepreneurship. In 2009, we completed a small renovation project in which we took a partially vacant building and revived it to make it one of the assets on Prince Edward St. People continue to remark how lovely the building is, and what an important job we c - cE c3 �`'- .�;:r.•�` you:: are doing to re- energize the neighbourhood. The Social Enterprise Hub will have FEUI i0 an even greater impact. a._, A's ;:, %I carat -- We look forward to working with you to build a culture of entrepreneurship in this neighbourhood, in our City and across our Province. L "!4'r ?.• . ;oi :-T Sincerely, Ifi� E'A,,�'F' E' A,f4`iri F'r.i i�KyC 1+i S Seth Asimakos c •a:.,; .r:i , Co-Founder and General Manager Saint John Community Loan Fund Attachments: • City of Saint John Planning and Development Approvals Application • Site Plan • Building Elevations • Floor Plans •, 11 CEO 1111 CAM ("T PMUE EDDIYP�RED ("]JIT Proposed Social Enterprise Hub 141 PrP -RY, Oge, Egward Saint n ew Brunswick 95 Robert L Boyce, ArChttect So nI .. -.in, New Brun3wick FL,30K Proposed Social Enterprise Hub I GROUND FLOOR PLAN M y 21,1�4 `2 I I II CD CD CD l , ' 1 I CD CD El I I I f --- _ _ t i I I f CC %UST ^N* PROJECT pRgw`G SC.•LE RENCION DWG. N0. R 0— oiEioyce,Archltect Aro used Social Enterprise Hub SECOND FLOOR PLAN A R Garman e P P Saint John. New Brunswick DATE $06- 634 -6340 4111, p1m Etlwcto ULY21 /i4 .t c n, ew B,—,i�k j 97 I I I I I I ' I I I L I °•rd• I I I 1 ------- -T -r-- I 1 i I I I t - I �• � 1 I I -- -- -- I - I -- ---- I - -�-. -- l ,r •a lOT I I 1 CCWULTANT PROJECT IRAWNG "AtE REW-ION DWG. N0, Ro6ertL. Boyce, Arehtteet Pro Proposed Social Enter rise Hub THIRD FLOOR PLAN A4 77 G.1—in ; t p P Soint John, New Brun +wick t DATE 56 "1- 634 -634, Scln t Joan, Newr�wntrv!Ck i JULY 21114 • • „ I I I I I ,o I I I L I 1 ery.�Eq 1 I I I f I i 1 1 I I 5 - � -74 Zi?, I 041LAT IM1�aLE X crFurccN.�oE.x yg I I ,,1 --Z4 'JO%5 K'Tk4 vhH+`C.• i5r.i. A,i1C.h' y'cIYV 6:— � I Mr I I I 1 1 II 1 CGNZULTANT FT.JE DRAVANG SCALE RE�I7IGN DWG. NO, 77 Robert L Boyce, Architect Proposed Social Enterprise Hub OF PLAN p r 77 Cmmain 5, P p MJ SalnL Jonn, New Brunswick t41 pence Edniry DATE /iQ ,SO6- 534 -8350 Sant ..m. n, NrK BNnswick • e 100 I l 1 1 I I I f I I 1 f 1 --------- ---- --- lul m r 1 I I I I ! I I I I I ! ! ! I 1 I I 1 II CONSULTANT PRO,tECT VAMNC SCALE RE'.�Sl�ta Df4. NO. 77 Gw L.9oyc®,ArchR ®ct Proposed Social Enterprise Hub STREET ELEVATION p C 77 Gert L. It /�l V �ainl John, New Bran a, -kk OA TE 306 - 534 —E 340 147 Prinoe F+ro�x Sollnt John, ea.r- c,�.r JULY 21/19 100 101 I I i � I I - -______...-_ I I I --- _- ___ --___J . fn Li CWCULTANT RoberlL.Boyee,Arshkect R Germcln t PROJECT Proposed Social Enterprise Hub p P DRAVANl: SOUTH ELEVATION ::ALE RE6ISION DWG. NO /� Soint John, Na -, Br�new�a SDG- 634 -8344 }41 Prin a Edeard Dint Jo�rn, New 9r�rsaka /'"'► JULY 21114 101 102 ------------- 7 17 11 1 L-------- --- - - - - -- -� - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -------- ------- ---- i , I , a - - _ _ - _ - _ - - - _ - _ - J - - - - - - - - - =2 -- ----- C7N�ULTANT Robert L 7- G.— iBoyce,Arahttect Germain St PROJECT Proposed Social Enterprise Hub p ORAVANG NORTH ELEVATION SCALE RE'.1S!ON 7NG. NO, p p S Scinl Jahn, Ner 6rynewick 506 -674 -8340 7 q g� E �a�nPjoryn. Nev�6rv...kk DATE JULY 29114 !'10 102 103 I f I I I I aoomrs,an ADD" — — � •° r I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •- - ---.._ CGNSUanN7 RohartL Boyce,ArchRect n ce�r,en � Salrt John, hew Sunsr.lck 5pfi- 634 -ri40 PROJECT JRaWING P P Proposed Social Enterprise Hub REAR ELEVATION p 6 50�nt J�ohh, Ed-rd SI-Sa ;cK M&LE RE.ISI0nt 0w0 No. p e`er M UUTE 114 103 M3✓ E 4g- Yi ^TS'TM 'MtE —r '1qqF ItiSAA ----------- ---------- �•Er1rUa n0.• JaS;� — Pi r — ICP iCCMCJ f I xnom• •. � s!,acvw� j �r c+tii i wow i i P.. lii mw a•,t tx . i J VRLL Rt•. I]IVN U11Si. NV, Robert oyce,Arch ect Pro Proposed Social Enter rise Hub SECTION A /, 0 77 �Jermain St P P /'"'► 506— Jahn, New Brunswick 77e• pncoe Edwo:a ,lULYZi /i4 508 -534 -6:40 Scent .ohn, New Brun.. +wi4k 104 105 IW1WLY i rnei euelr N r o ws,anar� �rEa:. ^ctuopU- N4 6%hLE MgiiiF� gxud� IrF �t CP!,'c `.£1TPE %04'.'•.,1.1 I 3 rm N& q 4f'4NBLV 4 $ I .- r CON'uLTANT Robert L Boyce, arcnRect Ge 5; PROJECT Proposed Social Enterprise Hub DR.:WING SECTION B SCALE RE.��IC�� DWG. N0. S7 J.hn, Jena• New erpnewic4 A DATE JULY21 /i4 5C6— 506 —b34 -8340 1 +j t rn E.— Saint Jonn, i:ew Srunsnlck /� 105 V, W Vile we invest in ideas that create income, build assets, and ii-iake change 106 133 Prince Edward St. Saint Jahn, NB t2L 3S3 T. 506 652 S600 F. 506 6S2 5603 IoanfundOnbnet.nb ca wwwAoanfund.ca BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB - WAYS TO SUPPORT Executive Summary Social Enterprise Hub Description The .Saint John Community Loan Fund has begun to plan a larger space to foster creativity and entrepreneurship for poverty reduction. The 15,000 square foot building will he located at 139 prince Edward St. and encompass three floors. Using an innovative design system, the cost will be !ender $2million to construct. The space will include the following. On the ground floor a social enterprise cafeteria used for back to work training. Down the hail, micro - enterprises launche€i through the loan Fund are clustered and focused on a lean start up. A maker space has a 3D printer enabling early stage prototyping. On the second floor training occurs in rooms that can be collapsed and enlarged to accommodate larger community events and pitch presentations. On the third floor, enterprising non - profits work on poverty reduction. This is a flour where synergy is created and innovative ideas hatch for reducing poverty. The building is tied together with the latest technology enabling seamless communicatic- for high level productivity. The Egan Fund has invested $100,000 into land purchase and initial designs. Another $300,000 has been committed by the Regional development Corporation, and the Sir lames Dunn Foundation and individual investors have committed $460,000. We invite you to be part of this innovative impact sp3ce. 1 I P j i. 107 BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB - WAYS TO SUPPORT Reasons to invest This project is a place based development in a+ priority neighbourhood. Viarant Communities Saint John has identified six priority neighbourhoods of which the Waterloo Village is one. It is characterised by a high poverty rate and a low home ownership rate. Yet it is centrally located, close to major corporations, a com w pity schoal ard gree-i space. This is the location of 139 Prince Edward St. This project addresses the goals outlined in Plan SJ: to intensify mixed use development in the Waterloo Village and the Prince Edward St. arterial; to attract new investment to the community, and ensure home -grown irkdustries are retained and expanded; and to develop a culture of entrepreneurship. w utr p,4 nnW brr +wwctru waM This project addresses the Provincial Government's goal of promoting entrepreneurship and innovation in New Brunswick through creating centres of entrepreneurship. It is about creating new jobs and wealth and attracting new investment. It links in with the Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation's work to develop a robust social enterprise ecosystem. This project addresses the Federal Government's goal of building the economies of Atlantic Canada through investing in projects that enhance a community's capacity to ov?rcome economic development challenges. This project builds desperately needed quality space for enterprising non - profits working to launch social enterprises. A quick survey of our partners working in poverty reduction indicates a need for quality space where tenancy is stable. Target Customer and Value proposition There are three primary customers for the space: enterprising non - profits; micro - entrepreneurs; and, early stage social enterprises. They value this location for the following reasons: cluster effect for innovation, for purchasing, and for leveraging investment; leading technology; muAiple and flexible meeting spaces; central location; affordable rent; and, enterprise support (via Loan Fund). 2 1 108 BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB - WAYS TO SUPPORT Key partners The project developer is the Saint Jahn Community Loan Fund (Lean Fund), a non -profit rhantaNe o- ganization established in 1999, whose mission is to improve social conditions by p. emoting econramic independence and foster;ng entrepreneurship. For more than 10 years it has been helping individuals create income, build assets, and attain greater self- reliance by providing training, micro- leans, coaching, and good, secure, affordable apartments. in 2009, it bought and renovated a partially vacant building for office space and two affordable apartments. Neighbours were amazed at r ! 1 lip the transformation. It was a risk and it paid off; not 1p ,' only for the Loan Fund, but for the neighbourhood. For more information please go to www.loanfund.ca. The key social enterprise partner in the project and the source of 30% of projected rent revenue is the Saint John Learning Exchange. Established 30 years ago, it helps adults attain their GED. This focus includes training in transferable work shills and helping individuals transition to employment. The Learning Exchange is also experimenting with social enterprise. It runs Stone Soup Catering and recently launched Voila, a green cleaning company. The SJ Learning Exchange and the 4 t" fl Loan Fund are in final negotiations with the f=ederal Government to launch a 5 year project that will help build social enterprises in Saint John. The bond Deshpande Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation has emerged as an accelerator of social enterprise and entrepreneurship in the region. It has committed to renting space in the Social Enterprise Flub because it wants an ongoing footprint it Saint John; a place for pitch events, for enterprise launches and incubating emerging entrepreneurs. Enterprising non - profits engaged in poverty reduction also want to be part of the Haab. They include Vibrant Communities SJ and Saint John Human Development Council. We are also in early discussions with other key organizations such as the United Way, GSJ f=oundation and the Urban Core Support Network. 3 1 109 BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB - WAYS TO SUPPORT Three ways you can support the SE Hub. 1. Project Sponsor There are three project sponsors right now, Gerry Pond, Sir James Dunn Foundation vnd the Regional Development Corporation. Project sponsors are champions and first adopters that leverage others to fo;low their lead in supporting innovation. Their sponsorship enables the campaign to take large strides towards the goal, and will include support of $100,000 or more. Project sponsors will be named on prominent fixed display on an exterior wall adjacent to en":ry to the Hub. 2. Room Sponsor There will be five training rooms, three meeting rooms, enterprise incubation space, social enterprise cafe, and a few offices and bathrooms. Everything is up for capital cost sponsorship. The opportunity is for a corporation to have its name and brand be associated with the building and specifically a room for the life of the building. Names will be etched into the door glass of each room or on z name plate beside, as well as be on the sponsorship wall of the main floor atrium. Naming rights mry be shared if a room is co- sponsored. On the following pages we hav;- many of the rooms identified. 3. Tenant Sponsor Sponsors may also choose to sponsor an activity. For instance the enterprising non- profit space and the generation of innovative poverty reduction work could be sponsored for a 3 to 5 year period. Each sponsor would be listed on the Sponsorship wall on the main floor atrium, as well as be listed in marketing materials and websites. Other options include sponsoring a tenant such as the Urban Core Support Network for their office space. Currently they do not pay rent where they are at, but would benefit from collocating in this building. 41 110 -- - - ----- A2 BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB — WAYS TO SUPPORT 1-0 Floor Start Here Centre 400 sq ft Cost to Construct - $69,000 Sponsorship Opportunity - $17,00.0-$34,000 The main entry will have a front desk and assistant who will provide orientation to anyone coming into We Hub. This position will be an opportunity to transition clients to work by providing a mentored work opportunity. 800 sq ft Cost to Construct - $136,000 Sponsorship Opportunity - $35,000-$70,000 Micro-businesses that have been started through the Loan Fund will share approximately 800 squaf e feet of space in a mix of CIO open office space. Micro-businesses have access to a shared fax - copier, meeting space.. a cafeteriz. down the hall, business support, and each other! Social Enterprise Caii'd 600 sq ft Cost to Construct - $102,000 Sponsorship Opportunity - $25,000-$50,000 Stone Soup Catering is a social enterprise caterer that was started by the Leanring Exchange. It is a transition to work opportunity for their clients, whil providing a necessary good food option on site. They wili be the tenant and manager of this cafeteria/catering space. A space that can also be rented for food mentoring programming, and used for community functions- 5 1 111 one S;,ojo c' CA:MnAco BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB — WAYS TO SUPPORT 2 "" Floor Cost to Construct — 5 x $8S G 0 Sponsorship Opportunity® 5 x $40,900 The Saint John Learning Exchange (Learning Exchange) was established in 1984. It provides GED preparation and foundational literacy upgrading. The Learning Exchange knows literacy is a component of earning a living wage and understands the need to provide responsive and supportive programming to assist E learners on that journey. L.. Cost to Construct — 15 x $12,400 Sponsorship O ortu.unit -. A3 The Saint John Learning Exchange employs ten trainers and five job developers. Their work is key in moving individuzls through training with over 50 achieving their GED. Those who cannot achieve their GED are trained in workplace essential skills and may have an opportunity to work in transitional work settings to build their skills for reaching their goals for employment. 61 112 r BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB - WAYS TO SUPPORT Meeting Rooms - III.. 2nd and 3,d Floors Specid Event and Pitch Room Large 1800 sq ft Cost to Construct — $136,000 Sponsorship Opporturi1q, —up to 1,3'65,0100 With various organizations in one location, we share meeting rooms which means we have more variety at our disposal. This is where we host our own and other pitch events, as well as larger gaining sessions that can accommodate 50-70 people. Strai..'-egy Rooms 2 x 400 sq ft Cost to Construct —2 x $68,000 Sponsorship Opportunity —up to $30,000 We wifli have two of these size rooms which can accommodate 15 people. This is where the designated committees and boards work to build strategy for innovative solutions to grow. Cne-on-One Idea Generation 3 x 150 sq ft Cost to Construct —3 x $25,500 Sponsorship Opportunity --up to $12,000 Whether working with a client to support their quest or working with a couple of partners, these rooms are about having a space for building that initial idea and supporting it. Many important steps will start right here. 7 1 113 A. BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB — WAYS TO SUPPORT 3�` Floor Collaborating for SoCial and Elconor, tic Innovation M,Dosiq ft Cost to Construct 4850,000 Sponsorship Opportunity -up to $400,000 This floor will have three to five non - profit organizations focused on poverty reduction usin-a a collaborative f-ntrepreneurial model. Spaces will be a combination of separate offices, open work stations and ineeting spaces. The groups we have on board include the ED and Social Enterprise Officers of the SJ Learning Exchange, staff of the Saint John Community Loan Fund., Staff of the SJ Human Development Council, social entrepreneurs sponsored by the Pond Deshpande Centre, and Vibrant Communities Staff. Discussions are ongoing with other groups that fit this model and want to explore innovative strategies to community impact. Tenant Sponsor cm - AV k Women's Empowerment Meteor (WEN) (Formearly Urban Core Suppoart Network) The Saint John Community Loan Fuild and Women's Ernpolverment Network have been working together since the Loan Fund formed. Today staff from the Loan Fund facilitate WEN's Power Up program, a leadership training pro-ramfor women from priority neighbourhoods. The cost for them to n 0 L L be in the space will be $200 month or 52400 annually. Ideally the sponsor would look at multi -year commitment of 3-5 yc-ars. Lae eer counselling offices This is an office area possibly shared by NBCC, UNBSJ and a welincss counsellor. It wili enable both career and wellness counselling be available for the 100s of clients passing through the building. It can be sponsored on capital cast, roughly $17,000 or via cash floes; sponsorship, at v240(3 per year. Again multi-year commitments enable longer term panning and lnnovativ-e growth, 81 114 BUILDING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HUB — WAYS TO SUPPORT Interested in being part of the Social Enterprise Hub? lterested in building a space that integrates social and economic goals? That supports micro and social entrepreneurship? That supports neigh ` o rhood irnpact and solutions that reduce povertt and retain our population for our community,, province and region? Please Contact Us Seth Asiakos Co- Founder and General Manager er Saint Join Community Loan Fund 652 -5600 loa of u nd Cad n bnet. n b.ca Christina Fowler Executive Director Saint John Learning Exchange 648 -0212 Christina.Fowler @sjle.org 91 A � U 0. E "I Current Loan Fund location 15 Planning Advisory Committee September 17, 2014 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street -1- City of Saint John On September 2, 2014 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its September 16, 2014 meeting. Seth Asimakos, the applicant, was in attendance and was in favour of staff recommendation. Mr. Asimakos explained that the impetus for this project in part arose from the lack of appropriate working spaces for a variety of organisations working in the non -profit sector, including the Community Loan Fund, which is currently located adjacent to the subject site, and the Saint John Learning Exchange, which is located on Union Street. The Committee asked Mr. Asimakos to comment on the planned parking arrangement for the required number of off - street parking spaces. Mr. Asimakos stated that he has been in discussions with Prince Edward Square and that there is available space in their parking facility to accommodate the required parking spaces for the proposed development. The Committee also asked the applicant to comment on the potential impacts the proposed development may have on the surrounding residential community. Mr. Asimakos explained that the area around the subject site includes the Boys and Girls Club, the Teen Resource Centre, Prince Edward Square Mall, a Pharmacy, as well as other retail businesses. Mr. Asimakos stated that he believed the proposed "social enterprise hub" would be in keeping with these land uses and would contribute positively to the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Asimakos also stated that the proposed development is supported by the Municipal Plan. Staff added that the Medium to High Density Residential land use designation on Schedule B of the City's Municipal Plan does indeed envision primarily residential land uses in these areas. However, the Plan also contemplates complementary land uses, such as the proposed development, that build on the existing fabric of the community. 116 -2- One letter was received in opposition to the application (copy attached). After considering the report, letter and comments by the applicant, the Committee approved the staff recommendation that the proposed rezoning be approved. The Committee also granted the requested variances for rear yard, building height and parking, subject to the conditions contained in the attached report. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That, in the event that By -law C.P. 110 has not been repealed, Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1,224 square metres, located at 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street, also identified as PID Nos. 55192157, 00012534, 0012914, 55086060 and 00012526, from "RM -IF" Multiple Residential Infill to `B -2" General Business. 2. That, in the event that the City's proposed new Zoning By -law has been adopted, and By -law C.P. 110 has been repealed, Common Council rezone the above -noted parcel of land from Urban Centre Residential (RC) to General Commercial (CG). Respectfully Morgan qdvi Chair JK Project No. 14 -478 117 Date: September 12, 2014 To: Planning Advisory Committee From: Community Planning and Development Growth and Community Development SUBJECT Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund, Inc. Owner: Saint John Community Loan Fund, Inc. Location: 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street Existing Designation: Medium to High Density Residential Existing Zoning: "RM -IF" Multiple Residential Infill (By -law C.P. 110) or General Commercial (CG)(ZoneSJ) Proposed Zoning: "B -2" General Business Application Type: Rezoning and Variances that would: 1. reduce the minimum rear yard setback to approximately 5.9 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a setback of 7.5 metres; 2. increase the maximum height of a building to approximately 15 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a maximum height of 14 metres; and, 3. reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces to zero, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 25 spaces. Power of Committee: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning By -law. The Committee recommendation will be considered by Common Council at a public hearing on Tuesday, September 29, 2014. Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I Loca�ft 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page I 1 The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Zoning By -law. The Committee can impose conditions. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a three - storey building that, if approved, would house a "social enterprise hub" consisting of several organisations that work in various capacities to reduce poverty in Saint John. The proposed development requires a rezoning from "RM -IF" Residential Multiple Infill to "B -2" General Business. The subject site is located in the Medium to High Density Residential designation on Schedule B of the City's Municipal Plan. This designation contemplates commercial or business uses that complement the residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Plan also encourages infill development in the urban core area of the City. In addition to the rezoning component of the application, the proposed development also requires three variances from the standards of the Zoning Bylaw, including a variance to reduce the required number of off - street parking spaces from 25 to nil. Staff recommend approval for the proposed rezoning and variances, subject to several conditions discussed below. RECOMMENDATION That, in the event that By -law C.P. 110 has not been repealed, Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1,224 square metres, located at 139 -147 Prince Edward Street and 36 -38 Exmouth Street, also identified as PID Nos. 55192157, 00012534, 0012914, 55086060 and 00012526, from "RM -IF" Multiple Residential Infill to "B -2" General Business. 2. That, in the event that the City's proposed new Zoning By -law has been adopted, and By -law C.P. 110 has been repealed, Common Council rezone the above -noted parcel of land from Urban Centre Residential (RC) to General Commercial (CG). 3. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the following variances from the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw that would: • reduce the minimum rear yard setback to approximately 5.9 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a setback of 7.5 metres; • increase the maximum height of a building to approximately 15 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a maximum height of 14 metres; and, • reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces to zero, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 25 spaces. Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I LocaiiT §: 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page 12 Approval for the above variances be subject to the following conditions: a) That the developer provide a minimum of 22 off - street parking spaces at an off - site location within 200 metres of the subject site, and that proof of such arrangements be attached to the application for building permit for the development, and be provided to the Development Officer, if requested, on an annual basis; b) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer; c) The approved plans mentioned in condition (b) above must be attached to the application for building permit for the development; and d) All work shown on the site plan and building elevation plans must be completed by the proponent within one year of the building permit being issued. DECISION HISTORY There are no previous planning applications or decisions for the subject property relevant to this application. ANALYSIS Site and Surrounding Area The subject site is located in the "Waterloo Village" neighbourhood of the City's urban core area. The site consists of five vacant lots that have a combined total area of 1,224 square metres, and approximately 37 metres of lot frontage on Prince Edward Street. The subject site extends through to Exmouth Street, as illustrated on the attached location map. This area of the City has a mixture of commercial, residential, community facility and park zones, as well as an "ID" Integrated Development zone established for the Prince Edward Square mall. The site is located across from Chown Field Park and adjacent to the current location of the Community Loan Fund. Proposal The applicant is planning to construct a three - storey building that, if approved, would house a variety of non - profit organisations and social enterprises. The proposed development is a three - storey building with approximately 1,390 square metres of gross floor area. The building includes training rooms, office spaces, meeting rooms, a social enterprise cafe and a rooftop terrace /green space. The purpose of the proposed development is to bring together several non - profit organisations and social enterprises under a single roof as a means of reducing operating costs and enhancing their clienteles' access to required services. Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I Localin 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page 13 In addition to the proposed rezoning, the applicant is seeking approval for the following variances from the standards of the City's Zoning Bylaw: 1. To reduce the minimum rear yard setback to approximately 5.9 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a setback of 7.5 metres; 2. To increase the maximum height of a building to approximately 15 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a maximum of 14 metres; and, 3. To reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces to zero, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 25 spaces. Municipal Plan The subject site is located in the Medium to High Density Residential designation on Schedule B of the City's Municipal Plan. This designation is primarily intended for residential development, but may also include complementary land uses that preserve or enhance the integrity of the residential neighbourhood. Indeed, Policy LU -47 of the Plan encourages the development of "appropriate retail and office uses" in the Medium to High Density Residential designation. The Municipal Plan supports development in the identified Intensification Areas, which includes the area subject to the current proposal. The Plan encourages development in these areas of the City as it is an effective use of existing public assets, including schools, community centres, police and fire stations, municipal water and sewage lines, sidewalks, urban parks, among other areas of investment. To this end, one of the stated goals in the Plan is to "promote infill development on vacant and underused properties" in order to protect and enhance these investments. Zoning As stated, the applicant is seeking the "B -2" General Commercial zoning for the subject site. Although the organisations that will be located in the proposed development (if approved) are non - profit organisations, from a land use perspective the impacts on the surrounding community are similar to the operations of a commercial business. Traffic impacts, parking, pedestrian activity, etc., are all aspects of a proposed development, whether for a business or not - for - profit organisation, that need to be considered through a rezoning process. The land use impacts of a for - profit business are often indistinguishable from a not - for - profit organisation. For this reason, an "institution of an education, governmental or philanthropic nature" is identified as a permitted use in the "B -2" zone, which is a zone primarily intended for retail and business offices. It should also be noted that the draft Zoning Bylaw would require a total of 22 off - street parking spaces for the proposed development. The existing Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 25 off - street parking spaces for the proposed development; however, this number is reduced in the draft Zoning Bylaw by 20% for properties within "Intensification Areas" on Schedule D of the draft by -law, which includes the Waterloo Village neighbourhood. Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I Locaii�4: 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page 14 Discussion The proposed development offers a strategic co- location of several community -based service providers. If approved, the "social enterprise hub" will offer a range of services aimed at alleviating poverty in the City by offering training facilities and adult learning opportunities through the programming that will be offered by various tenants of the "social enterprise hub ". Variances The elevations submitted by the applicant illustrate an aesthetically appealing structure that will make a positive contribution to the streetscape and surrounding neighbourhood. However, the proposed structure exceeds the maximum height permitted in the "B -2" General Business zone by one metre. It is staff's opinion that the departure from the Zoning Bylaw standards is minimal, and that the tasteful design of the building mitigates any perceived negative impacts that the proposed height may have on the surrounding community. The proposed development also requires a variance from the required rear yard setback to approximately 5.9 metres, whereas the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of 7.5 metres. The lot abutting the rear yard of the proposed building is an undeveloped lot that is landlocked between properties with PID numbers 55089387 and 55192157. Although the proposed location of the building abuts the front property line, the proximity to this landlocked parcel triggers a need for the requested variance. Staff can support this variance as there are no apparent negative impacts that would result from the requested setback. Indeed, several properties in this area of the City have rear yard setbacks of 5.9 metres or less, which suggests that a reduced rear yard setback would be in keeping with the built environment of the neighbourhood. Finally, the proposed development requires the above - mentioned parking variance. Reducing the required number of spaces to nil is a dramatic departure from the standards of the Bylaw and should be considered closely. Eliminating the requirement for off - street parking for a development that requires 25 could have negative repercussions for those either living in the neighbourhood, or people temporarily accessing the area and depending on the availability of on- street parking. It is projected that the development of the proposed building will begin sometime after the adoption of the new Zoning Bylaw. As such, staff believe that it is reasonable to require the applicant to provide the same number of spaces that would be required under the provisions of the draft Zoning Bylaw in its current form. Even though the applicant would be providing 22 off - street parking spaces, a variance for zero parking spaces is still needed as the Zoning Bylaw requires the off - street parking spaces to be provided on the subject site or on a contiguous lot. Given the development plans for the subject site do not allow sufficient space for any off - street parking, the applicant must provide off - street parking within reasonable distance from the proposed development. In discussions with staff, the applicant has stated that the Community Loan Fund will provide the required amount of off - street parking spaces in the vicinity of the subject site. Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I LocaV25: 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page 15 The applicant has indicated that he has had preliminary discussions with Prince Edward Square mall to negotiate the provision of several spaces. Therefore, staff recommend that the Planning Advisory Committee adopt a condition that requires the applicant to secure 22 off - street parking spaces within approximately 200 metres of the subject site, and that proof of such arrangements be attached to the application for a building permit. In addition to providing sufficient off - street parking, the applicant has indicated that the development will include a bike rack and end -of -trip facilities in the proposed development to encourage cycling. Efforts, such as these, to encourage cycling can relieve the pressure for on or off - street parking as cycling has the potential to displace vehicular trips. Rezoning The addition of the proposed development would be in keeping with the existing mix of land uses in the area as the surrounding neighbourhood has several properties with commercial zoning. The proposed "CG" General Commercial zone in the draft Zoning Bylaw is designed to "accommodate midsize commercial development that provides services and goods to the broader community ". Staff feel that the proposed development adequately meets this requirement. This area of the City currently has several retail stores, community facilities, a park and residential land uses. The development of the proposed social enterprise hub will add to the unique character of the built environment of Waterloo Village, and engender a greater sense of community pride as a result of the services provided. Staff support the rezoning of the property to "B -2" General Business. Conclusion The proposal to construct a three - storey building in the City's Waterloo Village neighbourhood that will house a consortium of social enterprises and non - profit organisations is a positive development for the area. The subject site includes five vacant lots that are accessed off Prince Edward Street and Exmouth Street. The variances required to facilitate the proposed development can be supported by staff, although a condition requiring the applicant to provide 22 off - street parking spaces within 200 metres of the subject is recommended. Proof of such parking arrangements must be attached to the building permit for the proposed development. The proposed development constitutes an "infill" project in an identified Intensification Area in the City's Municipal Plan, and will contribute positively to the surrounding community. Therefore, staff also recommend approval for the rezoning of the properties to "B -2" General Business, subject to several conditions. ENGAGEMENT Public - In accordance with the Committee's Rules of Procedure, notification of the proposal was sent to landowners within 100 metres of the subject site on August 29, 2014. Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I Locai�s: 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page 16 SIGNATURES AND CONTACT Prepared by: d li CIP, RPP PIa ner Contact: Jody Kliffer Tel: (506)632 -6846 Fax: (506)658 -2837 E -mail: jody.kliffer @saintjohn.ca Project: 14 -478 Approved by: Stacey For , CIP, RPP Deputy missioner, Community Planning and Enrichment Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I Local n4 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page 17 APPENDIX Map 1: Site Location Map 2: Municipal Plan Map 3: Zoning Map 4: Aerial Photography Map 5: Site Photography Submission 1: Site Plan Submission 2: Elevations and Floor Plans Applicant: Saint John Community Loan Fund I LocaVn 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Page 18 The City Orsaint )Olin Map 1 - Site Location Prince Edward Street 139 -147 Date: August 28, 2014 \ \ \\ �N, CO II p / NN NN r \ Cv \ i Map 3 - Zoning Prince Edward Street 139-147 Date: August 28, 2014 T City ofs3int John N-2 (304 It - ANN, 9-2 H- 11-1 z, c)§ Sl-m IN-2"OefteralBasifiess "Iff"IfitemledBerelooffleftl IfislifffligRal "11-2",'Y,WjorJfisfilvAofiBl WPM "fiN-3"CONWAres mmill/l/v flesfifeflual TARF"Nuffilyle flesidefffiallfflill 11- 14"Specialkne #14 10 11-1 All, Site Photography 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Date: September 5, 2014 VW LL . t .. r Photo 1: Subject Site Photo 2: Prince Edward Street Streetscape Photo 3: Exmouth Street Frontage 130 Photo 4: Looking down from Exmouth Street E-KNOU7H ST pRME EDWARD ARD By Proposed Social Enterprise Hub 141 Prince Edward Saint John, New Brunswick 131 132 r or 3a 0 a o N > _ J o� U I it I I I I i I I I LI� i1 0 z�s� c _ d N I I N 'waj� _ pm I 8' I I N am 6 11 � wZ / a / I I I I I I I I I m ornz n I I I I I Fm Nac�o �U Doc N I I 1 I I 132 III i N I� II I 1 I I I I I 1 � � 1 3 dm z =m�zm LU oCO) I � 2 .Q I � W I I 0 rL -�., of op =• e I - an• _ ig- t2 I I� II I 1 I I I I I 1 � � 1 3 dm =m�zm UKr i°n .°n 133 134 z di 3a 1 FEI I I I I I I I I 1 Ir I I J W ILII �I N O. LI W I 1 I Z O � am -- I O 0p _ - O I I I I I FIA I I I I II I I 1 I I I I �9 I I I m m _fin c r J I 1 E Y ° � ooroo U1'rm vi 134 135 o W z I I 1 I I N s N <� I I I 1 I I I \\ \ 1\ I I I I I N I I 1 \ I I l I I I \ \1\ I I 3 0 o Z I II I 11 I t\\ I \\\ II L I II = I I I I I I I I I O to G I I I I I I I I I � w W A V - O N II I I II I a av I it I II I I I I I II � I I I as C. I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a` m v zap' 135 136 I I I I 3 a 0 I � I I I o 5 J- w� !I I 1 0 � c 1 > LLJ I i N __J o 2 I d I 1 I d c W I I 'J 0 N am �z I I a N a - U Q Lll I 1 I I I I LLa _ a Q m y c ;o zm cz m aJu o uKn�°n .n 136 137 o L 3 o N �- I 5 r� ag I go I I .p[ -Al.j U I 6A LL z O 0 I 7 N t d y` W � 3 CL as a� \f� II I I t I Q m 30 Jti E�� I 137 138 Z 3 o CF N �- w� I r I s o� U 1 O ' I I I I � O > J w ~ 1 I I I I ' I I I Ti 7 d N .Q r W -- - - - - - - - -- ' o N m C VZ w d o a I ® I ® I I oC O LLm I I I I I € II I u 3 3 O o iv 00^x^ � 138 139 o� O � N I J _ -___ I I .qr.0 ------- -------- ------I____ v N 1 I � 1 I n I I I Z I J I - - - - T- -� - - - d { I I O 1 1 I fit- I O u I ® I I 1 Ir = I 1 I - I I 1 1 r �J I I I I h vm °m I a _ I I I I I H O O CL ao o� { 1 I I _ as - { I i I I I I I 1 I I 1� I I I t I I I I I = I I I I I I I I I I L -r I I { I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I II IL •Y B P'f �.rt -1� m u s a m V 3 I �mc zap' U dC . . 139 140 o M 3a I ,I cli 5 � 0 [ 600 .Fq R — — I — — — — N � I E TI I II i I O O I ® I LL `_� (i I I - - -- I I I I I I I I I n � = I 1 y W I I U v d _ I oO I I a a cy _ I I I m I I 1 11111 . 'Illllll I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----- ----------- I - - - - - -- -I'. I u s Q m i u 3 0 Omz � I I �JE oraj OOn -p UO:1� V1 VJ I 140 .�. = N o� ti I I , N 5 I I I I = I y, N I � I III - J � O z ® I I � \ (p2 i I o r CL l I G L4 � I T 99- 2rJ �� 1 r — I I d am cL I Nrvzm za�F i 141 Lockhart, Lynda From: External - Planning Sent: September -08 -14 8:32 AM To: Kliffer, Jody, Lockhart, Lynda Subject: FW: Proposed Rezoning 139 -147 Prince Edward Street From: Ella Hoyt f mailto:ellahoyt @hotmail.com] Sent: September -07 -14 7:19 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Proposed Rezoning 139 -147 Prince Edward Street Jody Kliffer, MCIP, RPP Regarding the proposed re- zoning application of 139 -147 Prince Edward Street from RM -IF Multiple Residential Infill to B -2 General Business. I must oppose this rezoning for the following reasons: 1) Plan SJ is being encouraged in the city. This plan encourages higher density residential developments, and it is directly opposed by this re- zoning application 2) This area is a residential neighbourhood, first and foremost, with a nice socio- economic mix 3) This neighbourhood has a nice mixture of single and multi family homes which individuals have purchased and made investments in. The wish is for more residential development. 4) Rezoning to allow businesses development will do nothing to continue to encourage residential development and residential improvements in the area. 5) Most recent residential developments have included a mix of socio- economic roles. I will not detail the advantages of having that mix. This re- zoning and development will do nothing to promote that mix. 6) The Zoning plan calls for Multiple Residential Infill and it was this plan that encouraged those who bought homes in the area to buy here. Allowing General Business to be inserted in the middle of a residential neighbourhood is why we have such a haphazard development map in the city. 7) No one can purchase a home in an area zoned residential with any degree of confidence that the area will remain zoned residential when zoning variances are allowed. Regarding the variances from the standards of the City's zoning bylaw: Allowing variances to the plan standards will render the standards in the plan meaningless. Regarding the `plans' of the applicant: These are `plans' and the city cannot guarantee adherence to those `plans'. The `plan' of the applicant is to have tenants of a certain type but there is no guarantee that the applicant will follow through on those plans. This will be a business and the applicant will rent to whatever tenant the applicant chooses and makes business sense to do so. The applicant `plans' to lease parking spaces at another lot. There is no guarantee that this will happen as the city has no control once a variance has been made, possibly resulting in traffic congestion due to on street parking on an, at times, busy street. i 142 In conclusion, I must oppose this application as the variances are too many and too varied, the area is residential, there is no guarantee that the development will be used as the applicant `plans', and this development does not follow Plan SJ for encouraging more dense residential infill. Nor does this development support and encourage current and future investment in residential properties in the area. Regards Ella Hoyt z 143 r Growth • Community Development 144 • Municipal Plan Designation - Current: Low to Medium Density Residential O.4 4► 0 - • Zoning - Current: "IL -2" Major Institutional -W Proposed: "B -2" General Business 1.4 hectare site Growth « Community Development 145 SAINT JO N Ll X is 70 > del 2c, • IL op fg, X 20 -V 17 V N; 3 , S, k to il Growth and Community Development Services 146 September 29, 2014 SAINT JOIIN EMT NG M[NM r w TOMMY ll �� BH&-" rcY NMIx61�N i .� -.. •-� 64b4ZUS.'W 1aalIPM 0.+11 wprv1 PbP{+M iaa; M� W I1C0� i -owEMN i � - ,�,- CanY'q i.Yll /hm(QMi u.lul `err r.a... au— C S • _ ,PA: 210 � .�T \.` Y • NaeMlalw�lYOa�MiOayrVwb FM NKRMVIM ...m..r.. r�.�r� •_• ' "°+.erg 1 1An el i —mn 4 V \V�42' •P1anbM..11ss1Mal am two1�an.�...�s aru - _.� � \�\ , � �. 4 4 - rs..M+� i 1 '.. � �dPq / . ��neea•bar� 1--. e f 1 V A Prwn ala+aaMe i 9 PeoPVa90r1s' MILUDGEVILLE SYMM cobalt � 1bn -r-V arvonwrr�a�1 1 � � PIDUM701 on w — ..rasa YIPoIRW m OFZQWJO. WANTMWMLM . 1 OS Ii MM TROOPST LIS 11 fPWSP �. Growth and Community Development Services September 29, 2014 _ SAINT 101 IN 147 • Intensification of site at key node in Millidgeville Proximity to existing residential and UNBSJJSJRH Primary centre • Site design, building facades and massing fit with local context • Entrances and front of buildings oriented towards street • Opportunity for tree retention • Active transportation elements in site design • Staff are of the opinion the proposal conforms to the overall goals, policies and intent of the Municipal Plan m September 0 r r 1 5AINT 101 IN Existing Zoning By -Law • Meets Standards of "B -2" General Business zone • Variance for parking aisle width — Reduction from 7.5 m to a minimum of 6 metres Draft Zoning By -Law • Meets Standards of General Commercial (CG) zone • Variances required: — Drive thru queue lengths — Reduced side yard landscaping from 5m to 3 m (minimum) — Reduced rear yard landscaping from 5 m to between 5m and nil Growth and Community Development Services 149 September 29, 2014 i� SAINTJOHN • Traffic Impact Study completed by developer's consultant • Estimated Traffic Generation — AM Peak Hour 177 vehicles during (90 in / 87 out) — PM Peak Hour 365 vehicles (183 in / 182 out) • Study Area intersections will operate with acceptable levels of delay and volume -to- capacity post development • Traffic signals not warranted at site access • Crosswalk warranted at eastern site access • Access points meet required spacing and location criteria Growth and Community Development Services September 29, 2014 SAINT 10111 150 • Public Notification Growth and Development Services Advertisement in Telegraph Journal for Public Presentation for Municipal Plan Amendment • Thursday June 12, 2014 - Advertisement in Telegraph Journal for Public Hearing • Tuesday September 2, 2014 • Tuesday September 23, 2014 - 53 letters sent to landowners in vicinity of site on August 25, 2014 - 15 letters received as of Tuesday September 16, 2014 • 2 were associated with Public Presentation advertisement Growth and community Development Services September 29, 2014 SAINT 101 IN 151 • Approve the application • Approval subject to Section 39 conditions including: Require detailed site, landscaping and building elevation plans -- Require stormwater management plan and servicing assessment — Alignment of site driveways with existing driveways on opposite side of University Avenue — Installation of crosswalk infrastructure as developer's responsibility No vehicular access to Candlewood Lane Underground servicing of electrical and telephone utilities 152 i 11 5AUNT JO N PAC Recommendation: • That the proposed Municipal Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment be denied. • That should Common Council choose to approve the proposal, that it be referred back to the Committee for appropriate Section 39 conditions • The Committee also denied the variance to reduce the reduction in parking aisle widths from the required 7.5 metres to 6 metres 153 September • BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 106 - A LAW TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL PLAN BY -LAW ARRETE No C.P. 106 - ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF AU PLAN MUNICIPAL Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors d'une reunion du conseil John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a edicte follows: ce qui suit : The Municipal Plan By -law of The City of Saint John enacted on the 30th day of January, A.D. 2012 is amended by: 1 Amending Schedule A — City Structure, by redesignating a parcel of land with an area of approximately 1.4 hectares, located at 55 -65 University Avenue, also identified as being PID No. 55024210 and a portion of PID No. 55221717, from Suburban Neighbourhood to Local Centre classification; 2 Amending Schedule B — Future Land Use, by redesignating the same parcel of land from Low to Medium Density Residential to Local Centre classification - all as shown on the plans attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2014 and signed by: Mayor L'arrete concernant le plan municipal de The City of Saint John decrete le 30 janvier 2012 est modifie par: la modification de 1'annexe A — Structure de la municipalite, afin de faire passer la designation d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1,4 hectares, situee au 55 -65, avenue University, et portant le NID 55024210 et etant aussi une partie du NID 55221717, de quartier suburbain a centre local; 2 la modification de 1'annexe B — Utilisation future des sols, afin de faire passer la designation de la parcelle de terrain precitee de secteur residentiel a densite faible ou moyenne a centre local; - toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur les plans ci joints et font partie du present arrete. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes: Common Clerk/Greffier communal First Reading - Premiere lecture Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 154 BY -LAW NUMBER C.P.110- A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ARRETE No C.P. 110 - ARRRTE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors dune r6union du conseil John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a follows: The Zoning By -law of The City of Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of December, A.D. 2005, is amended by: 1 Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.4 hectares, located at 55- 65 University Avenue, also identified as being PID No. 55024210 and a portion of PID No. 55221717, from "IL -2" Major Institutional to `B -2" General Business - all as shown on the plan attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2014 and signed by: Mayor /Maire d6cr&6 ce qui suit : L'arr&6 sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, d6cr6t& le dix -neuf (19) d6cembre 2005, est modifi6 par: 1 La modification de 1'annexe « A », Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier la d6signation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1,4 hectares, situ6e au 55 -65, avenue University, et portant le NID 55024210 et 6tant aussi une partie du NID 55221717, de zone d'6quipement collectif majeur « IL -2 » a zone commerciale g6n6rale « B -2 » - toutes les modifications sont indiqu6es sur le plan ci joint et font partie du pr6sent arret6. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arret6 le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal First Reading - Premiere lecture Second Reading - Deuxi6me lecture Third Reading - Troisi6me lecture 155 Planning Advisory Committee September 17, 2014 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - 55 -65 University Avenue On August 5, 2014 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its September 16, 2014 meeting. City of Saint john Matt Cooling of Cobalt Property Investments Limited was in attendance. He advised the Committee he was in favour of the staff recommendation with the exception of condition f) of the recommended Section 39 conditions requiring that the developer be responsible for the necessary crosswalk infrastructure. Peter Allaby, of Exp Services Inc., the applicant's traffic engineering consultant, also appeared before the committee regarding condition f) noting the installation of signage and crosswalk markings, as opposed to the RA -5 overhead crosswalk lighting, would provide a more consistent approach to drivers along University Avenue. Committee members questioned staff regarding the requirement for the Municipal Plan Amendment, with staff noting that the existing Municipal Plan designation of the property, Low to Medium Density Residential, has a limit of 500 square metres of floor area for commercial developments and that the proposal exceeds that limit, necessitating a Municipal Plan Amendment. Staff also responded to questions from the Committee regarding what has changed since the adoption of the Municipal Plan that necessitated the application, with staff noting that the lands were declared surplus by the City with the applicant bringing forth an application to develop the lands. Gina Wilkins of 61 Candlewood Lane, representing Property Management Limited, appeared before the Committee and gave a presentation regarding concerns including traffic impacts, drainage, snow removal and storage, the impact on the area's underground infrastructure and the adjacent development along Candlewood Lane. Heather Redding of 77 University Avenue appeared before the Committee and expressed concern that, in her opinion, the proposal does not meet the criteria outlined in Policy LU -4 of the Municipal Plan including: enhancement of the community and the quality of life offered to 156 -2- residents of the City; efficient use of available infrastructure, not negatively impacting the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and the mitigation of any significant environmental impacts. Ms. Redding also noted that, in her opinion, the proposal did not provide appropriate landscaping and adequate buffering from adjoining properties as outlined in policy LU -124 of the Municipal Plan. Mr. Eric Marks, of 6 Candlewood Lane, appeared before the Committee and expressed the opinion that the proposal does not appear to meet the goals outlined in Policy LU- 4 of the Municipal Plan, appears to provide an increased density and size of development than is appropriate for the property, and that approval of the application would result in a "spot zoning" which does not represent the community's consensus on what should occur on the site. Mr. Marks also noted a structural conflict of interest in that the City is involved in both the sale of the parcel and evaluation and approval of the development proposal. Mr. Cooling reappeared before the committee and noted that he had reviewed the letters submitted by area residents and that the plan was based on interest received from prospective tenants along with similar projects developed by Cobalt. The plan is subject to change as leasing arrangements are finalized. Mr. Cooling also noted that the three proposed drive thrus were a worst case, conservative, estimate and that there would likely not be more than three on the site. He also noted that the pharmacy (proposed for building CRU C) would not use a drive thru speaker and that the layout of the site provides for the mitigation of noise from the other proposed drive thrus. He indicated that he met with the residents of Candlewood Lane and was evaluating options for rock removal and excavation during construction and that the developer is open to tree retention and will be preparing a detailed landscaping plan as a condition of project approval. The developer will also be trucking the snow off site and using lighting that is not directed from the site onto adjacent properties. In response to questions from members of the Committee, Mr. Cooling noted that the drive thrus were positioned away from the adjacent residential development and that, in his opinion, the proposed development would provide for a positive impact on the quality of life for the adjacent residential areas in that additional commercial opportunities will be provided to the Millidgevile area. Given the interest that the developer received from potential tenants of the site and the focus on serving the Millidgeville area, Mr. Cooling noted the development should not draw development demand away from other areas of the City. With respect to orienting the buildings, particular building CRU C, closer to University Avenue; Mr. Cooling noted this would affect the building design, requiring additional entrances. The proposed design of the site breaks the buildings into a series of smaller buildings as opposed to one large building and concentrates the loading areas at the rear of the site to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses. It was noted by the applicant that any reduction in the floor area of the proposal could affect its financial viability. Mr. Allaby responded to questions relating to the traffic impacts of the adjacent bus stops and forecast post - development traffic operations in the area of the development. 157 -3- Staff responded to questions from the Committee noting the traffic impact study was circulated to Saint John Transit, who did not identify any anticipated issues with transit operations resulting from the development. It was also noted that the proposal was circulated to the City's Infrastructure Development service area and no issues were noted. Staff also noted that while the overall economic conditions have not changed greatly since the adoption of the Municipal Plan, it is the professional opinion of staff that the site is well suited for commercial development. There were 15 letters and a petition submitted in opposition to the application, including two letters submitted to Common Council during the 30 -day period following the Public Presentation of the Municipal Plan Amendment. After considering the report, letters, comments made by the applicant and the concerns expressed by area residents, the Committee recommended denial of the application. The Committee was of the opinion that the proposal was not in conformity with the Municipal Plan, including Policy LU -4, was not in context of the adjacent neighbourhood and that conditions have not changed since adoption of the Municipal Plan to warrant approval of the application. The Committee also was of the opinion the proposed development was of a density beyond what was appropriate for the site, and did not make a positive contribution to the public realm along University Avenue given the parking area proposed at the front of the site. The Committee also recommended that if Common Council chooses to approve the proposal, that it be referred back to the Committee for appropriate Section 39 conditions. The Planning Advisory Committee also denied a variance to allow for a reduction in the parking aisle widths from 7.5 metres to a minimum of 6 metres. RECOMMENDATION: That the application be denied and that should Common Council choose to approve the proposal, that it be referred back to the Committee for appropriate Section 39 conditions. Project No. 14 -417 158 i Date: September 12, 2014 To: Planning Advisory Committee From: Community Planning and Development Growth and Community Development SUBJECT Applicant: Cobalt Property Investments Limited Owner: City of Saint John / The St. John Council for New Brunswick Properties Ltd. Location: 55 -65 University Avenue Existing Designation: Low to Medium Density Residential Proposed Designation: Local Centre Existing Zoning: "IL -2" Major Institutional Proposed Zoning: "B -2" General Business Application Type: Municipal Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance to reduce the width of the parking aisles from 7.5 metres to a minimum of 6 metres. Power of Committee: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the Municipal Development Plan and Zoning By -law. The Committee's recommendation will be considered by Common Council at a public hearing on Monday, September 29, 2014. The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Zoning By -law. The Committee can impose conditions. Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I LocattiiQn: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 11 SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to amend the Municipal Plan designation for the site and rezone the property to allow for the construction of a commercial development with an approximate floor area of 3000 square metres. Staff recommend approval of the application, subject to Section 39 conditions including the preparation of detailed site, landscaping and building elevation plans, stormwater and servicing plans and driveways and transportation infrastructure improvements. Approval of a variance to reduce the parking aisle widths is also recommended. RECOMMENDATION 1. That Common Council amend the Municipal Plan by: a) Redesignating, on Schedule A of the Municipal Development Plan, a parcel of land with an area of approximately 1.4 hectares, located at 55 -65 University Avenue, also identified as PID No. 55024210 and a portion of PID No. 55221717, from Suburban Neighbourhood to Local Centre, and b) Redesignating, on Schedule B of the Municipal Development Plan, the same parcel of land, from Low to Medium Density Residential to Local Centre. 2. That, in the event that By -law C.P. 110 has not been repealed, Common Council rezone the same parcel of land from "1L -2" Major Institutional to "B -2" General Business. 3. That, in the event that the City's proposed new Zoning By -law has been adopted, and By -law C.P. 110 has been repealed,, Common Council rezone the same parcel of land from Neighbourhood Community Facility (CFN) to General Commercial (CG). 4. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the use and development of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 1.4 hectares, located at 55 -65 University Avenue, also identified as PID No. 55024210 and a portion of PID No. 55221717be subject to the following conditions: a) Any development of the site be in accordance with a detailed site plan and building elevations, to be prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, outdoor storage areas, landscaped areas, areas of existing tree retention, pedestrian circulation elements and crosswalks and other site features, exterior building materials, entrances and finishes, and relevant site statistics including lot coverage; b) Any development of the site be in accordance with a detailed landscaping plan, to be prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Locf: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 12 Development Officer. The landscaping shown on the plan shall be in accordance with the landscaping standards outlined in the draft Zoning By- law; C) An engineering water and sewer analysis must be completed by the applicant's engineering consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval in order to determine the impact this development (capacity requirements, peak flows, fire flows, etc.) will have on the existing water and sewer infrastructure and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing systems. If any upgrades to existing infrastructure are necessary, this will be the responsibility of the developer. Detailed engineering plans must be submitted by the developer's engineering consultant to the City prior to determining this; d) The applicant's engineering consultant must submit a detailed storm water drainage plan and design report indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled to the City for review and approval. If any infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the applicant's responsibility and cost to complete. No stormwater is to be directed to adjacent lands; e) The proposed western site driveway onto University Avenue must be located so that it is directly across from the existing Tim Horton's driveway. The proposed eastern site driveway must be located so that it is directly across from the existing Shannex driveway. The construction cost of any required modifications to the University Avenue, including the existing medians, determined at the detailed design stage will be the responsibility of the developer; f) The developer shall be responsible for the design, supply and installation of a RA-5 pedestrian crosswalk at the proposed crosswalk crossing University Avenue at Development Access 2; g) That the developer prepare an additional traffic impact study to accompany the application to rezone the optioned lands; h) That the plans mentioned in conditions (a) and (b) above must be attached to the application for a building permit for the development and that no permits, other than site preparation permits, be issued until the Development Officer has approved the Plans. All work shown on these plans must be complete within 12 months following the issuance of the building permit; i) That vehicular access not be provided between Candlewood Lane and the proposed development; and Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Lowy n: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 13 j) That servicing for electrical and telephone utilities be provided underground from existing facilities. 5. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant a variance to reduce the width of the parking aisles from 7.5 metres to a minimum of 6 metres. DECISION HISTORY On May 21, 2013, Common Council declared the lands having PID 55221717 as surplus, given the site's prominent location, the fact that a significant portion of the property was underutilized, and as a number of unsolicited inquiries from private developers were received by the City. On July 16, 2013 the Committee considered a subdivision application to subdivide the parent parcel of PID 55221717 containing the existing fire station and training centre to create PID 55221717. The purpose of the subdivision was to create a lot for future development. The Committee also recommended the vesting of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 83 square metres of land as part of the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue public street right -of -way. ANALYSIS Site and Surrounding Area The subject property is situated in the south east quadrant of the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection in Millidgeville. The property is comprised of two parcels of land, including a small fire academy building at 55 University Avenue and a St. John Ambulance training centre at 65 University Avenue. Elevations on the property range from 40 metres in the southeast corner of the site to approximately 30 metres along the University Avenue frontage. The neighbourhood surrounding the site contains a variety of land uses. To the south of the site are undeveloped lands, through which the Maritimes Northeast natural gas pipeline runs, while there are residential areas to the east (Candlewood Lane, comprised of townhouses) and to the west (along the opposite side of Millidge Avenue, primarily single - unit dwellings with some apartment blocks in behind). As well, a fifty -unit apartment is located across from the site on University Avenue. Non - residential uses include the NCH office building, in the northwest corner of the intersection and the Wendy's /Tim Horton's restaurant and the Charles Gorman Arena along the north side of University Avenue. Also on the north side of University Avenue, a senior citizens residential and continuing care facility is currently under construction. The subject property is currently zoned "IL -2" Major Institutional. Commercial uses in the vicinity of the site are zoned "B -2" General Business with a mix of residential zoning in the area including "R -1A" and "R -113" One Family Residential,, "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential and "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential. The property on which the seniors facility is being constructed is zoned 11-2" Major Institutional. Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Lo Wt n: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 14 Proposal Cobalt Property Investments has entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the City and St. John Ambulance for the subject property. The applicant is proposing to construct a retail development with an approximate floor area of 3000 square metres including the following components: • a 420 square metre retail building (CRU A), • two 334 square metre quick service restaurants without drive -thrus (CRUs B and D), • a 1287 square metre building housing a pharmacy with drive- thru (CRU C), • 167 square metre quick service restaurant with a drive thru (CRU B), and • 167 square metre coffee shop with a drive thru (CRU D). The Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the City provides for an option to purchase the land located at the south east corner of the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection (remainder of PID 55221717). The lands under option are not part of the current application. Municipal Plan The site is currently designated as part of the Millidgeville Suburban Neighbourhood Intensification Area on Schedule A - City Structure of the Municipal Development Plan, and Low to Medium Density Residential on Schedule B - Future Land Use. The application involves redesignating the site to Local Centre on both Schedule A and Schedule B of the Municipal Development Plan. The change in the City Structure and Municipal Plan designation for the site has been requested given that Policy LU -54 of the Municipal Plan limits the maximum gross floor area of commercial uses on properties in the Low to Medium Density Residential Designation to 500 square metres. This is approximately one -fifth of the proposed floor area for the development. The Local Centre designation was developed for the lands adjacent to Somerset Street between Churchill Boulevard /Samuel Davis Drive and Millidge Avenue. Policy LU -36 outlines the intent of the Local Centre designation, which is to encourage the development of a mix of urban land uses, with an emphasis on community -scale commercial uses, to support the development of a high quality streetscape and transit corridor, Policy LU -4 of the Municipal Plan provides criteria to assess a requested change in the Municipal Plan designation. The following criteria must be met by the proposed development: • is consistent with the general intent of the Municipal Plan and further advances the City Structure; • is necessary by virtue of a lack of supply of quality land already designated in the Municipal Plan to accommodate the development; • enhances the community and the quality of life offered to residents of the City; • efficiently uses available infrastructure; Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I LocaliQn: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 15 does not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and neighbourhoods; • is an appropriate use within the land use designation being sought for the property, and the proposal is consistent with the specific policies regulating development in the designation; and • adequately addresses and mitigates any significant environmental impacts. The Municipal Plan places an increased emphasis on Urban Design with a series of policies that outline general and specific principles to guide the design of new developments. Policy UD -9 of the Plan requires general conformity to General Urban Design Principles which include: • that new development respect and reinforce the existing and planned context in which it is located through appropriate setbacks, landscaping, building entrances, building massing, architectural style and building materials; • locating building entrances facing the public street; • incorporating innovations in built form, aesthetics and building function to encourage high quality contemporary design that will form the next generation of heritage; • where appropriate and desirable, encouraging active pedestrian- oriented uses and a high level of transparency at grade to reinforce and help animate the public realm; • designing sites, buildings and adjacent public spaces as complete concepts with integrated functions; • using quality, durable building materials and a consistent level of design and detail for all elements of the building; • designing for visual interest by incorporating well - articulated building facades, landscaping, local history, public art and /or culture into sites and buildings; • encouraging sustainability through measures such as: tree retention, on -site stormwater management, the incorporation of site features into the development and the use of native vegetation species for landscaping; • utilizing Crime Prevention through Environment Design (CPTED) principles to promote safety and security, in balance with other urban design goals; • locating and screening parking and loading facilities so they are generally not visible from the street, particularly in Centres and Neighbourhood Intensification Areas; • limiting surface parking between the front of a building and the public street or sidewalk; • designing safe and direct access to buildings for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users by providing walkways from the public street, transit stops, and parking areas to main building entrances and including bike parking and end -of -trip facilities, where appropriate, and mid -block connections where possible; • designing sites and building accesses that are barrier -free, convenient and have clear signage; and • generally locating surface parking, outdoor storage, loading and other service areas at the rear or side of the property and buffering or screening these functions from adjacent properties and the public realm. Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Loc? ion: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 16 Policy UD -11 requires that new development in Neighbourhood Intensification Areas be designed to enhance the surrounding public realm and to complement the existing context while providing opportunities for intensification, where appropriate. Specific criteria for developments include: • designing sites and buildings for people as the primary focus and with setbacks that are generally consistent with those of adjacent buildings; • creating animated, active streetscapes with a human scale street wall; • providing active ground floor uses and avoiding blank facades; • strongly encourage new development to provide ground floor ceiling heights that are consistent with the ground floor ceiling heights of adjacent buildings; • creating appropriate transitions in scale and height to areas of lower intensity; • generally locating building entrances to connect directly to the public street network and clearly articulating the building entrance; • designing sites and buildings that are barrier -free, convenient and have clear signage; • promoting pedestrian comfort with appropriate landscaping, furniture, weather protection and buffers from vehicular traffic; • designing for active and alternative modes of transportation by providing convenient access to buildings from transit stops, including bicycle parking and end - of -trip facilities where appropriate, and mid -block pedestrian connections where possible; • designing sites and buildings to facilitate social interaction by including patios, courtyards, plazas and sidewalk amenity space wherever possible to enliven the public or semi - public realm; • including a variety of uses in buildings and /or sites to allow for a diversity of uses and users; and • encouraging shared elements between uses such as parking, entrances, landscaping and amenity spaces. Policy UD -12 seeks to minimize the impact of parking, access and building service areas in new developments on surrounding properties and the public realm within Neighbourhood Intensification Areas. Specific initiatives to accomplish this goal include: • sharing driveways, parking and service areas wherever possible; • minimizing the width of driveways and curb cuts across sidewalks; • generally locating surface parking, outdoor storage, loading and other service areas at the rear or side of the property and buffering or screening these functions from adjacent properties and the public realm; • integrating service connections, vents, mechanical rooms and equipment within the architectural treatment of the building where possible; and • ensuring that parking areas, lobbies, service areas and stairwells are well -lit and visible from other locations, and clearly signed if they are not visible from the public street. Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Loch V: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 17 Transportation and Vehicular - oriented uses Aspects of Policy TM -4 outline considerations regarding the impact that new developments have on the City's transportation network. Specific considerations related to this development are: • the capacity of adjacent streets should be sufficient to accommodate the forecasted traffic generated by the new development; • vehicular access points to arterial and collector streets should be minimized where possible through measures such as shared access driveways, appropriate access control from corner lots, or other measures; and • active transportation infrastructure should be encouraged to support alternative modes of travel within the development. In addition to the other criteria contained in the various policies of the Municipal Plan, Policy 1 -2 provides a framework for evaluating amendments to the Zoning By -law or the imposition of terms and conditions, The following considerations of Policy I -2 are relevant to this application: • the conformity of the proposal with the goals, policies and intent of the Municipal Plan and the requirements of all City bylaws; and • whether the proposal can be considered premature or inappropriate by reason of: • financial inability of the City to absorb development- related costs and ensure efficient delivery of services, and • the adequacy of infrastructure to serve the proposed development; • the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposed development; and the imposition of appropriate and necessary, controls on the proposed development to reduce any conflict with adjacent land uses such as: o the type of use; o building form and appearance; o parking, traffic and access; o open storage; o and signage. Zoning The site is currently zoned "IL -2" Major Institutional which does not permit the proposed retail and restaurant uses. As a result, a rezoning to "13-2" General Business has been requested. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the current zoning by -law with the exception of the parking aisle widths. A variance has been requested to reduce the parking aisle widths from the required 7.5 metres to a minimum of 6 metres. Draft Zoning By -Law The subject property is tentatively zoned as Neighbourhood Community Facility CCFN) in the draft Zoning By -Law. The applicant proposes that this be changed to General Commercial CCG) in order to permit the proposal. The provisions of the CG zone with respect to building setbacks, lot area and lot occupancy are met. However the following variances would be required based on the standards of the Draft By -law: Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Loci tin: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 18 i) a reduction in the side yard (along the boundary with PID 00426411) landscaping from 5 metres to between 4 metres and 5 metres; ii) a reduction in the side yard (along the boundary with PID 00049809) landscaping from 5 metres to between 3 metres and 5 metres; iii) a reduction in the rear yard (western site boundary) landscaping from 5 metres to between 0 metres and 5 metres; iv) a reduction in the required vehicle queueing lengths from 3 inbound vehicles to 2 inbound vehicles for the drive -thru at building C; v) a reduction in the required vehicle queueing lengths from 14 inbound vehicles and 1 outbound vehicle to 7 inbound vehicles and 0 outbound vehicle for the drive -thru at building D; and vi) a reduction in the required vehicle queueing lengths from 14 inbound vehicles and 1 outbound vehicle to 7 inbound vehicles and 0 outbound vehicle for the drive -thru at building B. Subdivision The tentative subdivision plan to create Lot 14 -1 for the proposed development meets the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws. Discussion Municipal Plan The proposal meets the general intent of the Municipal Plan in that it represents intensification of a site that is currently served by municipal infrastructure and transit and introduces additional commercial uses into the Millidgeville area. The proposed location, in proximity to the residential neighbourhoods of Millidgeville, provides for community - oriented commercial development located within walking distance of residents and at a key transit node (University Avenue / Millidge Avenue intersection). Staff note that while another areas of land designated as Local Centre are located further south of the area along Somerset Street, these lands are currently developed and do not offer immediate commercial development potential as they are expected to transition from light industrial uses to predominately commercial uses over the medium to longer term. These areas also do not provide the proximity to the developed core of Millidgeville and its population that the subject property provides. The proposed development, as shown on the site plan, is oriented to minimize impact on adjacent residential development. Loading and service areas are provided at the rear of the site next to treed, undeveloped land. The only active use of the site located in proximity to the adjacent residential development along Candlewood Lane is a portion of the parking area containing 36 parking spaces. The street frontage along Candlewood Lane adjacent to the parking area will be landscaped. The provision of additional commercial development at this node increases the attractiveness of the Millidgeville area for additional residential development, meeting the overall goal of densification. Staff also note this site is within 1.2 kilometres of the UNBSJ Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Lodi ?n: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 19 Plateau / Regional Hospital Primary Centre and would provide supporting commercial uses to that developing area in addition to residential areas in Millidgeville. The proposed setbacks of the buildings generally meet the by -law requirements and also are of the same magnitude as the commercial and residential development in the neighbourhood. Staff note that existing development in the area has the following front yard setbacks along University Avenue: • multiple unit building at 630 Millidge Avenue 49.5 metres - 56.5 metres • Tim Hortons /Wendys 38.4 metres • Gorman Arena 19.3 metres - 22.5 metres • townhouses at 73 -93 University Avenue 9 metres. In terms of recently approved developments in the area, the proposed Shannex Development will have a setback of 13.7 metres measured from the street line to the main building wall. Staff note that while the proposed development does not incorporate well - articulated building facades along University Avenue, buildings in the proposed development have setbacks between and 17.6 metres and 45.7 metres from University Avenue. This is within the range of setbacks found within the surrounding neighbourhood. Based on the proposed elevation and site plans, the massing, building design and materials appear to support the existing neighbourhood context. Public entrances for the proposed buildings, with the exception of buildings D and E, are located towards the frontage of the site, facing a Public Street. This provides a degree of street presence in conformity with the Municipal Plan policies. Staff note there are existing mature trees along the frontage of the site which may be able to be retained and also that the topography of the site may provide for additional retention of mature trees at the rear and south - western portions of the site. While parking is provided between the front facade of the building and the sidewalk, Staff note the current site plan minimizes this compared to previous site designs. This has been accomplished through reducing the massing of the site by the addition of building s D and E and decreasing the floor area of building s A and B. With respect to the surrounding community context Staff note that the addition of high quality landscaping, such as that found at the Tim Hortons /Wendy's site on the opposite side of University Avenue would provide a degree of screening for the parking area. The proposed development also shows a series of internal sidewalks and crosswalks providing pedestrian access from Candlewood Lane and University Avenue to the buildings in the development. Bicycle parking is proposed at two locations in the development. These features meet the appropriate criteria of Policy UD -9. Specific to Neighbourhood Intensification Areas such as the subject site, Policy UD -9 also requires that new development be located and organized to frame and support the surrounding public realm and massed to fit harmoniously into the surrounding Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Locfgign: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 110 environment. This includes appropriate transitions in height and massing to areas of lower intensity development as outlined by criteria in Policy UD -11. The proposed building heights and massing meet the intent of this policy. While the proposed development has parking provided between the buildings and street, Staff note that the setbacks in the proposed development are generally consistent with those found in the immediate area surrounding the development. Landscaping of the areas along the street frontages will be a key consideration in the final design of the site to minimize the effect of the parking areas between the building frontage and street. In addition, the majority of building accesses are oriented to the street with a system of pedestrian walkways provided to allow for access from the adjacent sidewalk to the buildings within the development. Building heights are also generally consistent with those in the surrounding neighbourhood. In addition, the development provides a mix of commercial uses, namely retail and restaurant with shared parking and access points. The developer has commissioned a Traffic Impact Study that has been reviewed by City Staff and discussed in a later section of this report. The Study has determined that the capacity of the adjacent roadway network can support the development, The proposed site design manages the access to the site to provide access points to University Avenue that correspond to existing access locations on the other side of the street, minimizing the number of access locations along this section of roadway. Staff also note that Policy TM -5 of the Municipal Plan requires Council to ensure that developers contribute to the cost of on and off site transportation improvements required to support their development. In accordance with Policy TM -5, completion of any required transportation infrastructure improvements is a recommended condition of the rezoning. The proposal will include food service establishments and retail facilities. Based on the site plan two food service and one retail use will include drive - through facilities. Municipal Policy LU -124 provides for the zoning by -law to contain appropriate standards relating to the design, layout and other spatial standards for drive- thrus. In addition, the Plan notes the following specific criteria for vehicle oriented uses which are met by the proposed development: • the proposed use is located on a collector or arterial street, as defined on the Transportation map (Schedule C) of the Municipal Plan; • the development is sited to minimize its effect on any adjoining residential uses; • the site shall not be located in the Stable Residential Area designation; and • appropriate site design features including landscaping and adequate buffering from adjoining properties is incorporated into the development. Based on the above analysis, the proposal conforms to the overall goals, policies and intent of the Municipal Plan. As the development is occurring in an area with existing services, and given that any upgrades to City infrastructure are the responsibility of the developer, the proposal should not impose a liability on the City for infrastructure upgrades or servicing. In addition, based on a review of the site and proposed development, Staff are of Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Lo". n: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 1 11 the opinion that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development and that the proposed development meets the requirement of providing intensification within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. Therefore the proposed Municipal Plan Amendment is supported. Appropriate Section 39 conditions can be imposed in accordance with Policy I -2 regarding any site design elements. Zoning, Variances and Site Design The proposed development meets the standards of the existing Zoning By -law with the exception of the width of the parking aisles which require a reduction from the current requirement of 7.5 metres to a minimum of 6 metres. This request can be supported. Staff note variances to permit reductions of a similar magnitude have been granted in the past and the proposed widths meet the standards outlined in the Draft Zoning By -law. In terms of the building design, the proposed buildings will consist of typical commercial facades, with pedestrian entrances proposed to be oriented to the front of the site and buildings. As the detailed design of the buildings within the development is still to be completed, staff recommend a Section 39 condition be imposed requiring that detailed building elevations be prepared by the proponent and attached to the application for a building permit for approval by the Development Officer. These elevation plans must show the exterior building materials, finishes and entrances demonstrating a high - quality of design. The site plan submitted for the development indicates the perimeter of the site will be landscaped. Based on the site visit, Staff note there are existing mature trees along the University Avenue frontage of the site that should be maintained and incorporated into the site landscaping. In addition, there is an established stand of mature trees in the southern portion of the site, particularly along the southern boundary of the site and eastern boundary of the site southwest of Candlewood Lane, which provides an additional area of tree retention that could be possibly incorporated into the site landscaping. As limited detail is provided regarding the landscaping around the perimeter of the site, Staff recommend a Section 39 condition be imposed requiring that a detailed landscaping plan for the development be prepared by the proponent, incorporating the landscaping standards outlined in the Draft Zoning By -law. The landscaping plan must be attached to the application for a building permit and that all work shown on the landscaping plan be completed within 12 months of the issuance of the building permit for the development. This plan will be subject to the approval of the Development Officer. The proposed site plan seeks to break up the massing of the development by separating buildings A, B and C into two groups and having buildings D and E (restaurants) in the front portion of the site. This allows for the parking for the development to be positioned such that it is not a large mass of parking along the frontage of the site. These parking areas are separated by landscaped areas and pedestrian walkways which meet the intent of the design objectives of the Municipal Plan. Pedestrian circulation is proposed via a series of internal walkways and marked crosswalks along with a pedestrian connection to University Avenue. Bicycle parking is also provided, meeting the site design objectives for active transportation. Staff recommend a Section 39 condition be imposed requiring that a Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Loc %n: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 112 detailed site plan for the development be prepared by the proponent and attached to the application for a building permit for the development for approval by the Development Officer. All work shown on the site plan must be completed within 12 months of issuance of the Building Permit. The site plan must also detail the pedestrian circulation and access elements incorporated in the design such as sidewalks pedestrian circulation areas to providing for the walkability of the site. The applicant has engaged a consultant to complete a Traffic Impact Study' for the proposed development. The Study, which has been reviewed by City Staff, noted the following: • The proposed development is expected to generate 177 vehicles during the AM peak hour (90 inbound / 87 outbound), 365 vehicles during the PM peak hour (183 inbound /182 outbound), and 4,027 vehicles daily (2,014 inbound / 2,014 outbound). • The Study Area intersections (Millidge Avenue / University Avenue, and the proposed site access driveway intersections with University Avenue) currently operate with acceptable levels of delay and volume -to- capacity and are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels with anticipated growth in traffic volumes and development- related traffic. • A warrant analysis for the installation of traffic signals at the proposed site access / Tim Horton's / University Avenue intersection provided a score of 78 priority points, not requiring the installation of traffic signals at this location within the horizon period. • Access locations and spacing were reviewed and were found to satisfy minimum distances per Transportation Association of Canada guidelines and the Zoning By- law. • The proposed site access directly across from the existing Tim Horton's access is slightly offset from the current opening in the median. It is recommended that the nose of the median on the east side of the opening be pulled back to allow more space for turning vehicles, or the access be shifted approximately 7 m to the west. • Some pedestrian demand from the north side of University Avenue (e.g.Shannex) to the site is anticipated, it is recommended that a pedestrian crosswalk be installed on University Avenue just west of Development Access 2, making use of the median as a centre refuge. It is recommended that the crosswalk incorporate ground- mounted signs (side mounted and in the median), zebra markings to improve visibility of the crosswalk and that lighting and signage to the RA -5 treatment /standard be employed at such a time that the City upgrades the nearby crosswalks on University Avenue to RA -5 systems, The Traffic Impact Study also reviewed the proposed queue lengths at the drive thru restaurants in the proposed development based on data collected at similar establishments in New Brunswick. Based on similar brands of coffee shops (e.g. Second Cup or Starbucks), the study noted the 7 queuing spaces provided for the coffee shop drive -thru at building D exp Services Inc. Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John. Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Loc"In: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 1 13 is expected to be sufficient to handle peak period queuing without interfering with on -site circulation. In addition, the 7 queuing spaces provided at the drive thru at building B should provide sufficient storage for a low -to- moderate volume restaurant drive thru (e.g. Subway or KFC). The study also noted the two queuing spaces provided for the proposed pharmacy in building C should be sufficient. Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Study, Staff recommend Section 39 conditions be imposed requiring the following: • shifting the alignment of the western site driveway onto University Avenue to the west so that it is directly across from the existing Tim Horton's driveway; • having the alignment of the eastern site driveway onto University Avenue located so that it is directly across from the existing Shannex driveway; and • installation of the required crosswalk infrastructure (RA -5) at the crosswalk crossing University Avenue at Development Access 2. Staff note that the site plan submitted with the application included a right -in /right -out access onto Candlewood Lane. This was removed on the revised site plan that has been submitted by the applicant. Given the role of Candlewood Lane as a local residential street that has one -way traffic flow, Staff recommend a Section 39 condition that vehicular access not be provided between Candlewood Lane and the proposed development. The developer has an option to acquire additional lands adjacent to the site to accommodate the development. These lands will also require a Municipal Plan Amendment and rezoning to allow for future commercial development. Staff recommend that as a condition of the current rezoning application, an additional traffic study be prepared and submitted with the application to rezone the optioned lands. The City's Infrastructure Development service area has reviewed the plans submitted with the rezoning application and notes the following: • Municipal services are available for connection on Millidge Avenue and University Avenue. All grades and pressures must be verified by the developer's engineering consultant. The applicant's engineering consultant must submit a site servicing plan to the City for review and approval. • An engineering water and sewer analysis must be completed by the applicant's engineering consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval in order to determine the impact this development (capacity requirements, peak flows, fire flows, etc.) will have on the existing water and sewer infrastructure and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing systems. If any upgrades to existing infrastructure are necessary, this will be the responsibility of the developer. Detailed engineering plans must be submitted by the developer's engineering consultant to the City prior to determining this. • The applicant's engineering consultant must submit a detailed storm water drainage plan and design report indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled to the City for review and approval. If any infrastructure improvements are Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I LoCOi n: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 114 required to service this proposal, it will be the applicant's responsibility and cost to complete. No stormwater is to be directed to adjacent lands. • The submitted site plan indicates that two new driveways are proposed to access this development. The installation of the two proposed driveways are the full responsibility and cost of the applicant and must meet the requirements of the City of Saint John General Specifications and the Zoning By -law. Any existing drop sections in the asphalt curb /sidewalk on University Avenue not being utilized as driveway access for this proposed development must be removed and replaced with full- height asphalt curb /sidewalk. • All parking to be provided for on -site. • A City approved (supplied) water meter must be installed by the developer. • The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits. • No signage is to be installed within or overhang the municipal right -of -way. • It is assumed from the submitted site plan that the two buildings located within this proposed development are to be removed. Any decommissioned municipal services to the two buildings being removed must be properly capped and abandoned at the property line. • A public utility easement exists along the northern portion of PID 55221717. Staff have included the recommendations relating to stormwater management and the required engineering water and sewer analysis as Section 39 conditions for this rezoning. Consistent with past development applications, Staff recommend that servicing for electrical and telephone utilities be provided underground from existing facilities. Conclusion Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development meets the intent of the Municipal Plan and staff recommend approval of the Municipal Plan Amendment, rezoning and variance and the proposed Section 39 conditions. ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS No other alternatives were assessed or recommended by Growth and Community Development Staff. ENGAGEMENT Public Notification of the proposal was sent to landowners within a 100 metre radius of the subject site on August 25, 2014. Fifty -three property owners received a letter from staff outlining the proposal and attachments which included a site location map, site plan, and building elevations. Advertisements regarding the Municipal Plan Presentation and the Public Hearing appeared in the Telegraph Journal on Thursday June 12, 2014 and Tuesday September 2, 2014 with an additional advertisement to appear on Tuesday September 23, 2014. Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Locf Vsn: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 1 15 SIGNATURES AND CONTACT Prepared by: ;V14/// Mark Reade, P.Eng., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Person: Mark Reade Tel: 674 -4238 Fax: 658 -2837 E -mail: mark.reade @saintjohn.ca Project: 14 -417 Approved by: Stacey rfar, MCIP, RPP Deputy Commissioner, Community Planning and Enrichment Applicant:Cobait Property Invstments Limited I Lo"V: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 1 16 APPENDIX Map 1: Site Location Map 2: Municipal Plan Map 3: Zoning Map 4: Aerial Photography Map 5: Site Photography Submission 1: Site Plans Original (Version 119) and Current (Version 122) Submission 2: Elevations Submission 3: Tentative Subdivision Plan Applicant:Cobalt Property Invstments Limited I Lojjt�)n: 55 -65 University Avenue Page 117 ^� l�iG[ 1 \I re L�lm7�'ia� 55 -65 University Avenue Date: August 8, 2014 The Cih, P! sain9'uhn - "1 \ / / \ —r j 1-T \ i V. Yl i� 1 l -,-it re T L and IF T — — Map 2 - Fu L 55 -65 University Avenue Date: August 8, 2014 TIw Oty orsaint John 7 -Z' Reserve groan area T-1 Res 0�- Community Stable W66-f AV C) (0 Business C\ 16 Urban Ow to Kediffln Reserve fiefisify Urban "AD RD Stable O Primary Development Area [FDA) 0 ANM a k SS -65 University Avenue Date: August 8, 2014 71w City of Saint john f, N' °'L \. , ^. sr e 1� BM -1 '714"6eneral S '7L -1" Neighbaprhood lnslitntiansl '71- 2 "MaiallnStitotlana1 A7 '71 -1A "One famllyResldential -^ '71 -16"One fatnNyBesidendal 74"One and Two famlh/ Residential 'NM -1" Three Storeif MaltipleResidential ' 75-2 "One and Two famft Sabarban Residential "SZ- 17"Specia /tone #17 '71S "Otility and Seralce ST - -17 1 H -2 R -1A R -1A RS -2 0 ' Map 4- tit gat r 110V,� . ff—m P y 55 -65 University Avenue Date: August 8, 2014 The city or saim John 01 NOIA Yk i a, \ 701 7011 / �� OC', ` �• 660 4 t� - " may' h�a 661 r. a _ 60 17 2Y _ �- 630 4• el �:F 't.f .� , .,� :� f �1 • �� A' 24 16 .' �� VERSI((AV 42 A, UNI ..� O`er- ~`r � • � _i� .,.� -- ' � -„"'. -- � 65 _'•�® lu . >v 9 0601-1-0 5 20 W L � S 19 6177) U 17 7 a \A z 605 608 \ � � � ' ��, • � ' -��M i • 597 8 o " Sj , • OP 9 <`!` 0 15 21 Q, 21 567 1 F Site Photography 55 -65 University Avenue Date:September 9, 2014 The City of Saint Jahn Photo 1: View of eastern portion of site from University Avenue Photo 3: View looking east along University Avenue :1 _iris r IV Photo 2:View of central portion of site from University Avenue Photo 4: View looking west along University Avenue t- s h � l 1 , j3 1 I x i Z W O 3a zo z= X _ow L 1 �pR � eo m . - i �� i'�11111 11 1 -- � ms$ m 2Q° tS oaw I O �y6j aaz IzPot " E I 1 oM6 Ed P ND I A^ $o°9ms c al n uuuu�u E9�Or° °gym °06 I g��'_ .2611,3497 I NpZw a �am�Gm�® = CL o I a t000 1 I o - o m z I I =I o x i Z W O 3a zo z= X _ow L 1 �pR � eo m . - i O 11 1 •. oaw I O �y6j aaz IzPot " E I 1 I P z3 I A^ oU�N �, .2611,3497 I NpZw a CL o I a t000 1 I o - o m z I I =I o I ",6.61 .,.�• x i Z W O 3a zo z= X _ow L 1 �pR 1 a � eo m . i 11 1 •. ry II I O IzPot 4111 IMA'I E I 1 I P I o .2611,3497 I o I I t000 1 I o - o m z I I =I o I ",6.61 .,.�• N I', e,5 � °�I IAI 03 I I _ �� II N —z =sm hez7 I, o To I 1 ¢ QO N N mpN ySFI III��' 1 w —auo Z ou MILLIDGE AVE w 1 a . i a I O i l�A Cie v N �i e v H rc N V 4 !r ci La Q Q Z °= wa °o nlou000 60oololU _ 2'. g% 'w a _ E ' m 3 zu� a S s �8ag °13 c mR `23b II6 I {I ? -� BE A oor ❑ 8 m 3 s sm�� am go NeR n `FI°Ec�a =r° ��4'm � � • .gvEa 'f o L arc ai���wn lii¢mwe MILLIDGEAVE � 1 1 W m r 1 N y`d • • Is _ o � 1 - -- -- -- -- - a - -- -- — o -- aorc I bF W � Z N a 182 P �mIJ PH az ,t amoa ! 1 ' aaamiu5.]7 -4]Tm I1564j � I 1 1 I a].5m 11]9.91 O I I ¢O II nvai 1 II °-o W a 1 ) jw s W w N V 4 !r ci La Q Q Z °= wa °o nlou000 60oololU _ - I y _ I j s I I II6 I {I ' and I IL I 1 I _ L MILLIDGEAVE 1 1 r 1 N Is y 1 1 - -- -- -- -- - a - -- -- — o -- aorc I 182 N V 4 !r ci La Q Q C: 0 O LU C: -4— 0 L- LL- 183 �° I (D ui A LU cv Cw u 4) 4-J C ru 4J V) c 0 0 a� w U U m •� V) C- 0 W Ml J rV) a-4 c M 0 a� w , N J N p' = CANDIEWOODa LANE of °a� y I s W 9� ��5a •o ®oppegg yy_ Illel p�p I !" eY .f "if �� — ��I �, w g ` � bS W it ax z9we gig =°a Zi=p. CANDLE LANE s� a=< _ dale ! £ 03 Cz H' � og _ M.1h IS ?OW db 33 1 � w- r 1H. 1 �: cea MIWDGE AVENUE €oa�g o Yo: f. �YSa rc �6I�I5 N a o 0 U'e eta � ^MS ��x.�xxismcexceg pp @ $3€ a @�:o9�C__R�G RQ px &� a gEEfipYp Z `*a e/ • September 11, 2014 Mr. Matt Cooling Project Manager Cobalt Management Corporation 55 Union Street, Suite 700 Saint John, NB E2L 5137 FRE- 00211113 -AO /5 Re: REPONSE TO CITY QUESTIONS — Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Redevelopment at 55 University Avenue, Saint John Dear Mr. Cooling: The City of Saint John, upon reviewing our traffic impact study for the proposed commercial redevelopment at 55 University Avenue, has asked us to address five issues. Each issue is listed below along with our response. 1. Section 2.1 — This section should note that University Avenue has a shared lane with cyclists on both sides of the street and Millidge Avenue has bike lanes. Response: Agreed. This should have been noted in Section 2.1 2. Section 5.2 — Was the configuration /width of University Avenue considered in the warrant for signals? Note space (unmarked but commonly used fifth lane where the centre median on University Avenue would otherwise be located) for eastbound left turning vehicles into Tim Horton's is used. Will there be a warrant for space for left turning vehicles for westbound left turning vehicles into the Development and are there any issues with the interaction /space available for these opposing left turn movements? Should changes to the centre median as suggested in the report consider these opposing movements? These questions are raised mainly considering how close the warrant calculation (78) is to the warrant for signals (100) as well as the LOS of D projected for northbound left turn movements for Development Access 1. Response to question on width of street: Yes, the width was included in the signal warrant analysis. A median width of 3.7 m was assumed in the analysis. However, upon closer inspection, the actual width is closer to 5.0 m. When 5.0 m is input to the worksheet, the warrant score drops, yielding only 71 points. The reduction is due to a lower pedestrian score resulting from the wider median. Response to question on left turn lanes: A left turn lane warrant is not available from local jurisdictions or from TAC. Ontario provides left turn lane warrants for two -lane and four -lane highways, but the four -lane highway warrant appears to be more appropriate for rural or higher speed roads. Our Synchro analysis suggests that very little delay is expected for the westbound 602 Rothesay Avenue, Saint John, NB E2H 2H1, Canada T: +1.506.646.8020 . www.exp.com :• Mr. Matt Cooling REPONSE TO CITY QUESTIONS— Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Redevelopment at 55 University Avenue FRE- 00211113 AO /5 September 11 "', 2014 approach on University Avenue and removal of the left turns from the through traffic stream yields little to no improvement. This is due to the relatively low westbound left turn volume and low v/c ratio on University Avenue (0.15 in the PM peak). It should be noted that the westbound left turns into the development are split between two access points and are projected to be considerably lower than the eastbound left turn volume into the Tim Hortons site. The table below summarizes the projected eastbound and westbound left turn volumes at Development Access 1 for the 2019 scenario with the development in place. Movement at Access 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Eastbound Left 86 vehicles /hour 57 vehicles /hour Westbound Left 18 vehicles /hour 25 vehicles /hour Even though a left turn lane does not appear to be required, it is recommended that the median be reshaped to allow for proper turning movements into the development site. Section 5.2 of the Traffic Impact Study report recommended that "the nose of the median on the east side of the opening be pulled back to allow more space for turning vehicles, or the access be shifted approximately 7 in to the west." In combination with reshaping the nose of the median, the north median edge could also be tapered to guide left turn vehicles toward the centre of the intersection as they are making their turn. It is recommended that these details be resolved during detailed design of the access. Geometry should be also designed to allow for design vehicle turning movements and to avoid conflicts between simultaneous opposing left turn movements. Note that the existing "notched" treatment in the median for eastbound left turn movements appears to be seldom used by vehicles. A review of operations revealed that most eastbound left turning vehicles turn from the inside through lane (although pavement markings were not present at the time of observation). 3. Section 6 — Although LOS of the southbound left turn movement at University /Millidge is acceptable (D), there is no protected left turn phase for this movement. Is there a warrant for one under Existing, Future without Development, and Future with Development conditions? Note I have received a citizen request for this. Response: The TAC MUTCDC provides guidelines on conditions that warrant a left turn phase at a traffic signal. For a left turn phase to be warranted, the first criterion to be satisfied is as follows: (a) The average left -turn demand is at least three passenger car units (pcu) per cycle throughout the peak hour. The existing and projected traffic volumes fail to meet this criterion as demonstrated by the following: Cycle Length: Max 93 seconds / Min 78 seconds # of Cycles per Hour: Min 39 cycles /hour / Max 46 cycles /hour 2 187 Mr. Matt Cooling REPONSE TO CITY QUESTIONS — Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Redevelopment at 55 University Avenue FRE- 00211113 -AO15 September 11`h, 2014 Minimum volume required to meet criterion: 117 to 138 pcu /hour Existing and Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak PM Peak Existing 64 pcu /hour 61 pcu /hour Future 2019 Without Development 72 cu /hour 69 pcu /hour Future 2019 With Development 94 pcu /hour 102 pcu /hour Even if this volume warrant were met, then additional operational and safety criteria would need to be met to warrant the left turn phase, such as delays, collision history, intergreen movements, queuing, and transit demand. 4. Section 7.1 — City Staff does not agree that the decision of the crosswalk type of University Avenue at Access 2 should be based on the types installed further on University Avenue or the timing of upgrading other crosswalks instead of what TAC's Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide suggests. If this rationale was extended, nothing would change city -wide as there were no RA -5's installed at all in the City prior to early this year. Further, the number of pedestrians that would be crossing and overall traffic volumes at the development accesses would be greater than the other marked crosswalk locations along University Avenue with perhaps the exception of the crossing at Varsity Street, which would justify an RA -5 at Development Access 2 more than other crosswalks along University Avenue. Note as well the lack of pedestrian signals on the westbound (University Avenue) approach of the Millidge /University intersection. Response: The TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide recommends that "the .road authorities' approach to pedestrian crossing facilities and control should be consistent and uniform across the transportation system. Consistency helps ensure that installations and devices are recognized, comprehended, and used effectively by all road users ". The TAC Guide bases treatment selection on roadway characteristics of width, traffic volume and speed limit. These conditions are likely similar along University Avenue. We agree that a crossing treatment on University Avenue should be an RA -5 if evaluated strictly on roadway characteristics. Our concern with installing the RA -5 at this location when other nearby crosswalks remain signed -only is that it may violate driver expectancy and thus compliance. We would encourage the City to review its existing crosswalks on University Avenue so that a consistent standard is applied. With regards to pedestrian demand at this crossing, the TAC guideline no longer ties treatment selection to pedestrian volumes. TAC uses pedestrian demand to guide the initial decision on whether the site is a candidate for pedestrian crossing control. As this is a new development site, it is difficult to predict what pedestrian volumes will be. Therefore, the recommendation for a crossing has been rationalized on the assumption that a "pedestrian desire line" will be created across University Avenue, driven in part by the presence of the new Shannex complex. 3 188 Mr. Matt Cooling REPONSE TO CITY QUESTIONS — Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Redevelopment at 55 University Avenue FRE- 00211113 AO /5 September 11'n, 2014 If the decision is made for an RA -5 to be installed at Development Access 2, we would recommend it be placed on the east side of the access to maximize the distance from the traffic signal at Millidge Avenue (130 -140 m). We would also recommend that the centre median be treated as a central refuge area. 5. Section 7.1 — There are no pedestrian signals on the westbound (University Avenue) approach of the Millidge /University intersection. Are these warranted under Existing, Future without Development, and Future with Development conditions? The referenced 2014 TAC Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Head Warrant Handbook provides ability to determine this. Response: Using the 2014 TAC Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Head Warrant procedure, pedestrian signal heads are warranted at the Millidge Avenue /University Avenue for existing and future scenarios, not due to existing or expected pedestrian volumes, but because the intersection is classified as a "complex intersection" due to the presence of protected - permissive left turn phases. A limitation of the TAC warrant is that it does not provide warrants for pedestrian signals by direction, only for the intersection as a whole. It also does not account for scramble phases. Therefore, the application of the TAC warrant is inconclusive in answering this particular question. It is our opinion that it would be good practice to provide pedestrian signals for all directions, given the intersection characteristics both now and in the future. I trust that our responses fully address the City's questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if further clarification is required. Sincerely, ¢�O�rpvR�NEow Peter Allaby, P.Eng. Transportation Lead, Atlantic Canada exp Services Inc. 4 189 • Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John Type of Document FINAL REPORT Project Number FRE- 00211113 -AO Prepared By: Ryan Esligar, P.Eng. Reviewed By: Peter Allaby, P.Eng. exp Services Inc. 602 Rothesay Avenue Saint John, NB E21-1 21-11 Canada Date Submitted August 27, 2014 190 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic lmpact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John Type of Document: Final Report Project Narae: Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John Project Number: FRE- 00211113 -AO Prepared By: Ryan Esligar, P.Eng. Reviewed By: Peter Allaby, P.Eng. exp Services Inc. 1133 Regent Street, Suite 300 QitoFE88Ep 1 Fredericton, NB E3B 3Z2 d F Canada T: +1.506.452.9000 F: +1.506.459.3954 P E. Allaby www.exp.com Peter Allaby, P.Eng. Professional Registration Number: M6654 (New Brunswick) Date Submitted: August 27th, 2014 191 s d nV %..#/\ y Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27th, 2014 Legal Notification This report was prepared by exp Services Inc. for the account of Cobalt Management Corporation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Exp Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this project. ;exp. 192 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27"', 2014 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................ ..............................1 1.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................... ..............................2 1.3 Horizon Period ....................................................................................... ..............................2 2 Information Gathering ......................................................................... ..............................3 2.1 Street Characteristics ............................................................................ ..............................3 2.2 Intersection Characteristics ................................................................... ..............................6 2.3 Traffic Counts ........................................................................................ ..............................7 2.4 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes ................................................................ ..............................9 2.5 City Consultation .................................................................................. .............................11 3 Existing and Future Background Traffic Operations ...................... .............................12 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... .............................12 3.2 Existing and Horizon Year (2019) Level of Service without Development ........................13 4 Development Traffic Generation and Assignment .......................... .............................15 4.1 Traffic Generation ................................................................................. .............................15 4.2 Traffic Assignment ................................................................................ .............................16 5 Access Considerations of Proposed Development Accesses ...... .............................19 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... .............................19 5.2 West Access (Development Access 1) onto University Avenue .......... .............................19 5.3 East Access (Development Access 2) onto University Avenue ........... .............................20 6 LOS Analysis with Development ...................................................... .............................21 7 Site Plan Review ................................................................................. .............................23 7.1 Pedestrian and Cyclist Access ............................................................. .............................23 7.2 Service Vehicle Access ........................................................................ .............................23 7.3 Transit Access ...................................................................................... .............................23 7.4 Drive -Thru Queue Storage ................................................................... .............................24 8 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................... .............................25 f 193 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 270, 2014 List of Tables Table 1 — Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ................................................ .............................12 Project No.: FRE- 00211113 -AO Table 2 — LOS Analysis: Existing and Horizon Year Conditions without Development .......................14 Type of Document: Final Report Table 3 — Estimated Traffic Generation of Proposed Developments ...................... .............................15 Prepared By: Ryan Esligar, P. Eng. Table 4 — LOS Analysis for Horizon Year (2019) Conditions with Development .. ............................... 22 List of Figures Figure 1 — Study Area and Proposed Development Location .................................. ..............................1 Figure 2 — University Avenue Looking East in front of Proposed Accesses ........... ............................... 3 Figure 3 — University Avenue Looking East toward Candlewood Lane ................... ..............................4 Figure 4 — University Avenue Looking West from Candlewood Lane ..................... ............................... 4 Figure 5 — University Avenue at Millidge Avenue ..................................................... ..............................5 Figure 6 — Candlewood Lane Looking South from University Avenue .................... ............................... 6 Figure 7 — Existing Lane Configurations at University / Millidge Intersection ......... ............................... 7 Figure 8 — Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................ ..............................8 Figure 9 — Projected 2019 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes without the Proposed Development ........... 10 Figure 10 — Estimated Peak Hour Traffic Assignment of Proposed Development . .............................17 Figure 11 — Projected 2019 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes with Development ....... .............................18 List of Appendices APPENDIX A — Proposed Site Plan APPENDIX B — Traffic Volume Data APPENDIX C — LOS Analysis without Development APPENDIX D —TAC Signal Warrant Worksheets APPENDIX E — LOS Analysis with Development exp Quality System Checks Project No.: FRE- 00211113 -AO Date: August 27, 2014 Type of Document: Final Report Revision No.: 0 Prepared By: Ryan Esligar, P. Eng. Reviewed By: Peter Allaby, P. Eng. i ,l iv 194 t�I \ P- Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 002 1 1 1 1 3 -AO August 27'6, 2014 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Cobalt Management Corporation (Cobalt) is proposing to redevelop an existing property near the southeast corner of the University Avenue / Millidge Avenue intersection in Saint John. The redevelopment will consist of approximately 26,000 ft2 (2,765 m2) of mixed commercial /restaurant space. The existing property is occupied by a Saint John Fire Department office and St. John Ambulance office building. These existing land uses generate very low traffic volumes. The site plan for the proposed commercial development can be found in Appendix A. As part of the planning approval process, Cobalt retained exp to complete a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed development. The location of the proposed development and the Study Area for this TIS are shown below in Figure 1. Figure 1 — Study Area and Proposed Development Location -'� 4k eA 195 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 2r, 2014 1.2 Study Objectives The objectives of this TIS were to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed development, if any, on the adjacent existing streets and intersections and to determine what traffic control is required at the proposed development accesses and how they will function in the future. The following activities were undertaken as part of the TIS: • A site visit was completed by exp staff to review how the existing streets and intersections are functioning during peak hours without the development. Existing traffic control, street characteristics, and lane configurations were noted; • A meeting was held with City of Saint John Planning and Engineering staff to discuss any issues or concerns that the City has with the proposed redevelopment related to traffic and pedestrians. • Existing traffic signal timing and phasing data for the University Avenue /Millidge Avenue intersection were obtained from the City; • Exp completed morning, midday, and evening peak hour turning movement counts at the University Avenue /Tim Hortons Driveway. Counts for the University Avenue /Millidge Avenue intersection were obtained from the City • Level of service analysis was conducted under existing traffic conditions and any deficiencies were identified; • Future horizon year traffic volumes were projected without the proposed development operational; • Level of service analysis was conducted under future horizon year traffic volumes without the proposed development operational. • An estimate of the amount of traffic that will be generated by the proposed development was prepared and assigned to the development accesses and Study Area streets and intersections; • Level of service analysis was conducted under future traffic volumes with the proposed development in place and any deficiencies were identified; • Site characteristics were reviewed with respect to pedestrian and cyclist access, service vehicle access, transit access and drive -thru queue storage; • Recommendations were developed for any deficiencies identified as part of this TIS; and • The methodology, findings, and recommendations from the TIS were summarized in this written report. 3 Horizon Period A 5 -year (2019) horizon period has been applied to evaluate future traffic flows within the Study Area with and without the proposed development in place. 196 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27"', 2014 2 Information Gathering 2.1 Street Characteristics University Avenue is classified as an urban collector street within the Study Area. It serves as an east -west route between Millidge Avenue and Samuel Davis Drive and provides direct access to various types of land uses including restaurants, residential complexes and the Saint John Regional Hospital. Adjacent to the proposed development site, University Avenue features a 60 km /h posted speed limit with a 4 -lane cross - section and sidewalks on both the north and south sides. The eastbound and westbound lanes are separated by a grass median that is broken in select locations to allow traffic to turn left and access adjacent streets and businesses. There are two breaks in the median directly across from the proposed site to allow traffic to access the Tim Hortons/Wendys and a new Shannex development on the north side of University Avenue. The estimated daily traffic volume on University Avenue east of Millidge Avenue is 8,300 vehicles. Figure 2 shows University Avenue looking east in front of the proposed accesses. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show University Avenue looking east and west from Candlewood Lane. Figure 2 — University Avenue Looking East in front of Proposed Accesses .. }ex . 197 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27`', 2014 Figure 3 — University Avenue Looking East toward Candlewood Lane Figure 4 — University Avenue Looking West from Candlewood Lane WE: Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 2/h, 2014 Millidge Avenue is classified as an urban collector street within the Study Area. It has the dual purpose of serving as a north -south route through the north end of the City to Millidgeville and it also provides direct access to various land uses. Within the Study Area, Millidge Avenue features a 60 km /h posted speed limit with a 3 -lane cross - section with an additional right -turn lane at the intersection with University Avenue. There are sidewalks along both the east and west sides of the street. The estimated daily traffic volume on Millidge Avenue, south of University Avenue is 10,800 vehicles. Figure 5 shows the University Avenue /Millidge Avenue intersection. Figure 5 — University Avenue at Millidge Avenue 199 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 2e, 2014 Candlewood Lane is as an urban local street. It is a one -way street travelling east that provides access to a series of townhouses before looping around to re- connect with University Avenue. It features a wide 1 -lane cross - section, with sufficient space for on- street parking in front of the townhouses. There is no sidewalk along this roadway. Figure 6 shows Candlewood Lane looking south. Figure 6 — Candlewood Lane Looking South from University Avenue 2.2 Intersection Characteristics The University Avenue / Millidge Avenue intersection currently operates under pre -timed traffic control. Existing traffic signal phasing and timings were provided by the City of Saint John. The intersection operates under a four -phase timing scheme. There are advanced left turn phases for the northbound approach from Millidge Avenue to Woodward Avenue and for the westbound approach from University Avenue onto Millidge Avenue. A separate pedestrian "scramble" phase is provided and is push- button activated. Figure 7 shows the existing lane configurations at this intersection. A right -turn slip lane is provided at the northbound approach on Millidge Avenue. �� ex 200 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27th, 2014 Figure 7 — Existing Lane Configurations at University / Millidge Intersection Millidge Avenue lj4N I I I 4 fUniversity W" — — — ' — — — E Avenue I� S There are no traffic control devices at the west entrance to Candlewood Lane as this is a one -way street. The east end of Candlewood Lane operates under stop control on Candlewood Lane. There are breaks in the centre median along University Avenue in front of Tim Horton's and at both ends of Candlewood Lane. There are no dedicated left -turn lanes on University Avenue in either direction at any of these locations. 2.3 Traffic Counts Exp staff completed a peak hour traffic count at the University Avenue / Tim Horton's intersection on Thursday August 14th, 2014. The counts were completed during the following peak time periods: • 7:00am — 9:00am; • 11 :30am — 1:30pm; and • 4:00pm — 6:00pm. The AM peak hour occurred from 7:30am to 8:30am and the PM peak hour occurred from 4:00pm to 5:00pm. These peak time periods were utilized in the traffic study analysis. The City provided traffic count data from the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection, collected on February 23`d, 2012. No major changes have been made to this intersection since the count was taken. This traffic count was factored up to match the current volumes counted on 7 201 ex P. Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 002 1 1 1 1 3 -AO August 27", 2014 University Avenue. Exp staff performed a manual PM peak hour count at this intersection on Monday August 18th, 2014 to observe existing conditions and ensure the traffic data were consistent. Figure 8 shows the existing 2014 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes within the Study Area, respectively. Complete traffic volume summaries are provided in Appendix B. Figure 8 — Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 202 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27th, 2014 2.4 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes In order to evaluate future traffic conditions without the proposed development operational, background traffic growth needed to be estimated. Projecting future traffic growth without the proposed development allows for a comparison between future traffic conditions without the development to future traffic conditions with the development. This enables an assessment of the actual impact of the development. Based on discussions with City staff and Study Team experience, an annual growth rate of 1.5% was selected for background traffic growth on all streets within the study area. This reflects the potential for continued moderate growth in the Millidgeville area within the next five years. Additionally, the new Shannex complex to the north of the Study Area is currently under construction and will open in the near future. The site includes a new access onto University Avenue east of Tim Hortons and opposite the proposed development. Brunswick Engineering, the site design firm for Shannex, provided the following traffic estimates for the Shannex site: AM peak hour: 25 entering vehicles / 14 exiting vehicles; • PM peak hour: 24 entering vehicles / 28 exiting vehicles; • Daily two -way traffic of 618 vehicles. • 60% of the traffic would use the University Avenue access, while the remaining traffic would use one of the three Millidge Avenue accesses. The above traffic volumes were assigned to the Study Area and added to the future background traffic volumes. Figure 9 shows the projected background 2019 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes without the proposed development in place. 9 203 SRex . Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 274h, 2014 Figure 9 — Projected 2019 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes without the Proposed Development 10 204 -�bex Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 AO August 27t", 2014 2.5 City Consultation A meeting was held with City of Saint John staff on August 14, 2014 to discuss any traffic issues or concerns with the proposed development. Concerns expressed by the City were as follows: • Impacts to operations at the Millidge Avenue /University Avenue intersection as a result of the development traffic; • Traffic operations and traffic control requirements at the development accesses (particularly for the access opposite the Tim Hortons access) and the reserve capacity available to accommodate future phases of development. • Pedestrian access across University Avenue between the proposed development and Tim Hortons and Shannex; • Parking and truck access throughout the site; and • Transit and Cyclist access. The Study Team has reviewed the concerns raised by City staff within this report. 11 205 �ex P- Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 0021 1 1 1 3 -AO August 27, 2014 3 Existing and Future Background Traffic Operations 3.1 Introduction Existing and horizon year operational conditions were established to determine how the street network within the Study Area is currently functioning and will function by the horizon year without the proposed development. Traffic operations within the Study Area were evaluated using current traffic volumes, road configuration and traffic control. The intersection performance was measured using the traffic analysis software, Synchro 8, a deterministic model that employs Highway Capacity Manual and Intersection Capacity Utilization methodologies for analyzing intersection operations. These procedures are accepted by provincial and municipal agencies throughout North America. The intersection operations were primarily evaluated in terms of the level of service (LOS). Level of service is a common measure of the quality of performance at an intersection and is defined in terms of vehicular delay. This delay includes deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. LOS is expressed on a scale of A through F, where LOS A represents very little delay (i.e. less than 10 seconds per vehicle) and LOS F represents very high delay (i.e. greater than 50 seconds per vehicle for a stop sign controlled intersection and greater than 80 seconds per vehicle for a signalized intersection). Usually LOS D or better is considered acceptable in urban areas before improvements are considered, although some communities accept LOS E. The LOS criteria for signalized and stop sign controlled intersections are shown in Table 1. A description of traffic performance characteristics is included for each LOS. Table 1 — Level of Service Criteria for Intersections 12 206 Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) LOS LOS Description Signalized Stop Controlled Intersections Intersections A Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop (Excellent) less than 10.0 less than 10.0 B Higher delay; more vehicles stop (Very Good) between 10.0 and 20.0 between 10.0 and 15.0 Higher level of congestion; number of vehicles stopping is C significant, although many still pass through intersection between 20.0 and 35.0 between 15.0 and 25.0 without stopping (Good) Congestion becomes noticeable; vehicles must sometimes D wait through more than one red light; many vehicles stop between 35.0 and 55.0 between 25.0 and 35.0 (Satisfactory) Vehicles must often wait through more than one red light; E considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable between 55.0 and 80.0 between 35.0 and 50.0 delay This level is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers; F occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the greater than 80.0 greater than 50.0 intersection (Unacceptable) 12 206 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 271h, 2014 3.2 Existing and Horizon Year (2019) Level of Service without Development The results of the LOS analyses under existing and projected horizon year traffic volumes without development are presented below in Table 2. Detailed output of the analysis can be found in Appendix C. Existing traffic signal phasing and timings at the University Avenue / Millidge Avenue intersection were utilized in the traffic model. Under existing traffic volumes, the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection operates efficiently overall at a very good LOS B with an average delay just under 20 seconds during peak periods. The highest delay is in the southbound through lane (satisfactory LOS D with an average delay of approximately 35 seconds) during both the AM and PM peak periods. The Tim Horton's / University Avenue intersection operates excellent overall with a LOS A under existing conditions. The average delay for vehicles turning left from University Avenue into Tim Norton's is less than 3 seconds. The left and right turn movements exiting from the Tim Horton's driveway onto University Avenue both operate under a LOS B, with an average delay of 12.9 seconds. By the 2019 horizon year without development, the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection is projected to operate efficiently at a good LOS C overall. The southbound through and left turn lanes are projected to experience the highest delay of approximately 36 seconds, resulting in a satisfactory LOS D during the PM peak period. The delay in the southbound left turn lane during the AM peak period is projected to be just under 35 seconds, which is slightly less than the PM delay and results in a good LOS C. The Tim Horton's / University Avenue intersection is projected to remain operating at an excellent overall LOS A in 2019 under existing conditions. There are no projected operational deficiencies within the Study Area throughout the 2019 horizon period without the proposed development in place. 13 207 Jex P. Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27", 2014 Table 2 - LOS Analysis: Existing and Horizon Year Conditions without Development 14 1: Turning Movement LOS Intersection Overall Average Delay (seconds per vehicle) LOS & olume to Capacity Ratio v/c Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound North South Traffic Time Delay (sec /veh) L T R L T R L T R L T R Street @ East Control Period ` '■ � + ` T � 1 � ` r.► West Street ■' ' ■ ■+ ' ' ■ t ■" Existing 2014 Conditions LOS B C A C B B B A C D Millidge Avenue AM Peak 20.0 Shared 32.7 < 1 23.2 12.6 Shared 14.3 14.6 7.5 33.8 35.0 Shared @ University 0.26 0.14 0.39 0.23 0.08 0.1 0.37 0.27 0.47 L19.5 C A C B B B A C D Avenue PM Peak Shared 33.5 3.5 24.9 10.5 Shared 14.9 15.8 7.5 34.7 35.7 Shared 0.31 0.23 0.4 022 0.20 0.29 0.42 0.29 0.51 LOS A A Free B B Tim Horton's @ AM Peak 3.7 Shared 2.7 -- Flow Shared - -- - - -- 12.9 - - -- 12.9 University ® [0.081 [0.10 0.26 0.26 L02 A A Free B B Avenue PM Peak Shared 1.6 - - Flow Shared - - -- - -- - 12.3 - - - -- 12.3 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.16 Pro'ected 2019 Horizon Year without Develo ment Conditions LOS C C A C B B B A C D M[Ilidge AM Peak 20.5 Shared 33.3 1 24.0 13.2 Shared 14.3 14.7 7.4 34.6 36.0 Shared .r. ty @ University 029 0.15 0.42 [0.24 0.08 0.18 0.39 0.31 0.51] LOS C A C B B B A D D Avenue PM Peak 2.1C Shared 34.1 4.2 26.2 11.3 Shared 15.0 16.1 7.5 35.9 36.7 Shared 0.34 1 [0.251 fO.221 0.32 0.44 0.34 0.54 LOS A A Free B g Tim Horton's @ AM Peak 4-0 Shared 2.6 - -- -- Flow Shared - - -- 13.8 ----- 13.8 University ® 0.09 0.11 0.30 0.30 LOS A Free g g Avenue pM Peak Shared 1.6 Flow Shared - -- - - -- 13.0 0.12 0.14 1 [0.181 0.18] 14 1: Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27f", 2014 4 Development Traffic Generation and Assignment 4.1 Traffic Generation In order to estimate the amount of traffic that will be generated at the new development site, trip generation rates were obtained for each proposed development. The Study Team used trip generation data that had been previously collected for a Subway in Oromocto and a Second Cup in Moncton to represent the potential uses of CRU B -2 (QSR with Drive -Thru) and CRU D (Coffee Shop with Drive - Thru), respectively. The remaining trip generation rates were estimated using the TripGen 2013 software, which is based on the gch edition of the Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The ITE is a well- recognized agency throughout North America, and has completed numerous studies to identify trip rates associated with various types of developments. The developer provided the Study Team with land use assumptions to aide in the traffic generation process. CRU B -1 and CRU E are assumed to be small sit - down /take -out style restaurants with limited to no breakfast service. Table 3 shows the estimated traffic generation of the proposed development. Based on the type and number of businesses associated with the proposed development, some customers will visit multiple establishments within a single trip to the site. A reduction factor is applied to the overall traffic generation to account for these trip synergies. A 5% synergy adjustment was selected for this development and applied to the proposed development traffic generation to account for site synergies. Table 3 — Estimated Traffic Generation of Proposed Developments Development Size (ft s ) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2 -Way IN I OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL AADT CRU A: Strip Retail 4520 ft ITE Land Use # 826 420 m1 2 2 4 14 18 32 231 CRU B -1: QSR 1800 ft ITE Land Use # 933 167 m2 5 5 10 24 23 47 600 CRU B -2: QSR with Drive -Thru3 1800 18 17 35 42 40 82 700 167 n m CRU C: Pharmacy with Drive -Thru 13,858 ft, ITE Land Use # 881 1288 m 25 23 48 69 68 137 1,342 CRU D: Coffee Shop with Drive -Thru4 40 40 80 20 20 40 766 167 M CRU E: QSR 1800 ft ITE Land Use # 933 167 m` 5 5 10 24 23 47 600 Subtotal - 95 92 187 193 192 385 4,239 Development Synergy Adjustment (5 %) - -5 -5 -10 -10 -10 -20 -212 [Total Traffic Generation - 90 1 87 1 177 183 182 365 1 4,027 'A nominal 2 inbound and 2 outbound trips were applied for this land use to account for employee /service vehicle trips as it would not typically be open during the AM peak hour. 15 209 t•' pf�/ \ s Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27"', 2014 2A nominal 5 inbound and 5 outbound trips were applied for this land use to account for employee /service vehicle trips as it is assumed it will not be open during the AM peak hour. 3Traffic count data obtained from a Second Cup in Moncton 4Traffic count data obtained from a Subway in Oromocto 4.2 Traffic Assignment The total traffic generated by a development is comprised of new traffic, diverted traffic and pass -by traffic. New traffic is traffic that would not have been on the street network unless the development was constructed and in operation. This is entirely new traffic that needs to be added to the adjacent street and intersection approaches. Diverted traffic is traffic that has been diverted from other nearby areas as a result of the development and also would increase traffic on the adjacent street and intersection approaches. Pass -by traffic is traffic that is already on the adjacent street and intersection approaches and makes an intermediate trip to the development as part of an overall trip. This traffic is not new to the adjacent street network. A 30% pass -by / diverted trip percentage has been utilized for this Study due to the anticipation that many customers will stop at the establishment as part of an existing vehicle trip along Millidge Avenue or University Avenue (such as a driver stopping at the coffee shop on the way to work or at a take -out restaurant on the way home from work). The remaining 70% of development traffic will be new traffic that would not be in the Study Area if the proposed development were not constructed. Pass -by / diverted traffic was assigned to the Study Area based on existing peak hour traffic flows. New traffic was assigned to the development accesses and Study Area intersections based on estimated origins and destinations of development traffic. The following summarizes the assumptions utilized for assigning new traffic to the development for the AM peak hour: • Traffic generated from the west on Woodward Avenue: 14 %; • Traffic generated from the east on University Avenue: 27 %; • Traffic generated from the north on Millidge Avenue: 24 %; and • Traffic generated from the south on Millidge Avenue: 35 %. The following summarizes the assumptions utilized for assigning new traffic to the development for the PM peak hour: • Traffic generated from the west on Woodward Avenue: 14 %; • Traffic generated from the east on University Avenue: 26 %; • Traffic generated from the north on Millidge Avenue: 18 %; and • Traffic generated from the south on Millidge Avenue: 41 %. All traffic entering and exiting the development will have to use one of two proposed development accesses. During the AM peak period the majority of traffic entering the development site will be accessing the coffee shop; therefore, it was assumed that approximately 75% of the traffic will enter and exit from the western access (Development Access 1). During the PM peak period it is anticipated that a greater number of vehicles will be accessing the pharmacy located at the east side of the development site; therefore, it was assumed that for the PM peak period the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site will be split equally among both accesses. Figure 10 shows the traffic assignment to the proposed development accesses and Study Area intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 11 shows the total projected horizon year (2019) traffic volumes with the development operational. 16 210 17 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 0021 1 1 13 -AO August 27` ", 2014 Figure 10 —Estimated Peak Hour Traffic Assignment of Proposed Development 211 L • Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27h, 2014 Figure 11 — Projected 2019 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes with Development 18 212 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 0021 1 1 1 3 -AO August 27h, 2014 5 Access Considerations of Proposed Development Accesses 5.1 Introduction This chapter provides a summary of the proposed access configurations based on the site plan provided in Appendix A. Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) signal warrant analyses and driveway spacing assessments have been applied where appropriate. 5.2 West Access (Development Access 1) onto University Avenue The proposed site plan shows two accesses onto University Avenue. The western access (Development Access 1) will be located 67 metres east of the University Avenue / Millidge Avenue intersection and is directly across the street from the Tim Horton's access that is located on the north side of University Avenue. This access will have one lane entering the development and two lanes (one left turn lane and one right turn lane) exiting the development. Based on the locations of the proposed land uses within the development site, the traffic volumes during the AM peak period are expected to be higher at this access. Intersection Spacing and Geometry The proposed location of Access 1 is approximately 67 m east of the Millidge Avenue /University Avenue intersection (measured from edge of street to edge of driveway). This distance exceeds the minimum corner clearance of 55 m between an access and a major signalized intersection on a collector street, as recommended in the TAC Geometric Design Guide. The proposed access is slightly offset from the current opening in the median. It is recommended that the nose of the median on the east side of the opening be pulled back to allow more space for turning vehicles, or the access be shifted approximately 7 m to the west. TAC Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed at this intersection to determine if signalized control would be appropriate based on proposed intersection characteristics. The TAC methodology was applied for the signal warrant analysis. This methodology and rationale is documented in the Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Signal Head Warrant Handbook that was recently updated in June of 2014. The warrant methodology takes into account the following intersection characteristics: 19 • Turning movement and pedestrian volumes for a six -hour period covering the AM, midday, and PM peak periods; • Intersection geometry (i.e. lane configurations, intersection spacing); • Proximity of nearest upstream traffic signals; • Adjacent land uses (i.e. schools and senior citizen complexes); • Location within the community (i.e. proximity to Central Business District); 213 '`ex p. Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27"', 2014 • Population of community; and • Percentage of trucks and the presence of a bus route. The TAC methodology evaluates the need for a traffic signal based on a priority rating point system of the above characteristics. The priority point system reflects the contribution of each characteristic to the justification for a traffic signal. A total of 100 points or greater generated from the analysis generally warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The TAC signal warrant worksheets can be found in Appendix D. Based on the signal warrant analysis, 78 priority points would be generated at the proposed western access. Traffic signals would not be warranted at this proposed access location. The traffic model has assumed that the development access would operate under stop control. 5.3 l=ast Access (Development Access 2) onto University Avenue The second proposed development access (Development Access 2) is located 50 metres east of Development Access 1 on University Avenue. It is directly across the street from an access into the new Shannex complex and is 40 metres west of Candlewood Lane. This access will have one lane entering the development and two lanes (one left turn lane and one right turn lane) exiting the development. It is expected that this access will be busiest during the PM peak period; however, traffic volumes entering and exiting from the Shannex complex will be much lower than the traffic volumes entering and exiting the Tim Horton's access. This will result in lower traffic volumes at this intersection compared with the Development Access 1 / Tim Horton's intersection. Intersection Spacing The proposed location of Access 2 meets the spacing requirements of the Existing and Draft Zoning By -law. Given that the property frontage is over 75 metres, two driveways are permitted subject to a 20 metre driveway spacing. The proposed Access 2 meets this standard and the required spacing from the Candlewood Lane intersection. Traffic Control Requirement Given the lower traffic volumes expected at this intersection and the proximity of this proposed access to Development Access 1, signalization would not be required at this access. The traffic model has assumed that this development access onto University Avenue would function under stop control. 20 214 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 0021 1 1 1 3 -AO August 2r, 2014 6 LOS Analysis with Development The results of the LOS analysis under projected 2019 traffic volumes with the proposed development operational can be found below in Table 4. Detailed output of the analysis can be found in Appendix E. The lane configurations and traffic control assumed for the development accesses are described in Chapter 5. The results of the analysis show that the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection would operate efficiently at a good LOS C overall during peak periods with all individual turning movements operating at a satisfactory LOS D or better. The southbound approach will experience the largest delays. The southbound left turn lane and thru /right lanes experience average delays of 40 seconds and 35.9 seconds, respectively. The Development Access 1/Tim Horton's /University Avenue intersection would operate efficiently at an excellent LOS A overall during peak periods. Eastbound and westbound traffic travelling along University Avenue will continue to operate at a LOS A with the development in place. Northbound traffic turning left from the development onto University Avenue will have an average delay between 25 and 33 seconds during peak periods, resulting in a satisfactory LOS D. The access to Tim Norton's will operate at a LOS B during the AM peak period and a LOS C during the PM peak period. The v/c ratios of the side street approaches are less than 0.40 during both peak hours. This indicates there is significant reserve capacity available to accommodate further traffic increases before operational issues develop. The Development Access 2 /Shannex /University Avenue intersection would operate efficiently at an excellent LOS A overall during peak periods. Northbound traffic exiting the development and turning left and right onto University Avenue would experience average delays of 20.1 seconds (LOS C) and 10.3 seconds (LOS B), respectively, during the PM peak period. Delays would be slightly lower during the AM peak period. The Shannex driveway would operate at a LOS B with an average delay between 12 and 14 seconds. 21 215 =ex p. Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27°i, 2014 Table 4 - LOS Analysis for Horizon Year (2019) Conditions with Development 22 216 Turning Movement LOS Average Delay (seconds per vehicle) Intersection Overall Volume to Capacity Ratio vic LOS & Delay Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound North South Traffic Time (seciveh) L T R L T R L T R L T R Street @ East Control Period T r I «i T N «f h t West Street M Projected 2019 Horizon Year with Development Conditions LOS C C A C B B B A D D Millidge Avenue AM Peak 20.9 Shared 33.7 < 1 25.5 14.0 Shared 14.3 14.6 7.4 36.7 35.6 Shared @ University D.32 0.15 0.49 0.29 0.08 0.18 0.44 0.40 0.49 LOS C D A C B B B A D D Avenue PM Peak 21.7 Shared 35.3 4.2 32.9 13.6 Shared 15.0 15.9 7.6 40.6 35.9 Shared 0.40 0.25 0.70 0.34 0.22 0.30 0.53 0.50 0.52 LOS A A A D A B B Driveway 7 i AM Peak Shared 2.2 Shared Shared 0.5 Shared 25.9 -- 9.2 14.7 - - - -- 14.7 Tim Horton's @ 5.6 0.11 0.11 028 0.02 1 [0.321 0.32 A A D A C C University Avenue PM Peak LOS A Shared 1.3 Shared Shared <1 Shared 34.3 -- 10.0 16.4 - - -- 16.4 4.6 0.15 0.15 0.39 0.03 0.24 0.24 LOS A A A B B B Driveway 2 / AM Peak <1 Shared 0.2 - - -- Shared 0.2 Shared 13.7 10.0 Shared Shared 12.0 Shared Shannex @ 0.09 0.10 0.011 [0.01] 0.02 A A C B B University Avenue PM Peak LOS A Shared <1 - -- Shared <1 Shared 20.5 10.3 Shared Shared 14.4 Shared 2 5 0.141 0.13 [0.25] [0.04 0.05 22 216 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27'h 2014 7 Site Plan Review 7.1 Pedestrian and Cyclist Access The proposed site plan (Appendix A) shows a pedestrian connection at the west side of the eastern development access that connects with the existing sidewalk on University Avenue. There is also a second pedestrian access at the east side of the development that connects with Candlewood Lane. These two pedestrian accesses will allow pedestrians to enter from the north and east sides of the development. It is anticipated that a pedestrian desire line will be created between the proposed development and developments on the north side University Avenue, particularly the Shannex development. Therefore, consideration should be given to providing a crosswalk on University Avenue on the west side of Access 2 to line up with the proposed sidewalk connection into the site. Based on estimated traffic speeds of 50 -60 km /h on University Avenue, daily traffic volumes of approximately 9,000 vehicles /day, and a street configuration featuring two lanes per direction with raised median island, the preferred crossing control treatment would be an overhead flashing beacon system (RA -5), as per the TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide; however, a ground- mounted system with side and centre - mounted signs would be consistent with the other existing crosswalks on University Avenue. There is concern that installation of an RA -5 at the development location may reduce the prominence of nearby signed -only crosswalks on University Avenue. Therefore a signed and marked crosswalk is recommended initially, until such a time that the City upgrades the nearby crosswalks to an RA -5 configuration. To improve conspicuity of the crosswalk, it is recommended that zebra markings be used. The City may also consider upgrading the nearby crosswalks with zebra markings for consistency. The site plan includes two bike racks; one near the pedestrian access to Candlewood Lane, and one near the back of the development site between the CRU B and CRU C buildings. These bike racks will help encourage and accommodate active transportation for both employees and customers. This is especially important given that University Avenue and Millidge Avenue are designated cycling routes, with on- street cycling facilities (bike lanes and shared lanes). 7.2 Service Vehicle Access The site plan in Appendix A demonstrates that a tractor trailer is able to access the site via Access 2 and circulate the site in a counterclockwise direction, exiting through Access 1. During detailed design, it is recommended that AutoTurn software be used to confirm that the accesses and on -site geometry are designed to accommodate the desired turning path of the design service vehicle. 7.3 Transit Access There is an existing bus route that travels along University Avenue in front of the proposed development site. An existing bus shelter is located on the south side of University Avenue immediately west of proposed Access 1. Having convenient transit access to the proposed development is a positive feature to promote sustainable transportation. The bus shelter is recommended to remain in its current location, given its convenient proximity to the pedestrian crossings at the University Avenue / Millidge Avenue intersection. Given that there are already 2 thru lanes in both directions on University Avenue, unloading / loading buses do not have a significant impact on traffic flow as they only block one of the thru lanes and only for short periods at a time. 23 217 Y �ex s Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -Ao August 2r, 2014 7.4 Drive -Thru Queue Storage The proposed site plan shows three drive - thrus; one for the coffee shop located on the north of the development site, one for the QSR near the southwest corner of the development site, and one for the pharmacy in the southeast corner of the development site. The coffee shop drive -thru lane allows for storage of 7 vehicles without impacting on -site circulation. Based on the Study Team's experience with similar developments, this should be sufficient storage space for a lower volume drive -thru coffee shop (e.g. Second Cup or Starbucks). AM peak hour data from three similar coffee shops reveal max drive -thru queues of 7 vehicles and average drive -thru queues of 1 -2 vehicles. The QSR drive -thru also shows storage for 7 vehicles without impacting on -site circulation. This should provide sufficient storage for a low -to- moderate volume QSR, such as a Subway or KFC. The pharmacy drive -thru shows storage for 2 vehicles without impacting on -site circulation. This should provide sufficient storage, as a pharmacy is not expected to generate as much drive -thru traffic as fast -food developments. Overall, on -site circulation should not be impeded by any of the three drive - thrus, as sufficient storage space has been provided at each drive -thru. 7.5 Site Layout and Parking The layout of the site features two QSRs located close to University Avenue. The close proximity to the street is a positive attribute for attracting walk -in pedestrian customers and is consistent with sustainable design objectives (versus placing all uses at the back of the site). Parking on the site is segmented for each block of uses, divided by landscaped areas and concrete walkways for pedestrians. Again, this approach supports sustainable site design objectives and is preferred to a single mass of parking. A total of 116 parking spaces are provided on the site, including seven barrier free parking spaces. The proposed parking supply exceeds the minimum requirement of 115 spaces indicated on the site plan. The parking layout features aisle widths of 6.0 m and 7.0 m in some places. These widths do not satisfy the minimum aisle width of 7.5 m required in the City's existing Zoning By -Law, but do satisfy the 6.0 m minimum width requirement in the Draft Zoning By -Law. It is expected that the draft by -law will be in place before the development is constructed and therefore at that time aisles will satisfy minimum requirements. 24 218 " . aex P_ Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27th, 2014 8 Conclusions and Recommendations Cobalt Management Corporation retained exp to complete a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for a proposed commercial development in Saint John. This chapter summarizes the key findings and recommendations from the Study. 25 1. Cobalt Properties is proposing to develop approximately 26,000 ft2 of mixed retail /commercial /restaurant space. The development is planned to contain approximately 4,500 ft2 of strip retail, two 1,800 ft2 QSRs without drive - thrus, one 1,800 ft2 QSR with drive - thru, one 14,000 ft2 pharmacy with drive- thru, and one 1,800 ft2 coffee shop with drive -thru. 2. A site visit was completed by exp staff to gain an understanding of existing lane configurations, traffic control and traffic flows. A meeting was held with City of Saint John staff to discuss their traffic issues and concerns within the Study Area. 3. Existing traffic and pedestrian volume data as well as signal timing data were obtained. 4. Existing LOS analysis was undertaken to determine how the Study Area is currently functioning. The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all intersections within the study area are operating efficiently under current conditions, with the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection operating at a LOS B and the Tim Horton's / University Avenue intersection operating at a LOS A. 5. Future traffic volumes were projected for the 2019 horizon year without the proposed development operational. An annual traffic growth rate of 1.5% was selected for the study area, which reflects the potential for continued moderate growth in the Millidgeville area. Traffic generated from the Shannex complex, which is currently under construction and will be operational before 2019, was also included the background traffic projections.. 6. The traffic model was updated with the projected 2019 traffic volumes. The results of the 2019 LOS analysis without development indicated that the Study Area is projected to operate efficiently, with the Millidge /University intersection operating at a good LOS C and the Tim Norton's /University intersection operating at an excellent LOS A. 7. An estimate of the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development was prepared and assigned to the proposed development accesses and Study Area intersections. The proposed development is expected to generate 177 vehicles during the AM peak hour (90 inbound / 87 outbound), 365 vehicles during the PM peak hour (183 inbound / 182 outbound), and 4,027 vehicles daily (2,014 inbound 12,014 outbound). 8. Signal warrant analysis at the proposed Development Access 1 across from Tim Horton's revealed a warrant score of 78 priority points. Therefore, traffic signals would not be warranted at this proposed access within the horizon period. 9. Access locations and spacing were reviewed and were found to satisfy minimum distances per TAC guidelines and the Zoning By -law. 10. Access 1 is slightly offset from the current opening in the median. It is recommended that the nose of the median on the east side of the opening be pulled back to allow more space for turning vehicles, or the access be shifted approximately 7 m to the west. 11. A LOS analysis was completed under projected 2019 traffic volumes with the proposed development operational. The analysis indicates the Millidge Avenue / University Avenue intersection would continue to operate efficiently at a LOS C. The University Avenue / Development Access 1 / Tim Horton's intersection would operate very well at a LOS A. The 219 26 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 2r, 2014 University Avenue / Development Access 2 / Shannex intersection would also operate very well at a LOS A. The highest delays at the accesses would be experienced in the northbound left -turn lane of Development Access 1. Vehicles exiting this access and turning left onto University Avenue would experience an average delay between 25 and 33 seconds (satisfactory LOS D) during peak periods. The v/c ratios of the access approaches are less than 0.40 during both peak hours. This indicates there is reserve capacity available to accommodate further traffic increases before operational issues develop. 12. Site characteristics were reviewed including service vehicle access, pedestrian and cyclist access, transit access, and drive -thru queue storage. 13. It is anticipated there will be some pedestrian demand to the development site from the north side of University Avenue (e.g. from Shannex). Therefore, it is recommended that a pedestrian crosswalk be installed on University Avenue just west of Development Access 2, making use of the median as a centre refuge. To be consistent with other nearby crosswalks on University Avenue, it is recommended that the crossing treatment feature ground- mounted signs (side mounted and in the median). To improve conspicuity of the crosswalk, it is recommended that zebra markings be used. This crossing should be upgraded to an RA -5 treatment at such a time that the City upgrades the nearby crosswalks on University Avenue to RA -5 systems, per the treatment selection recommendations in the TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide. 14. Millidge Avenue and University Avenue are designated cycling routes. The proposed development site provides two sets of bike racks to promote cycling access. 15. The proposed development is located on the University Avenue bus route and an existing bus shelter is provided on the south side of University Avenue, immediately adjacent to the proposed location of Development Access 1. The bus shelter is recommended to remain in its current location, given its convenient proximity to the pedestrian crossings at the University Avenue / Millidge Avenue intersection. 16. During detailed design, it is recommended that AutoTurn software be used to confirm that the accesses and on -site geometry are designed to accommodate the desired turning path of the design service vehicle. 17. The proposed coffee shop with drive -thru is expected to be a lower volume drive -thru. Based on our experience with similar coffee shops, the 7 queuing spaces provided for the drive -thru is expected to be sufficient to handle peak period queuing without interfering with on -site circulation. 18. A total of 116 parking spaces are provided on the site, including seven barrier free parking spaces. The proposed parking supply exceeds the minimum requirement of 115 spaces indicated on the site plan. Parking dimensions satisfy minimum requirements in the City's Draft Zoning By -law. 220 ys Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 2r, 2014 Appendix A — Proposed Site Plan M 221 EXISTING WENDYS _ Slre anunaay TIM NORTONS \t\f _ -- __ ReQUkeG SelbaG (Prapoatl GC 2me 1 oPexiRC j``' assae wrea:lNFa 13.51x1 1 IX2SNANEX NEWAV - EeuN Zoo: N.hrnsfnnlany luz! cwrvnvwv � �•aaoagYswaaee mae: Ragrow.moe _ ca�•rr,r +r Faurz�a(crRl O WJNERSrtVAyE _ _ _ _ aas s I I > \ SMft 30HN COUNCIL h�NUa ltiv3ek PRCFOS®Pnd t stGR ' FOR NEW URONSWICX Re- Ia�nga ms Whe raWrealo \ arcamnMale Or[pwetl awW.priwa Pli RIiOVERTIES vlenaw'ecl to reukwagNw aDO�atle _ � 1 ' R ` Y . - LmJ�e�Er� wrenly umer realax ty me cu E� n I s ah aregoa was avgm Nealal rTm sv ( n EPUV ! � r .. � �-.. •. aWgn. j—. _ _ ` er�cLOS, 1 -_• 4 9 9 wain .'` r E uncsle eo,mary cw �a.rFd1. r. i � 1 vrcwa� era. am 1 8 a�hs 3 / 1 _ _`P., oa.�aatc tRaxrlNVF[u. 1 \J i c am=F i �� ,two,. croENO 722 L f tx�ERNEs I MILUDGEVILLE PROPOSED SiTE DEVELOPMENT 1 FIRE 1 I 1 f MNAGEMENTL 0. STATION �.� I tat= IS�.sI � i I BRUNSOCK Ns-+ %� _ CITY OF SRIM.pN -- __ - - -- �u� -- c.balt nm, sere ENaosl.� C ssanoo- ES - ctrr oT SaNrlotw ItavESrMENrs LTD - 032Ha 58.3 Na - TROOF ST j6wsp 222 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27"', 2014 Appendix B — Traffic Volume Data 28 223 �. {ex P. 3 wooawa,4 A— J 1 4 4�� PHF 0.90 134 F ' -J 30q - 274_ w A a AM Peak Hour 0800.0900 Appendix B Saint John Traffic Count Intersection Volumes - Weekday Peak Hours and ADT Millidge Avenue/ University Avenue 224 n wood —d Ave d 1 {� Ht.i —il Ave PHF= 9.88 H4 = 0.9 3 n QPM Peak Hour 7600 4700 Appendix B Saint John Traffic Count Intersection Volumes - Weekday Peak Hours and ADT Millidge Avenue/ 3 University Avenue n � a Woodward Ave j Universi ty A- F -3-1 Bt5 * /1 %HV= 2.5% 3 NJ n Estimated ADT D Q aaa Woodward A- J j 14 unwersit Ave � s4 4— ]] szz 331 �J j 4 181 - 573 r—Z-7 1 225 h T � Midday Peak Hour 1230 -1330 2�. 3 aao OW-mity Ave 1 4 315 575 e0 f 2fi0 I� +y O Appendix B Saint John Traffic Count Intersection Volumes - Weekday Peak Hours and ADT Tim Horton's / University U.i—dy Ave L 45 � 219 e- 491 227 , PHF= 0.88 PHF- 0.69 HV= 3.3% 000 AM Peak Hour 0730 0 11 -0830 226 1 2 ooa U.iv—dy Ave 1 4 353 294 241 � Universiry Ave 4� 5] 331 r _ 600 268 PHF- 0.69 000 0 11 PM Peak Hour 1600 -1700 Appendix B Saint John Traffic Count Intersection Volumes - Weekday Peak Hours and ADT Tim Horton's / University 3 oa o0 o00� oo11 Ave J j 4 U.N—ft Ave UM—P Ave 4/ 1 14 � Univers{ty AVe - r 7.228 582 -k r © 470 231 _ aoa oao Estimated ADT p Midday Peak Hour 1200 -1300 1` 8,298 0 =.mss ..► 7 f 227 Appendix B - Traffic Volumes Study Name: Millidge Ave /University Ave - Original 2012 Volumes PEAK 6 -HOUR SUMMARY Count Date: 2123/20122 AM Peak Hour 63 144 23 167 68 69 43 145 154 21 65 54 PHF= 0.90 HV% 2% 4% 0% 4% 3% 0% 0% 3% 5% 0% 2% 2% HV %= 3-1% Noon Peak Hour 55 143 28 257 108 92 50 222 196 10 106 75 PHF= 0.87 HV% 2% 1% 0% 3 °/u 1% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% 1% 1% HV %= 1.8% PM Peak Hour Millidge Ave Southbound University Ave Westbound Millidge Ave Northbound Woodward Ave Eastbound 15 min Hourly Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right total Total 7-00 10 29 3 34 13 17 6 14 32 4 11 13 186 7:15 9 43 6 37 6 16 7 30 28 2 8 13 205 368 7 -30 11 38 6 38 11 8 8 34 30 4 18 9 215 7 -45 17 37 2 41 10 13 11 44 23 1 10 5 214 820 800 18 30 4 1 37 22 15 7 30 33 5 12 12 225 859 8,15 16 40 7 40 12 17 7 29 1 34 1 16 17 236 890 8:30 16 41 5 45 15 19 1 17 42 40 8 21 12 281 956 8.45 13 33 7 45 19 18 12 44 47 7 16 13 274 1016 11:30 23 55 5 71 31 15 17 31 42 4 15 19 328 11:45 31 36 10 48 24 15 10 28 49 5 15 12 283 1200 14 29 5 68 17 23 12 33 40 3 37 15 296 1215 19 44 7 68 18 22 22 39 53 3 17 16 328 1235 12:30 15 29 8 73 31 20 13 47 45 3 23 17 324 1231 1245 10 28 6 61 25 22 8 46 51 0 29 18 304 1252 13:00 18 46 11 68 28 30 13 58 60 3 30 19 384 1340 1315 12 40 3 55 24 20 16 71 40 4 24 21 330 1342 1600 9 26 8 31 7 13 11 27 23 2 10 19 186 1615 9 22 1 20 13 8 11 30 24 3 2 8 151 1630 4 14 3 31 7 10 13 40 27 6 19 13 187 1645 10 14 4 21 3 9 8 31 20 2 7 7 136 660 17:00 11 11 3 29 5 10 9 26 24 3 1 5 137 611 1715 6 12 8 19 10 11 11 24 26 2 5 7 141 601 17730 1 18 4 24 12 7 3 16 22 2 7 11 127 541 17:45 4 19 4 14 7 10 8 23 10 0 4 5 108 513 AM Peak Hour 63 144 23 167 68 69 43 145 154 21 65 54 PHF= 0.90 HV% 2% 4% 0% 4% 3% 0% 0% 3% 5% 0% 2% 2% HV %= 3-1% Noon Peak Hour 55 143 28 257 108 92 50 222 196 10 106 75 PHF= 0.87 HV% 2% 1% 0% 3 °/u 1% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% 1% 1% HV %= 1.8% PM Peak Hour 32 76 16 103 30 40 43 128 94 13 38 47 PHF= 0.88 HV% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% HV %= 0.9% 6 -Hour Total 306 734 130 1018 370 368 260 837 823 77 357 306 HV %= 2.5% Estimated ADT 765 1835 325 2545 925 920 650 2093 2058 193 893 765 HV %= 2.5% 228 Appendix B - Traffic Volumes Study Name: Millidge Ave /University Ave - 2014 Volumes PEAK 6 -HOUR SUMMARY Count Date: 2/23/20122 kdJustment Factors: AM: 1 Noon: 0.7 PM: 1.9 N6 Left Turns: 2 2.5 AM Peak Hour Mlllldge Ave Southbound University Ave Westbound Mlllidge Ave Northbound Woodward Ave Eastbound 15 min Hourly Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right total Total 7:00 10 29 3 34 13 17 6 14 32 4 11 13 186 64 7:15 9 43 6 37 6 16 7 30 28 2 8 13 205 13% 7:30 11 38 6 38 11 8 8 34 30 4 18 9 215 7:45 17 37 2 41 10 13 11 44 23 1 10 5 214 820 8:00 18 30 4 37 22 15 7 30 33 5 12 12 225 859 815 16 40 7 1 40 12 1 17 7 29 34 1 16 17 236 890 830 16 41 1 5 45 15 19 17 42 1 40 8 21 12 281 956 845 13 33 7 45 19 18 12 44 47 7 16 13 274 1016 11:30 23 55 5 71 31 15 17 31 42 4 15 19 328 1145 31 36 10 48 24 15 20 28 49 5 15 12 293 12:00 14 29 5 68 17 23 24 33 40 3 37 15 308 1215 19 44 7 68 18 22 1 44 39 53 3 17 16 350 1 1279 12:30 11 20 6 51 22 14 26 33 32 2 16 12 245 1196 1245 7 20 4 43 18 15 16 32 36 0 20 13 224 1127 13:00 13 32 8 48 20 21 26 41 42 2 21 13 287 1106 13:15 8 28 2 39 17 14 32 28 3 17 15 253 1009 1600 17 49 15 59 13 25 28 44 4 19 36 360 1615 17 42 2 38 25 15 28 46 6 4 15 295 16.30 8 27 6 59 13 19 33 K26 51 11 36 25 364 1645 19 27 8 40 6 17 20 38 4 13 13 264 1283 17:00 11 11 3 29 5 10 23 24 3 1 5 151 1074 17:15 6 12 8 19 10 11 28 26 2 5 7 158 937 17730 1 18 4 24 12 7 8 16 22 2 7 11 132 705 17:45 4 19 4 14 7 10 20 1 23 10 1 0 1 4 5 120 561 AM Peak Hour 63 144 23 167 68 69 43 145 154 21 65 54 PHF= 0.90 HV% 0% 4% 4% 0% 3% 10% 19% 3% 0% 5% 2% 0% HV %= 3.1% Noon Peak Hour 39 100 20 181 77 64 100 156 138 7 74 53 PHF= 0.88 HV% 0% 2% 5% 0% 1 % 13% 6% 2% 1% 14% 1% 0% HV %= 2.4% PM Peak Hour 61 145 31 196 57 76 109 243 179 25 72 89 PHF= 0.88 HV% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% HV %= 0.5% 6 -Hour Total 319 760 137 1035 366 376 468 886 850 86 359 326 HV%= 2.4% Estimated ADT 798 1900 343 2588 915 940 1170 2215 2125 215 898 815 HV %= 2.4% 229 Study Name: Millidge Ave /University Ave PEAK 1 -HOUR SUMMARY Count Date: 811 812 01 4 11:45 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 13:00 13:15 1600 16 15 1630 1645 17:00 17:15 17:30 1745 Approach AM Peak Hour HV% Appendix B -Traffic Volumes Millidge Ave Southbound -------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- I otal: 346 558 PHF= Noon Peak Hour PHF= HV% HXP/ = PM Peak Hour 175 102 69 169 268 121 PHF= 0.90 HV% HVl= 0.0% HV %= Estimated AoT HV % _ 230 Appendix B - Traffic Volumes Study Name: University Ave 1 Tim Hortons PEAK 6 -HOUR SUMMARY Count Date: 8114/2014 AM Peak Hour 47 0 96 0 219 45 0 0 0 80 180 0 PHF= 0.88 HV% 0% 1 % 5% 0% 1% 6% HV %= 3.3% Noon Peak Hour 43 0 107 0 198 51 0 0 0 99 178 0 PHF= 0.94 HV% 0% 1% 4% 0% 1% 4% HV %= 2.7% PM Peak Hour 27 0 56 0 297 35 0 0 0 53 241 0 PHF= 0.89 HV% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 3% HV %= 2.0% 6 -Hour Total 234 0 482 0 1255 260 0 0 0 440 1142 0 HV %= 2-4% Estimated ADT 585 0 1205 0 3138 650 0 0 0 1100 2855 0 HV %= 2A 231 Tim Horton's Southbound University Ave Westbound Driveway Northbound University Ave Eastbound 16 min Hourly Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru I Right total Total 700 7 18 31 9 19 321 116 7:15 9 23 32 13 19 361 132 730 18 21 59 14 20 38 170 745 14 28 61 10 21 56 190 608 800 2 22 44 ill 22 43 144 636 8.15 1 13 25 1 55 10 1 17 43 163 667 8:30 7 28 44 25 17 46 167 664 8:45 14 24 54 9 17 44 162 636 11:30 8 16 39 9 22 39 133 11:45 13 17 56 11 19 571 173 12:00 5 25 50 11 32 431 166 12'15 12 24 54 18 25 46 179 651 1230 11 27 43 10 21 46 158 676 1245 15 31 51 12 21 43 173 676 13:00 6 19 41 9 201 47 142 652 13:15 11 23 42 14 19 43 152 625 1600 7 11 94 9 11 68 200 1615 9 14 76 9 15 47 170 1630 5 16 76 11 12 70 190 16:45 6 15 51 6 15 56 149 709 17:00 13 14 45 10 14 61 157 17.15 10 16 66 7 20 50 169 17:30 8 16 45 7 8 50 134 ��166 17:45 11 9 46 6 14 38 124 AM Peak Hour 47 0 96 0 219 45 0 0 0 80 180 0 PHF= 0.88 HV% 0% 1 % 5% 0% 1% 6% HV %= 3.3% Noon Peak Hour 43 0 107 0 198 51 0 0 0 99 178 0 PHF= 0.94 HV% 0% 1% 4% 0% 1% 4% HV %= 2.7% PM Peak Hour 27 0 56 0 297 35 0 0 0 53 241 0 PHF= 0.89 HV% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 3% HV %= 2.0% 6 -Hour Total 234 0 482 0 1255 260 0 0 0 440 1142 0 HV %= 2-4% Estimated ADT 585 0 1205 0 3138 650 0 0 0 1100 2855 0 HV %= 2A 231 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 2ih, 2014 Appendix C — LOS Analysis without Development 29 232 I=V p. Appendix Cl: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave Existing AM Peak 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave 8/27/2014 t -► '-- `\ t t �► Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR ;BL SBT e10 Lane Configurations *1 & Volume (vph) 21 65 54 167 68 43 145 154 63 144 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm +pt NA D.P +P NA custom Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 34 1 12 2 10 Permitted Phases 4 4 34 2 2 2 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 34 1 12 2 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 Total Split ( %) 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 15.1% 15.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 16% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max C -Max C -Max C -Max None Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0 31.0 35.0 43.0 47.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.38 0.46 0.51 0.22 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.14 0.39 0.23 0.08 0.17 0.37 0.27 0.47 Control Delay 32.7 0.6 23.2 12.6 14.3 14.6 7.5 33.8 35.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.7 0.6 23.2 12.6 14.3 14.6 7.5 33.8 35.0 LOS C A C B B B A C D Approach Delay 20.3 18.4 11.3 34.7 Approach LOS C B B C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 93 Actuated Cycle Length: 93 Offset: 14 (15 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of Green Natural Cycle. 75 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio' 0.47 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 > and Phases: 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave �.1 4t -2 � R) 1 U,4 � 1= EXP Services Synchro 8 Report R Esligar P.Eng. Page 1 233 Appendix C1: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave Existing AM Peak 2: University Ave & Tim Horton's 8/27/2014 .,# --. 4-- t L d Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4t 7"" Y Volume (veh /h) 80 180 219 45 47 96 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 91 205 249 51 53 109 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (m) 3.7 3.7 3.7 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 78 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 310 579 170 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 310 579 170 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 93 87 87 cM capacity (veh /h) 1229 404 827 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 159 136 166 134 162 Volume Left 91 0 0 0 53 Volume Right 0 0 0 51 109 cSH 1229 1700 1700 1700 615 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.26 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Control Delay (s) 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 2.7 0.0 12.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 234 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Appendix C2: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave Existing PM Peak 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave 8/27/2014 t -► � f� 4\ T `► 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT ®10 Lane Configurations 4 €`{ ► i i rr Til Volume (vph) 25 72 89 196 57 109 243 179 61 145 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm +pt NA D.P +P NA custom Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 10 Permitted Phases 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100 10.0 10.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 Total Split ( %) 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 15.1% 15.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 16% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max C -Max C -Max C -Max None Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0 31.0 35.0 43.0 47.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.38 0.46 0.51 0.22 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.23 0.47 0.22 0.20 0.29 0.42 0.29 0.51 Control Delay 33.5 3.5 24.9 10.5 14.9 15.8 7.5 34.7 35.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.5 3.5 24.9 10.5 14.9 15.8 7.5 34.7 35.7 LOS C A C B B B A C D Approach Delay 19.2 19.1 12.8 35.4 Approach LOS B B B D Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 93 Actuated Cycle Length: 93 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio- 0.51 Intersection Signal Delay: 19.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave 'V 1 i; ♦t -2 "FF`: 1 V-3 =:4 k a s 25 s 14 5 _ s- II;, k s EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 235 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Appendix C2: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave Existing PM Peak 2: University Ave & Tim Horton's 8/27/2014 Movement t EBL EBT *-- WBT 4�, WBR L SBL SBR Lane Configurations 181 222 151 93 Volume Left 60 Volume (veh /h) 53 241 297 35 27 56 Sign Control 39 Free Free 1155 Stop 1700 Grade 586 0% 0% 0.11 0% 0.09 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 271 334 39 30 63 Pedestrians 10 10 B 10 1.6 Lane Width (m) 0.0 3.7 3.7 Approach LOS 37 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 78 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 383 628 207 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 383 628 207 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 95 92 92 cM capacity (veh /h) 1155 385 783 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume rotal 150 181 222 151 93 Volume Left 60 0 0 0 30 Volume Right 0 0 0 39 63 cSH 1155 1700 1700 1700 586 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.11 0.13 0.09 016 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 Control Delay (s) 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 12.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 236 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Appendix C3: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 AM Peak w/o Development 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave 8/27/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT o10 Lane Configurations F °i 14 f t ' 1 °+ Volume (vph) 23 71 58 183 74 46 156 169 71 155 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm +pt NA D.P +P NA custom Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 10 Permitted Phases 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 Total Split ( %) 26.9% 26.9% 26.9 % 15.1% 15.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 16% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max C -Max C -Max C -Max None Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0 31.0 35.0 43.0 47.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.38 0.46 0.51 0.22 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.15 0.42 0.24 0.08 0.18 0.39 0.31 0.51 Control Delay 33.3 0.7 24.0 13.2 14.3 14.7 7.4 34.6 36.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.3 0.7 24.0 13.2 14.3 14.7 7.4 34.6 36.0 LOS C A C B B B A C D Approach Delay 20.9 19.1 11.3 35.6 Approach LOS C B B D Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 93 Actuated Cycle Length. 93 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio. 0.51 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 51,6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 > and Phases: 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave/University Ave 11 02 ,R) t ._ -�-►a4 � rl EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 237 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Appendix C3: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 AM Peak w/o Development 2: University Ave & Tim Horton's 8/27/2014 --0. 4-, ` 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 0 Volume (veh /h) 86 201 240 48 51 103 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 228 273 55 58 117 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (m) 3.7 3.7 3.7 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 78 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 337 630 184 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 337 630 184 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 15 3.3 p0 queue free % 92 84 86 cM capacity (veh /h) 1201 372 810 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 174 152 182 145 175 Volume Left 98 0 0 0 58 Volume Right 0 0 0 55 117 cSH 1201 1700 1700 1700 583 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.30 Queue Length 95th (m) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 Control Delay (s) 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 2.6 0.0 13.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 238 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Appendix C3: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 AM Peak w/o Development 9: University Ave & Shannex 8/27/2014 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 0 jf Y Volume (veh /h) 7 245 283 8 5 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 278 322 9 6 5 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (m) 37 3.7 3.7 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 149 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 341 501 185 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 341 501 185 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh /h) 1198 485 808 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 101 186 214 116 10 Volume Left 8 0 0 0 6 Volume Right 0 0 0 9 5 cSH 1198 1700 1700 1700 590 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.02 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Control Delay (s) 0.7 00 0.0 0.0 11.2 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 11.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 239 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Appendix C4: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 PM Peak w/o Development 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave 8/27/2014 1* "It fl, 10\ t �► 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT o10 Lane Configurations y Volume (vph) 27 78 96 215 63 117 261 195 69 156 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm +pt NA D.P +P NA custom Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 34 1 12 2 10 Permitted Phases 4 4 34 2 2 2 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 34 1 12 2 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 Total Split ( %) 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 15.1% 15.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 16% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max C -Max C -Max C -Max None Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0 31.0 35.0 43.0 47.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.38 0.46 0.51 0.22 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.25 0.52 0.25 0.22 0.32 0.44 0.34 0.54 Control Delay 34.1 4.2 26.2 11.3 15.0 16.1 7.5 35.9 36.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 4.2 26.2 11.3 15.0 16.1 7.5 35.9 36.7 LOS C A C B B B A D D Approach Delay 19.9 20.1 12.9 36.4 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 93 Actuated Cycle Length: 93 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of Green Natural Cycle. 75 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.54 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.3 % ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 240 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 J 4S 1 125S 1 IIB4 5 25 5- - - EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 240 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Appendix C4: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 PM Peak w/o Development 2: University Ave & Tim Horton's 8/27/2014 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4, + 14 Volume (veh /h) 57 266 328 38 29 60 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 64 299 369 43 33 67 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (m) 3.7 3.7 3.7 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 78 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 421 687 226 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 421 687 226 tC. single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 94 91 91 cM capacity (veh /h) 1118 351 761 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 164 199 246 166 100 Volume Left 64 0 0 0 33 Volume Right 0 0 0 43 67 cSH 1118 1700 1700 1700 551 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.18 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Control Delay (s) 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 13.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services Synchro 8 Report R Esligar P.Eng. Page 2 241 Appendix C4: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 PM Peak w/o Development 9: University Ave & Shannex 8/27/2014 Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh /h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh /h) EBL EBT 4+ 7 288 Free 0% 0.89 0.89 8 324 10 3.7 1.2 1 ,t•T1T41 148 419 419 4.2 2.2 99 1120 WBT WBR SBL SBR WB 2 SB 1 Y 116 357 7 8 9 Free 8 Stop 0 0 %D 9 0% 0 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 401 8 9 10 10 550 10 0.01 3.7 0.16 3.7 0.03 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.0 1 0.8 1 0.6 None 603 224 603 224 6.9 7.0 3.5 3.3 98 99 418 762 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 116 216 267 142 19 Volume Left 8 0 0 0 9 Volume Right 0 0 0 8 10 cSH 1120 1700 1700 1700 550 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.13 0.16 0.08 0.03 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 11.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 242 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 2r, 2014 Appendix D — TAC Signal Warrant Worksheets r 243 ..ex P. Appendix D TAC Signal Warrant Worksheet Proposed Access 1 M N O P p R I S T City of Saint John - Traffic Signal & Pedestrian Signal Head Warrant Analysis 2 Main Street (name) Uamvetsih Avenue Direction (EW or NS) EK Road Authority, : Side Street (name) riveway 1 /Tim Horton' Direction (EW or NS) NS City: Quadrant / lot # Comments F-Iffic Signal W arrant Analysis Analysis Date: an access to a Commercial r,r W.,..m C,1-1,6— _ CHES"o"ET evelopment at 55 University Count Date: Rcsuus, pl— hil 'P,gc Avenue, Smut John Dawn' Date Entry Format: DrirewaY I /Tim Uonoiis 513 right lams signibc,ntly imp,dN Fry through mcrcmcnlc? (ynl) AreIhcllniYCrsi1)' Avutue Wl3 right rums signific:mtly vnpcdcJ by lhrnugh mt,cmc„ls ?(yrn) n Are the University A—e tin right tu — puficawly i,vi.-d,.1 by fl—gl, -- —10 (Y.n) n Iher input I I SPgd I Tmck I B., Rl I Median Set Peak Hours 5c Input A —,I Pcdcslrian E Average 6 -hour F Peak Turning Movements 3] 5 ' O ❑ Z m z 39 < WB University Avenu Ell F, ER City of Saint John Saint John 2014 Aug 26, 7 ue 2014 Aug 14, Thu (yyyy- mm -dd) mmmm Saturation `1­ Def all Ratcs(ifnotdcfault) Salurattoo Flow (ephpl) Ratc,(vphpl) L.fL Tum Po 1.650 nnon h Lado Ri n Tum 7 511U mmmm Demo ra hira ® Fl—. Schnnl/Mnbilil Cha3cU cd (/n Seri is ('om les Po Path— 1,, Schtwl Metro Arc, 1'o ULuion T t, rnI B3 incss Uiw l (rJn) mmmm ® ® ®® Wsic = ICht(Xy -Y) % K1 + (F (X.-p) L) / K21 X Ci W = 78 62 16 iii lK3) l Cobalt Management Corporation Traffic Impact Study for a Commercial Development at 55 University Avenue, Saint John FRE- 00211113 -AO August 27b, 2014 Appendix E — LOS Analysis with Development 31 245 Y X Appendix E1: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 AM Peak with Development 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave as sg , _ _ - IZ5,S__ - - - 8127/2014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SE e10 Lane Configurations t r Volume (vph) 23 80 58 210 83 46 150 197 92 149 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm +pt NA D.P +P NA custom Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 10 Permitted Phases 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 150 Total Split ( %) 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 15.1% 15.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 16% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.0 2.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max C -Max C -Max C -Max None Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0 31.0 35.0 43.0 47.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.38 0.46 0.51 0.22 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.15 0.49 0.29 0.08 0.18 0.44 0.40 0.49 Control Delay 33.7 0.7 25.5 14.0 14.3 14.6 7.4 36.7 35.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.7 0.7 25.5 14.0 14.3 14.6 7.4 36.7 35.6 LOS C A C B B B A D D Approach Delay 21.9 20.2 11.0 36.0 Approach LOS C C B D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 93 Actuated Cycle Length: 93 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of Green Natural Cycle. 75 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio. 0.49 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service A Splits and Phases: 1: Millidoe Ave & Woodward Avelilniversity Ava EXP Services Synchro 8 Report R Esligar P.Eng. Page 1 246 as sg , _ _ - IZ5,S__ - - - EXP Services Synchro 8 Report R Esligar P.Eng. Page 1 246 Appendix E1: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 AM Peak with Development 2: Driveway 1 /Tim Horton's & University Ave 8/27/2014 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 "�* 0� Volume (veh /h) 86 198 61 18 236 48 60 0 15 51 0 103 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 225 69 20 268 55 68 0 17 58 0 117 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 78 pX, platoon unblocked vC.. conflicting volume 323 294 747 819 147 661 826 161 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 323 294 747 819 147 661 826 161 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 92 98 72 100 98 82 100 86 cM capacity (veh /h) 1227 1257 240 278 870 314 275 852 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 S61 Volume Total 210 182 155 189 68 17 175 Volume Left 98 0 20 0 68 0 58 Volume Right 0 69 0 55 0 17 117 cSH 1227 1700 1257 1700 240 870 544 Volume to Capacity 0.08 011 0.02 0.11 0.28 0.02 0.32 Queue Length 95th (m) 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 8.6 0.5 10.5 Control Delay (s) 4.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 25.9 9.2 14.7 Lane LOS A A D A B Approach Delay (s) 2.2 0.5 22.5 14.7 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services Synchro 8 Report R Esligar P.Eng. Page 2 247 Appendix E1: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 AM Peak with Development 3: Driveway 2 /Shannex & University Ave 8/27/2014 � -• � � ♦- �- w t r ti j t, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "'1, Volume (veh /h) 7 260 4 7 298 7 4 1 8 4 1 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 289 4 8 331 8 4 1 9 4 1 6 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (m) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 144 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 349 303 514 681 167 540 679 189 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 349 303 514 681 167 540 679 189 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 100 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh /h) 1189 1237 420 358 831 401 359 803 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 152 149 173 173 4 10 11 Volume Left 8 0 8 0 4 0 4 Volume Right 0 4 0 8 0 9 6 cSH 1189 1700 1237 1700 420 725 527 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 13.7 10.0 12.0 Lane LOS A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.2 11.2 12.0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. NM Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Appendix E2: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 PM Peak with Development 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave i,s s 14 s - -- _- - , 812712014 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT o10 Lane Configurations 1 + If Volume (vph) 27 97 96 277 81 117 247 262 102 147 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm +pt NA D.P +P NA custom Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 10 Permitted Phases 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 3 4 1 12 2 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 14.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 Total Split ( %) 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 15.1% 15.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 16% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max C -Max C -Max C -Max None Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0 31.0 35.0 43.0 47.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.38 0.46 0.51 0.22 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.25 0.70 0.34 0.22 0.30 0.53 0.50 0.52 Control Delay 35.3 4.2 32.9 13.6 15.0 15.9 7.6 40.6 35.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.3 4.2 32.9 13.6 15.0 15.9 7.6 40.6 35.9 LOS D A C B B B A D D Approach Delay 21.7 24.7 12.3 37.6 Approach LOS C C B D Intersection Summa Cycle Length: 93 Actuated Cycle Length 93 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of Green Natural Cycle. 75 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Millidge Ave & Woodward Ave /University Ave EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 249 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 i,s s 14 s - -- _- - , EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 249 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Appendix E2: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 PM Peak with Development 2: Driveway 1 /Tim Horton's & University Ave 8/27/2014 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh /h) 57 317 68 25 377 38 69 0 23 29 0 60 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 64 356 76 28 424 43 78 0 26 33 0 67 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (m) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 78 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 476 443 878 1065 236 853 1082 253 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 476 443 878 1065 236 853 1082 253 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 94 97 61 100 97 85 100 91 cM capacity (veh /h) 1066 1097 198 198 749 220 193 731 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 242 254 240 254 78 26 100 Volume Left 64 0 28 0 78 0 33 Volume Right 0 76 0 43 0 26 67 cSH 1066 1700 1097 1700 198 749 416 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.15 0.03 0.15 0.39 0.03 0.24 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 13.1 0.8 7.1 Control Delay (s) 2.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 34.3 10.0 16.4 Lane LOS A A D A C Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.6 28.2 16.4 Approach LOS D C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services R Esligar P.Eng. 250 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Appendix E2: Traffic Impact Study for 55 University Ave 2019 PM Peak with Development 3: Driveway 2 /Shannex & University Ave None None 239 217 75 28 19 Volume Left 8/27/2014 0 29 0 75 0 9 Volume Right 0 Upstream signal (m) 0 144 0 27 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 437 -0 691 899 -it � 716 932 1� vC1, stage 1 conf vol 0.9 1.1 Control Delay (s) Volume (veh /h) 7 304 65 26 373 7 67 1 24 8 1 8 Sign Control vCu, unblocked vol Free 425 691 Free 227 716 Stop 233 tC, single (s) Stop 4.2 Grade 6.6 0% 7.6 6.6 0% tC, 2 stage (s) 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 342 73 29 419 8 75 1 27 9 1 9 Pedestrians 250 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 10 NB 2 SB 1 10 10 Lane Width (m) 3.7 17 3.7 3.7 Walking Speed (m /s) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type 179 None None 239 217 75 28 19 Volume Left Median storage veh) 0 29 0 75 0 9 Volume Right 0 Upstream signal (m) 0 144 0 27 9 cSH 1103 1700 pX, platoon unblocked 1700 306 706 400 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.14 0.03 vC, conflicting volume 437 425 691 899 227 716 932 233 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 0.9 1.1 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 20.5 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 14.4 Lane LOS A A C B vCu, unblocked vol 437 425 691 899 227 716 932 233 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) Average Delay tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 97 75 100 96 97 100 99 cM capacity (veh /h) 1103 1114 306 262 759 287 250 752 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 vJB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 179 244 239 217 75 28 19 Volume Left 8 0 29 0 75 0 9 Volume Right 0 73 0 8 0 27 9 cSH 1103 1700 1114 1700 306 706 400 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.13 025 0.04 0.05 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.2 0.9 1.1 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 20.5 10.3 14.4 Lane LOS A A C B B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.6 17.8 14.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 EXP Services Synchro 8 Report R Esligar P.Eng. Page 3 251 Lockhart, Lynda S From: Gina Wilkins <gina @bissettmatheson.com> Sent: September -15 -14 4:42 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Municipal Plam Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision Application 55 -65 University Avenue Attachments: Letter to PAC re. Cobalt development_pdf Hello Please find attached a letter regard the above- mentioned Municipal Plan Amendment, for consideration by the Planning Advisory Council at its meeting tomorrow evening. We will also be attending the meeting and plan to make a 10- minute PowerPoint presentation to better illustrate our points. Thank you. Gina Wilkins Vice - President Property Maintenance Ltd. 1 252 Property Maintenance Ltd. Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John Planning and Development PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 41_1 September 15, 2014 Re.: Municipal Plan Amendment Rezoning and Subdivision Application 55 -65 University Avenue PtDs 55024210 and 55221717 To the Planning Advisory Committee, City of Saint John: As the President and Vice - President of the Board of Property Maintenance Ltd. (PML), we are writing with regard to the application to amend the Municipal Plan designation at 55 -65 University Avenue (PID 55024210 and a portion of PID 55221717). Property Maintenance Ltd. represents the interests of the 64 homeowners in the Candlewood Lane /University Avenue townhouse neighbourhood next to the proposed development, Notification regarding the application to amend the municipal plan was received by some of the residents of the neighbourhood in late August. The notice caused considerable concern in the neighbourhood, and last week a large group of residents met to discuss reaction to the application and to the proposed development. While many of the residents submitted their own letters, composed to summarize the main points discussed at the meeting. In summary, most of the residents in the Candlewood Lane - University Avenue neighbourhood are OPPOSED to an amendment to the municipal plan that would allow the requested rezoning and subdivision of the lots at 55 -65 University Avenue. This is well reflected in the petition that has been submitted to PAC by one of our residents, Heather Redding. our opposition is based on a number of concerns, as follows: 1) Planning and Zone SJ The proposed rezoning does not fit with the vision for Millidgeville that appears in Plan SJ, nor does it comply with the zoning level proposed in Zone SJ. The lot is currently zoned as major institutional, white Zone SJ proposes that it be zoned CFN, "Neighbourhood Community Facility Zone." In Plan SJ, the list of possibly uses for land zoned CFN includes such things as a day care centre, a cultural centre, a school, a library, a place of worship, a recreation facility, supportive housing, etc. The CFN zoning proposal is much more suitable for the area, more in line with the character of the neighbouring residences. PO Box 22025 Lansdowne RPO Saint John, NB EZK 4T7 253 The residents of the Candlewood Lane- University Avenue townhouse neighbourhood oppose the proposal to rezone the properties at 5 -65 University Avenue to "Local Centre" and "General Business." The residents support Plan SI's and Zone Vs proposed zoning of the properties at 55 -65 University Avenue as CFN, "Neighbourhood Community Facility." 2) Infrastructure concerns a. Water and sewerage As stated in our previous letter to Council, Candlewood Lane residents have been impacted by no fewer than five City water line breaks over the past four years. All of these breaks have occurred in the block of University Avenue that runs between the entrance to and the exit from Candlewood Lane. Repairs have been made but, from all appearances, they have been patch -up jobs. Some of these repairs have also led to breaks in the water lines into the Candlewood- University townhouses and /or leaky basements. Over the years, this existing, old water and sewerage infrastructure along the western (bottom) section of University Avenue, which was built to handle light residential use, has taken on the added burden of the Millennium building (originally a Dominion grocery store), the Tim Hortons /Wendy's complex and the Anchorage apartment building. The new Shannex complex, while it is further down Miilidge Avenue, will also have an impact. Now it is proposed that another large commercial complex be added in this area, with, as far as we know, no apparent plans to upgrade the water and sewerage infrastructure to accommodate additional demand. The residents of the Candlewood- University townhouses are very concerned that the addition of this new development will further burden this old infrastructure, possibly to the point of breaking. It has been our experience in the past that when problems develop with the water lines on University Avenue, not long afterward something breaks in the Townhouse complex. This places added financial burden on our neighbourhood, as property maintenance fees are used to repair infrastructure damage that is part of the common area for the complex. b. Road and sidewalks The segment of University from the corner of Millidge to the exit from Candlewood Lane is in very poor shape, and has been for a number of years (thanks to having been dug up so many times for gas lines water line repairs, repairs to sewer pipes, etc.). The "sidewalks" are worn -down asphalt, with no curbs to speak of and, at the moment, the pavement is "grooved" (having been "milled" about two months ago), with many potholes and raised manhole covers, and with no indication of resurfacing in sight. Further on the sidewalks, the fact that they are asphalt, with no curb to speak of, makes them quite dangerous for pedestrians. We have witnessed many occasions where vehicles taking the curve on University road near the entrance to Candlewood Lane have wandered over onto the asphalt sidewalk. Also, there are a number of areas in this segment of road where water drainage off the road is poor, resulting in the formation of puddles, which are a serious hazard when they turn into ice in the wintertime. NE The additional vehicular traffic that will be generated by this new development will add to the wear and tear on this deplorable segment of road. Not only that, but the Avenue's terrible condition is also a hazard to this additional traffic. As for the increased pedestrian traffic, let's just say that anyone walking in this area is in jeopardy. We request that the PAC order a full assessment of the impact this new development will have on the existing water and sewerage and road and sidewalk infrastructure before allowing the area to be rezoned, and most certainly before issuing any building permits. 3) Traffic flow considerations As you can see in the schematic of the proposed development, the first block of University Avenue, up to the entrance into Candlewood Lane, is already very busy. There is a right merge with a yield onto University from Millidge, as well as traffic coming across Millidge onto University from Woodward. There is a bus stop immediately after the merge, then there is the entrance /exit on the left, through the median opening to the Tim Hortons /Wendy's complex. Further up University there is another median opening, where westbound traffic coming down University can access Candlewood Lane. In August, a third cut was made into the median between the two mentioned above, this one to accommodate traffic entering and exiting the new Shannex complex (with some 140+ residents, plus their visitors). There is then another bus stop, at the corner of University and Candlewood Lane. As commuters and locals will tell you, this section of University Avenue is already congested at peak times during the day due to the traffic at the entrance /exit to Tim Hortons /Wendy's, car and bus traffic to and from UNBSJ and the hospital, school busses and so on. Accidents in the area are not uncommon. Now add two more driveways off and on to University Avenue to the mix. The first will be on the south side of University Avenue, sharing the cut in the median with the entrance /exit to /from the Tim Hortons /Wendy's complex. From the looks of things in the schematic, it will be located right after the first bus stop on University Avenue (mentioned above). The second new driveway, also on the south side of University, will share the new cut in the median with the entrance /exit to the new Shannex. Picture the traffic flow. From the merge from Millidge to University (where there are already accidents) we have, first, a bus stop; then there is the first entrance /exit for the new development on the right and a left turn through the median into the Tim Hortons /Wendy's complex on the north side of University; then there is the second entrance /exit into the new development on the right and another left turn through the median into the Shannex complex; then another bus stop on the corner of University and Candlewood, where there is a right turn onto Candlewood Lane and another cut in the median to accommodate access onto Candlewood by westbound traffic on University. As well, note that these three cuts in the median also afford left -turn access for westbound traffic on University — one onto Candlewood Lane, the next the first entrance into the new development (at the Shannex opening), and the third into the new development at the Tim Hortons /Wendy's opening. And just a little further up University Avenue there is another cut in the median to accommodate access into and out of the parking lot for the Gorman Arena, which is on the north side of University. This scenario is unquestionably an accident waiting to happen, especially when you add morning rush hour and school buses to the mix! 255 The residents of the Candlewood University townhouses believe that major changes are required to accommodate the congestion at the west (lower) end of University Avenue, and we feel strongly that the PAC, the City's Traffic department and Saint John Transit should do a full assessment of traffic flaw on this end of University Avenue when considering approval of rezoning for the proposed development. 4) The Proposed Development itself The concerns expressed by Candlewood- University residents include: a. Site development While the elevations are not marked on this schematic, PAC should note that there is a significant rocky hill at the southeast end of the proposed development. Site development will likely require blasting or jack- hammering to remove a segment of this terrain. This is of particular concern to the residents of Candlewood Lane, as we believe that other work to develop sites in the area (e.g. the blasting and hammering for the Rocky Terrace apartment complex on University Avenue) resulted in some of our units developing leaky basements. Another concern would be the noise factor, of course. Proposed /possible drive - throughs. Each of the proposed buildings in this development includes a drive -thru. This is a concern to our residents, particularly those on the first row of townhouses on Candlewood Lane (numbers 4 -18), due to the amount of noise these drive - throughs would generate. The proposed /possible drive - through on the eastern side of building CRU "C" is of particular concern to the residents in the first row, since it is in close proximity to their homes. c. Lack of green space Assuming that most of the dividers around the various parking areas would be concrete, the proposed schematic shows very little green space. Of particular concern to our residents is the area between the new development and Candlewood Lane. If trees or a tall- growing hedge was planted in that area, it would not only make the site more attractive when being viewed from the homes on Candlewood Lane, but would also serve as a noise buffer between the development and these homes. d. Light pollution While Cobalt's representatives have assured us that the type of lighting proposed for the site's parking lot would not shine at the residences on Candlewood Lane and would produce little light pollution, our residents are nonetheless concerned about this, and about the light from signage that will undoubtedly glow on the front (and maybe even the sides) of the buildings in the development. e. Noise With three drive - thrus, loading docks for up to five (and maybe more) businesses, plus additional traffic up and down University Avenue to access the shops, restaurants and offices, the new development is bound to be a noisy. f. Air quality With some 120 parking places, continuous drive -thru traffic, additional traffic up and down University Avenue and the exhaust from possible restaurants, it is more than likely that the air quality in the immediate area around the new development will deteriorate. g. Water drainage and snow removal As PAC must recognize, the whole area of Millidgeville around the University /Millidge Avenue intersection is low -lying marshland and rock. Water drainage has always been an issue, but was mitigated quite well on the grassy lots in question. When the grass is co =vered with asphalt and buildings, water run -off will become a serious issue. 256 As for snow removal, the parking areas appear to be cramped, which makes one wonder where snow will be piled on the lot, and what will happen in the spring when that snow melts. Since wet basements have been an issue for many of the home owners in the Candlewood Lane - University Avenue area, we are very concerned about the potential water run -off from the proposed development. While we recognize that these concerns regarding the development itself may fall into the category of "the price or progress," we nonetheless urge the PAC and the City to take them seriously when considering rezoning, issuing building permits and licensing the business that will occupy the buildings in this development. In closing, our residents appreciate that Millidgeville is a prime area for both commercial and residential development. That said, we are opposed to seeing the lots in question zoned commercial, which is not the intent of Plan SJ and will dramatically change the character of our residential neighbourhood. Like everyone in Saint John, we are concerned about the declining value of our properties. Because of this, we take a special interest in Cobalt's proposed development, which has the potential to enhance or diminish the value of the neighbouring townhouses, depending on how considerations like those we have expressed in this letter are handled. Thank you for your attention to this matter. As you may expect, we will be following closely the City's handling of this is project as it goes through the various approval procedures. Cindy Kilpatrick President, PML 506- 634 -0793 ckilpat @hotmail.com cc. Susan Fullerton, Councillor John MacKenzie, Councillor Gina Wilkins Vice - President, PML 506- 658 -0116 ginawilkins@rogers.com 257 Lockhart, Lynda From: Barbara Walton <waltonb @rogers.com> Sent: September -15 -14 6:19 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Planning Advisory CommitteeCommunity Planning Attachments: Community Planning CSJ Rezone 55- 65University.docx Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John, Planning & Development P. O. Box 1971 Saint John, N. B. E21- 4L1 RE: Municipal Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdividison Application 55 -65 Universitiy Ave. Attached please find my submission to the Planning Advisory Committee of the City of Saint with regards to the above noted topic. Thank you, Barb Walton I 81 University Ave Saint John, N,B., E2K 1Z2 15 September 2014 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John, Planning & Development P. O. Box 1971 Saint John, N. B. E2L 41-1 To Whom it May Concern: RE: Municipal Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdividison Application 55 -65 Universitiy Ave. Thank you for your letter of 25 August 2014, advising me of the application to rezone the above noted area to permit commercial development. I live in the condos of Candlewood and University Ave. and have reviewed the letter and plans and would like to express my strong objection to the proposed rezoning. Our quality of life will be affected significantly for the following reasons: with increased traffic on roads that are already congested with heavy traffic from buses, fire trucks, school buses and car traffic. University Avenue is almost always in need of work now — pot holes which cause traffic to move even slower. This year has been extremely bad. Add to this the monsterous Shannex Complex not yet completed and its traffic, and then add the proposed new businesses and their increased traffic to this area. I do not see that this could ever improve present circumstances. Not to mention an increase in noise pollution and air pollution. The portion of land to be rezoned, would have exits onto a part of University Ave that already has too much going on. When exiting Millidge Ave onto University, there is a merge, the merge so close to the bus stop, that when the bus stops, the rear of the bus is too close to the merge and with people exiting it is cause for concern. Now add two more entrances and exits for the new businesses, entrances and exits for candlewood Lane Condos and for the condos on University, then the exit at Tims across the street where traffic is already tied up and blocks one lane at the rush hour— more (traffic)is not better! Now factoprr in the Shannex exit /entrance, and just beyond that will be the exit for the Gorman Arena that also has traffic coming going all season and more so in the winter. There is also the ability for cars to U turn across the median at two different locations ....does this sound confusing? Page 1 of 1 MC Driving through this area can be a challenge, add to all of this an area which will have an influx of seniors and would certainly be daunting to any new drivers to the area besides. I would be concerned that serious traffic accidents could occur, and all of the possibilities that could come from that. We have significant issues with snow removal for the residents of Candlewood and University Ave. and according to the proposed plans we would lose parking spots and usable area on Candlewood which are crucial to us as we have very limited parking as it is. University Ave. Condo's roadway runs parellel to University Ave., and in the Winter, once the snow banks rise over roof top of a car, those that have to drive out of the roadway are driving blind onto an already extremely busy main road. Without that area of land to use, we would lose the ability to plow excess snow to an area close by. This area already has flooding issues and poor drainage, with the prospect of construction, blasting, drilling, digging, etc. It could further deteriorate or direct ground water to our area which would be to our detriment. The basements in our area are cinderblock foundations, so again we have strong concerns over blasting, drilling and digging in the area, and possible damage to our foundations. There is no way to predict what the effect will be to us with the increased demand on our already delicate underground infrastructure, watermains etc. The infrastructure in our area is ofd and weak. Will construction or increased volume cause pipes to break. It remains to be seen what the affects of the Shannex complex will have on the neighbourhood once it opens for business, there is no turning back from that. Last but certainly not least, we do not have sufficient green space in this area now, it is quite literally becoming a concrete jungle! Anchorage Apartments is surrounded by cement, Tim Hortons, Shannex now the possibililty of this. The wave of the future is more green space not less. This letter just touches on a few of the issues with rezoning this area. If these businesses don't make it, as others in the area have failed. Who knows what we could end up with once the area is rezoned. In closing, I believe your study to be a snapshot in time, but you do not live here or have to live here. You are removed from the reality of the situation therefore, perhaps it might be prudent to consider the opinions and concerns of the individuals who have longterm knowledge of their area, who care about their neighbourhood and their quality of life. Page 2 of 2 M Thank you for your time. I look forward to a decision that is in favour of the concerned neighbours and that you will deny the rezoning application. Sincerely, Barb Walton waltonb @rogers.com 261 Page 3 of 3 September 13, 2014 Heather Redding 77 University Avenue Saint John, N.B. E2K] Z2 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John Planning and Development P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, N.B. E21- 4LL i Jr U Re: Municipal Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision Application 55 -65 University Avenue (PIDs55024210 and 55221717) Dear Members of the Advisory Committee, As a tax paying homeowner of 77 University Avenue, I am writing you this letter to express my strong dissent to the proposed planned amendment and rezoning as stated above. I returned to live in Saint John in 2003 after living in the USA for eleven years. Following graduation from nursing in 1991, full time jobs in this province did not exist however, many hospitals in the USA were rich in opportunities so off I went. I was a homeowner in a beautiful historic district in Tampa, FI however this house was located a half block from a commercial zone. I chose to move back "home" following the birth of my daughter because I wanted to get away from all of that noise -I wanted my daughter to grow up here, in a safe and quiet community. I chose to purchase this townhome because of the location, the quiet neighbourhood, and vast amount of greenspace. I do not want to return to that lifestyle! Several issues are very concerning to me. "The close proximity of this commercial space to residential housing would have a devastating affect on our quality of life, to not just one home but 64 privately owned townhouses. I do not want to have my morning tea on my deck listening to "can I take your order, please ", nor do I want to worry about strangers trespassing in my yard, delivery trucks in the early morning hours, late night operation, rodents scurrying about in the refuge, and an increase in traffic of which the current flow is extremely congested especially during peak hours. Water drainage is another major concern of mine. I currently have two sump pumps in my basement. During extremely heavy rain and winter thaw, my basement floods, even with the work of these pumps. I'm certain altering the topography of this land will have a devastating affect on me as well as several of my neighbours. The current drainage infrastructure was not designed to handle the increased load of the rapid development to Millidgeville (ie, adjacent apartment complex, Tim Hortons/Wendy's) so with the new seniors complex and this proposed development, drain/water disaster would be imminent. All of the above issues would in turn lead to a devastatingly long term decrease in property value making resale virtually impossible. I do hope you take my concerns as well as all the other landowners in this lovely community seriously and request that you not move forward with this rezoning. 262 Sincerely, Heat er R ding t 263 Lockhart, Lynda From: Eric Marks <elesliemarks @gmaii_com> Sent: September -15 -14 9:02 AM To: External - Planning Subject: Re: proposal to rezone 55 -65 University Avenue Attachments: planningletter.docx Dear Honoured Chair and Members of the Planning Advisory Committee, I am a homeowner at 6 Candlewood Lane, adjacent to the lots on University Avenue that Cobalt and city staff have proposed be rezoned. Please find attached my comments and objection to the proposal to rezone and to the proposed variances to land use requirements. I intend to attend the Sept, 16 meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee, if family commitments enable me to do so, Regards, Eric Marks 6 Candlewood Lane (506) 648 -5798 (work) (506) 214 -2130 (home) 264 September 12, 2014 To: Planning Advisory Committee Re: Rezoning application for 55 - -65 University Avenue Dear Honoured Chair and members of the Planning Advisory Committee (hereafter 'PAC "), Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposal to rezone 55 -65 University Avenue. I respectfully ask that the PAC recommend that council deny the application to rezone. In my opinion, this development does not serve the interests of the immediate neighbourhood, Common Council or city taxpayers. My home at 6 Candlewood Lane is one of eight townhouses that directly face the site of the proposed development. We are the neighbours whose lives will be impacted the most by these buildings. According to the map distributed to neighbourhood residents by the PAC, we can expect to lose our view of the wooded hillside behind the St. John Ambulance Building; our quiet evenings and early mornings; all parking spaces currently provided to visitors (each well used on weekdays as well as on birthdays and holidays); a good deal of our privacy and security; and what little natural drainage still exists at the foot of the ridge overlooking our properties. am concerned that a marked decline in neighbourhood quality of life will follow the construction of this development, and that this also will be reflected in a decline in the resale value of our homes. I have read the community planning office report, prepared by city staff, recommending that this development be allowed to proceed. I cannot agree with its conclusions. The lots in question were never zoned for commercial development, either in the city's current zoning plan or in the new zoning bylaw that is designed to apply the principles of Plan SJ. Rezoning these lots as commercial would permanently alter the growth and character of this residential neighbourhood, without conferring any significant benefit on neighbourhood residents. Given the turnover of businesses in nearby commercial zones, including the failure of one of the three drive - through restaurants in the neighbourhood, it is an open question whether the proposed commercial development of these lots would be economically viable. The Candlewood Lane and University Avenue neighbourhood would be vulnerable to at least four separate potential risks to vital infrastructure if this development proceeds. These potential risks include structural damage to foundations, as a result of blasting and jack- hammering to remove bedrock at the Southern end of the site; storm water flooding, as a consequence of reducing natural drainage and loading more concrete and asphalt on top of lands that were originally a boggy marsh; sewage flooding, as a result of increasing the load on municipal sewers; and water main breaks, as a consequence of increasing the strain on fragile water infrastructure that has suffered five major shut -downs for repair of water main breaks in the past four years. The lots slated for this development are also too small for the land uses that the developer is proposing. To permit this project, the PAC and Common Council would need to grant variances that range from reducing the depth of landscaped buffer zones around the property to reducing the size of the entrance and exit lineups on several drive - through businesses. These variances would make the site potentially 265 more dangerous to navigate for drivers and pedestrians, more difficult to integrate into the traffic flow of Millidge and University Avenues, and more intrusive to the development's residential neighbours. Staff has reported to the PAC and council that this rezoning is a good fit with Plan SJ. How can that be, when Plan SJ and Zone SJ define these parcels of land as low -to- medium density residential under "future land use "? Approval of the Shannex seniors complex has already compromised Plan SJ's vision of how this portion of Millidgeville should be developed, by paving over a wetland that was to have remained zoned as park, natural area or urban reserve, and by increasing the infrastructure load in a neighbourhood that is already heavily developed and prone to flooding. In my opinion, it does not make sense to permit another major zoning change that would further alter the character of the neighbourhood and increase the load on vulnerable infrastructure. What's wrong with this proposal? The amount of variance this development proposal would need to proceed illustrates what a compromise it is from currently accepted standards. I would like the PAC to consider the following points: 1. Commercial enterprise on this scale is not consistent with the needs or planning vision for residential neighbourhoods. The city's planning guidelines for low -to- medium density residential neighbourhoods, such as this one, limit commercial development to one fifth the floorplan of Cobalt's proposal. The zoning change requested by the developer cannot be authorized without permanently altering the character of the neighbourhood. 2. The surrounding neighbourhood already has ample commercial space, and further development in this location could undermine the local economy rather than expanding it The community planning office report refers to a shortage of land available for commercial development in the "local centre" zone along Somerset Street between Churchill Boulevard and Millidge Avenue. It fails to note that ample commercial space, including several fast food and drive - through restaurants and a pharmacy, already exists alongside Millidge Avenue within a few blocks of the University Avenue intersection_ It also fails to note the rate of turnover among commercial tenants in the area, which seems to be considerable; or that one of the drive - through restaurants in this area (a McDonalds) recently ceased operations. No case has been made, based upon market data or trends in the neighbourhood, to suggest whether sufficient demand exists today to support a new commercial development. In a city already blighted with vacant lots and shuttered businesses, this should be an issue of concern to the PAC and council, particularly since the goal of good zoning is to ensure sustainable neighbourhood development. The immediate neighbourhood surrounding 55 -65 University Avenue is served by two pharmacies; multiple coffee shops and restaurants, including drive - through, fast food restaurants; convenience stores; doctor, dental and massage therapy offices and an after -hours clinic. There are two commercial centres close to the intersection of Millidge and University Avenues already; a third commercial zone on Somerset; and an even larger commercial zone five minutes drive away on Lansdowne. In each of these commercial zones, businesses have closed or changed hands - in part, due to the marginal volume of 0 daytime traffic in Millidgeville. In my opinion, this is not a neighbourhood that needs to trade space zoned residential and institutional for space zoned commercial. 3. 55 -65 University Avenue is too small to permit commercial development of the proposed kind without substantial variances, including the length and size of drive - through lanes. Wouldn't allowing these variances predictably increase the likelihood of accidents and transportation problems on a main avenue of the city? University Avenue is a preferred commuter corridor to the health care /university sector at Tucker Park and a standard route for the fire engines of Station 6 and for Ambulance New Brunswick. It is also equipped with one of the city's busiest bike lanes. The entrance and exit of proposed development at 55- 65 University would be located within one block of the Millidgeville Avenue intersection, and adjacent to the bike lane and two well -used bus stops. How realistic is it to believe that traffic in the area can be reconfigured to allow three new drive - through businesses with shorter - than - standard entrance and exit lanes in the same block, without causing problems? The City of Saint John has a record of approving drive- throughs that impede traffic. In my opinion, Saint John does not need the transit hazard posed by more blocked lanes. 3. Some homes in the Candlewood Lane - University Avenue townhouse development have experienced structural damage and flooding as a result of blasting and jack - hammering in the neighbourhood for other development projects. Remediating these problems has cost homeowners tens of thousands of dollars, limited growth in property values and reduced the likelihood of resale for these properties. Based upon the proposed site map before PAC, the blasting and drilling needed to prepare this site will be extensive, as the southern end of the property is defined by a steep rocky bluff. PAC and Common Council must consider what the overall impact on the neighbourhood's tax base and growth prospects will be, if development of this site leaves homeowners stranded with less marketable properties. PAC and Council must also consider what the collective impact on the townhouses will be, since each homeowner is a shareholder in the total townhouse development, and the costs of repairing or improving common infrastructure must be borne by all residents collectively. Any damage done to common infrastructure as a result of this development could significantly raise homeowners' fees, undermining the sustainability and financial viability of a townhouse subdivision of 64 homes. 4. Further development could increase flooding problems that already exist in the neighbourhood. Seventy -five years ago, this part of Millidgeville was known as the Caribou Barrens. It was, and is, a low spruce swamp hemmed in by sharp hills on which the bedrock is just barely covered by topsoil. This creates a perfect flood zone. For decades, developers were discouraged from building in the Millidgeville wetland by zoning constraints and the reality of the engineering and liability problems they would need to address. The degree of flood risk increases with each new construction project in the area, just as it did decades ago in Glen Falls - a fact Common Council acknowledged by requiring the Shannex development to include storm water detention infrastructure. Millions of dollars have been budgetted to deal with inadequate sewers and storm sewers in Millidgeville. Unless PAC and Common Council are scrupulously attentive to these challenges, expanding 267 development along University Avenue could create long -term flooding problems with long -term costs to taxpayers across the city. 5. Neighbourhood quality of life and the value of neighbouring properties will be reduced. This is a serious concern for owners of the eight townhouse units facing the proposed development, which will suffer loss of scenic front -yard views; noise pollution; light pollution; reduced access; and increased risk of flooding due to storm runoff. The eight units facing this proposed development will lose the visitor parking spaces currently supplied through an agreement with St. John Ambulance. The remaining resident parking spaces will be at greater risk of vandalism due to the proximity of a planned walking path and bike rack serving the proposed commercial development; and the residents' parking lot will become much more difficult to plow in winter. The front lawns of these townhouses - now used seasonally by many residents for relaxing in lawnchairs, reading, studying or chatting - will be rendered less private, less appealing and of less market value by the parking lot and commercial properties across the lane. The proximity of multiple dumpsters servicing drive - through restaurants will increase the incidence of raccoons, skunks, rats, gulls and other vermin, as they did when restaurants were constructed across University Avenue. The increase in traffic will make the neighbourhood less safe for pedestrians, particularly young children, and for bicyclists commuting to the hospital and UNBSJ. 6. The long -term integrity of the neighbourhood will be undermined. If this rezoning proposal is approved, the residential parts of University Avenue will be separated from the residential neighbourhoods across Millidge Avenue by a commercial block more reminiscent of Rothesay Avenue or the Golden Mile than any of the city's low -to- medium - density neighbourhoods. The resulting development will function less as a "local centre," the optimistic description employed in the zoning document, and more like a dead zone at the centre of a once - dynamic residential neighbourhood. This is consistent with the results of the "local centre" zoned on Somerset between Churchill Boulevard/ Samuel Davis Drive and Millidge Avenue. The "local centre" there has created a space between neighbourhoods that is not friendly to pedestrians or drivers, and which is now trending more toward light industry than commercial enterprise. For a look at what such dead zones do to residential neighbourhoods in the long term, members of the PAC and Common council need only look at what happened to Main Street as a result of "urban renewal." There, the introduction of a less pedestrian friendly, auto - oriented commercialized streetscape destroyed neighbourhood cohesion and led to decline rather than residential growth and revitalization. In my opinion, this is not what those who participated in the development of Plan SJ envisioned for the future development of University Avenue, University Avenue today is what Plan SJ aspires to deliver across the city - it is family friendly, bilingual, multicultural and home to some of the best educated, most technically proficient and entrepreneurial residents of the city. Its population base is a mix of young singles, families and seniors, most living on middle or better incomes. It has a low crime rate and a distinct neighbourhood culture with a strong N pedestrian orientation while also serving as a corridor between the north end, uptown, east side and Millidgeville. Its character is a product of consistently applied low -to- medium residential zoning, and in my opinion should be protected by maintaining current zoning restrictions. What grounds might PAC have to recommend denying permission to rezone? Policy LU-4 of the Municipal Plan provides criteria to assess a requested change in the Municipal Plan designation. It stipulates that the proposed development: -2must be consistent with the general intent of the Municipal Plan and further advance the City Structure;" --"is an appropriate use within the land use designation being sought for the property, and the proposal is consistent with the specific policies regulating development in this designation "; and -- "does not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and neighbourhoods." In my opinion, the development proposed for 55 -65 University Avenue IS NOT consistent with the intent of the Municipal Plan - transparently so, because it would require such an intensive revision of the zoning and land -use provisions, but also because development along these lines will lead to a more fragmentary and divided city, rather than the open, dynamic and sustainable neighbourhoods envisioned by the current planning bylaw and by Plan SJ. In my opinion, the development proposed for 55 -65 University Avenue IS NOT an appropriate use within the land use designation being sought for the property - transparently so, given the number of variances required to declare this site suitable for multiple drive - through businesses. The PAC has the authority to recommend granting "reasonable" variances; in my opinion, the probable impact of granting these variances is not reasonable, as it would compromise the site's functionality by significantly reducing the space available to vehicles using the drive - through lanes. It would also subject local water, sewage and traffic infrastructure to demands that were never anticipated when planners designed the neighbourhood for low -to- medium density residential development. In my opinion, the development proposed for 55 -65 University Avenue WILL negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and neighbourhoods. Concern over potential harm that this project could do to the neighbourhood is evident even in the report of the community planning office recommending that the project be allowed to proceed. Why else would city staff require the developer to provide "an engineering water and sewer analysis... in order to determine the impact on existing water and sewage infrastructure and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing systems "; "a detailed storm water drainage plan and design report indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled... No storm water is to be diverted to adjacent lands "; and "an additional traffic impact study "? Concerns regarding the potential impact on municipal water and sewage infrastructure, flood risk to neighbouring properties and impact on traffic flow may be beyond the power of the developer or the PAC to resolve, since they reflect the natural or absolute limits of local infrastructure. These items are likely to remain issues of concern for every major development proposed for this neighbourhood until the fragile water mains on University Avenue are replaced, the capacity of the sewage system is expanded to o handle increased storm water and the demands of a larger residential population, and the traffic median is ripped out between the Gorman Arena and Millidge Avenue to allow the creation of a fifth lane of traffic. Two generations of municipal planners recognized these natural or absolute limits and zoned the University Avenue neighbourhood for low -to- medium density residential development and institutional development. I believe they had sound logistical reasons for doing so, and I hope you will recommend that council do likewise by rejecting the application to rezone 55 -65 University Avenue as "local centre" and "general business" or "general commercial" to preserve the sustainability of the neighbourhood and its residential character. Yours, Eric Marks 6 Candlewood Lane 270 September 14, 2014 'tanning Advisory Committee City of Saint John Planning and Development P.O. Box 1971 Saint John NB E21- 41-1 Re: Municipal Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision Application 55 -65 University Avenue (PIDs 5502421 and 55221717) To: The Planning Advisory Committee I am definitely against the rezoning of the above noted property, as we are a suburban neighborhood and NOT a Local Centre or General Business. My home is one of the eight facing the area up for the proposed re zoning and feel that the below issue! would be my major concerns for not moving forward: 1. Water & Sewerage 2. Noise 3. Traffic 4. Garbage 5. Decrease in Property Value for Resale 6. Loss of Privacy However understanding the need for development of this area I would be prepared to support a re zoning under the following conditions: 1. A fifty (50) foot set back from Candlewood Lane — with green space including trees for privacy 2. Hours of operation to be from lam — 9pm 3. Closed from 9 pm to 7 am 4. No Liquor license EVER to be permitted in this re zoned area that would be open longer than 9 pm. Even with these concessions I still feel there would be significant change to our neighborhood but woul( be more willing to have discussion on this topic. Sincerely, -7 s 271 Lockhart, Lynda From: Candace MacAfee <cemac @nb.sympatico.ca> Sent: September -14 -14 10:10 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Rezoning Concerns Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John: As a resident of 10 Candlewood Lane for 18+ years I have serious concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 55 -65 University Ave. Our Property Management Ltd. President and Vice President are forwarding a letter which outlines several issues many residents, including myself, have with this proposal. Our neighbourhood has already become increasingly busy traffic -wise as well as an elevated noise level with the Anchorage High - rise, Wendy's /Tim Horton's, and more recently the Shannex Complex. Our neighbourhood quality of life has already been negatively impacted enough H l l We are saddened to think our years of enjoying fine summer evenings sitting in front of our home will come to an end if these plans are realized. Our house value will undoubtedly decrease, and the already suffering infrastructure will be overloaded. Please be reminded these are our homes and this is our neighbourhood when considering this rezoning proposal. Thank you. Candace MacAfee Jim Lizotte 10 Candlewood Lane Saint John,N.B. E2K 1Z0 �72 September 12, 2014 To: Planning Advisory Committee Re: Rezoning application for 55 -65 University avenue I want to bring one or two main concerns with this rezoning to your attention. I live on Candlewood lane, actually on the corner of University avenue and Candlewood Lane just down from the area in discussion, across from the Gorman Arena. I have a clear view of the area, the street and intersection from my home. My most pressing concern is the traffic flow through the intersection at Millidge avenue and down University avenue to the entrance of the Gorman arena. This is a short but busy part of the avenue. There are already two very busy drive thru businesses there with Tim Hortons and Wendys. There are also several exit/entrances including a new one recently put in for Shannex. There is at least 2 city transit bus stops and all the school buses stop too. The street is very busy during the schools months with both the university and several schools nearby. Many people drive by to work at the hospital. There is a pedestrain crosswalk used by school children crossing to the arena side. It is very difficult to cross there. The traffic is horrendous now. I cannot imagine more cars trying to exit and enter a new complex that apparently will have 3 drive through businesses as well. We do not need or want another drive thru restaurant, coffee shop or pharmacy. We already have a small locally owned drive through pharmacy on Millidge avenue. I don't imagine he will welcome another one so close. I see from the letter accompanying the drawings that Cobalt are also requesting a variance to reduce the width of parking aisles from 7.5 meters to a minimum of 6 meters. This is likely because there is just not enough room for several buildings, a parking lot and 3 drive thru businesses. How will it be plowed? Where will the snow melt? The whole layout looks very overcrowded. I am opposed to the variance change to 6 meters. If there is not enough space for parking aisles then its obviously too small. I am very concerned about the impact of a busy parking lot so close to Candlewood lane and our parking spaces. I am also concerned about the impact on flooding. There is a problem now. The other concern with a drive thru business is the noise. You can hear the speakers from drive thru take outs. While it is bad enough to have Tim Hortons and Wendys drive thrus on the other side of the street; the noise this new proposed business would create would be very close to townhouses that will hear that chatter all day and night. This rezoning would place a 3000 square meter commercial development with alot of traffic very close. There appears to be very little buffer space between the proposed buildings and the townhouses. I believe that commercial buildings that include drive thrus need much more space than usual for the increased traffic and noise. Drive thu take outs should not be near residential areas.We have 64 townhouses here and many hundreds of people who want to come home to peace and quiet. Millidgeviile would benefit more from residential housing ( garden homes, townhouses or an apartment complex) as well as businesses. In order to co -exist we have to keep a careful balance of the two and make sure that enough space is left between the two to keep the quality of life. This is a neighbourhood and has enough commercial businesses. Please, lets keep the zoning residential. Thank you. Denise Ainsworth 60 Candlewood lane Saint John, NB, E2K 1Z4 deni se60 @nbnet. nb. c a 273 Lockhart, Lynda From: Lana McCullough <lanamcc62 @gmail.com> Sent: September -14 -14 3:17 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Rezoning of 55 -65 University Ave (PIDS 55024210 and 55221717) Good Day I just wanted to touch base to let you know that I am opposed to the rezoning of 55 -65 University Ave. This would have a negative impact on the value of our properties. Sincerely Lana McCullough 89 University Ave Saint John N.B. E2K 1 Z2 t 274 Lockhart, Lynda From: elaine Vienneau <elainejorden @hotmail.com> Sent: September -13 -14 10:12 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Re rezoning in Millidgeville Planning and Advisory Committee,City of Saint John,N.B. Dear Committee Members, I wish to express my extreme opposition to the rezoning of the area 55 -65 University Ave.,Millidgeville for many reasons which I will attempt to list for you. Depending on what will be built there,it is my understanding it could be a type of drive through which I feel would create a grave health hazard due to exhaust fumes causing poor air quality, a hazard to our envirroment.The bright lighting too causing problems for the adjacent townhouses.A main concern my husband and I have is the fact it will create an even greater impact on the existing congestion of traffic on university Ave which will soon be increased due to the extra vehicles using the service road, being developed for the Shannex which is very close to the entrance and exit of Tim Horton's and Wendy's.This area also has bus stops which becomes a safety hazard for the many students using this system.We worry too if any blasting has to be considered which can cause damage to our infrastructure,especially since our water pipes and homes are aging and are built on cement blocks which can crack and Ieak.We are already experiencing cracked and over burdened water pipes due to all the recent building going on in the area around us, causing a major financial problem for our association.We worry that with the increase of people using these businesses comes the increase of crime. We experienced a big increase in the rodent problems following the restaurant openings which too, is a health hazard and financial burden,and we don't wish to have that situation brought about again. For a long time now we have been experiencing and putting up with lot of noise pollution due to all the construction going on around us from early morning and all day which is very disturbing and we do not wish to have more going on at even closer range. We were once very proud to live in an attractive urban area with green space but feel this is rapidly deteriorating with so much construction, some buildings are eyesores and have removed all green space.This we feel devalues our properties so we do hope you will take our concerns into consideration. Sincerely, Elaine and Bob Vienneau,40 Candlewood lane 2175 Lockhart, Lynda From: lydiac.boyd @gmail.com Sent: September -12 -14 6:03 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Rezoning very much object to the property at55/65 University ay. being rezoned from Suburban Neighbourhood to General Commercial This is a neighbourhood of 64 homes and the citizens living here are seniors,young families single families, retired people,just the mix that makes a neighbourhood attractive. The 8 homes directly facing the proposed development would be greatly impacted for many reasons .I hope you will give this rezoning some serious consideration. Lydia Boyd ,16 Candlewood Lane Sent from my Wad 1 276 Reade, Mark " From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Fallow Up Flag: Flag Status: External - Planning August -27 -14 9:32 AM Reade, Mark Lockhart, Lynda FW: Rezoning on University Ave. Follow up Flagged From: Nancy Lapointe [ mailto:nlapointe20ll @gmall.com) Sent: August -27 -14 9:29 AM To: External - Planning Subject: Rezoning on University Ave. To Whom it may concern, I would like to know exactly what the buildings marked CRU A,B,C,D and E are going to be? They are obviously not residential as there is not parking for these spaces. Are they going to be warehouses or industries of some sort? I am very opposed to the rezoning and cutting down of trees in this area. I am also opposed to the stores going in on University Ave. There has never been a store that succeeded in Millidgevile to date. My neighbours and I are speculating that these proposed stores are for the convenience of the new Senior Centre on Millidge Ave. Why then do you not rent space from the building owners and put these stores in on the ground floor of the Center ? ?? The Senior Centre is humungous and most likely shows a lack of forethought. Yes ... we baby boomers are going to become potential residents soon enough. What happens when the next generation become seniors? Empty rooms...that's what! The group following the baby boomers is a much smaller group. So my vote is a resounding ... NO!!! Nancy I Lapointe 67 Candlewood Lane 1 277 5 Kitty Btischlepp 85 University Avenue Saint John, NB E2K 1Z2 Tel: (506) 648 -9580 Hand Delivered Mayor and Council City of Saint John City Hall 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L lE8 Subject: Proposal Municipal Plan Amendment 55 -65 University Avenue Your Worship and Councillors: July 20, 2014 With reference to the proposed Municipal Plan Amendment to redesignate a parcel of land at 55 -65 University Avenue from suburban neighbourhood to local centre and redesignate the same parcel of land from low to medium density residential to local centre. Please allow me to express my views. The answer is an unequivocal "No ". Reasons behind this, the reasons for this are not ambiguous. Planning staff related to me this project would be a strip mail - one long building, housing three stores, the content of which would be "determined ". 1 live in close proximity to this land, approximately 100 yards away, and have resided at my current address for almost half a century (50 years). The area is basically a major residential area for families. Millidgeville is presently a residential area and this area and this comer is attractive, naturally landscape with mature trees. Millidgeville residents/community have suffered enough by Council repeatedly disrespecting them, disregarding them. The only time citizens have a voice is on election. day. When does the community ever get considered? With each development, residents are promised buffer - zones between the development and the existing community. None ever rnateriaiizes. 300278 Page 2 When the Gorman Arena was built in 1974, City Hall promised the community to set aside a green space near the arena to compensate for removing vast amounts of forest and green space to construct an arena and adjoining parking lot. Where is this green space? At that time soil tests proved the remainder of the land was unstable for any structure. This same land unstable for structures according to soil testing at that time is now accommodating a Shannex Group with major constructions of five buildings/compounds. Our most precious lands - wetlands - all destroyed, all clear cut, had adjoining ball field, all gone no thought given by Council as to the impact on the community or the environment, just their tax base. The Shannex plan combined two properties. The vast majority owned by the City considered "surplus land" described in their mail -out to area residents as "underdeveloped vacant lots". These were anything but vacant lots. Actually, the land was considered by the City as "wasteland ". We all know what that meant. The small property owned by Irving Oil having a transfer of deed from Irving Oil to Proman Ltd./Percy Wilbur, June 2005, had development plans. So Shannex got themselves "cheap land" as opposed to land more pricey. To accommodate the Shannex Group, requirements for the land were flat locations, near hospital and near transportation. Their project in Quispamsis is not near hospital or near transportation, if future Shannex residents and staff, 236 residents, 130 staff require store fronts, it should have been included on the Shannex development site. Why everything within a few blocks of one another? We have the construction of a Wendy's and Tim Horton's with drive -ffim, Gorman Arena, Irving Convenience Store, McDonald's restaurant, Subway, Thai restaurant and mini -mail. I am profoundly saddened that this project is even contemplated. What is proposed would make major changes of the land use. The land has a natural state and should remain so. The comer of Millidge Avenue and University Avenue has natural trees and vegetation and should be left intact. The buffer between the ambulance and Candlewood Lane has vegetation, trees, should be left intact. Land behind ambulance and the Training Academy (Fire) should be left intact. 30'1279 Page 3 Any construction would negatively impact the neighbourhood. Property owners deserve better, surrounding lands should be better protected. How about conservation? Destroying natural wetlands, destroying natural state and vegetation? This is a wooded area, provides habitat for wildlife; it is a wildlife corridor. It is a sensitive environmental area that needs protection_ The wildlife in the area has already been disoriented by so much of their habitant being removed. Any more would be wrong!! Trees in that area provide buffer, any forest or wetlands removed, any clear cutting would be inappropriate. It is an inappropriate use of the land. It is submitted it would be wrong to allow the proposed application/construction and a detriment to the area. The application should be denied. I am opposed to the proposed amendment and I feel this should not be allowed. Thank you for allowing me to express my views and this opportunity. Respectfully submitted, w� r\-, 4� '6 kSJ� e- � Kitty Biischlepp 302280 5 Property Maintenance Ltd. Saint John Common Council July 23, 2014 c/o Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square Saint John, NB Re.: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment re. 55 -65 University Avenue PID no. 55024210 and a portion of PID no. 55221717 Good day. As the President and Vice - President of the Board of Property Maintenance Ltd. (PML), we are writing with regard to the application presented to Common Council on Monday, June 23, 2014 by Cobalt Property Investments Ltd. PMR represents the interests of the 64 home- owners in the Candlewood Lane /University Avenue townhouse development next to the proposed development. As you know, Cobalt's application proposes that the above - mentioned pieces of property be rezoned from "Suburban Neighbourhood" to "Local Centre" and that the same parcel of land be redesignated from "Low to Medium Density Residential" to "Local Centre." The purpose of the application is to allow for an approximately 3000 square -metre commercial development. Last week (Tuesday, July 15) we met with two of Cobalt's representatives, Garfield Levangie and Matt Cooling, to discuss the plans for this parcel of land. While in general we are not opposed to the re- zoning, nor to the development of the property for commercial purposes, we do have some concerns about the proposal, which we feel should be brought to Council's attention at this time. These concerns fall into three categories: 1) The site development, most particularly, the proposal to have vehicular access to and from the parking area of the new development via Candlewood Lane. 2) Traffic flow on University Avenue 3) The impact on the water and sewerage and road infrastructures in the area of University Avenue that would be impacted by this development. 1) Site development We have seen two versions of the proposal —the one presented in Council's package for its June 23 meeting and another, modified version presented to us during our meeting with Cobalt last week. Both proposals show a "proposed driveway right in /out" from the property being developed onto Candlewood Lane (see scan, attached). We have very serious concerns about this proposed driveway for the following reasons: a. Candlewood Lane is a rr w -wa ree running south off of university Ave. (with the proposed development on the right), and looping back around to University further northeast. In the summertime, many of the residents park on the street, making the Lane even narrower, In the wintertime, the street becomes almost impassable because it is a "priorlty 4" road that receives very poor snow removal service. PO Box 22025 Lansdowne RPO Saint John, NB E2K 4T7 3081 b. The PML area is zoned R2, den5t!99dentkL and Includes 64 privately -owned townhouses and corresponding parking lots. The neighbourhood's population includes seniors and a good number of families with small children. c. The most recent version of the proposal that we have Includes what appears to be a "drive thru" on the eastern side of the development, next to Candlewood Lane. In the schematic, the "drive -thru" is located just before the proposed driveway onto Candlewood Lane (see scanned image). While the Cobalt representatives claim that this driveway would seldom be used, we can see nothing to stop people from leaving the drive thru using the closest exit, the one onto Candlewood Lane, and thus driving all the way along a one -way, residential street. We feel that to have traffic from Cobalt's proposed development directed onto Candlewood Lane is completely unacceptable. We invite you to send your planning and traffic department employees to come and have a look at the area. We are quite certain that they will agree with us, that the proposed driveway should not be permitted. Further on site development, we are concerned about the size of the green space buffer area Cobalt proposes to include on the border of the new complex next to Candlewood Lane. The area appears quite small in the schematics, and discussions with the Cobalt representatives had revealed that this will not be barrier -type landscaping (ie. trees), but rather will be "enhanced landscaping," consisting of grass and low bushes. This means that the residents in the first row of townhouses on Candlewood Lane (numbers 4 to I8), which face the properties now owned by Cobalt, will have little to shield them from view, and from the lighting, from the new development. While we are aware that this is a concern best discussed with Cobalt, we thought we would mention it here as a "quality of life" and property value issue that Council may choose to take into consideration. 2) Traffic flow on Un'versi Avenue As you can see in the schematic of the proposed development, the first block of University Avenue, up to Candlewood Lane, is becoming very busy. There is a right merge with a yield onto University from Millidge, as well as traffic coming across Millidge onto University from Woodward. Then there is the entrance /exit through the median opening to the Tim Hortons /Wendy's complex. further up University there is another median opening, where westbound traffic coming down University can access Candlewood Lane. There are also two bus stops In close succession on University Avenue — one just after the merge from Millidge, and the other at the corner of University and Candlewood Lane. As commuters and locals will tell you, this section of University Avenue is already congested at peak times during the day due to the traffic at the entrance /exit to Tim Hortons /Wendy's, bus traffic to UNBSJ and the hospital, and so on. Accidents in the area are not uncommon. Now add two more driveways onto University Avenue to the mix. The first will be on the north side of University, into and out of the Shannex complex currently under construction, with eastbound traffic on University accessing the senior's complex by turning left at the median opening on the corner of Candlewood Lane. The second driveway, for Cobalt's new development, is proposed to be off of University Avenue on the south side, just after the merge from Millidge, with access for westbound traffic through the median opening for the Tim Hortons /Wendy's complex across the street. 301182 The merge, then the bus stop, then the entrance /exit for the new development, with left - turning traffic crossing two lanes of eastbound traffic oust after the merge and the bus stop!), all in one small block — it's an the scenario for an accident waiting to happen. This traffic -flow issue is something Council and the City's Planning and Traffic departments should consider very serious when evaluating the proposed development. 3) Impa ct on afr a I n "n u e Candlewood Lane residents have been impacted by no fewer than five City water line breaks over the past four years. All of these breaks have occurred in the block of University Avenue that runs between the entrance to and the exit from Candlewood Lane. Repairs have been made but, from all appearances, they have been patch -up jobs. An upgrade of all the water and sewer lines in this area has not yet been done. Meanwhile, the existing, old water and sewerage infrastructure along the western (bottom) section of University Avenue has taken on the added burden of the Tim Hortons /Wendy's complex, the Anchorage apartment building, and the Rocky Terrace apartment building. Even the 5hannex complex, while it is further down Millidge Avenue, will likely have an impact. And now it is proposed that a commercial complex be added on the corner, with no apparent plans to upgrade the water and sewerage infrastructure to accommodate additional demand. Also on infrastructure, the segment of Universityfrom the corner of Millidge to the exit from Candlewood Lane is in very poor shape, and has been for a number of years (thanks to having been dug up so many times for gas lines, water line repair, repairs to sewer pipes, etc.). The "sidewalks" are worn -down asphalt, with no curbs to speak of and, at the moment, the pavement is "grooved" (having been "stripped" about a month ago), with many potholes and raised manhole covers, and with no indication of resurfacing in sight. in closing, we appreciate that Millidgeville is a prime area for both commercial and residential development. As stated earlier, we are not against the development of the properties at 55 and 65 University Avenue, but we are concerned that Council, the Planning Advisory Committee, the Traffic Department, Saint John Water and City Works all give proper consideration to how best to accommodate such a complex in terms of our (the neighbours') concerns, as well as in terms of traffic Implications and infrastructure readiness. Like everyone in Saint John, we are concerned these days about the declining value of our Properties. Because of this, we take a special interest in Cobalt's proposed development, which has the potential to enhance or diminish the value of the neighbouring townhouses, depending entirety on how considerations like those we have expressed in this letter are handled. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to ring from you, and to following this pr 'ect Dough t vario s approval procedures. Cindy Kilpa I k na Wi ins President, L �. Vice - President, PML 506 -634 -0 3, ckilpat @hotmail.com 506- 658-0116, ginawilkins @rogers.com cc. Susan Fullerton, Councillor; John MacKenzie, Councillor; Garfield Levangie and Matt Cooling, Cobalt KI'�� ' r - � •••: gar• : • ► c.. � i1 I ` —� ��pr • LaneisaONE ; - - — � WAY street �e 1, 14 Possible "drive thrd' Uable 306 ., O September 11, 2014 To: Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John Planning and Development P.O. Box 1971 1' Saint John, N.B. E21, 41,1 z Dear Members of the Planning Advisory Committee, We, the undersigned owners of property affected by the rezoning change descibed in the file Municipal Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision Application 55 -65 University Avenue (PIDs 55024210 and 55221717), do hereby protest against any change of the current and/or new Zoning By -laws. As long standing private landowners to each of the 64 Townhouses and the community affected by the proposed amendment, several issues are at the forefront of our dissent. Homes 4 to 18 Candlewood Lane would have the greatest negative impact due to the close proximity of less than 25 meters, however all townhomes would be affected. The proposed land use would have a negative affect on our quality of life with a significant increase in automobile and foot traffic leading to increased noise (late night hours of operation, delivery trucks, loitering, etc.), litter and potential crime. In turn, this would compromise the integrity of our homes and neighbourhood leading to a significant long term decrease in property value. Another serious issue is drainage and water run off. According to the plans submitted by Cobalt et al, the proposed land development on the east side would require approximately two acres of greenspace removal as well as rock. Currently, a ravine exists along the north and east portion of land diverting a portion the water runoff. Elevations and altering the topography of this land will likely impact many, most notably those homeowners from 4 to 18 Candlewood Lane and 73 to 93 University Avenue, most of who already experience some basement flooding. The current infrastructure is unable to adequately drain this land during heavy rain leaving a portion of University Avenue flooded (see attached photo). Blasting of rock is another serious concern, as the close proximity would likely compromise the structural integrity of our homes. These are but a few issues to the proposed rezoning. NW Or1 Gtril��r i �j #-V�. " t'`� -o )r holre5 on un►V�l45'7L/ elu� -600 I n r-. N 287 / / ' nis / Iq ~' �P ! Z9. 290 n 91 291 4cl RAW '52— 5 54. 292 From: Anne Kilfoil <akilfoil @nb.sympatico.ca> Sent: September -15 -14 3:37 PM To: External - Planning Cc: Fullerton, Susan; MacKenzie, John; Norton, Mel; Rinehart, Shelley Subject: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 55 -65 University Avenue Members of Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John I would like to respectfully voice my opposition to the proposed re- zoning of the property located at 55 -65 University Avenue to permit commercial development. You will hear that my opposition is shared by my neighbors. We understand that the proposed development would include multiple retail outlets and restaurants, including a "drive - through" restaurant. This re- zoning affects a community of 64 town homes that has been in existence for 50 years. We are proud tax - paying citizens who have worked most of our lives to own these homes. Please, consider our concerns thoughtfully: • Noise: From increased people and vehicle traffic, clanging of garbage trucks and the incessant "can 1 take your order please ?" drive through. Nights, weekends, possibly 24/7_ • Infrastructure: Increased pressure on the already compromised water and sewage system on University Avenue. • Quality of Life: In addition to noise, there will be greasy restaurant odor in our homes and gardens, along with garbage smells and increased rodents and litter. • Potential development: As bad as the proposed development is, commercial "CG" zoning would open the door for bars and nightclubs at any time -- we are in a university student area and the 60 metre buffer rule would make little difference to late night music and loud patron noise. • Property value: All of this will lower our property values. I would never purchase a property next door to a strip mall or any CG zone. Our years of sacrifice and hard work to achieve home ownership security are compromised with one quick zoning decision. This is perhaps the most disturbing issue. • Alternative placement: There are many other areas in Millidgeville for such a strip mall development that would not affect such a large number of home owners. I live a town home community that the City of Saint John should be proud of! Please respect our community and disapprove the proposed development and commercial zoning of the 55 -65 University Avenue property. In appreciation of your thoughtful reconsideration of this proposal, Anne Kilfoil 4 Candlewood Lane Saint John, NB 293 Kitty Btischlepp 85 University Avenue Saint John, NB EX 1 Z2 Tel: (506) 648 -9580 Hand Delivered Mayor and Council City of Saint John City Hall 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L lE8 RECEIVED COMMON CLERK'S OFFICE SEP 2 4 2014 CITY OF SAINT JOHN September 21, 2014 Re: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment Rezoning & Subdivision Application 55 -65 University Avenue Your Worship and Councillors: With reference also to my previous letter to Mayor and Council dated July 20, 2014 please allow me to express my views on this subject. The answer would have to remain an unequivocal "NO ". I would like to start off by saying that one's value system is always going to formalize one's decisions. So with that being said, this matter needs to be given a voice - my voice. I have resided at my current address for almost half a century (50 years), and I would have to say there have been many changes that have taken place in the community during that time. What is proposed for the land was something which another applicant had proposed in 1993, directly across the street from the proposed project. In 1993, Common Council rezoned the land I am referring to at the request of a developer from residential to commercial. The developer's plan was for a commercial restaurant and a professional neighbourhood centre - possibly housing medical/professional offices, drug store, bank, hairdresser, stores, etc. The proposals upon which the rezoning was granted were not fulfilled. Town planning bent over backwards to accommodate a developer. There has been no professional neighbourhood centre - that never materialized. A Wendy's /Tim Horton's take -out with a drive -thru was constructed next door to this land. Years later, the developer eventually came before Council again and requested the subject land be once again rezoned back to residential. The developer cited the economy had changed and the market was just not there for what he had proposed with a professional building housing commercial enterprises. The land was once again deemed residential and thus the origin of the Anchorage apartment building years later. 294 Page 2 Is this applicant now citing the economy has turned itself around possibly because of the Shannex development and potential revenue from it? I am not going to debate whether Millidgeville needs two drug stores, two restaurants, two coffee shops - all within 100 yards of one another. I'll leave that argument to those in business who can argue whether or not what is proposed would have a negative impact on existing businesses or those who might state they are now not over the top in business and new ventures would affect their bottom line. The existing drug store is not over -run by business, the Thai restaurant has downsized, the Subway restaurant is empty evenings, McDonald's restaurant is closed. The McDonald's restaurant was stupid to attach themselves to the back of a convenience store. They could always have had their own building - they are a brand name. There were enough locations. Enough said! This corner, which is a very high profile corner, is the entrance to Millidgeville. With our propensity for destroying the natural world, I am surprised there hasn't been anyone long before this offering to destroy and ruin the area. The Fire Station has been on Millidge Avenue/University Avenue since 1963. No one objects to living in close proximity to a fire station. They have been good neighbours. The Fire Department personnel have always maintained the green areas, the trees and the grass very well. The ambulance building requires more parking than what is there presently. Many cars are parked on the lawns - on the green areas daily, summer and winter. They could relocate somewhere where there is more parking /paving. The Fire Fighters Training Academy is unobtrusive. I love their backyard. I could imagine myself living there. I would be willing to be a custodian for the area. There was a building there years ago which was relocated. It occurred to me that the applicant could be generous, could retain the land and allow a youth group to experience some activities in that building - perhaps an inner -city youth group. It is a lovely area and young people could benefit from the natural surroundings and be enriched by that experience. It is commendable that the Irving family gave the City land for a fire - training site on their eastside property, as the firefighters indicated they had outgrown their existing space in Millidgeville for training. This exchange of land reminds me of a statement made by the late Art Gould, former City Councillor, when he was referencing the Gorman Arena property by stating that "the land was horse - traded ". The same could be said about this land deal. We need to extrapolate what is best for the community, what is in the best interest of the citizens, because the citizens should have their say. A 3000 square metre commercial development would have a significant impact on the neighbourhood. I do not accept the applicant's vision for this property. What is proposed there is "art of character ". It is 295 Page 3 ludicrous, absurd, ridiculous. Development would be an encroachment and would deliberately destroy /ruin the area. The applicant is exhibiting selfish motives over the concern of the residents. The applicant is obviously taking advantage of a situation i.e. Shannex development and what the spinoff of that would deliver. Let's call it what it is. This is about "money- making". I wish them luck but not at this location. Perhaps the "coupon people" on Millidge Avenue might like to relinquish the parking lot next to the Shannex development. A drug store, a restaurant, a coffee shop and parking would be accommodated there. That parking lot is under- utilized which they obtained years ago by threatening to move their operations out of Saint John - thus loss of jobs. The applicant can well -afford to be generous. This is a natural environment. We need to hold on to this green area because the land supports trees, vegetation and wildlife. What right does anyone have to tear down what others have built up. The applicant could be a custodian, a steward of the land and could retain all the land, all the greenery there, be retained. The comer, Millidge Avenue/University Avenue, with mature trees and vegetation should be left intact. Last year, from this site, three trees were cut down by the City at the intersection of Millidge Avenue/University Avenue to make way for signage. That was unfortunate because the trees were healthy and mature. In February of this year, that area suffered damage from the ice storm and several trees were cut by the fire department personnel and left on the ground. Just recently a few trees suffered damage in this area as a result of Hurricane Arthur and broke off. The buffer separating the ambulance from Candlewood Lane should be left intact, in addition to the stream running down there. All of the trees, wetlands and vegetation behind the Fire Training Academy should be left intact - undisturbed. Respect the land!! It is submitted. It would be wrong to allow the application and a detriment to the area and I request that it be refused, denied!! Respectfully submitted, Kitty Biischlepp 296 czbalt September 25, 2014 Mr. Jonathan Taylor Common Clerk City of Saint John 15 Market Square Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 41-1 Re: Rezoning of 55 & 65 University Avenue Dear Mr. Taylor, Cobalt Property Investments Limited would like to formally withdraw its application for a municipal plan amendment and rezoning for 55 University Avenue (PID 55221717) and 65 University Avenue (PID 55024210). Sincerely, k - Matt Cooling, Project Manager Cobalt Property Investments Limited 297 COBALT 55 Union Street, Suite 700 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 5B7 T 506.202.1000 F 506.202.1111 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: ZoneSJ Public Hearing: Response to Public Input BACKGROUND: Council has played significant role in steering ZoneSJ through this process. The February 24, 2014 Council endorsement of the public engagement report and recommended revisions to the Draft Zoning By -law set the stage for moving forward with the formal adoption process. This process has included translation of the draft Zoning By -law, the 30 -day public presentation period for the proposed housekeeping amendments to the Municipal Plan, and Council's decision on July 7, 2014 to give notice of its intention to consider adoption of the Bylaw, including required notice for the public hearing and referral to the Planning Advisory Committee, in accordance with the requirements of the Community Planning Act. City of Saint John On September 8th, Council held the required public hearing on ZoneSJ to consider public input on the proposed By -law. Council also received recommendations from its Planning Advisory Committee; the Committee considered the Bylaw at its public meeting on Wednesday August 20, 2014. During a special meeting of Council held on Tuesday September 9, 2014 to discuss the proposed Bylaw, Council adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED that Council refer public input received at the September 8, 2014 public hearing on the proposed Zoning Bylaw including input and advice from the PAC and members of the public who requested changes to ZoneSJfor a report back on September 29, 2014; and further That the report back to Council address the requirement to initiate a Municipal Plan amendment process to give consideration of site specific requests of the property owners including options to waive application fees; and further That Council provide direction at that time with respect to the particular requests. O M &C- 2014 -163 -2- September 29, 2014 The following report provides a comprehensive response to the public input submitted to Council as part of the adoption process during ZoneSJ including: • A summary of all of the public input received during the formal adoption process including the public meeting held by PAC and the Public Hearing before Council. • Planning analysis of all submissions based on PlanSJ policy direction and requirements of the Community Planning Act, which are key considerations for Council when making decisions to change the Municipal Plan or the Zoning By -law. • Recommendations and alternatives for Council for further changes to ZoneSJ or subsequent Municipal Plan amendments in order to position Council to respond to the input received. • Responses to questions raised by Council related to process and policy context of PlanSJ. Context for the ZoneSJ Project The adoption of PlanSJ in January of 2012 reflected the collective community vision for a progressive direction to managing growth and development over the next 25 years in Saint John. PlanSJ sets the direction for growth and development and is intended to be implemented over time through regulatory tools such as a new Zoning Bylaw and Subdivision Bylaw as well as guiding investment through the City's operating and capital budgets. Importantly, PlanSJ is a living document and is intended to evolve and change over time to ensure the direction and approach remains current and reflective of the changing needs and expectations for Saint John. It does this through comprehensive reviews on a five year basis to ensure the Plan reflects community needs. ZoneSJ was launched by Council in the spring of 2012 as a priority recognizing a modernized zoning by -law is a crucial tool to carry forward the land use framework in PlanSJ and to meet legislative requirements and timeframes set out in the Community Planning Act. Working from the structure for future land use, the community planning team began the undertaking of drafting a modernized regulatory foundation for community development standards in Saint John; one that embodies the spirit and intent for future land use in the award winning PlanSJ. This initiative is also a key component of Council's One Stop Development Shop program aimed at transforming the City's development service, improving customer service and supporting development that aligns with the community's vision for a more sustainable and livable Saint John. 299 M &C- 2014 -163 -3- September 29, 2014 The ZoneSJ Adoption Process Over the course of the last two years, the ZoneSJ process has involved significant community engagement including six open houses, four industry focused review sessions, five supporting workshops with the Planning Advisory Committee and Council, and responses to over 120 property specific inquiries and more than 400 community standard inquiries from Saint John property owners. These inputs have shaped the draft by -law before Council which has undergone significant revision over the course of the past year including more than 15,000 edits to address technical improvements and feedback from property owners, and other stakeholders who have engaged in the process. The conclusion of the Public Hearing on September 8, 2014 marked the close of the formal public engagement on the proposed Zoning By -law. Council directed staff to return with a report summarizing the input from the Public Hearing and options and recommendations for change to the final Zoning By -law and future Plan amendments. Within the context of the Zoning By -law adoption process, Council may consider minor changes to the Zoning By -law as long as they are not substantive in nature and they are aligned with the Municipal Plan. Once Council has given due consideration to public input and provided direction on which changes are appropriate, the by -law amendments will be drafted to accommodate the changes in the final Zoning By -law and brought forward through a subsequent staff report. Then Council may proceed forward with 1St and 2nd Reading. Report on Public Feedback In general, there were four categories of public input received with respect to the final draft Zoning By -law during the public meeting before the Planning Advisory Committee and the Public Hearing before Council. The largest numbers of requests were property specific requests for change to the zoning map. In all, the four categories of requests included the following: 1. Five issue specific requests for change to provisions in the draft which include recommendations from the Planning Advisory Committee; 2. Nine property specific requests for changes to the zoning map; 3. Five general comments in support of the proposed draft; and 4. Three general comments in opposition to the proposed draft. The following offers some additional information with respect to each category of input and a further discussion on each property specific request. Of note, each public submission has been included in the appendices and addressed through a summary and recommendation table. Also included are property specific maps from the Municipal Plan, the existing zoning, and the proposed zoning. M M &C- 2014 -163 -4- September 29, 2014 1. Issue Specific Requests for Change to Provisions in the Zoning By -law There were a total of five issue specific requests for change to written provisions in the draft Zoning By -law. Four of these requests for change are recommendations from the Planning Advisory Committee and one is from a local developer. These requests have been detailed on the attached table and include a summary of the request, the rationale behind the request, staff analysis of the request, and a recommendation to Council. The PAC recommendations address primarily the strengthening of infill development in the urban core and also a proposed change to the urban chicken standards in the By -law. Staff are generally supportive of the PAC requests with some changes recommended to ensure the revisions are balanced and supported by sound planning rationale. Staff has also recommended an alternative to address the submission by Bob Darling requesting changes to the secondary suites provisions that increase the maximum allowable size of a secondary unit. 2. Property Specific Requests for Change to the Zoning By -law Map There were a total of nine (9) submissions made that were property specific, affecting a total of twelve (12) properties in Saint John. The public hearing process for ZoneSJ provides an opportunity for any objections to the By -law to be considered provided they are supported by the Municipal Plan. In this instance, however, most of the property specific requests for change that have been made are requesting a zone that does not align with the Municipal Plan. As such, Council is not able to address these through the ZoneSJ adoption process without a subsequent Municipal Plan amendment. The Community Planning Act provides for such a request to be considered through a Municipal Plan Amendment process which is set out in the Act. This would normally be undertaken by a property owner making an application for a Municipal Plan Amendment and potentially Rezoning for a proposal. A proposal includes a plan that would detail what the proposed use is and how it is to be developed on the site including building and structure locations. It may also require additional technical studies to support the application and decision - making process. The proposal would then be able to be assessed for compatibility and appropriateness with the surrounding neighbourhood and shared through the notification process with adjacent property owners. In this case, some property owners have requested that Council initiate the change to the Municipal Plan designation and in some cases the zoning of their property, without an application process and without a specific proposal. Should Council wish to consider these Plan Amendments to address the site specific concerns of these property owner's, staff advise that these be application driven and formally initiated by the property owners. By doing so, it will allow Council to attach any 301 M &C- 2014 -163 -5- September 29, 2014 specific development conditions through Section 39 of the Community Planning Act where there is also a rezoning process. Council may choose to waive any required fees. Issues to Consider with Site Specific requests for Change The ZoneSJ process has been focused on ensuring property owners that have made substantial investments are accommodated through Schedule E: List of Exceptions to ensure support through this transition. Many of the site specific requests have already been accommodated through this Schedule. Many of the site specific requests are seeking land use permissions that go beyond current land use of the property and would involve a plan amendment under PlanSJ. Council has requested more information on the requirements to initiate Plan amendments to accommodate site specific requests. The Community Planning Act sets out the process for consideration of amendments to a Municipal Plan. This process can be initiated as part of an application submitted by a property owner or can be Council initiated to address wider policy issues. Key considerations for Council in considering plan amendments include: • Are there unique considerations or changing conditions that warrant change to the Municipal Plan; or • Is the change in alignment with the principles and policy direction set out in the Municipal Plan; or • Does the proposed change represent a fundamental shift in policy direction that warrants a wider review of key issues in the Municipal Plan. Staff would advise against moving forward with Council - initiated plan amendments that run counter to PlanSJ. Some of the site specific requests challenge the fundamental direction of the Municipal Plan and are more appropriately considered either through a formal application made by a property owner or as broader policy issue considered through the Plan review. As an example, the site specific requests for rural residential subdivision are not consistent with the fundamental directions in PlanSJ which support smart growth; accommodating these on a property specific basis has the potential to undermine the Municipal Plan and is more appropriately considered in a holistic manner as part of the five year Plan review stage. Council may consider minor changes to the Zoning By -law to provide alternatives for some of the site specific requests that may address concerns and negate the need for a Plan Amendment and/or a rezoning process to be undertaken. For instance, Al's Ultra Car Sales and Service has been wholly accommodated through Schedule E: List of Exceptions. Council may go one step further and add Existing Car Sales and Leasing to the list of permitted uses in the zone proposed for this property. This is not a substantive change and would provide improved clarity for this property owner. 302 M &C- 2014 -163 -6- September 29, 2014 The following provides a summary of the site specific requests and the planning analysis for Council to consider. Following this table are more detailed responses on each property specific request: Representative Request for Change Planning Analysis Summary All existing commercial uses are accommodated by the proposed By -law. The request is to allow for further commercial use beyond what is currently permitted on the property. Since the property is currently designated as Stable Residential in the Municipal Plan, a property specific Plan amendment would be required to re- designate AI's Ultra Car Plan Amendment & this property for more intensive commercial Sales & Service Rezoning uses and new industrial uses. Staff are recommending a non - substantive change to the Zoning By -law to improve clarity that the existing uses are permitted. Council can also initiate a re- designation to allow broader commercial use of the property subject to a future rezoning process to be initiated by the applicant. This would ensure land use compatibility issues are carefully assessed and mitigated. Municipal Plan Policy LU -80 provides for expansion of existing capital intensive industries outside of industrial parks provided certain conditions are satisfied through the Strescon Rezoning to Heavy rezoning process. Staff advise Council has Industrial (IH) Zone discretion to consider a non - substantive change to the By -law to allow for consideration of Strescon 's request for Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning within the context of the current Zoning By -law adoption process. Fundamental change in direction to the Plan for this area; requires industrial designation for Somerset Street identified as a key mixed Stephen Horgan Plan Amendment & use intensification corridor in PlanSJ. Staff / Dowd Group Rezoning advise that this issue be considered through the five year review of PlanSJ or subject to a specific plan amendment application to be submitted by the property owner. Fundamental change; contrary to the direction for managing rural growth in the Municipal Michelle & Plan Amendment & Plan. Staff advise that this issue be considered Sean Luck Rezoning through the five year review ofPlanSJor subject to a specific plan amendment application to be submitted by the property owner. 303 M &C- 2014 -163 -7- September 29, 2014 Al's Ultra Car Sales and Service: This property owner is requesting a zone that intensifies the permitted uses beyond what is permitted today, including adding permission for a range of industrial land uses. This request is a substantial change and cannot be accommodated through the ZoneSJ process, given the Stable Residential designation for this stretch of Ocean Westway. Council can authorize the advancement of an application process for both a Municipal Plan amendment and a Rezoning to consider this request; however, staff recommends that the property owner make the application to protect the ability for Council to attach any necessary additional conditions through Section 39 of the Act, beyond those that are already on title to this property. The fee is $3,500.00 and may be waived by Council. M11 Fundamental change; contrary to the direction for managing rural growth in the Municipal Plan. Staff advise that this issue be considered Mike Francis Plan Amendment through the five year review of PlanSJ or subject to a specific plan amendment application to be submitted by the property owner. Extension of the PDA; requires premature consideration for additional serviced growth areas with potential infrastructure implications Bev Purinton Plan Amendment & for the City. Staff advise that this issue be Rezoning considered through the five year review of PlanSJ or subject to a specific plan amendment application to be submitted by the property owner. Fundamental change; contrary to the direction for managing rural growth in the Municipal Plan; impacts potential expansion of industrial Dennis Griffin Plan Amendment areas. Staff advise that this issue be considered through the five year review of PlanSJor subject to a specific plan amendment application to be submitted by the property owner. Extension of the PDA; requires premature consideration for additional serviced growth area with potential infrastructure implications Bryce Beyea Plan Amendment & for the City. Staff advise that this issue be Rezoning considered through the five year review of PlanSJor subject to a specific plan amendment application to be submitted by the property owner. Al's Ultra Car Sales and Service: This property owner is requesting a zone that intensifies the permitted uses beyond what is permitted today, including adding permission for a range of industrial land uses. This request is a substantial change and cannot be accommodated through the ZoneSJ process, given the Stable Residential designation for this stretch of Ocean Westway. Council can authorize the advancement of an application process for both a Municipal Plan amendment and a Rezoning to consider this request; however, staff recommends that the property owner make the application to protect the ability for Council to attach any necessary additional conditions through Section 39 of the Act, beyond those that are already on title to this property. The fee is $3,500.00 and may be waived by Council. M11 M &C- 2014 -163 -8- September 29, 2014 It is important to note that the existing Vehicle Sales and Leasing business has been entirely accommodated through Schedule E: List of Exceptions. This approach has ensured that this established business does not become a legal non- conforming land use and the property owner may continue to invest. The proposed General Commercial (CG) zone is compatible with the existing `B -2" General Business zone which protects the neighbouring property owners. The property owner's request for Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning would permit more intense commercial land uses including commercial entertainment, and recreational vehicle sales and service: large, as well as a suite of industrial land uses that are not permitted today such as a distribution facility, equipment sales and rental: light, and fleet services. Council may consider adding Vehicle Sales and Leasing, Existing to the list of permitted land uses in the General Commercial (CG) zone to provide more clarity as to how this land use has been treated in the new Zoning By -law. Strescon: This property owner is requesting the site be zoned Heavy Industrial (IH) to allow for potential future industrial use beyond the quarrying and excavation activity that is currently permitted through existing Section 39 conditions. Normally the nature of this request would trigger a requirement for a Municipal Plan amendment and an amendment to the existing Section 39 conditions, as the designation of the property under PlanSJ is Urban Reserve which is effectively a holding designation for future serviced development and the Section 39 conditions effectively limit the use of the property to quarrying. The proposed PlanSJ land use Policy LU -80 provides Council the opportunity to consider expansion of existing capital intensive industries outside of the City's Industrial Parks through a rezoning process, without the requirement for a Municipal Plan amendment. Application of this policy is at the discretion of Council and Council would have to be satisfied all aspects of the Policy have been met including: • the proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding land uses; • appropriate mitigative measures are provided; • transportation needs can be accommodated; and • municipal servicing is adequate to service the proposed expansion. Given the isolated location and nature of the site and the ability to mitigate any land use impacts through the existing section 39 conditions that limit development to the existing quarrying operation, staff is satisfied that the request is generally compliant with proposed Policy LU -80 and therefore can be considered by Council as a non - substantive amendment to the Bylaw. Subsequent expansion of heavy industrial uses on the site will require an amendment to the section 39 conditions which protect neighbouring property owners. 305 M &C- 2014 -163 -9- September 29, 2014 Stephen Horgan on behalf of the Dowd Group of Companies: This representative is requesting that a series of properties along the Somerset Street corridor be re- designated to permit industrial land uses. This is a fundamental change in the direction of the Municipal Plan for this area. The existing Local Centre designation that is applied to this central Somerset corridor anticipates the re- development of this area over time to accommodate a range of residential and commercial development that provides everyday services to the surrounding neighbourhoods. ZoneSJ carries forward the intent of the Municipal Plan to transition to a mixed -use corridor supporting residential and commercial development with the application of the General Commercial (CG) zone for properties generally fronting Somerset Street. To support this transition for existing property owners, ZoneSJ proposes to accommodate all existing industrial uses through Schedule E: List of Exceptions. What this means is that the proposed General Commercial (CG) zone will allow existing businesses to continue without impact as they will not become legal non- conforming. Through the submission made by Stephen Horgan on behalf of Dowd Group, staff have proposed an additional two existing uses for Schedule E to better accommodate the existing industrial developments. The proposed zone and the exceptions granted through Schedule E ensure the existing businesses may continue and will ensure they transition over time to commercial and residential uses as is required by the Local Centre designation in the Municipal Plan. Of note, there is substantial investment currently taking place in this area that is transitioning it to the mixed -use corridor envisioned in the Municipal Plan, including a recently re- developed gas station, approval for a liquor store, the new YMCA, and a mixed - income residential senior project both on the edge along Churchill Boulevard. Should Council wish to consider the request from the property owner to permit industrial uses in this corridor, it is recommended that this be addressed at the five year review stage as this is a fundamental change in PlanSJ direction. Alternatively, Council could request the property owner submit a Municipal Plan amendment application with a detailed proposal for evaluation and consideration through the required process. Bev Purinton Bryce Beyea These property owners have requested an expansion of the Primary Development Area (PDA) to include their properties. This is a fundamental change to the structure of the Municipal Plan which prioritizes existing lands within the PDA for urban serviced growth to capitalize on existing water and sewer infrastructure. Both of these proposals would involve significant expansions of the Primary on. M &C- 2014 -163 -10- September 29, 2014 Development Area and would require extensions to underground infrastructure, new roads and potential off -site infrastructure upgrades to accommodate development of these lands with potential financial implications for the City. Expansions to the PDA are recommended to be addressed at the five year review, however can be considered by Council on a case -by -case basis when an application has been being brought forward by a property owner. Michelle & Sean Luck Mike Francis Dennis Griffin These property owners are requesting the ability for rural residential subdivision in the rural area which would be a fundamental change to the way in which rural lands are managed through the Municipal Plan. There are no prior approvals for the lands in question to enable rural subdivision potential with new streets. Two of the properties are proposed under ZoneSJ to be included in the Rural (RU) zone, which is consistent with the existing "RF" Rural zone on the property today and as such, there is no impact with the adoption of ZoneSJ. For others, the existing zone does not permit subdivision with new streets and requires a Plan Amendment and Rezoning to proceed today with a new residential subdivision. Thus, the requirement for a public process to consider an application for rural residential subdivision will not change moving ahead with ZoneSJ. The rural residential requests cannot be accommodated through the existing Zoning Bylaw process. Staff consider the rural requests to be fundamental changes to PlanSJ and staff are recommending against proceeding with plan amendments to consider these requests. With respect to the Dennis Griffin request, potentially permitting additional residential development immediately adjacent to the existing Industrial Park will increase the conflict between these incompatible land uses in the future. For this reason, this proposed change cannot be recommended by staff. 3. General Comments in Support of the Proposed Draft Zoning By -law There were a total of five (5) submissions that expressed general support for the process to develop the draft Zoning By -law and the final document itself. There is no specific action required by Council with respect to addressing any of these submissions directly. 307 M &C- 2014 -163 -11- September 29, 2014 4. General Comments in Opposition to the Proposed Draft Zoning By -law There were a total of three (3) submissions that expressed eg_neral opposition to the process and/or the final draft Zoning By -law. Two of the comments also included general disagreement with the Municipal Plan as well. Council may choose to request more information with respect to any of the comments; they generally do not support adoption of the final draft Zoning By -law. Questions from Council: Un- serviced Rural Residential in PlanSJ & ZoneSJ Council has requested clarity with respect to the PlanSJ and proposed ZoneSJ provisions for rural residential development; how they differ from the existing Zoning By -law as compared with the proposed By -law, and more information on the rationale for the 10 acre minimum lot requirement in the Rural zone. PlanSJ Direction - Rural Residential Growth PlanSJ focuses rural growth as a key component of a broader community vision promoting smart growth by focusing on serviced development inside the Primary Development Area to maximize the return on these investments. The Plan supports managed growth to curtail rural sprawl due to the high costs of servicing rural areas as compared to urban ones, and to minimize risks and potential costs for infrastructure. The policies that guide rural residential growth in PlanSJ include: • Target rural growth to designated Rural Settlement Areas to focus rural development in a more compact development pattern that promotes complete communities in three areas including Lorneville, Martinon and Treadwell Lake. ZoneSJ proposes rural residential zoning for these areas which permits residential subdivisions on conventional one acre rural lots. The Plan designates Rural Residential areas which accommodate conventional rural subdivisions on one acre lots where they were pre - approved prior to the adoption of PlanSJ. There are more than 300 lots currently approved but not yet built. This designation also allows small scale "mom and pop" subdivisions which give property owners the ability to subdivide an existing lot for up to two additional one acre lots. ZoneSJ proposes to zone these areas Rural Residential (RR). The Rural Resource designation, which applies to the remaining lands in the rural areas, is intended to manage growth by curtailing rural residential sprawl. It does this by supporting traditional rural resource activities such as forestry, extraction, and farming. ZoneSJ proposes a Rural (RU) zone to manage future growth in these areas through a minimum 10 acre lot requirement. M. M &C- 2014 -163 -12- September 29, 2014 How ZoneSJ Changes the Current Zoning By -law Provisions for Rural Residential Subdivisions To provide clarification as to the approach taken to zoning in the rural areas we offer the following: It is important to note that the Rural (RF) zone that has been in place since 1983 has always required a 4ha (10 acre) lot size. Many residents have been granted approval for the creation of a new, smaller lot through a variance process; a request that is made to the Planning Advisory Committee. Thus, the proposed lot size of 4ha (10 acres) in ZoneSJfor the Rural (RU) zone is not new nor is the process to acquire permission to sever a smaller lot. Large minimum lots are a requirement in many rural zones as these areas are intentionally set aside for economic investment that is not compatible with urban residential neighbourhoods. Residential dwellings are a permitted use in the Rural (RF) zone today and they are proposed to be permitted in the proposed in the new Rural (RU) zone as well. This is because in many instances, farming, forestry and other such rural economic activities are undertaken as part of a family operation or business. This is not unique to Saint John. In many other jurisdictions in Canada, the minimum lot size for rural zoned land is actually much larger to ensure rural lands are protected for economic uses that are not compatible with urbanized areas. Virtually all property in the rural area that is currently zoned "RF" Rural has been proposed to remain zoned Rural (RU) in the final draft of the Zoning By -law. The new Rural (RU) zone is not fundamentally different from the existing "RF" Rural zone and as such, offers no substantial difference in terms of land use rights. All properties that are currently zoned "RS -1" or "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential have been proposed to be zoned either Rural Residential (RR), or Rural (RF), or a mix thereof in the final Zoning By- law. To recognize the existing uses, existing, un- serviced rural residential homes have been zoned Rural Residential (RR) and existing vacant lands have been zoned Rural (RU). It is important to note that neither the existing "RS -1" zone or "RS -2" zone allows rural residential subdivision with new public streets. These zones only allow limited subdivision for rural residential lots on existing public streets. As such, anyone seeking to develop a rural residential subdivision on new public streets) has always, and will continue to under the new Zoning By -law regardless of the zone placed on their property, be required to seek approval from Council through a public planning application process. M M &C- 2014 -163 -13- September 29, 2014 Rural Infill Opportunities in ZoneSJ As raised during questions from Council, some PlanSJ housekeeping amendments were recommended to fill -in some of the gaps along limited cases in the Loch Lomond Road area, where there was opportunity for infill between existing residential developments. The ZoneSJ team continues to recommend that rural residential development not be permitted to take place along all available public street frontage in the rural area as this is not consistent with the policy direction for rural residential development in the Municipal Plan. Key challenges with promoting greater rural infill beyond what is currently permitted by the Plan include: Sustainable Infrastructure: Potential to undermine key investments planned for the Primary Development Area (PDA). Focusing future growth in the PDA will ensure the community can capitalize on investments here related to Harbour Clean -Up and the P3 project for safe, clean drinking water. If City resources continue to be diverted to support un- serviced, rural residential subdivisions, these necessary investments in the renewal of our existing city infrastructure will not be sustainable over the long term. Community of Choice: Investing inside the Primary Development Area increases the utilization of our existing roads, sidewalks, parks and other community investments in recreational and cultural facilities. This also supports the creation of needed density in key areas to support our transit system, and increase the overall assessment base without a corresponding increase in the costs from expanding infrastructure. This allows us as a community to reinvest in our urban public spaces and streetscapes, directly increasing the quality of life for all Saint Johners. Economic Prosperity: PlanSJ specifically refocuses rural un- serviced development to targeted Rural Settlement Areas and limits further subdivision outside of these areas. This was an adopted policy direction in PlanSJ to ensure the long -term economic and social success for the entire community. Refocusing rural residential investment in key areas creates more opportunity for economic investment in the rural areas that is not compatible with rural residential land uses. With the potential for Energy East on the horizon and recent approvals for additional aggregate extraction in the rural areas, this is a critical time for Saint John to prevent additional conflict in these areas and take advantage of the economic importance of the rural areas. PlanSJ and ZoneSJ will mitigate future land use conflict from unmanaged rural residential development and re -focus investment inside our Primary Development Area and to targeted Rural Settlement Areas. 310 M &C- 2014 -163 -14- September 29, 2014 It must be noted that during the ZoneSJ public engagement period there was very little feedback received from the community with respect to the approach to zoning in the rural areas. The feedback that was received (three requests representing approximately one percent of the total responses) was from a few property owners with vested interests and at least one who had significant development potential under previously approved rural subdivisions that have not yet been completed. Council's role is to ensure decisions are made in the best interests of all residents, not just a few with vested interests in the short term. In terms of availability of rural residential housing for consumers, it is important to note that with existing approvals in place today there is potential for over 300 unserviced rural residential lots to accommodate demand for this type of housing in the future. There is no shortage of rural residential lots available to prospective purchasers in Saint John. The ZoneSJ team recommends Council stay the course at this time and implement the rural residential policies in PlanSJ that support the long -term vitality and sustainability of Saint John through adoption of the proposed Zoning By -law. Should Council wish to move forward with any of the property specific requests they should be considered in a holistic manner ideally through the five year review of PlanSJ and not on a site specific basis. Note that diverting resources to address this broader issue at this time may impact the delivery of current initiatives including the One Stop Development Shop. Process Moving Forward This report provides Council with a recommendation for each submission made as part of the Public Meeting before the PAC on August 20, 2014 and the Public Hearing before Council on September 8, 2014. Council may debate and discuss each recommendation and then approve, deny, or propose an alternative recommendation for consideration. Prior to 1St and 2nd Reading, staff will return with a final series of changes to the document. These changes will include any directed by Council, any final housekeeping changes to the text, or to respond to recent approved applications. Given that the Public Hearing has already been held, no substantive changes to the document can be made at this time otherwise a new Public Hearing must be held. Moving ahead, there are a few key items for Council to remain mindful of. Five -Year Review Period for the Plan: The Municipal Plan was adopted in early 2012 and as such, Council is two and a half years into the five -year monitoring period for the Plan. As such, the expected time for the five -year review of the Plan is early 2017. This is when the fundamental directions of the Plan are anticipated to be reviewed. 311 M &C- 2014 -163 -15- September 29, 2014 Application Requirements: Should Council decide to support property owners with site specific requests for change through an application process for a Plan Amendment and /or a Rezoning, this will require a property owner to submit an application. This involves the submission of a proposal including a detailed site plan for review by staff. Depending on the proposal, additional studies and/or technical and supporting information may be required prior to advancing the application. The process itself involves the review and assessment of the application, circulation of the proposal to neighbouring property owners, a report detailing a staff recommendation and any potential conditions of an approval, a public meeting before the Planning Advisory Committee and a Public Hearing before Council. This is to ensure the neighbourhood and broader community is provided with the opportunity to voice their opinions with respect to the proposal for change. Timing for Adoption: With respect to the proposed Zoning By -law, Council has six months from the date of the first public advertisement to complete adoption before the current process will expire. In this case, Council must complete the current adoption process for the proposed Zoning By -law and submit the required housekeeping amendments to the Minister for approval no later than February 9, 2015. If the proposed Zoning By -law is not adopted by this time, the process must commence again, including notification and the holding of a new Public Hearing. Process for ZoneSJ: There has been widespread engagement with the community and land owners throughout the ZoneSJ project. There has been a lot of time and effort on communications and education and there is widespread public support for adoption of this document. Implementing the land use framework in PlanSJ through the adoption of ZoneSJ is essential to ensuring clarity and predictability to support investment for the future. Substantive Changes to ZoneSJ: Property specific requests that are triggering Plan Amendment processes can be dealt with through the Plan Amendment process that is detailed in the Act. These applications can be made anytime by the property owner or initiated by Council through the ZoneSJ adoption process. Council is advised that they should require the property owner to initiate the process to ensure that appropriate conditions may be recommended to protect the community's interest. Where a fee is required, Council may choose to waive it. 312 M &C- 2014 -163 -16- September 29, 2014 It is not in the best interest of the community to hold up adoption of the Zoning By -law while property specific requests proceed through the appropriate application process. In Closing Building on the PlanSJ program, the ZoneSJ project has been a large and complex undertaking, this time more technical in nature but most importantly, both a fundamental component to the advancement of the One -Stop Development Shop program and a required implementation component of PlanSJ. With so many moving parts, the community planning team has done its very best to be responsive and focused, delivering a better product for Saint Johners with every iteration of the draft By -law and providing updates at critical junctures that are clear and informative. We believe the project has successfully delivered a progressive and balanced Zoning By -law that implements the intent and spirit for future land use in PlanSJ, and is an excellent cornerstone By -law to the successful advancement of the One -Stop Development Shop program. It is now time to direct final changes to support the adoption of the document so the community can take advantage of the many positive opportunities this By -law creates for investment in Saint John. Site specific requests can proceed through the appropriate processes, as required by the Community Planning Act. RECOMMENDATION That Common Council: 1. Approve the following non - substantial changes to the Zoning By -law to address recommendations provided by the PAC: a) Amendment of the Urban Centre Residential (RC) Zone to permit new one -unit dwellings; b) Amendment to the parking provisions to eliminate the requirement for on -site parking to be provided for replacement buildings in the area identified on Schedule C: Uptown Parking Exemption Area; and c) Amendment to the amenity space requirements to eliminate the requirement for the area identified on Schedule C: Uptown Parking Exemption Area. 313 M &C- 2014 -163 -17- September 29, 2014 2. Approve the following non — substantial changes to the Zoning By -law to address submissions made by members of the public as part of the September 8, 2014 public hearing: a) Rezone the Strescon property, identified as PID 55020259, to the Heavy Industrial (IH) zone, subject to Council concurrence that the provisions of proposed Policy LU -80 have been satisfied, which allows for expansion of existing capital- intensive industry in the PDA through a rezoning process and written agreement by Strescon that the existing Section 39 conditions remain in force and effect; b) Amend the General Commercial (CG) zone to recognize Vehicle Sales and Leasing, Existing as a permitted use in the zone to increase the clarity and transparency in how this land use has been accommodated in this zone; and c) Amend the secondary suite provisions to increase the proposed cap on the maximum permitted floor area from 70 square metres to 90 square metres. 3. Direct considerations of the following plan amendments, subsequent to ZoneSJ adoption: a) The re- designation of Al's Ultra Car Sales & Service to Stable Commercial to allow the potential for future commercial and industrial land uses, beyond those currently permitted, to be considered through a rezoning process initiated by the property owner. 4. Consider the following site specific requests through the five year review of Plan SJ or subject to specific plan amendment proposals submitted by the property owners: a) To permit the intensification of industrial land uses along the Dowd Group of Companies land holdings located on Somerset Street, generally inclusive of PIDs 55008858, 00049809, 55123582, 55123590, 55123616, 55123632, 55149991, 00046417, 00052423, 55089932, and 00052282. b) To accommodate rural residential subdivision development as addressed in submissions made by Michelle Luck, Sean Luck, Mike Francis, and Dennis Griffin. c) To expand the Primary Development Area as addressed in submissions made by Bev Puritan and Bryce Beyea. 5. Waive any required planning application fees by any of the site specific land owners identified through the Public Hearing, provided an application is made within 12 months of the date of the adoption of the Zoning By -law. 314 M &C- 2014 -163 -18- September 29, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Stacey Forfar, MBA, MCIP, RPP Deputy Commissioner, Community Planning and Enrichment Services Jacqueline Hamilton, MURP, MCIP, RPP Commissioner, Growth and Community Development Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager SF 315 M &C- 2014 -163 -19- September 29, 2014 1. ISSUE Specific Requests for Change to Draft Provisions Submissions a. Planning Advisory Committee (PAC): recommendation letter b. Bob Darling (Northstar Holdings): oral submission 316 M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 -20- 2. PROPERTY Specific Requests for Change to the Zoning Map Property Mapping and Submissions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Al Williams & Rick Turner: Paul Moore: Stephen Horgan: Michelle Luck: Sean Luck: Mike Francis: Bev Purinton: Dennis Griffin: Bryce Beyea: written and oral submissions written and oral presentations oral submission written and oral submission oral submission oral submission written and oral submission written submission written submission 317 M &C- 2014 -163 -21 - September 29, 2014 3. General Comments in SUPPORT of the draft Zoning By -law Submissions 1. Rick Turner, Hughes Surveys & Consultants: oral submission 2. Rick Turner, J.D. Irving Ltd.: oral submission 3. Steve Carson, EnterpriseSJ: oral submission 4. Kent McIntyre, Saint John Development Corp.: written and oral submission 5. Anne McShane, resident: oral submission : M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 'W#M 4. General Comments in OPPOSITION to the draft Zoning By -law Additional Information 1. Dennis Griffin, resident: written submission 2. David Griffin, resident: oral submission 3. Darren J. Hargrove: written submission 319 M &C- 2014 -163 -19- September 29, 2014 1. ISSUE Specific Requests for Change to Draft Provisions Submissions a. Planning Advisory Committee (PAC): recommendation letter b. Bob Darling (Northstar Holdings): oral submission 320 1. ISSUE SPECIFIC Requests for Change to Draft Provisions Speaker / Author Submissions Request for Change Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation This proposed provision will permit new one -unit houses in the area of the City where the Municipal Plan supports the highest density and mix of residential and compatible commercial Not require on -site parking for replacement uses. The rationale provided by PAC indicates that given there are smaller lots and existing Planning Advisory Council Public PAC of buildings in the area as shown on one -unit homes, new ones should be permitted. Staff recommended that this exemption be scoped to a Planning Advisory Council Public PAC Permit new one -unit dwellings in the Staff recommended that this change be included in the 1 Committee Meeting Recommendation Urban Centre Residential (RC) zone. The intent behind the staff proposal to remove new one -unit dwellings in this area is to final draft of the Zoning By -law. Letter Village and Peninsula). provide direct support for higher- density forms of housing that are best suited to inner -city core areas, where this zone is applied. Surrounding neighbourhoods where this zone has been applied are generally lower- density one -unit areas and as such, this form of housing is available in the vicinity of these areas in the City. Existing one -unit dwellings will continue to be permitted in the proposed zone. This proposed provision will require urban chicken keepers to have two hens at all times. The MC- 2014 -163 SepternO29 -9, 2014 This proposed provision will eliminate parking requirements in the defined area, for any new permitted use on a property where a building has come down after the passing of the By -law. The rationale provided by PAC indicates that parking reduces density and as such this provision Not require on -site parking for replacement would permit 100% coverage of property with new investment, retaining or increasing the Planning Advisory Council Public PAC of buildings in the area as shown on existing density. Staff recommended that this exemption be scoped to a 2 Recommendation smaller area such as that defined on Schedule C: Committee Meeting Letter Scheduled Intensification Areas (Waterloo Staff generally support awaiting the results on parking needs in the Uptown and southern g y pp g p g p Uptown Parkin Exemption Area p g p Village and Peninsula). Peninsula, part of the Master Transportation Plan, prior to making any further changes to the proposed standards for required on -site parking. Should a property owner wish not to provide on -site parking, they may make application to the Planning Advisory Committee for a variance to this standard. This proposed provision will require urban chicken keepers to have two hens at all times. The rationale provided by PAC indicates that there is a concern for animal welfare given chickens are social creatures. The impact of this requirement will mean that anyone keeping one chicken will be in violation of the Zoning By -law. Planning Advisory Council Public PAC Include a provision in Section 9.10 requiring It is recommended that this requirement not be 3 Committee Meeting Recommendation a minimum of two chickens. The Zoning By -law regulates the land use impacts of different uses. In this instance, it provides included in the final draft of the Zoning By -law however Letter it is not a substantive change and can be made. the minimum requirements for chicken keeping, including a maximum of six hens, that will prevent conflict between this land use and a neighbouring one. In no other instance does the Zoning By -law regulate social welfare concerns nor could this requirement be found in any other Zoning By -law in Canada where urban chicken provisions have been adopted. MC- 2014 -163 SepternO29 -9, 2014 1. ISSUE SPECIFIC Requests for Change to Draft Provisions Speaker / Author Submissions Request for Change Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation This proposed provision will eliminate the requirement for amenity space in multi -unit development projects in the area defined on Schedule D: Intensification Areas (Waterloo Village and Peninsula). The rationale provided by PAC indicates that there is concern that this is an added cost for developers and that there is a need to make investment easy in this area of the City in particular. PAC Eliminate the amenity space requirements Amenity space requirements ensure residents of multi -unit buildings - whether they are low- Staff recommend that this exemption be scoped to a Planning Advisory 4 Council Public Recommendation in the area as shown on Schedule D: income or high- income - all have access to private or communal space within their building for smaller area such as that defined on Schedule C: Committee Meeting Letter Intensification Areas (Waterloo Village and wellness, relaxation and enjoyment. This requirement ensures that new housing stock adds Uptown Parking Exemption Area Peninsula). value to the community for the future; this is particularly true in core neighbourhoods of any community. Community development standards in a zoning by -law are there to create a minimum requirement for everyone. Should an investor not want to provide amenity space, they may make application to the Planning Advisory Committee for a variance to this standard. Amenity space is not the same as services such as bars and restaurants. Services cost money to use; amenity space is part of ones home. This proposed change to the provisions will permit secondary suites in existing single - family homes to be larger than the main home (more than 50% of the floor area). The change would also permit property owners to subdivide single family homes into two units that would both be rented. Revise the Secondary Suite provisions in The intent behind permitting secondary suites is to permit slow intensification and greater Bob Darling Council Public Verbal Section 9.13 to allow for larger secondary diversity within existing housing stock in established neighbourhoods. These types of units Staff recommend replacing the proposed cap of 70 5 suite units and remove the requirement for also create affordable rental units in exisitng neighbourhoods and increase housing square metres with the suggested cap of 90 square (Northstar Holdings) Meeting Presentation owner - occupied. Allow second driveways for affordability for homeowners. Requiring these properties to remain owner - occupied supports metres. corner lots. stability and consistency in these existing, established neighbourhoods where this land use would be permitted. There is a two -unit zone that permits two dwellings. Staff have no concern with increasing the cap on the size of the secondary unit as proposed as long as the maximum GFA remains at 40 %. This will allow a larger suite with a larger home but retains the maximum amount of space it can take up at 40 %. Second driveways can still be assessed through a variance process as they may not always be appropriate given the nature of each lot. MC- 2014 -163 Septeml32_29, 2014 Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Public Meeting: August 20, 2014 PAC Recommendation Letter M & C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 323 Planning Advisory Committee August 21, 2014 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L 1 City of Saint John SIJBJFC'U: Recommendation on the proposed Zoning By -law (ZoneSJ) and the housekeeping amendments to the Municipal Plan (Plans.) On Monday July 7, 2014, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at a Special Meeting held on August 20, 2014. Ms. Stacey Forfar and Mr. Mark O' Hearn, staff with the community planning service for the City of Saint John, provided a 20- minute presentation on the project and the final draft Zoning By -law. The Committee then opened the floor for members of the public to speak for or against the proposed Zoning By -law. Mr. Al Williams and Mr. Rick Turner Al's Ultra Car Sales and Service 2086 Ocean Westway Mr. Al Williams of Al's Ultra. Car Sales and Service and his representative Mr. Rick Turner of Hughes Surveys and Consultants both spoke to the Committee in opposition to the change of zoning for the property at 2086 Ocean Westway from the "B -2" General Business to General Commercial (CG) with an exception for Vehicle Sales and Leasing (Schedule E). Mr. Williams provided the Committee with a printed copy of their presentation (see attachments), and indicated he was requesting the subject property be zoned Commercial Corridor (CC) in the final Zoning By -law. He indicated that in the initial draft of ZoneSJ, released in October 2013, the subject property was zoned CC and as such he wanted to retain this zoning as he felt this is what he currently has. He also indicated he had proceeded with making plans for the property based on the draft CC zone, which included acquiring a building permit and having an appraisal of the property completed. 324 _2_ Mr. Williams also indicated that there is a cluster of properties near his property along Manawagonish Road that had B -2 General Business zoning and have through this process been zoned Commercial Corridor (CC), including a City works depot. Mr. Williams indicated that he felt this was not a fair approach and he requested his property be zoned CC as well in the final draft. Mr. Rick Turner then addressed the Committee as Mr. Williams' representative and indicated agreement with Mr. Williams' comments. Mr. Turner then spoke to the Commercial Corridor policies in the Municipal Plan and advised that he considered these consistent with Mr. Williams' business, given the auto - oriented nature of his business and the location adjacent to the highway. As such, Mr. Turner supported Mr. Williams' request for Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning on the property with an exception granted through Schedule E: List of Exceptions for his residence. Mr. Turner also drew a parallel to the cluster of properties located on Manawagonish Road, east of the highway interchange including the new City works depot, as properties containing similar uses to Mr. Williams' that are proposed to be zoned Commercial Corridor (CC). Mr. Turner proposed that section 39 conditions could be added to Mr. Williams' property through this process to provide him with CC zoning. The Committee asked for clarification in terms of the process to deal with site - specific requests for zone changes. Ms. Forfar indicated that the draft Zoning By- law was before the Committee as a whole for a recommendation to Council. She advised that the Committee could certainly provide a recommendation that a change should be made on a specific property, however, ultimately the authority for these changes rests with Council. The Committee asked for more details with respect to the actual impact of the by- law on this property. Ms. Forfar indicated this area is designated Stable Residential in the Municipal Plan and is located west of the highway and beyond any areas designated Commercial Corridor. As such, the property was ultimately proposed to be zoned from the existing B -2 General Business zone to the new General Commercial (CG) zone. She indicated that these zones are virtually identical with the exception of the Vehicle Sales and Leasing land use. To ensure Mr. Williams' existing legal business was accommodated through this process, this land use was granted an exception and added to Schedule E in the draft by- law. Ms. Forfar explained that by doing this, in her opinion, the landowner has virtually lost nothing through this process. Ms. Forfar also explained that the Commercial Corridor (CC) zone is intended to accommodate a range of intensive commercial and industrial activities that are not appropriate for this site as it is designated Stable Residential in the Municipal Plan. The October working draft of the by -law did propose to spot zone the site Commercial Corridor (CC), however this was quickly recognized as an error and the landowner was notified of the proposed change. Ms. Forfar indicated that staff had been back and forth with the landowner over the last year on this matter. 325 -3- Ms. Forfar further indicated that the ZoneSJ process was not intended to intensify sites of this magnitude, as there is a public application process for such a proposal that provides the opportunity to apply conditions where necessary. Ms. Forfar advised that should the Committee wish to recommend consideration of this site - specific change they would need to recommend both a Plan Amendment and a rezoning be advanced to accommodate this site - specific request. The Committee inquired as to the applicant's intent for advancing this zone change through this process. Mr. Turner indicated that it is an avenue to ask for the change and he felt there were uses in the CC zone that were consistent with Mr. Williams' business. He then indicated that they thought they would ask and see if it was acceptable to PAC and Council. Mr. Williams then approached the podium and indicated that he had spoken with planning staff about his plans to advance uses permitted in the CC zone and wanted the security of this zone as his business grows. He also indicated the cluster on Manawagonish Road was given CC zoning through this process but they are currently zoned B -2 General Business as well. The Committee indicated to Mr. Williams that this process is not an application process for this site and as such, there is no staff report available and no notice to neighbours has been provided in which to take guidance from when recommending such a change. The Committee asked for clarification from staff as to whether or not this is something that should go through an application process for a decision as there was concern in dealing with a site specific inquiry with limited information available upon which to base a decision. Ms. Forfar indicated that the process this evening is with respect to the draft Zoning By -law and not specifically an application for this property. She advised that the request for CC zoning on this site triggers a requirement for a Plan amendment as well, which will require additional advertising and notification. Ms. Forfar also advised that the cluster of properties on Manawagonish Road that Mr. Williams had referenced was proposed to have a mix of Utility & Service (US) and Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning as this particular cluster was designated Stable Commercial in the Municipal Plan and as such the proposed zones were appropriate. The Committee proposed that Mr. Williams' request for CC zoning to accommodate his growing business should be dealt with through the public application process. The Committee further advised Mr. Williams that based on what they have heard and understood is that his business has been accommodated through this process with the proposed General Commercial (CG) zone and the exception for Vehicle Sales and Leasing. The Committee asked for clarification from staff with respect to this. Ms. Forfar advised the Committee that yes, the property has been zoned a similar zone to what is there today and granted an exception for vehicle sales and leasing to ensure this land use would not become a legal non - conforming land use through this process. The Committee then asked for the next speaker. 326 -4- Mr. Bev Purinton 210 Lakewood Avenue, Lakewood Heights Mr. Bev Purinton approached the podium and indicated that through the ZoneSJ process, Rural (RU) zoning was proposed for his 50 -acre property and he disagreed with this. He indicated water and sewage services were at his property line and he had an existing approval for 10 lots on part of his property. He indicated to the Committee that he wanted to be able to develop the balance of his property in the future. Mr. Purinton explained that there were some servicing constraints with a lift station however; his engineering study indicated that his property could be serviced. Mr. Purinton indicated that he wanted to see the Primary Development Area (PDA) moved to include his property and the existing residential zoning retained to allow his property to develop in the future. He indicated that should the proposed Rural (RU) zone be approved then staff would be obligated to recommend turning down an application for development of his land in the future. He also indicated he understood the direction of PIanSJ and the requirements for higher density development however there were two applications that were approved on Loch Lomond Road during the PIanSJ process that only required single - family housing. Mr. Purinton further indicated he would accept Future Development (FD) zoning on his property rather than Rural (RU) zoning as he felt residents in Lakewood Heights do not want rural land uses or higher density housing. He referred to his letter to Council (included in the PAC submissions) and he wanted to know why his property was not being zoned Future Development (FD) as this zone would still require him to go through an application process for development and staff would not be obligated to recommend denial of his application. The Committee asked Mr. Purinton about his timefiame for development. Mr. Purinton indicated he had an application before Council in 2010 to develop the property and he felt that if the market had not changed, he would have had development on the property today. He referenced the other developments along Loch Lomond Road that were approved during the development of PIanSJ and indicated that they had only seen a few lots develop since they were approved. Mr. Purinton indicated he was not sure exactly when he would be able to develop his property given the market, however, he felt the FD zone would provide the ability to move an application forward when the market was ready. The Committee asked staff for clarification as to the application of the Future Development (FD) zone on this property. Ms. Forfar indicated that she and Mr. Purinton had only recently connected through voicemail after his letter was submitted to Council. She explained that Mr. Purinton's property is located on the edge of the PDA and that the PDA included the 10 approved lots but it did not take in the balance of the undeveloped land. 327 -5- In terms of the application of the Future Development (FD) zone, Ms. Forfar explained that this zone had been applied to large, undeveloped property inside the Primary Development Area (PDA) and the Rural (RU) zone had been applied to large, undeveloped property outside the PDA. Because the undeveloped portion of Mr. Purinton's property fell outside of the PDA it had been proposed to be zoned Rural (RU). Mr. Purinton indicated he understood this and he was looking for flexibility with the PDA. He advised that he understood Council had turned down the larger application for his property for development based on the outcome of his 2010 application. The feedback came from higher density housing being proposed and infrastructure challenges with the area including the need for a lift station to be upgraded to accommodate his proposal. He indicated that he thought the PDA was conceptual and general in nature and as such, he was looking for flexibility in how this was applied to his property. The Committee confirmed he was asking for flexibility and indicated that he can always put an application forward to change the PDA boundary. The Committee advised him that staff would not be obligated to turn an application down and may recommend it if the balance of the development is in line with the goals of PtanSJ. The Committee indicated there is always an avenue through a public application process to consider his proposal. The Committee referred to staff when asked how staff made the decision to apply the Rural (RU) zone to his property. Ms. Forfar indicated that the undeveloped portion of Mr. Purinton's property was excluded from the PDA at the time the Plan was adopted because of a significant infrastructure deficit in this area. She further indicated that the Future Development zone is only available inside the PDA for large, undeveloped tracts of land and the Rural (RU) zone is only available outside the PDA for large, undeveloped tracts of land. Mr. Purinton indicated that the PDA was established tightly to his property line but he did not understand why because he needed to pay for the infrastructure upgrade. He indicated he is still not clear as to why his property had been proposed to be zoned Rural (RU) because the area has infrastructure, public streets to the property, road accesses, and schools and that development had been approved to the west of his property. There were no more questions from the Committee and as such, the Committee asked for the next speaker. M -b- Mr. Paul Moore Commercial Properties Ltd. Strescon, Ashburn Lake Road Mr. Moore indicated he understood this was a large project with a large scope and congratulated the staff in putting it all together. He then proceeded through the presentation that was included in the Committee's package of submissions. He indicated the primary issue before the Committee was the need for a housekeeping amendment to PlanSJ as it affected the operations of Strescon. Mr. Moore further explained that the lands in question were owned by Strescon and were two parcels - parcel A and parcel B - that were divided by Marsh Creek. The key issue was that ZoneSJ proposes to zone one of the pieces (parcel B) from Heavy Industrial (IH) to Future Development (FD), which would effectively stop the growth of the business. Mr. Moore explained that it is their understanding that parcel B has been proposed to be rezoned from Heavy Industrial (IH) to Future Development (FD) because the parcel has been designated Future Development in the Municipal Plan. However, he indicated the land is currently being used and is being prepared for future use by Strescon. Mr. Moore indicated that the parcels were purchased from the City in exchange for the construction of dykes a number of decades ago. The intent of this exchange was to provide Strescon with additional storage yard space for their operations. The dyke construction and land exchange was concluded in 1983 and the City was given an easement over the Strescon land to repair and maintain the dykes. The land was then re- designated and rezoned for heavy industrial uses by Strescon through a planning process. Mr. Moore indicated that parcel A is completely used for operations and that Strescon is currently preparing the low -lying area on parcel B for future operations. He reiterated that without the use of parcel B, the business had no place to expand. Mr. Moore posed the question that, given the parcel's location, what else could it be used for other than their operation. He went on to indicate that Strescon is an important part of the economy as it employs up to 200 employees and contributes over $500,000 /year in property taxes. Mr. Moore then reiterated that they are requesting a housekeeping amendment to the Plan to retain the Heavy Industrial (IH) zone on parcel B. Based on their understanding of the Plan, it is being used for Strescon purposes and as such it should be kept for this use. The Committee asked staff for clarification as to why the property has been proposed to be rezoned to Future Development (FD). Ms. Forfar indicated that this property was intentionally designated Future Development when the Plan was adopted as it is a large, undeveloped property. As such, the proposed Future Development (FD) zone was applied to implement this designation. Ms. Forfar further indicated that a 1991 application on this property (parcel B) approved quarrying for Strescon's use and it was clear in the report that use of the property for Strescon operations was not intended at that time. 329 _7_ Ms. Forfar explained that parcel A was intentionally included in the Heavy Industrial designation and the subsequent Hea %y Industrial (IH) zone as it is a developed part of the Strescon operation. Parcel B however was not contemplated to be included as part of the Strescon operation based on the 1991 application. Ms. Forfar further explained that excavation is permitted through the Future Development (FD) zone and as such, the approved existing use for quarrying had been retained through this process. However, given the designation of Future Development on this property it was not appropriate to retain heavy industrial zoning on it through this process. The Committee indicated to Mr. Moore that Strescon is not limited in making future applications to rezone the land at any time when a new use is required outside of those previously approved in 1991. To rezone the land at this meeting without notification and input of the public, and a report from staff on the impacts of the development would be premature. Also, because the property would require an amendment to the municipal plan designation, this is outside the scope of the Special Meeting convened to review the proposed ZoneSJ bylaw. Several Committee members indicated general agreement with Mr. Moore in that the use of the property by Strescon is a logical use, however, the goals and intent of PlanSJ and what ZoneSJ is intended to do is to limit expansion of Heavy Industrial uses in the PDA without approval through a public application and review process. The Committee asked Mr. Moore if he was aware of the 1991 report that staff referenced. Mr. Moore indicated that he was aware there was a reference to quarrying and that yes that was going on. Mr. Moore also indicated there was no laydown occurring on parcel B, as that was occurring on parcel A and that parcel B was instead being prepared for expansion at this time. The Committee indicated that should Strescon want to expand their operations to parcel B they will need to advance this through an application process in the future. Mr. Moore indicated that they did that decades ago and that he felt they should not have to proceed through another process. The Committee advised that the community and expectations change over time and that P1anSJ and ZoneSJ are a reflection of those changes. Mr. Moore asked for clarification in terms of the intended uses in areas zoned Future Development. Ms. Forfar indicated that the Future Development zone is a holding zone and it is intended that over time these large undeveloped tracts of land will develop through an application process. Ms. Forfar explained that there are adjacent landowners in this area and that any expansion of the Strescon operation could be considered through the Future Development zone as it is intended to facilitate future development. She further indicated that when Strescon is ready to advance an expansion onto this property, it would require an application for a Plan Amendment and a rezoning to Heavy Industrial. The Committee reiterated there is a public application process for considering developments of this type and asked for the next speaker. 330 -8- Mr. Stephen Horgan Meltone Inc., MST Holdings Inc., Somerset Investments Ltd. Dowd and Hovey Group of Companies Mr. Horgan approached the podium and indicated he was representing three companies, generally known as the Dowd and Hovey Group of Companies. They participated with staff in this process, receiving a letter dated January 24, 2014 addressed to Mr. Rick Turner advising of the direction for each property. Mr. Horgan went on to explain that his clients felt that eight of the properties had been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, however, there were three properties that they were concerned with. Mr. Horgan advised that approximately 170 acres of property at 520 -550 Somerset Street (2 PIDs), 560 Somerset Street (1 PID), 600 and 700 -750 Somerset Street (7 PIDs) had been proposed to be rezoned from Light Industrial to General Commercial (CG) in the new Zoning By -law. Mr. Horgan acknowledged that he had been retained late in this process. He explained that the properties in question mainly front Somerset Street and then go back quite a distance to where the Millidgeville fire station is and then out to Samuel Davis Drive and back to the old Howe's Lake dumpsite. He reiterated that his client's general concern is that the vast majority of these properties have been rezoned from Light Industrial to General Commercial (CG) in the draft Zoning By -law. Mr. Horgan went on to explain that they felt it was too broad a brush stroke to do this and the new zone is extremely narrow in the permitted uses compared to the existing Light Industrial zone. The present Light Industrial zone has 97 permitted uses and 50 conditional uses for a total of 147 uses. In the new CG zone there are only 37 permitted uses listed. Mr. Horgan confirmed that much of the property is currently vacant however most of it that fronts Somerset has existing uses. He indicated that his clients preference is that they retain the industrial zoning, however, if they are rezoned, they want a more detailed list of exceptions provided to accommodate the existing businesses. Mr. Horgan indicated that the land in question is generally located off by itself, access is restricted to much of it, and it is generally isolated, lending itself to industrial uses. With the proposed rezoning, this would be lost. He indicated that his client could create buffers with the property for future industrial uses and suggested the application of the proposed Medium Industrial (IM) or Light Industrial (IL) zone instead. He also indicated the need for a housekeeping item at 535 Somerset Street (PID 55116859) in that a small sliver of land had not been noted in the letter of January 24, 2014. He requested that staff address this before the final package goes to Council. In closing, Mr. Horgan indicated that the group of companies employ many people and they pay roughly $80,000 /year in property taxes. Their general wish is that the industrial zoning remains and the properties are not rezoned 331 la commercial. If this does happen, they want to be very detailed in the description of the exceptions that are permitted by these properties. The Committee asked Mr. Horgan how much of the land that is zoned industrial today is actually in operation for industrial uses now. Mr. Horgan indicated that in terms of the acreage, a lot of it is not currently being used for industrial purposes but could not specify a specific total area. He went onto explain that all of the properties along Somerset Street are presently in use for different businesses. The exceptions are all worded the same way (Warehouse Facility or Outdoor Storage Yard). His client feels it should be more detailed because more goes on than what is captured in those exceptions and as such they want to expand the list of uses permitted in the exceptions list. They will be forwarding a letter to staff and Council with that request. Mr. Horgan reiterated that his clients would prefer to keep the industrial zoning in place and not have any exceptions. He realized that that is not the direction of PlanSJ or the Zoning By -lave but he said he hopes the Committee can appreciate this is a substantial shift for his clients. It has been about 40 years since the last full scale rezoning has taken place. The Committee explained to Mr. Horgan that they hope he understands the PlanSJ process as there is a new vision for this neighbourhood. Members further indicated that there is a lot of investment going into this area, including the new YMCA, that is moving it away from industrial uses and that this is part of the logic behind the proposed zoning change. The Committee indicated that the landowner is not restricted from applying for a rezoning in the future should they wish to develop the subject properties in a different manner than what is permitted and envisioned in PlanSJ. The application process must take into account the neighbourhood context, the Municipal Plan, and public feedback; as a result, this request is outside the scope of this Special Meeting. The small housekeeping items can be addressed but ZoneSJ is the implementation of the vision in PlanSJ and, as such, it is driven by the Municipal Plan. Mr. Horgan indicated this can cause delays for property owners. The Committee asked for clarification from staff concerning the list of exceptions. Ms. Forfar indicated that staff will certainly follow up about the sliver of land that Mr. Horgan has indicated was not included in the letter. She also indicated that the wording in the list of exceptions was kept general, as it was consistent with the general industrial uses in operation. Ms. Forfar indicated that this area was designated Local Centre during the PlanSJ review process and is a departure from the past industrial uses in the area. Stacey Forfar further indicated that it was unfortunate that the letter Mr. Horgan was referencing is dated January 24, 2014 and that staff had not had any response from the property owners since it was sent. In this letter, an invitation was extended to discuss the proposed use of the site. She also advised the general wording for the exceptions does leave flexibility but that staff would be available for further discussions after the meeting. The Committee then asked for the next speaker. 332 -10- Mr. Rick Turner Hughes Surveys & Consultants Mr. Turner indicated he was working with a client Eli Capital regarding a Manawagonish Road property and was pleased with the use of the exceptions list. He further indicated that he will follow up with staff on this. Mr. Turner then indicated that these types of processes can be negative and that he wanted to provide some positive comments about PlanSJ. The proposal to streamline through this process and the longer list of clearer definitions are going to ensure a reduction in similar /compatible use applications, meaning less red tape for applicants. He indicated this was important because sometimes the timing involved can bring projects to a halt, as delays are always a problem for developers. He also indicated that it will also free -up staff to do some tangible projects and help the community move forward. Mr. Turner also indicated that he felt the amenity space standards were a real bonus, particularly with our seasonal weather, providing credit for indoor space was positive. He also indicated the mix of uses in the new By -law was another real bonus as it allows projects to change with economic conditions and adjust accordingly. He went on to indicate that these were just a couple of examples and that there were many good things in the draft Zoning By -law. Most of the issues tonight are property specific, but dealing with the By -law criteria is very good. Mr. Rick Turner J.D. Irving Ltd. Mr. Turner then indicated that he had also had the pleasure of working through the PlanSJ and ZoneSJ processes with J.D. Irving Ltd. He indicated that they had started with staff first and that J.D. Irving had taken a focused approach to understand the impacts on their property. Mr. Turner then advised that staff were tremendous as they spent a lot of time with them and he felt it was a very good process. J.D. Irving staff had asked specifically for him to advise the Committee of this tonight. He also indicated that the industrial peer review that had taken place as part of ZoneSJ process was a big help and that the new Medium Industrial (IM) zone was good. He also indicated that the proposed setback criteria and the removal of the height restriction in the heavy industrial zone was a positive change, as it will prevent triggering height variances with these facilities. Mr. Steve Carson CEO, Enterprise Saint John Mr. Carson indicated that having an up -to -date and modern Plan and Zoning By- law were critical tools in the economic tool kit for the community. He advised that he had had the pleasure of working through the PlanSJ process with staff and is pleased with what he has read about ZoneSJ. He indicated that the Enterprise 333 -11- Saint John mandate was focused on implementation of the True Growth 2.0 process and as they look at PlanSJ and ZoneSJ, they see all of this as being very complementary to the key outcomes of these processes including job creation, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Mr. Carson also advised that he felt the proposed One Stop Development Shop will also play a role in encouraging investment and that tonight was not just about a new Zoning By -law for the community but it was also about promoting economic investment. Mr. Carson reiterated that this direction was consistent with the economic development vision in True Growth 2.0 as it highlighted the importance of a vibrant and authentic, dense urban core. Mr. Carson then acknowledged the importance of the large -scale energy projects that have been recognized in the PlanSJ and ZoneSJ documents and that they are very encouraged with discussions with staff in that there is a process for new proposals to be considered. He also indicated that there seemed to be a new culture that has taken root in City hall that supports a new spirit of cooperation and collaboration and they were optimistic that people who have projects that are outside of the lines today, will get a fair look through a process in the future. No further speakers came forward. The Committee then thanked members of the public for their attendance this evening. No further comments from the Committee with respect to property specific inquiries were put forward and no recommendations were brought forward for Councils consideration concerning the property specific requests heard this evening. The Committee Chair then asked for each Committee member to provide their comments on the Zoning By- law for consideration. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Eric Falkjar indicated that he was pleased with the comments heard this evening and highlighted a number of improvements to the document raised earlier by Mr. Carson and Mr. Turner. He advised that having gone through this process as both a PAC member and as a citizen he found staff very good to work with and very professional in how they assimilated comments into the final draft of the Zoning By -law. Mr. Falkjar highlighted the wording with the new landscaping standards as providing good guidance moving forward. Mr. Falkjar also indicated that although amenity space may be seen as a challenge by some in the development industry because it sets aside non - rentable floor space inside of a building, it will improve the overall housing stock and will up- scale buildings. He also indicated that he was pleased to see standards for electronic message boards included as it will now provide clear guidance on these signs going forward. Mr. Falkjar also indicated that the streetscape alignment standard, to ensure infill development aligns with neighbouring properties, was another good standard in the draft By -law. In general Mr. Falkjar indicated that he felt a lot of the things he had provided input into earlier on in the process were assimilated into the document and he was pleased with how it had been done. 334 -12- Mr. Falkjar then indicated that although he was pleased with most of the document he would like to see the proposed exclusion of new one -unit dwellings in the Urban Centre Residential (RC) zone eliminated. He indicated he understood the intention behind this however he thought it was too hard because of the number of small infill lots in neighbourhoods where he felt one -unit dwellings were most appropriate. He indicated support for one -units in the downtown area siting a reference to a one -unit home at the corner of Germain Street and Princess Street, built to look like a historic building. Ms. Anne McShane indicated her support for Mr. Falkjar's concern for the exclusion of one -unit dwellings in the RC zone and advised she too would like to see this removed to permit new one -unit dwellings. Ms. McShane also indicated her concern for the Pit and Quarry (PQ) zone and proposed an accompanying recommendation to support re- opening this discussion. Ms. McShane also expressed support for more enforcement of the Zoning By -law and the development of a comprehensive package of development incentives in the future. Ms. McShane then asked for clarity concerning the absence of rail setbacks in the draft Zoning By -law and asked how this would be addressed with new development. Ms. Forfar indicated that because the community was significantly built -up around existing rail lines, depending on how far a new setback went it could have significant impacts in terms of non - conforming uses on existing property owners. She advised that staff felt the most appropriate time to introduce rail setbacks would be at the time of subdivision for new lots. Ms. McShane then asked for clarity in terms of how the By -law would treat re- investment in large, existing parking lots on commercial sites. Ms. Forfar clarified that the question concerns how the By -law will deal with re- investment in established, large commercial sites such as when an existing building is torn down and a new one proposed. Ms. Forfar advised that in terms of triggering wide -scale site improvements, the By -law is not retroactive. As such, if the proposal triggered a planning application, such as a variance application, there is an opportunity to approve conditions requiring upgraded landscaping in context with the application. As an example, if a side yard variance was triggered then it could be appropriate to recommend upgraded landscaping along the impacted side yard. Where a proposal has not triggered a planning application because it meets the standards in the By -law, it is simply a Building Permit process. Ms. McShane sought further clarity siting the example of the Lansdowne Place commercial plaza, specifically examples such as the freestanding Subway or Tim Horton's, requesting a better understanding of the opportunity to require landscaping around a specific new development. Ms. Forfar indicated that it depends on what has been proposed and that unless a proposal triggered a planning application, it would proceed through a building permit process. Ms. Forfar further advised that as an example there are new standards for drive -thrus and that any new drive -thru proposal would be subject to those new standards, but reiterated the ability to require whole -scale site improvements is limited in these circumstances. 335 -13- Mr. Andrew Miller echoed member's comments in that there were many good things in the By- lave. Mr. Miller then indicated he was looking to advance the need for the City to invest in open data through implementation of the One Stop Development Shop program. He advised that this would be an ideal time to advance this as the project will be looking at how, why and where data is being stored. He further indicated that allowing open access to City data is important, especially as Saint John is recognized as a strong centre for information technology. Having open data will make the City more accessible, the data more instantly available, and allow users to see metrics and information in real time. Mr. Keith Brideau thanked staff for the work done on the project. He then indicated his concerns with the proposed amenity space requirements in the draft Zoning By -law. He indicated that he would like to see staff justify the need for additional amenity space in the Uptown because he felt there is a better quality of life here already and that additional amenity space was perhaps not needed. He further advised the Committee that he considered the requirement to be a barrier for developers because of the additional cost. Mr. Brideau then advised that he felt in certain parts of the City amenity space may be needed but he did not think it was needed in the Uptown as there is a high quality of life offered here already. Mr. Brideau then asked for clarity with the final recommendations for the parking exemption area in the Uptown. Ms. Forfar clarified that the 20% reduction proposed in the Intensification Areas was still proposed and the expanded parking exemption area in the Uptown, that increased this area approximately 10 -fold, had also been retained. Mr. Brideau expressed his support for the expansion of the exemption area in the Uptown, Mr. Brideau continued and expressed his interest in ensuring that everything is being done to make it easier for developers to invest in the core, as there had been a lack of investment for many years and exemptions do make a big difference to support investment. He then recommended that staff clearly communicate to people who are impacted through the new Zoning By -law that they can still make an application to advance their proposal. He expressed his desire to ensure people were aware that there is a process to consider their proposal at any time. Mr. Brideau also indicated his support to provide more flexibility in the Heritage By -law for heritage property owners. He referenced one single family home that was built in the last fifty years in the heritage area Uptown and his desire to see more infill development in this area. He indicated that he did not support making new buildings look like old buildings and that other cities allow new projects that fit in that are not heritage - looking type buildings. He also expressed his desire to ensure that there is an open mind to new development in the Trinity Royal Preservation Area. He further advised that there was about 21 acres of vacant land in the core area and it would be nice to see development here in the future. 336 -14- Mr. Morgan Lanigan then indicated that he would like to share comments included in a two -page email from an absent Committee member, Mr. Dave Drinnan, but that it would be at the discretion of present Committee Members to motion any of Mr. Drinnan's comments. Mr. Lanigan then summarized Mr. Drinnan's email: He indicated there were about 5 different issues with the first one being his support for the elimination of parking minimums as he felt that, although they had been reduced already in the proposed By -law, parking has a detrimental effect on density in areas such as Uptown. Secondly, there was concern expressed with the modifications proposed to the urban chicken standards as he felt the changes were creating an animal welfare issue because they would rely on education and regulatory compliance. Thirdly, Mr. Drinnan expressed concerns with accessibility standards and requested that they be included in the Zoning By -law. Fourth, he advised that he would like to see the Pit and Quarry issue be revisited to modernize the requirements. Fifth, he felt that amenity space requirements should be minimized in the Uptown area, in line with the comments form Mr. Brideau. Lastly, Mr. Drinnan indicated he would like to see the city adopt increased standards for wetland, watershed, and flood mitigation above and beyond those legislated by other levels of government. Ms. McShane championed the addition of the requirement for a two- chicken minimum and to see the adoption of a wetland policy for the City. Ms. McShane asked staff for clarity with respect to the proposal for accessibility standards and requested clarity in terms of if Council was pursuing an accessibility standard. Ms. Forfar indicated that many accessibility standards are related to buildings and, as such, are included in the National Building Code. The Zoning By -law deals specifically with site development standards and the new Zoning by -law includes such things as barrier -free parking space requirements. She further indicated that activities in the right -of -way are regulated separately. Ms. Jacqueline Hamilton then indicated that Council made a referral at a recent Council meeting requesting that staff provide a report that identifies all of the ways in which the City is currently addressing accessibility through standards in By -laws, policy or program delivery. Ms. Hamilton indicated the intent is that it will be an information piece. Ms. McShane indicated that she would like to find a balanced approach to amenity space in the urban area. Ms. Forfar indicated as a note of information that the amenity space requirements can always be applied to be varied through an application process and reviewed the Planning Advisory Committee on a case -by- case basis. She further indicated that amenity space requirements already exist today in the current Zoning Bylaw, they have just evolved, as the current standards are considered to be outdated. She advised that when intensification in urban areas takes place, amenity space requirements in multi -unit developments become very important as lower density forms of housing such as single - family homes have amenity space included. 337 -15- Mr. Morgan Lanigan then advised that he was very pleased to be here this evening to see this through and be a part of this process. He advised that the Zoning By -law is a key implementation piece of PlanSJ and that this is taking a large step forward for this community. He also indicated that the By -law will be helpful for the future, as it will ensure that the Committee is not dealing with an old Zoning By -law and a new Municipal Plan. He thanked everyone again for their significant time and feedback and advised that with the amount of feedback received, he felt the final document reflected the wishes of the community. Mr. Lanigan then advised that he was generally in favour of the By -law but had some thoughts on a few issues. He advised that he would like to see Council look at parking in urban areas in more detail and he supported Mr. Drinnan's request tc eliminate parking minimums. He advised that although this seems like a drastic departure from the typical approach, it was becoming a best practice in many other municipalities across North America particularly as municipalities move away from suburban parking standards and Saint John could be on the leading edge. He advised that parking requires land that takes away from the ability to build buildings to generate more tax revenue and make dense, walkable communities. Mr. Lanigan also noted that the proposed zoning bylaw, as currently written, would require any existing building that is demolished or burned down to require on -site parking, whether or not that site previously contained on -site parking. He expressed concern that this requirement could reduce the density of key areas, such as the Upto',Am, Old North End, and Lower West Side over time by requiring space for parking. He advised that he would like to see a provision that would allow a building to be re- built, if it was destroyed by fire or demolition, to have the same parking requirements that were provided on site in its pre- existing state to ensure the existing density would be retained on that site. He also advised that he would like to see the proposed 125% cap for required parking for lots with 100 or more parking spaces be a standard that is applied to all parking lots, regardless of their size. He cited his concern with a parking lot that had a requirement for 99 or less spaces in that there would be no provision to prevent the developer from putting in an unlimited number of parking spaces. He reiterated that having a maximum cap for all parking lots will reduce the area of asphalt and allow for more land to be developed with buildings that generate tax revenue (intent; to avoid oversized parking lots in key urban and intensification areas). Mr. Lanigan then indicated his support for shared parking between commercial and residential uses and highlighted that a targeted study and master plan on parking needs is required to be completed in the future. Ms. McShane clarified how to address these issues as part of a motion this evening and indicated her support for a provision to permit burned buildings to be replaced without requirements for parking and implementation of parking maximums. She also indicated that the parking issue may be addressed through the Master Transportation Plan that is underway. : -16- Mr. Lanigan then went over the list of PAC issues that had been identified through their discussion, and identified the following: (a) Permit new one -unit dwellings in the Urban Centre Residential (RC) zone; (b) Re -visit the Pit and Quarry zone to bring them in line with community expectations; (c) Ensure there will be enforcement of the Zoning By -law; (d) Develop a comprehensive package of development incentives; (e) Address rail setbacks in the Subdivision By -law review process; (f) Review the standards for construction of buildings within existing parking lots (landscaping and beautification); (g) Integrate open data through the implementation of the One Stop program; (h) Reduce or eliminate amenity space requirements in the Uptown area; (i) Provide a communication piece with impacted property owners about the application process; (j) Review the Heritage By -law to increase flexibility and facilitate urban investment; (k) Maintain the requirement for a two- chicken minimum in the Zoning By -law; (1) Increase the community standard for wetland protection; and (m) Do not require new on -site parking for a replacement building where the original building has burned down or been torn down. Mr. Lanigan reviewed the options for a recommendation by the Committee and then asked if members were ready to formulate a motion for consideration. Ms. McShane proposed to move staff recommendation with three additional amendments for change: (a) Permit new one -unit dwellings in the Urban Centre Residential (RC) zone; (b) Do not require new on -site parking requirements for a replacement building where the original has burned down in the intensification areas; and (c) Maintain the requirement for a two - chicken minimum. Mr. Falkjar proposed options in terms of how to address the issues that relate specifically to the Zoning By -law versus the other issues that are outside of the Zoning By -law that the Committee would like to have forwarded onto Council for their consideration. The Committee discussed how best to bring forward the motions as a group. It was decided to withdraw the first motion. Mr. Falkjar indicated his support for the proposed amenity space standards and asked to better understand how a reduced amenity space requirement, as proposed by other Committee members, could be accommodated in the Uptown core. 339 -17- Mr. Brideau indicated that there are facilities such as fitness and art galleries in the Uptown and advised that as a developer himself he understood the need for amenity space. However he questioned why he would provide a gym in one of his developments when there is other large fitness centres in the Uptown. He then indicated his support for the free market and advised that he provides amenity space in his developments because the market wants it, however, he did not think it was appropriate that he would be required to provide this. He further advised that the requirement works against the return on investment and if the bar is continually raised for developers then it will get them away from investing in some areas. Given that many of the areas in Uptown already have a good quality of life he questioned the need for a developer to provide additional space. Mr. Brideau then indicated that he understood the need for amenity space in more suburban or rural areas given the distance from services but reiterated that he did not understand the requirement for it in the Uptown (intent: as it could diminish demand for businesses already providing such amenities). Ms. McShane asked for clarity with how the Committee could propose to reduce or eliminate amenity space. Ms. Forfar indicated that staff are avid proponents of the standards for amenity space, and that they do understand it is an additional cost, however, the experience in the development shop indicates that the new standards will reward developers for what they are already doing. She indicated that wealthy projects will always provide amenity space however the Zoning By- law sets a minimum community standard for this requirement regardless of income to ensure people have equal access to private and public amenity space inside their buildings. Ms. Forfar suggested that the Committee should attach any proposal to reduce or eliminate the requirement for amenity space in a defined area, such as that defined by Schedule C Uptown Parking Exemption Area or Schedule D Intensification Area for the Waterloo and Southern Peninsula. Alternatively the Committee could attach the elimination or reduction to a zone such as the RC zone. Ms. McShane indicated that she did not want to negatively affect those who are providing amenity space. Mr. Brideau indicated that he was in favour of a free market approach to this and preferred to eliminate the requirement for amenity space in the Uptown area. Ms. Forfar confirmed for the Committee that if amenity space is not a requirement it is simply not a consideration as part of a review process. Mr. Brideau reiterated that he is not in favour of a reduction but rather he wanted to see an elimination of the requirement in Uptown as he felt there was no shortage of amenities in the Uptown and proposed to use Schedule C and D as the area to define this. Mr. Lanigan proposed an exploration of parking minimums as part of a motion for Council to consider. Ms. McShane proposed another motion for the Committees consideration: to move staff recommendation with four additional amendments for change: M -18- (a) Permit new one -unit dwellings in the Urban Centre Residential (RC) zone; (b) Not require on -site parking for a replacement buildings in Schedule D: Intensification Area (Waterloo Village and Peninsula); (c) Maintain the requirement for a two - chicken minimum; and (d) Eliminate the amenity space requirement in the areas identified on Schedule D: Intensification Area (Waterloo Village and Peninsula). Mr. Brideau raised the issue of providing a further reduction of parking beyond the 20% provided in the intensification areas. He questioned whether the 20% was adequate or not and advised that he felt this was not enough for this area. Ms. McShane indicated support with a market - driven approach; however, she indicated her concern that there is not the appetite to pursue it at this time. She also supported this as an item for further review. Mr. Falkjar indicated support for the staff recommendation in the By -law. He indicated that he views the parking issue as being more complex and he supported a broader review of parking needs prior to making further changes at this time. He indicated his support for the approach taken in the draft By -law as being a step in the right direction at this time. Mr. Miller also expressed support for a free - market approach as there is not a lot of infill taking place and that he did not feel there is built -up demand for parking. Mr. Lanigan indicated support for more parking to be provided on street. Mr. Falkjar indicated he is not in favour of more surface parking lots or tearing down building for surface parking. He reiterated he felt parking is a bigger issue and advocated for a more strategic parking review to take place in the Uptown prior to making further changes at this time. Ms. McShane indicated that she would not support an elimination of parking requirements but would entertain an appropriate reduction. Mr. Brideau supported Mr. Falkjar in that parking is a more complex issue. He indicated he believed there is a shortage of development, not parking, and he would support a further reduction beyond the 20% proposed. He indicated his support to reducing parking rather than saying no to a development and indicated the new project at the corner of Waterloo and Golding Street as an example. He further advised parking is very expensive and used the new parking garage as an example, advising that the cost affects the return for investors and can discourage investment. He indicated that developers are in the best position to know what makes sense financially for a project. He agreed that conditions to ensure a building looks great are good but he cautioned against setting the bar too high so that investors can't make the numbers work and do not invest. He reiterated he was not convinced the 20% reduction was enough. Mr. Falkjar reiterated his support for a comprehensive parking strategy for the Uptown and that a proposal for a further reduction can be handled through a parking variance process. Mr. Brideau indicated he is not aware of what the right number is but would support a study to find out what the right number is and to make that change in the future. 341 -19- Ms. McShane indicated that the motion could stand and that a secondary motion could be made separately to recommend a comprehensive review of parking needs in the Uptown. Mr. Lanigan asked staff to explain how the 20% reduction for intensification areas was determined. Ms. Forfar indicated that staff did try to provide a balanced approach to this. She advised that all parking standards have now been rationalized based on national engineering standards. In the intensification areas the intent behind the 20% reduction was to provide an incentive for investment in these areas. Outside of having good technical information available at this time, it was put out as a question to a consultant as part of the peer review. The consultant came back with an option of a 15% reduction (0.85% of the standard). Staff proposed to push it slightly further with a 20% reduction (0.80 of the standard). Ms. Forfar further indicated that the Master Transportation Plan that is moving ahead will provide some guidance with parking and will help to inform potential changes with this standard in the future. She further advised the Committee that often times significant reductions in parking are brought forward alongside significant investments in transit and Saint John is on the cusp where we have not really gone in either direction just yet. She advised that staff did anticipate revisions to this number in the coming years based on the results of the Transportation Master Plan. Motion carried. Ms. McShane put forward a second motion to propose an additional series of recommendations to Council: (a) Explore further reductions in parking for areas identified in Schedule C and D (Waterloo Village /Peninsula) as part of the Transportation Master Plan; (b) Explore the opportunity for eliminating parking minimums (free- market approach) as part of the Transportation Master Plan; (c) Conduct a full review of the Pits and Quarry zone to modernize the approach; (d) Develop an improved enforcement program to better monitor development conditions imposed by Common Council and the Planning Advisory Committee; (e) Develop and promote a package of financial and I or non - financial development incentives; (f) Incorporate an open data policy into the One -Stop Development Shop program as a requirement for its implementation; (g) Develop a communication strategy for the community to reiterate the public process that is available for all applicants; (h) Conduct a thorough review of heritage by -law to modernize the approach, specifically to encourage new infill construction; 342 -20- (i) Pursue rail setbacks in conjunction with the upcoming Subdivision By -law review; 0) Review the approach to landscaping and development standards for new developments Nkithin existing parking lots; and (k) Review and develop community wetland and flood mitigation policies beyond those required by the Provincial and Federal Governments. Mr. Lanigan summarized Ms. McShane's motion and the Committee passed the motion. The Committee thanked staff and the community for their attendance and support. After considering the report, the Committee adopted an amended staff recommendation set out below. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Common Council approve the final draft of the Zoning By -law [July 2014] with the further changes identified in Appendix B, and the housekeeping amendments to the Municipal Plan identified in Appendix C, with the following four further changes: (a) Permit new one -unit dwellings in the Urban Centre Residential (RC) zone; (b) Not require on -site parking for replacement of buildings in the area as shown on Schedule D: Intensification Areas (Waterloo Village and Peninsula); (c) Include a provision in Section 9.10 requiring a minimum of two chickens; and (d) Eliminate the amenity space requirements in the area as shown on Schedule D: Intensification Areas (Waterloo Village and Peninsula). 2. That Common Council consider the following: (e) Explore further reductions in parking for areas identified in Schedule C and D (Waterloo Village /Peninsula) as part of the Transportation Master Plan; (f) Explore the opportunity for eliminating parking minimums (free- market approach) as part of the Transportation Master Plan; (g) Conduct a full review of the Pits and Quarry zone to modernize the approach; (h) Develop an improved enforcement program to better monitor development conditions imposed by Common Council and the Planning Advisory Committee; 343 -zi- (i) Develop and promote a package of financial and / or non - financial development incentives; 0) Incorporate an open data policy into the One -Stop Development Shop program as a requirement for its implementation; (k) Develop a communication strategy for the community to reiterate the public process that is available for all applicants; (1) Conduct a thorough review of heritage by -law to modernize the approach, specifically to encourage new infill construction; (m)Pursue rail setbacks in conjunction with the upcoming Subdivision By-law review; (n) Review the approach to landscaping and development standards for new developments within existing parking lots; and (o) Review and develop community wetland and flood mitigation policies beyond those required by the Provincial and Federal Governments. Respectfully t ian Chair, P M i Advisory JCo ittee M, M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 -20- I PROPERTY Specific Requests for Change to the Zoning Map Properly Mapping and Submissions I . Al Williams & Rick Turner: 2. Paul Moore: 3. Stephen Horgan: 4. Michelle Luck: S. Sean Luck: 6. Mike Francis: 7. Bev Purinton: 8. Dennis Griffin: 9. Bryce Beyea: written and oral submissions written and oral presentations oral submission written and oral submission oral submission oral submission written and oral submission written submission written submission 345 2• PROPERTY SPECIFIC Requests for Change to the Zoning Existingindustdalwarehousing Recommend property planningapplicatton Existing Secdan 39 oondidona I'm" General Commercial and outdoor storage uses consideration Map Pro posedheif rlei uses ice') accommodated through Schedule Retain light — at the time Speaker /Author Property Owner/ E; will permit transition to industrial toning Substantiv ■Change: commercial uses In the future Requires a Plan Bum i.ess 5trbmissrons Exrsunt Pla"'i Amendment and /or Suburban Residential ICG), Future Deuel men( ED °P ( ) exist( demolition debris site and Re-zone to light Rezoning processes (RS -2) ; Rural (RU) Desrgnabon Erumtrng?aning Proposed Zoning Effect of Zone51 adoption Llghtindustrial (1.1) Existing industrial warehousing Request for Change Staff Analysis Stet} Reaommendatron Pick Williams AI's Ui Car Sales I Substantive Change: Proposed industrial uses at the time E; will permit transition to (1.1) zone Requires a Plan Se Rick Turner &SeMoa Turner {oce9n Wr�twayi PAC Public Meeting Written Submission Council Public Hearin R VertalPresentation Stahk Residentaa! General Business (B•2) Existing Section 39 General Commercial CG;Exce ion for ( ) Pt Existing and ro sari zones g p po consistent; Rezone to Substantive Chan Change: Recommend Council add Beyond the scope Pe of Existing Vehicle Sales& GeneralCammerda! (CG) and outdoor stop Ba eat` accommodated throe Schedule Retain light industrial substantive Change: condltlens {20DIJ Vehicle Solesond existing business has beer accomoduled through Commerclol Corridor Requires a Plan Zane Sl; triggers a separate Leasing as a permitted use commercial uses in the future Amendment Leasing Schedule E (CC) zone Amendment &Rezoning planning application to the GC Tema. Recommend Process Process for community property owner make an considentian appliration; Council may waive foe ^, 2 Paul Moore Stnscon (Ashburn take Rwdl PAC Public Meeting Written Submission Nearyfndustrfal I.2 Existing quar The Section 39 conditions Council Public Hearing Verbal Presentation Urban Resern Fxistln g section 39) Future Development 39 conditions equ el ■ Section 39 Rezone to Heavy arry fanvard re rdless ire W-90 con be utilized a! Recommend Council mnditlons (19911 PD) Amendment process for any other W lndustrfaltIN) zone of the zone; change in use from Councils dfscretion, consider uses other than quarrying quarrying requires Provided crltaria have been the property to be rezoned Property to be rezoned r an amendment to the Section 39 conditions - ndsRed to the IH zone Somerset total Centre investrtnnl9 ltd. PAC Public Meeting (600 and 700.750 Caundl Public Hearing Verbal Presentation Somerset st) stephen Rural Reraurce 3 Horgan I Dowd CoGroup of mpanies Meftone lne, PAC Public Meeting 1520.650 somenet St) Councfl Public Hearing Verbal Presematlon taco! Centre MST Holdings I PAC Public Meeting ISSD Sam■net St) Council Public Hearing VerbalPnsenleffon Loml Cenre tight tndusmfot Existingindustdalwarehousing Recommend property planningapplicatton Existing Secdan 39 oondidona I'm" General Commercial and outdoor storage uses consideration process for community Council may waive fees. Pro posedheif rlei uses ice') accommodated through Schedule Retain light planningapplicatlon at the time Prates torcommunitY E; will permit transition to industrial toning Substantiv ■Change: commercial uses In the future Requires a Plan Lfghtlndustrfal (1.11; One and Two Family General Commercial 5taffproposemaaommodete the Amendment and /or Suburban Residential ICG), Future Deuel men( ED °P ( ) exist( demolition debris site and Re-zone to light Rezoning processes (RS -2) ; Rural (RU) quarry through Epriorto g Mdustda7 (IL)zone adoption Llghtindustrial (1.1) Existing industrial warehousing Existil Condng5eulon 39 Conditions limit to Genera! Commercial ICG) and outdoor storage uses accommodated through Schedule Retain tight frrdustri.f Substantive Change: Proposed industrial uses at the time E; will permit transition to (1.1) zone Requires a Plan commercial uses In the future Amendment LEindSectio (9 Existing Section 39 Existing industrial warehousing milt Cendnlons limit to GeneralCammerda! (CG) and outdoor stop Ba eat` accommodated throe Schedule Retain light industrial substantive Change: proposed Industrial uses at the time E; will permit transg'tntian to (1-1) zone RegWres a Plan commercial uses in the future Amendment Vacant Land (Loch Lomond & Council Public Hearing I written Submission Rural Resource; One and Two Family Sproule Rds) Verbal Presentation entry Is Rural Suburban Res,denti.) 4 Mirhelie luck Resident;.) (RS -1) &Rural (RP) No ability to create new lots on Lodi Lomond today; Limftad potential for up to 6 new lots on Rural (RU) Sproule Road will now be 2 lots; Subdivision requiring new roads needs a Plan Amendment and a Rezoning today and underZane Sl MC- 2014 -I63 September 29, 2014 346 Beyond the scope of me SI; Mggers a separate Recommend property Planning application owner make an application; processfarcammunity Council may waive tees. consideration Beyond the scope of one Sl; triggers a separate Recommend property planningapplicatton owner make an appitc.non; process for community Council may waive fee,, consideration process for community Council may waive fees. Beyond the scope of consideration sneSl, triggers a separate Recommend property planningapplicatlon owner make anappllwtlon;l Prates torcommunitY Council mayvrafve feet, consideration IJ Substantive change: Requires a Plan Beyond the scope of Rezone to Rural Amendment &Rezoning 20raSJ; triggers a separate Recommend property Resfdentkf iRR) process; would potentially I Planning application Owner make an apPlicatfon; result in a proposal to process for community Council may waive fees. create new public streets consideration 2. PROPERTY SPECIFIC Requests for Change to the Zoning Map iea ker, Author Property Owner/ Sllhmmtona Etus4ng Plansl dvsmess Destgnahnn Ewsnrtg Zamng Proposed Zanmg Effect of Zones) Requesi for Change Staff Analysts Staff Recommendation Vacant Land Written Submission No substanttve dlfference Council Public Hearing Rural Resource Ruruf (RF) Rural 3u Specific request with ex,:;, Rurof RF An appllcatlan may be Recommend property (Airport Arterial} Verbal Presentation ( ) Same zoning proposed g ( } unclear zone and proposed Rural made at anytime bye owner make an application; (RU) zone Property owner to develop Council may waive fees. Michelle & R VBtlM land O Rurof Resource; R One and Two Family P Rural (RU] &Rural i Potential t"111, reate u to 21ats s substantive change: Beyond the srope of 5 S IHilkmst Rd /Loch C Council Public Hearing V Verbal Submission a access is Rural G Suburban Residential General Commercial S instead o on Hlllvest Rd; R Rezone to RUml A Amendment &Rezoning ZaneSJ; triggers a separate R Recommend property Lomond Rd) R Residential ( (RS-1) General R (CRG) n needs a Plan Amendment and a Residential (RR) p process; would potentially p pianningapplfcation o owner make an application; Business B -2 ( Rezoning today and with Zone SJ r result in a proposal to P Process far community C Council may waive has. create new public streets c consideration '."an'! alty no change in zoning; YagM land Urban Reserve & Aural RF &General IRU} & No suhstantlal difference Ana lmpdon may he Recommend r 6 Mike Francis Council Public Hearing Verbalsubmission ( ) Future Develo existing &2 applied to Specific request Pp y property (Ocean Westway) Rural Resource 8uslness B• Pmeni with existing and ma de at any time by a owner make anapplication, { 2) (FD} undeveloped PortlanM30m stem unclear PP of flag-lot Proposed zones property owner to develop Council may waive fees. No existing subdivision ability; Expand PDA to Include Substantive change: Beyond the scope of VaceM Land PAC Publk Meeting Written Suhmlaslon One and Two Fatuity 2oneSl; tdggersaseparete Recommend Property 7 lieu PUrintan Ruraf Resovrce Svburbon Residential Rural RU Subdivision requiring new roads land and razane Requires■Plan (sakewaod Heights) Council "Public Hearin verbal Presenhtlon (RS-1) ( ) needs a Plan Amendment and a future Development Amendment &Rezoning planningappllcation owner make an application; Rezoning today and with ZoneSJ (FD) process process for community Council may e, give fees. consideration Heavy industrial; No erlsting subdivision ability; Substantive Oran e: Beyond the scope of Vaunt sand Oar and Tw'o Family g 8 Dennis Griffin PAC FUhIk Meeting ritten Submission RurafResource; Medium lndustda! Subdivision requiring new roads ZonesJ; frlggereeseparate Recanmend property (31 Griffin Lane) g acassls Rural Suburban Raldenzio! g Retain existing zones Requiresa Plan tannic. a Ilu' P Pam' (R5.1) &Rural (RF) (IM) &Rural (RUj needs Plan Amendment and Amendment &Rezoning p g Pp tlon avmer make an application; Residential Rezoning today andwith ZcneSJ process Process for community Cauncll may waive fees. consideration Vacant Land Rural Resource; ana Rural (RF); One and Two Beyond the scope of Retains abilftyto subdivide up tot Extend the PDA Substantive change: 9 6ryee Beysa (324 and 366 Cottage Council PUbllc Hearing Written submission access is stable Family and Mobile Rural (RU); Rural boundary to Include RequiresaPlan ZaneSl; triggers Recommend property lots that have public street Road) Residential FtomeSuburbon ResldentlaJ(RR) frontage property for serviced Amendment &Rezoning pianningapplication owner make an application; Residential(P5.2M) g development process Proce -s for community Council may waive fees. MC -2014 -163 September 24, 2D14 347 MC -2014 -163 September 24, 2D14 347 Al Williams and Rick Turner AI's Ultra Car Sales & Service Ocean Westway Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning PAC Public Meeting Submission Council Public Hearing Submission M F C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 r AI's Ultra Car Sales & Service Ocean W lr. 1 ( estway) L-egena Subject Property (ies) Primary Development Area PID(s): 00287458, 00287441 and 00287474 Municipal Plan Designation: Stable Residential, Urban Reserve and Rural Resource Date: September 12, 2014 Quo 0 62.5 125 250 Meters Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John © 2014 The City of Saint John AI's Ultra Car Sales & Service (Ocean Westway) Legend Subject Property (ies) 7k Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00287458, 00287441 and 00287474 Existing Zoning: "B -2" General Business and "RF" Rural Date: September 12, 2014 350 0 62.5 125 250 Meters Map created by the City of Saint John �i^^. Carte pFoduile par The City of Saint Jahn ' ® 2014 The City of Saint John SMN' JOHN AI's Ultra Car Sales & Service (Ocean Westway) Legend Subject Property (ies) Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00287458, 00287441 and 00287474 Draft Zoning; General Commercial (CG) and Rural (RU) Date: September 12, 2014 351 0 62.5 125 254 Meters , 1 tvlap created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John -� BJ 2014 The City of Saint Jahn SAINT JOHN To The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and City Counsellors. P1D's. 00287474, 55222061, 55222079 Hello, My Name is Al Williams. I am here tonight to request City Council grant me Corridor Commercial Zoning (CC), as The Planning Dept., initially told me I had, and has since been changed to General Commercial (CG) zoning. A Little Background I am a Proud Saint Johner, Born and raised here, I the proud owner of a 25 year old business here in the city called A's Ultra Car Sales & Service, In WEST Saint John. I sponsor local charities, participate in community events, and employ Saint Johner's. I have grown and developed my existing business for the better part of my adult life. We are a thriving, reputable, Locally owned and operated Saint John Business, and have chosen to stay and Grow my business in Saint John. I am Here to represent our properties on Hwy 100, adjacent to exit to Hwy 7 and first exist into our city, exit 96. My civic address is Ocean Westway, BUT, you will not find any signage to that effect, as we are known as Hwy 100. The following pictures should show you we are not a residential street but a highway through fare. 642 352 My Property starts right after the hwy on & off ramps This sign, at the end of Manawogonish Rd is pointed to the civic address Ocean westway, But Is called Hwy 100 This sign at end of Fairville Blvd, points to our Road, Hwy 100 643 353 Hwy on and off Ramps adjacent to my Property. r Iry L tai 1 Sign on my Property, in front of my business. MO M _ %"�f U-72 Portion of my Property Street view. A Brief History of New PlanSl/ZoneSJ I have a lot of documents & correspondence, throughout this process with the planning dept. and PAC. Back in the fall of 2012: I went before the PAC to get permission to have a sales office placed in the parking lot between the 4 bay service/ repair center and Hwy exit #96 and Hwy #7. Which was approved by the planning advisory committee. 644 354 Later, It was during the meetings with the city planners, Mark Reade and Jody Kliffer, it was brought to my attention that zoning was being changed or altered and to make sure, we got on board with regards to these new changes ....... so that the zoning would coverall the necessary functions & possible future functions of my Business, being a used car dealership and Full Service repair Facility, the proper zoning needed is Corridor Commercial (CC), to cover all aspects of my existing Business. It was at that time we hired Hughes Surveys, Mr. Rick Turner to help us maneuver through this zoning process. Moving forward.... From that time onward we had much correspondence between the city planners, myself and Rick Turner, all of which was positive with regards to our properties being zoned (CC). In the fall of 2013,1 was invited to attend a town hall pubic meeting, put on by the Planning Dept., to learn about the Draft By -Law changes and how they may affect my property. It was at the end of this town hall meeting that staff invited me to the back of the room ....where on their city laptop.. They brought up the proposed zoning website and confirmed to me that we had been classified as CC zoning and basically congratulated me and telling me to move forward with my plans. Fallowing the meeting we reconfirmed with Hughes Surveys, Rick Turner that that was what was on the city website for Zone SJ . Alas, after being assured by city officials we were to had Corridor Commercial Zoning (CC), we moved forward. Please see zoning map below, which is taken from the city webite. 645 355 a 2088 Ocean Westway `'. Oct:. 2013 Draft • ? ..'}'M 1' •.p. A to �/'' . �, i ; tip � � �7 �' '� a • = J Taken From City Website. For ZoneSl —Oct 2013 Corridor Commercial Zoning Highways The rest of our property • I had a new survey done, to allow for an expansion to our personal living space which we reside in and is attached to our sales office. • We paid an architect for drawings which were given to the planning dept. where we paid for a permit to increase our personal space. • We also hired an Appraisal Firm to do a new appraisal of our property. (De Stecher Appraisals Ltd), where in the appraisal it states On October 15, 2013, the City of Saint John issued a new draft zoning by -law titled Zoning$!, following extensive study following the adoption of Plan SJ in February 2012. Planning Staff indicated that the new zoning by -law is expected to be adopted in March or April of 201" 646 356 "Under the proposed ZoningSJ, will be zoned CC or Corridor Commercial Part B2 is to be zoned RU or Rural. As per section 2.7, the appraisal assumes that the new by -law has been adopted, Zone standards applicable to the CC and RU Zones are attached as Appendix 8 and the complete by-law is available at ww +K.sainCohn,ca " We proceeded forward, with the understanding that ZONES) was giving us (CC) Zoning. With the CiWs assurance of Corridor Commercial zoning, • We developed a new business strategy, to grow or existing Business. • We spent months planning our new sales office, for which was previously approved. Already had our permit paid for and in place for an increased living area (which was planned for the spring of 2014)., major plans to upgrade our quality of vehicles, Planned huge paving and landscaping, Service Center Building upgrades, New Doors & Siding, slgnage... etc. But most importantly refinanced our entire creraticn, based entirely on what the city had told us, meaning CC Zoning In February of this year, we found out ZoneSJ revised their decision, and our property would be diminished from a permitted use tO d =Ognked eXceptibn within a Genera) Commercial Zone (CG). This was a contradiction to prior consultation with the Planning staff, that had been very positive. in addition to what we had already been told by city staff, it had also shown the property Had CC Zoning. (CC is what fits with our already existing business), through the various Public Presentation Open Houses and on the PianSJJZoneSJ website. This reversal, by the city will detrimentally affect my business financially. Many, many more letters were written to the city In hopes of having this matter cleared up ....before the formal adoption of ZoneSJ, with no positive result. We even asked Ms. Jacqueline Hamilton for a meeting with the Planning Dept., where she arranged for us to meet at city hall in early July with only one city official, Mr. Pat Forum. We did, and it was attended by me and my partner and Mr. Forum. The meeting was unproductive and were told the reason for the reversal of descion was because the planning dept. thought they had too many CC zones and eliminated ours. I would also like to bring to your attention a newly acquired city building, on Manawogonish Rd, 647 357 just X a kilometer away from our property has been given CC Zoning, and all the properties along that whole side of road Have also been given CC zoning as well. This New Corridor Commercial, which had the same B2 zoning as our property now has CC Zoning, It is located directly across the street from a true growing residential area and new MULTI Multi million dollar subdivision, with lots of children. This New CC Zoned area consists of properties: (PLEASE SEE SOME PICTURES BELOW) Including barn like construction company (in disrepair), a Personal home or dwelling with trailer sales in their yard, and a many year vacant building (formerly Art's Appliances) . AND even a wooded lot which has never been used for anything, on other side of city bldg.. All these businesses were granted Corridor Commercial zoning without ever having to go through the channels I have had to. They had Corridor Commercial zoning dropped in their lap and did nothing for it. I doesn't seem fair. I have spent my adult life working and developing my property, and every dollar Yve earned back into the property. PICTURES OF NEW Corridor Commercial Zoning l ^5fi, 3^ � Far Left; Newly acquired City Building, Middle: Barn like old structure, Below: Personal Home selling trailers in yard. 648 358 Yard with some pull trailers, and personal dwelling. 649 359 Vacant building now under major renovations thanks to a gifted CC zoning. rorrnerly had same S2 zoning as us, now CC. �; Rural - Draft Plan tJ JA� i L. 0~ 1 bf A-A c o $ c y _ 7�7x _ _Tr _ S y� • f�'C8� Vgkk��a . Y �..`i^`�,.,,. ,�` --f �`• Ihiwgira' K: R�vfi11 �R_ _ •371. This New Corridor Commercial on Manawogonish is surrounded by hundreds of residential homes. 650 360 Our Property / Business is an ambassador for our city. Because of our location and Multi Hwy access , we direct lost Saint Johner's and tourists several times each and every day... Directing them to our hospitals, Market Square, Hotels, Reversing Falls, Irving Nature Paris, McAllister Mail etc. etc... Our location deserves Corridor Commercial Zoning (CC). The City Planning officials believe that we should be made Commercial General and all of our existing business would bean ,w =w.��. , to their own zoning qualifications. We are asking that you right this wrong and zone us, for what we truly are which is (CC) Zoning, and within that we are asking for just one exception, that being our current existing dwelling which is attached and always has been to which we the owner's live for safety and health reasons. This Plan /Zone SJ, has been a very stressful daily part of our lives... and has been going on for almost 2 years. We want to move forward in our lives and business and get this matter resolved once and for all. Everyone here knows that Businesses are closing and downsizing.... Throughout this city every day. I have a locally owned and operated business that I have spent my whole life growing and developing. We have a great reputation, Long time repeat Clientele, and attract buyers from not only Moncton, Fredericton, Quispamsis, but are even getting out of province buyers from PEI and Nova Scotia on a regular basis. I, as a business and an Employer, .... can't sit stagnant.... with no opportunity for growth and development, We need jobs in this city, of which I provide. With Corridor Commercial Zoning, I understand that any future plans would go through all the proper city channels and appropriate depts.. I am not asking for anything more than I should already have. I don't believe that ZoneSJ ever set forth with the intention of harming any SJ Businesses,..... but the flip flop on their decision form CC to GC, will detrimentally financially harm my business, our future and my current relationship with Bank. I would like to Thank the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and councillors for giving me the opportunity to speak here tonight. I hope that what I have provided to you gives you a clear understanding of why I need the zoning of Corridor Commercial Zoning (CC), for myself, my employees and my future employees, which Fits my Legitimate Long Term Existing business, and with only one exception of my attached dwelling, where we the owner's live. . q f also have a letter from�of our closest neighbours, which I would like to read and is enclosed. 651 361 N the :: io` : -r. Depute 4yldyor art.i City t'c uric ie.rs. Cite of Saint -Pohn t-te ire °L_,ttr,g ttas- Ie.�er .:l supp"11 of WI[I]anw- of ELI'', t'3ttaca~ Saim and Senice rr, nrx :tn1!llc -lUO!, to h. , 2 fnC zon7r, --hang-r-, to CC on :rll . 1 X2206' ;:;• +� ;- g t> ;)iY)1i.".Tt.:C\. PII. vo' llU: 8'•:x7.(, cS . ,, V Ili ims I's a V r) �-),-A ucrgnb.)ui and Aiwa« iead} and willing v, sups, tt v�uuniintt4 many of the Cotile2 husinbl, mopwies 00 OW •Dfxt, 1,11 plioperi ,.va-s un'.,vioc"Iate .file Fuli:i_ngs .--u_ etaaLKlvc and vel; mamblined 'i he �rrnlnds are M-1we1 and floe rrs and [tees 111 tr fe:.' 7 brae L no litter, aal bage, !unked ;; N or car parer - ici►,;e One of ihes_ proprrtre� "s the .site of the former 1=.i Aeigranij restaurant and cat ins 1 heyc had ken a fire au ll the buddmgs had been Ire} to a dangerou, at,d ailapldaled condition Mr W11}ta'nF Brent ::11.,s :_' ah;c: Lnne and -none, clear il,g up The pmpertF ;i,rt' rrabng i[ safe and more pre.,eruable fc -r 1-- 01 wr I fin lvFe In ttic• arva We End t a ei) tar.,- cnieat 10 ha-. e a gal age nearby .ix hti a mr can nr762 :ar • •�hYCiea set iced In aar OPI-In01;.`1r W:llrarrl. ham. an Imucsc. wrll Mn busineQs. r a sr:l d' 'Tusaoes, Ovvnei Mr W !lams provides emple . meni for se wal p_opie With Vich high 'anemplovnien; rate :n the area we fee; than the City oi'Samt John st,oultl !Ke �ln;ng ail it can to heir and anccxnage final "s hiasiness srrch as tl;is X5 fong tlmr residents tit the s.K" wt 'rnov. tnat there ha: a llNv3: rim n businesses here. motels Testautants garage. etc alli tkr }ta.e a }Kn s hied in nara;nnt -� th our ctl] nln -rcial ne�gh°_x kE wrr ,cc r1f. pmblem .'6 an :antlnulilg Iris nnx .:t'te,vlewudi Xle cnramercial pronevit. -, and or-!y vast- 1 at the ofhc, wo llil inaint ;Am ±reu' plopenlw -u R ill 2�, ?,_ itirll�urer d02S In closing vsZ :would hope that fh:: R7ayol and CouAL;I anti the Planning Ltnnmtssnm approve Mb Wtillams rezoning request. isle has proven to be a gooe nc tghbni r anti we want to sec him continue to oplrrafe and expand his t*usmess m our neighWurhood :�LTIL'e1e14 . Glenna and Trek Cornfoid. 21 Of llceae Westwd% i Residents for 62 and 41 year. t'o}by Maur 2 %13 fhkea*► - Weetvvk,, (Residont f.hr Or) veal, , C :i_}r: and Kea Fa z, . -'1 —28 Ocean WCEW-Vay l Kesldentt: tc.r .3 .3 and 66 yell 652 362 Having said that, I would like to put forward the motion to Make my properties CC Zoning with the one exception. I can answer any question you may have or it they are of a more Technical nature, I have Mr. Turner here as well. Thank YOU. AI Williams & Karen Connell 653 363 To: City of Saint John Common Coundl PICYs #OM874SS, 00287441, 00287474 September 5, 2014 am a property owner located across the street from AYs Ultra Car Sales & Service. I have no problem with the properties being Zoned Commercial Corridor. Thank ou. (Print] �(e s6 Address (Print) ILq Q C /4 Address 654 364 To: City of Saint Jahn Common Council P1D's #00287458, 00287441, 00287474 September 5, 2014 1, S sza % L- u.,Cj it) l P3 .V , am a property owner located across the street from AI's Ultra Car Sales & Service. I have no probleeith the properties being Zoned Commercial Corridor. Thank you. (PrInt) �2L Address WMIXF121! —71 1 go! 7§", 655 365 1 iL�s 61fxe r� Planning Advisory Cammittee Zone SJ Re: Pids #55222061, 00287474, 55222079 052500 NB LTD, o/a Al's Ultra Car Sales and Service, EST 1992 Thank You, We are before the PAC, with regards to the planned adoption of ZoneSJ. We would like to have the proposed zoning of our properties CC (Commercial Corridor), before the formal adoption of the zoning takes place. It is imperative that the Municipal Plan and Proposed Zoning By -Law be aligned to reflect our existing use. ✓ According to ZoneSJ, our long term established business fails within the the parameters of Commercial Corridor Zone (CC) designation as set forth by the city itself. (Appendix A). The planning dept. has now reverted on what they Initially had proposed and now are proposing General Commercial (CG) zoning (with numerous exceptions), as our Car Dealership does not fail within the permitted uses for General Commercial Zoning. Our business has existed for almost 25 years at this location, and we are not asking for anything more than to Ple 2'ared far what we Already Are. We are asking For Commercial Corridor Zoning with only one exception, that being our residence attached to the business for health & security reasons. ✓ When ZoneSJ was coming Into place, a town hall meeting was held in West Saint John, in Sept 2013, by city planning officials. They explained the proposed zoning to the attendees. I attended this meeting and when the meeting was over, I was asked to join the members of the planning dept. at the back of the room, where on their city laptop they pulled up our properties. They showed me the proposed zoning and that we would be Zoned Commercial Corridor (CC) and assured me I had nothing to worry about.... I was also told to get a building permit in place to renovate current residence before the formal adoption process, which I bought after the town hall meeting..... for $1700, good for one year which I have had to put on hold till this zoning issue is resolved. Since that meeting I was surprised that city officials had reversed the Commercial Corridor Zoning to General (CG) zoning from a letter dated Jan.24"', 2014. The Planning Dept. at the stoke of a pen has reverted the proposed zoning I was told I had.... We had an expensive detailed appraisal of our property dated Nov 19a`, 2013, and within that appraisal, it says he verified zoning with city officials and was proposed to be Commercial Corridor (CC) Zoning, and expected to be adopted in 2014. We have also paid to retain the services of Hughes Surveys to make sure we did everything right with regards to city. We also have a copy of letter sent from Hughes Surveys to Jacqueline Hamilton (Planning Dept.), thanking her for the consideration of CC Zoning on behalf of his clients, (us) dated Nov.27a', 2013- From there I paid for and developed a longterm business plan for my bank, for growth and development of my existing business. This reversal to general commercial (CG) zoning detrimentally affects me financially, and my future business growth. Now after numerous letters and meetings with the planning dept. to have this rectified, to no avail... we are now before you. 366 ✓ The city has recently acquired a property very close to us, (formerly Fundy Fencing), and designated that property and all the properties along that area as Commercial Corridor (CC) Zoning, which previously had the same B2 zoning we had. Some of these properties which are zoned Commercial Corridor are RESIDENCES. This Commercial Corridor Zoned strip of property is directly across the street from a brand new huge multimillion dollar Sub - division and New Garden Homes. Please see pictures of Businesses that have newly acquired Commercial Corrridor Zoning, due to newly acquired City Building.( Appendix B C D E). ✓ We are an independent, locally owned and operated business and take Great pride in our city. We are only asking what is fair, and that our properties are zoned for their existing usage. We are asking to be zoned Commercial Corridor with limitations, and with only one exception, our residence. We take Great pride in the appearance and up keep of our property. Also Our location is perfectly suited for Commercial Corridor Zoning, as we own the 30 Acres behind us and surrounded by Provincial Highways. (Appendix F G ) ✓ We are asking for the proper CC Zoning for our long established business, since we already operate under several Commercial Corridor permitted uses ( see Appendix A), and we want proper recognition, which Commercial Corridor gives us. We are not asking for approval of all the permitted uses outlined in the Commercial Corridor Zoning. We are more than willing to go through formal processes in the future to expand our current operation. The only recognized exception within the Commercial Corridor zoning should be our residence. Thank You for giving us the opportunity to express our issues with Zones! and hopefully we can rectify these issues, within this process. As I mentioned Hughes Survey's has been helping us with our zoning issues and Mr. Rick Turner is here tonight to answer any questions you may have. Thank You AI Williams Karen Connell 367 -"sj J E3 911-:3 *96 47 A Newly Rciu;rF-J- C; �13 "Properi- i P.oui has 7Z cnine 369 T) L) r-je% 1 10— -oi%a CLCtU I re-C, a have- O- -ex+ Jy 6) rig 370 NV Ab oil - s, oft if 0 yo • d r r , ,,- s � alp _ .ter- Our P a A- a9v;rea. n Tj %1GS o mmer G ► AA t1C?c ► �ar� L OY1at� �Urrovnd�c,1 by esiden-a;o�1,`jus- �} up +,N e- roc d r�-t'prn po� loc�a�� ears Urban 11 4 �f Reserve ! , r elat 114 Ramp �Natu�ral NNIIIRurai �,,��``Kura! Area .,, Resource PT .- _ f .Resdu�ce a A_. orcnmri 372 4",- 1 IT'S, ON. 373 a IF �A 7.086 Ocear, Westway Legend Subject Property (h3s) PID(s): 00287458, 00287441 and 00287474 Oct. 2013 Draft: Corridor Commercial (CC) and RUral (RU) Fab. 2014 Draf: General Commercial (CG) and Rural (RU) Date-February 7, 2014 374 OUV- 1p rOJOCT'A prftec'-seat zln.nf) t n oc,-V ao 13 Rre,o� of' Oor P.,O F f—,r+kf kl!�Kwcuys htp cr-Ited by the City of S.Int Jdvn G2r� r� Aufte par Thu City at Saint J- P 2014 11.3 ct,, of S int John June 6th, 2014 TO: The Mayor & Council,Wftiman of the Planning Advisory aC om-Plitiee, The Common Clerk & The Planning Office. RE: iftnicipal Plan Amendments AI's Ultra Car Sales & Service 2086 Ocean Westway, Saint John, NB E2M 5,11 PI # 00287458, 00287441, 00287474 We are writing to ask that you include us in your Municipal Plan Amendments, so that our properties fall under Stable Commercial Classification (MP Sec 3.5.2), and not stable residential as I understand is in the current Municipal Plan. If the city has another designation that fits a Commercial Car dealership which is our existing use and not making our business an exception we would consider it. It is imperative that the Municipal Plan and Proposed Zoning By -Law be aligned to reflect our existing use. We have made our concerns with respect to the proposed zoning known and hereby reiterate our concern. We are a large car dealership, which has been in existence at this location for over 20 years and continues to grow and evolve. We are asking that you recognize our dealership as a Commercial Area, which would PROPERLY RECOGNIZE 17'S EXISTING USE and not as an exception. Our Property is located on Ocean Westway (Hwy 100) and Hwy 7 beside us (see schedule A & AA), The area is a vast mixture of Various businesses. The area is not transitioning into residential at all as is suggested by city planning officials. Not a single business has reverted back to residential and there have been no new residences built in many years. To the contrary; The City is looking to rezone a huge property just down the Road (Hwy) from us to be zoned Light Industrial (see schedule B). We have had much correspondence to the city with regard to our property and has been our understanding that we were to be a Commercial Corridor (CC) in Zone SJ, (see schedule C) and would ask that you please amend the Municipal Plan so that it is proper. Our long established Pre - existing Commercial Business should be recognized as such, and not be an of ception. We were here long before the Municipal Plan, and were told by planning officials in late summer 2013 at a town hall meeting, and was in the Oct 2013 City Zone draft that we would be CC Zone. The CC Zone designation, with restrictions if necessary, would be acceptable. There are many other comparable properties thru out the city being amended. Just up the street from us the City Of Si has recently acquired a property (formerly Fundy Fencing) and wooded areas beside it to be designated as stable commercial. This is directly across the street from a brand new housing development (See Schedule D). There are numerous other examples the city is looking to amend with Stable Commercial designation, Bentley St (Green Lee Shoes), CedarCrest Garden Center, On the Vine/Tim's etc...We respectfully request the same consideration. We believe the City of Saint John wants to do right by the business owners within our city and we are only asking what should have been done at the outset of Plan Sh Our property meets the requirements for Stable Commercial designation, If the city has another designation that's fits a commercial car dealership which is our EXISTING USE and not making us an exception w_ a would consider it. This Commercial Business is our life's work, We don't believe it was ever the intent of Plan SJ to have long established Business owners losing sleep over new designations. Our Bona ide Pre- Existins Commercial business should be in the Municipal Plan as Such and should �nq t la�a. Anything else would not be Proper or Fair. �` Thank You Al Williams & Karen Connell l'��CJ 375 Si 2086 Ocear. Vkfestway Y �'.-�"� 4 s , r:' �+•a,!¢,�„. , rrw ' - r �•c _ "� R.Ci�- R�•. P' ".S ^a -;.fir. ,_�r . h , .,�• � �.'"'d�'�• �SS`��''" t v. ,.. --..� R Oct. 20"; 3 Draft' j; ♦ 4 .* a may „ i X S_ t RL -k +YJrox�'P Y - 3 '.a Y `L5�' _-� �L �`(.t'. -'r te.. '' 1�! •• i F FE) r !' •K is ��;. f�� ,} t n ,�: N-14o'y1js �' � 5 4t. " t 4. `�: x�"�nC'• •� �� .�•ar�Y�$CRi ;G'�Ys.� • r� .,• l�� -.' . S .- X .fit C/ - +• ,-n h •R r Li � i,�, _ -, f "�.i� f`� se FD r AK =• -rti- `.�' rr4'�i yyY �' `t`"l �.- �M�'`rv�''� ,� �'�f` � �1 �t�p a{. �-'> - :' � FD $ l ft >: R2 •:6 l 'k �- r V > .rte �'k:. � .L ...,,r F'aL WA ••a ; " , ' t1.,4"ti lyKt R'I ,t ` Feb. 2Q14 Draft �' � � ti���,� �F rz 'a�rl,� RL •S"< L ' ­,K, r..f r'„4,..ty t •cR li F �.'w _ }. , - '�5' �4. +. FC2 y; ? A L �Q .�.f _S 'p ` ?�.�- •<0's t 0 - r RU ±f :. Nx a gt,K �,. .1 =. per.• F4} i ae1 7't" -f s�� �.. .� ?5 . - �!k ,.C. atryS.>;'. • �-"� �i. i�Cr,, cc Gp�r a, L �. . �� .� # "� r s x,Y *,S1✓� ` FSr•1- ' ♦/ S -� y.,r��l�' - -'. �.. nv ,'ec. � ��,,, •` �y`.9 � ' r 1 }.'/y'� �, fJ A v 7'.r -- .•.ffn a - •F_`7y 't. 'vim:'?' or of %+ yi 3`* - t "`•F `lA , o'er {' -•Cr: : LL�rs• j.r'" ^�'. f.°".i RL y t a pa 's i .. � ..RJ R1 CG. i [t, tr•c!- ;.k Jq�F'ro. � P'K��!S'�.�w. ..r, ;f4 �Y���.,.4�.y!r�' A� � 1 }_ _ �; ` � t �I�e�; �`� •{,� {��}SC.�i � � , RL Legend Subject Property (ies) 0 125 250 500 I Meters PID(s): 00287458, 00287441 and 00287474 Oct. 2013 Draft: Corridor Commercial (CC) and RUral (RU) Map created by the Ci[y of :Ainl John Carte pradvile p n The City of Sand John Feb. 2014 Draft: General Commercial (CG) and Rural (RU) €1 2014 The City of Sant John LAEhJ' [t)t1f.' Daie:February 7, 2014 Our- c5F 00C 1� �\v wcry S Tc 376 o New Brunswick Route 100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Te l Brunswick Route 170 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http: /,'en. wikipedia .ofg /wiki/New-Brunswick Route 100 5.-vNr.ciu\s. A A Route 100 is 49 kilometres long, and runs from Saint John to Hampton, New Brunswick, try Route 100 follows the through route across Saint John and the Kennebecasis Valley that was used prior to the construction of the Saint John Throughway and MacKay Highway. The road begins on Saint John's west side usinOcean West Tay and Fairville Boulevar and crosses he eversmg Fa is o Route 100 , Bridge C es eye Route information Drive on the north end. It then crosses a viaduct to the city centre, where it takes City Road to the east side, and leaves Saint John on Rothesay Avenue. Route 100 Maintained by New Brunswick Department of continues as the Hampton Highway through the Kennebecasis River Valley towns 'transportation of Rothesay and Quispamsis, and uses a former alignment of Route l to reach Length: 48,6 k-it) (30.2 mi) Hampton. Existed: 1976 — present See also ■ List of New Brunswick provincial highways References ^ New Brunswick Department of Transportation: Designated Provincial Highways, 2003 Major junctions West end: r i l Route 1 in Lorneville East end: 111! Route 1 in Hampton 4.rrt Location Major Saint John, Rothesay, Quispamsis, cities: Hampton Highway system Provincial highways in New Brunswick Former routes Retrieved from "http: / /en_wikipe.dia.org —50 Route 95 Route 101 .'w /index.php ?title =New_ Brunswick_ Route_] 00&oldid= 604248287" "— Categories: New Brunswick provincial highways Roads in Saint John County, New Brunswick Roads in Kings County, New Brunswick Hampton, New Brunswick Transport in Saint John, New Brunswick New Brunswick road stubs a This page was last modified on 15 April 2014 at 03:21 a Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non -profit organization. 1 of 1 377 2014 -05 -30 8:42 PM oa111LJu1 en uiuu5urai retrrc5 nab uueri verysuccessrui in fulfilling its mandate to create infrastructure to facilitate the sale and development of industrial lands with the vision of generating tax base for the City as well as jobs for citizens. So successful, in fact we have less than 50 acres of land in inventory for resale and development purposes, we simply need to increase our inventory so that we are prepared to address future development needs and opportunities. Opportunities which will expand our tax base, and ensure jobs are available for Saint John residents. We have applied to re -zone the 40 acre parcel I of property bordered by King William Rd., Ocean Westway and Route 1 as a step toward rebuilding our inventory. We know you will have questions. We have attempted to identity and address a few of those questions below; What types of businesses can we expect in this development? We are applying to rezone this property as Light Industrial. Will there be increased traffic on Ocean Westway? We anticipate Route 1 highway access to be a primary feature of the location; hnu,P1G conceivable there will be additional traffic ontn Ocean Westway. ��� is here a esr ion on hours of operation for tenants' In our experience, light industrial users typically operate as 9-5 type operations. Tell me about noise at night? Because light industrial users are typically 9-5 type operations, minimal if any noise impact is anticipate+ outside of their normal window of operation. Will there be light pollution? Certainly light spill is a legitimate concern. We will mandate tenants that they are not to have rear building mounted lights and further a proposed 45 meter (150 feet +) buffer between the businesses and existing residential will be enforced; at 45 meters the buffer is 50% wider than mandated by current city planning documents. Impacts to Watershed The proposed development is outside of the Municipal and Provincial watershed buffers, no impacts are expected. Further, SJiP, which has an established record of environmental sensitivity, will be held to the standard of a 100 year storm in the planned control all surface water. Will there be blasting at any point? According to our initial site investigations there will be no requirement to blast for installation of municipal services. �a1t:s,sD irR Tos� 80VMN '(Pa4ma 'From Uq* 0 M: Oct. 2013 Draft J s v - �rtYt v„• RUN t �sR j * ti'�f .��• ti�1 . 7. 2086 Ocean Westway 41 , 1 R RL Y f ' y rill � .�, I � ' •.,L gyp U� � pRL�♦ b d t F Zrdi , n RU cl- CFN r � C G� yG f �sG1:st. SY, t FD"�'� I � {� .'�} 0 ' i* +S�tti' .f r „�� � - ¢ @ r - - -= � mot, ..Q_ rc 1�r�f �`; , k }� - iy:. '5..,.F � � �., 3•-.. _ hry�kc,,,, ti RL C 401 OA �"m *; ♦e't . P2 Feb. 2014 Draft, ti•'.2 r� :'" 3RD;.' Lf�' :rs - ti--fiti r 1 ,yam '_. ti a _ • R2�' '�};yy _ ` 3f, H? N �.•' a srr- r. ;• •/1 Y " 4 C F CG CC- • Q � f�j f S �• RU to 4 1 Rs- ►nit }, ,rw FDA .=D FD i Y CG.- M ¢ RU •i 'R1 Legend Subject Property (ies) 0 125 250 500 Meters PID(s): 00287458, 00287441 and 00287474 Oct. 2013 Draft: Corridor Commercial (CC) and RUral (RU) , -� Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par Tho Gty of Sainl John Feb. 2014 Draft General Commercial (CG) and Rural (RU) �% 92014 The City of Saint John Date:February 7, 2014 vlE. 379 CL ME %ov I Ic r Our ?rai�vrts 381 Paul Moore Strescon Ashburn Lake Road Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning PAC Public Meeting Submission Council Public Hearing Submission M;:C -2014 -163 September 29, 2014 382 el P �25 Strescon (Ashburn Lake Road) of Legend 0 125 250 500 Subject Property (ies) i t i i i t Primary Development Area Meters ;ID(sm): 55202865, 55202881, 55202857, 55202873, 55020259 and 55087837 E _ } Ma®2014 The Ch yor p created by the City or Saint John Municipal Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial, Urban Reserve and TheCifoof Saint John Rural Resource ' SAINT JOHN Date: September 12, 2014 383 Strescon (Ashburn Lake Road) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 55202865, 55202881, 55202857, 55202873, 55020259 and 55087837 Existing Zoning: "1 -2" Heavy Industrial and "RF" Rural Date: September 12, 2014 ., 0 125 250 500 t t t l t t t l Meters Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John 4+2044 The City of Saint Jahn SAINT JOHN ` 'lies] Strescon (Ashburn Lake Road) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 55202865, 55202881, 55202857, 55202873, 55020259 and 55087837 Draft Zoning: Heavy Industrial (IH), Future Development (FD) and Rural (RU) Date: September 12, 2014 385 0 125 250 500 Meters Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN TR,RSCON ZONING A 101 ASHBURN LAKE ROAD PRESENTATION TO COUNrli SEPTEMBER 8,2014 Paul Moore Commercial Properties Limited 623 :. The Issue ■ Strescon's Saint John plant, located between Highway One East and Rothesay avenue consists of Pre - Cast, Drainage Systems and Ready Mix manufacturing Operations ■ ZoneSJ proposes to change a portion of the ;plant site's zoning from Heavy Industrial to Future Development ■ This unnecessary change will harm Stres+con's existing operations and Prevent ,future development o • the site 11- jk 387 Ii��.• �' •. ,! �'•_ . � . •- ors+. �,i 'r , F .w rr At ✓trescon and Saint John • Strescon has operated on the site sine 19635 Largest precast concrete pipe manufacturer in Eastern Canada ■ Cur! ently oVer 3.50 employees at this plan-;- . ;L Up to 200 employees during peak periods ■ 2014 property taxes of $534,342 ■ Neighboring uses of land: qUarry, manuTac� g warehouse, commerciar (no residential) b i� .*N 7jF f � , Y Y .Y Select Strescon Projects 38100 Technology Square, Cambridge Mass. aelecf Strescon Proiects �wwww� %�ft— ® %6, NA, Casino, Halifax, NS cm Supporting PlanSJ ■ Strescon supports the PlanSJ initiative • �t is important that Saint John nave a vision for growth ■ We laud. Council and Staff for moving this PIanSJ forward ■ Given the massive scope, issues -to be resolved in implementation W-01 391 P&WS' eV iif�s �,�'s :: ?:t' V! A_..`4'i,fi y�:l..4y.pl'� ;'..t•.� Propos onin .0,a tw Change ■ Today lands are zoned Heavy industrial ■ Zcne,*`)J proposes to zone Pla 55020259 "Future Development" as it is considered undeveloped �However, �-.hese lands are currently being used and were purchased solely for Strescon expansion Wr 392 ._ 5�20x6r35 •''.�y ,!" eaYy. Ind�istna3 M Highlights of Chronolo( ■ Strescon has been involved in the process since late 2011 • Opt 14, 2013 — City indicated PO 550200259 would continue to be zoned to allow for manufacturing ■ Jan 241 2014 — City advised that property now proposed to be zoned Future Development (as it was deemed undeveloped) ■ February to present -- We actively attempted to engage with City staff` on the issue. We were referred to public process as on!.v way to reverse decision r- August 20, 2014 — Presentation to PAC seeking to have- zoning maintained. We were advised that this change could not be made in this forum. Recommended we apply for plan amendment ar.d rezoning application 630 393 His.tory of the Site 1963 - Strescon began operations 1983 - Parcel A and B purchased by Strescon from City of Saint John 1991 — Land rezoned to Heavy rndus�rial byCEtyof Saint John Today — Parcel A used 100% for operations. Currently improving Parcel B portion (PID 55020259) in preparation as laydown area for storage and future operations M -I G r - /�` • .l s M ..! t fit. ✓� s�� Why Current toning Must Be Maintained ■ Strescon's operations will be constrained by loss of Heavy Industrial zoning on PI 55020259 — costing jobs and preventing future investment • Land was acquired in 1980s, amended /rezoned in 1.990s 10 support plant expansion ■ Only logical use of land is Heavy Industrial. Land is only accessible via Strescon Land does not require any new municipal infrastructure for development Change will deliver no benefit to the communit�4 only cause unnecessary hardship to Strescon and limit future expansion 632 395 Request to Council • Proposed change to Strescon zoning mans counter to. r'fanS.1 philosophy, and counter to Council's vision for growth and prosperity for Saint John ■ Formally requesting that council maintain Heavy 9ndustrial zoning on SID 550200259 633 G STRESCON THANK YOU 634 397 Canimercial P-ril-rieratiesLimited August 29, 2014 Dear Mayor and Councilors: We wish to call your attention to an important issue arising from planned zoning changes to the Strescon property at 101 Ashburn Lake Road (PID 55020259) which needs immediate attention. Strescon supports the overarching objectives of PlanSJ. It is important that the City of Saint John have a strategic vision for the community, one that guides development and shapes municipal service delivery. We laud Council and City staff for moving this important initiative forward. However, the proposal to change the zoning on a portion of Strescon's lands from "Heavy Industrial" to "Future Development" will severely harm Strescon's existing operations and prevent any future development on a site the company has operated on since 1963. This zoning decision will cost jobs and future property tax revenue for the municipality, while harming the competitiveness of Strescon, a company that employs hundreds of Saint John residents. It is important to understand that all this will achieve no benefits for the community_ We have been actively involved in the PIanSJ /ZoneSJ process regarding this property since late 2011, meeting regularly with City staff, exchanging correspondence and taking part in public meetings. In October 2013, Strescon was advised that ZoneSJ would continue to allow a manufacturing /industrial facility on all of these lands. Yet in January 2014 we were suddenly informed the Heavy Industrial zoning would be limited to the lands currently in operation. Since that time we have followed up repeatedly with City staff. We were advised that the only way to appeal this decision was through the public process. As such, we made a presentation to PAC on August 20, 2014 to explain our concerns and request that this change not go forward. Yet during this presentation we were told that a decision to maintain the Heavy Industrial zoning on the full Strescon property could not be made at that forum_ The lands in question are bounded by Highway 1 on one side, Marsh Creek /railway on the other, and Strescon on the final side with the only access being over Strescon lands. Strescon purchased the property from the City of Saint John in the 1980s for the sole purpose of expansion. After a plan amendment and rezoning process, the lands have been zoned Heavy Industrial for the past two decades. The company has expanded on a portion of the land and continues to prepare other areas for future investment and development. P2... 400-58 King Street, PO Box 20114, Saint John, New Brunswick • E2L 5B2 Phone: 506-6i35 -6000 • Fax: 506 -635 -6006 • ws %— .eommercial- properties.ca s ti$ P2 We understand that in a process as in -depth and complicated as PIanSJ, there are many issues to be considered during implementation. The Strescon zoning issue must be promptly addressed. To do otherwise will needlessly hurt Strescon's existing operations and prevent future investment. This is an industrial area and well suited forStrescon's expansion. A zoning change serves no practical purpose. We know that as a Council, you have charted a positive course toward a well- managed, more prosperous community. This unnecessary zoning change runs counter to your vision for Saint John. We formally request that Council continue its leadership and take the steps needed to ensure the zoning on this piece of land remains Heavy Industrial. This is the appropriate use of this land, and in keeping with past zoning and development plans_ Thank you for your consideration. We would be pleased to meet with you or provide any additional information you might require. Yours truly, Paul Moore Vice President and General Manager Commercial Properties Limited (Representing Strescon Limited) Commercial Properties Limited 40058 King Street, Pd Box 20114, Saint John, New Brunswick • EM 5B2 63 @9 Phone: 506 - 635 -6000 • Fax: 506. 635-6006 • www.commercialpropertics.ea Good, Allian To: Forfar, Stacey Subject: RE: Strescon zoning, Ashburn Lake Road From: Moore, Paul [mailto:pmoore @cplre,ca] Sent: August -15 -14 4 :31 PM To: Forfar, Stacey Cc: westphal .jonathan @oscogroup.com; Foran, Patrick; Whalen, Emery; Woods, Pat; Norton, Mel Subject: RE: Strescon zoning, Ashburn Lake Road Importance: High Stacey We are disappointed in your response of not granting us a meeting to discuss this matter and are very concerned over the potential economic impact to the city of Saint John of changing the zoning of the expansion lands for Strescon from Heavy Industrial to future development. This will effectively restrict the growth opportunity of this long established Saint John business. The lands in question were purchased from the City of Saint John and subsequently rezoned with the intention to provide for the expansion of Strescon. We do understand that PlanSJ has a strategy to consolidate industrial uses in industrial parks. It makes sense to apply this in looking for a location to establish a new use. However, an existing industrial use, surrounded by industrial uses should not be required to cease growth because of this strategy. Attached is a short presentation describing our position. We would still welcome a meeting to resolve this issue, otherwise we will proceed with presentations to PAC and Council. I am available at your convenience Regards Paul Moore �AwiG �4U2G Vice President — General Manager Commercial Properties Limited 400 — 58 King St Saint John, NB E2L 1G4 T: 506 - 648 -3520 C: 506 - 645 -8488 F: 506 -635 -6006 E. pino_Q e w�_re.ca H11 From: Forfar, Stacey FOr'rG_r.sui_sj:cflp ^ca] Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 9:23 AM ^ To: Whalen, Emery Cc: Moore, Paul; ,;JzaLior_a�iiaEingoscogt!2Li . om; Foran, Patrick Subject: RE: Strescon zoning, Ashburn Lake Road Ei-nery, Thank you for sending through the additional information on this property, PID 55020259, located near the existing Strescon site, separated by a City -owned property identified as PID number 55024921. As previously discussed, the property is inside of the PDA and designated Urban Reserve. In order to impiement this designation, the primary purpose of ZoneSJ, while balancing the nature and rang` of legally established land uses on the site it is proposes; to zone this site from the existing Heavy Industrial (I -2) zone to the draft future Development (FD) zone. While it is recognized that the proposed zone is a departure from the existing Heavy Industrial (1 -2) zone, this property was purpas� fully designated Urban Reserve at the Plan stage as A remains a large, undeveloped and Jnserviced parcel inside of the PDA. Thie existing legally established excavation activity would remain - permitted use under the proposed draft Future Development (FD) zone subject to the Section 39 conditions imposed when the site was rezoned in 1991. We have reviewed the additional information you kindly provided however it does not change our approach to the zoning of this property in the final draft. Should Commercial Properties Ltd. wish to pursue development of this site, an application process would be required in order to permit the community an opportunity to review end cssess a future development proposal for the site. Please note the draft is not adopted by Council and the community has two key opportunities for further input: 1. Public Meeting before the Planning advisory Committee (PAC) on Ut ?ednescay August 7_E at bpm in the Council Chambers 2. Public fearing before Councilor. Monday SepterroLer 8 at 6:30prn in the Council Chambers We encourage participation and your team is welcome to make a submission to the Clerk's office and make a presentation before PAC and /or Council. All of the information including the final draft of the Zoning By -law is available on the website. Thank you, Stacey From: Whalen, )Amery [rnaiita:c,�%1h�aien cuc;Ireca] Sent: July -25 -14 9:01 AM To: Forfar, Stacey Cc: Moore, Paul; Foran, Patrick Subject: Strescon zoning, Ashburn Lake Road Hello Stacey, Re: Zoning of land by Strescon plant, Ashburn lake Road To confirm my voice mail, we'd like to meet with you to present additional information which we believe will make it easier to do the necessary plan amendment so we can keep the Heavy Industrial zoning in place on PID 55020259. Our understanding is that we will have to present information to Councillors on this matter, and we'd like to review with your department first. Because we will be talking to Councillors, we hope you can invite Jacqueline Hamilton to this meeting so as Commissioner she is able to field questions from Council. 401 Could we arrange to meet Thursday or Friday of next week (July 31 or Aug 1)? Thank you Emery Emery Whalen Commercial Properties Limited 506 650 -0704 IL A i!:'.. .i9 This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is intended only for the use of the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e- mail, any use, review, retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e -mail and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co- operation is appreciated. Le present courriel (y compris toute pi6ce jointe) s'adresse uniquement a son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilegi6s ou confidentiels. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire du courriel, it est interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de diss6miner, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre facon. Si vous avez requ le present courriel par erreur, priere de communiquer avec 1'exp6diteur et d'dliminer ('original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie electronique ou imprimLse de celui -ci, immediatement. Nous sommes reconnaissants de votre collaboration. ., .. .....l I� ?. I _'n�,.., � li r l.� ..�� -t'- ?i`: ... .. c.I'r: iil� Y... _ II`. 11 :':iW r. I'�'yIII .` .I�. -t 1E 1�'. (•fit• -:I ft, .1J !.��.'. . _. L:_ ,� .. .. i � .. 1 `,�___ _it!`. (a:,, u7f ". _.•i'ril _... .... .. -__i .. .I{.`- '��`_� -�t r�... it frrY -h. 3 402 �iCommercial. Propertiesurnitea Commercial Properties Lilmited Regarding the Impact of Plan SJ and Zone SJ on Strescon Saint John Plant Operations 101 Ashburn Lake Road July 25, 2014 403 101 Ashburn Lake Road. Strescon's Saint John plant, located between Highway One East and Rothesay Avenue consists of Pre -Cast, Drainage Systems and Ready Mix manufacturing Operations Issue: Plan SJ and Zone SJ propose changing a portion of the plant site from Heavy Industrial to Future Development, restricting growth of the business. Subject Area - Strescon Concrete Plant M Zoning • Existing Zoning • Heavy Industrial (all PID's) • Proposed by Zone SJ • Heavy Industrial for all except PID 55020259 • "Future Development" for PID 55020259 (designated as "Urban Reserve" by Plan SJ) • PlanSJ designates lands not currently in use as Future Development • However, Lands are currently being used and had specific historical intention for Strescon expansion. Proposed Zoning of Strescon Property; 405 4 , History of Sqfte. • 1963 — Strescon commences operations at 101 Ashburn Lake No • 1978— Agreement between City and Strescon • Strescon to develop a system of dykes in exchange for grant of land "to provide additional storage yard space for the company's operations ". • Dykes valued at $100,000; land valued at $481000 (1978 $). History M H sto ry o Site continued • 1983 — A block of Land deeded to Strescon (Parcel A and Parcel B) as payment for dyke construction on City land • Right of way over this land granted to City to access Marsh Creek for purpose of repair and maintenance of dykes • Strescon granted easement to construct causeway across Marsh Creek tributary and right of way to access the land at Parcel B "by foot or by vehicle, together with all machinery and equipment required... for the use and enjoyment of those lands ". 1983 Land Gran* shov-ing Right Of'Alays 407 History oT s i to continued • 1991— Land rezoned to Heavy Industrial • To facilitate continued expansion of Strescon business, including the quarrying of rock • Today — Land is being used for Plant operations. • Parcel A portion of Land is currently 100% used for operations • Parcel B portion (now PID 55020259) — Currently improving low lying area in preparation as a laydown area for storage and future operations. History M Why Maintain Industrial Zoning? • Business growth of Strescon will be constrained by loss of Heavy Industrial zoning on PID 55020259 • This land was acquired and rezoned to expand plant operations • Subject to permit requirements and landscape buffering • Some expansion has already occurred • A valid quarry permit has been continued on the site • The land does not lend itself well for other purposes: • Bounded by Marsh Creek, Route 1, and concrete plant • No public access; access via Strescon land only • Neighbouring uses — quarry, manufacturing, warehouse, commercial - No residential • Only logical use is expansion of concrete plant operations Strescon M Strescon Contribution to Local Currently over 150 employees at this plant, with increased employment (up to 200 employees) during more active economic cycles. Significant Supply Chain effect on Local Saint John Economy • 2014 Property taxes of $534,342 at this site. ZoneSJ Analysis 410 • Do NOT rezone land from Heavy Industrial, given land owner's objections and in violation of previous agreements • Keep Heavy Industrial Zoning Strescon 411 Stephen Horgan Somerset Investments Ltd, Meltone Inc., and MST Holdings Various addresses along Somerset Street Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning No written submissions M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 412 !p �t `717S Somerset Investments Ltd. (600 and 700 -750 Somerset Street) i u�� \ �cr ,` y' �Y r o. 9y �0 �Qw;tcatedi i _ Yom, r.•��• �� -`J�%' . - t c: f \ / Y! Gj I:u.r !u FAPC.um / rf Stable Residential° RCWAIIax ` Law`to Mediur Resldentil t� Stable: Residential Lowy to Medkxfr) _ \ I rk V 5 Die Dal -_ -. 1 \!� .y•� eno8) 'ice 11 4 _[(� ",� "! l \!: �l / � Clalila•Rdyirionfi�l i . Legend 0 125 250 500 Subject Property (ies) i I I I I I M - Primary Development Area Meters PID(s): 55008858, 00049809, 55123582, 55123590, 55123616, 55123632 and 55149991 Map created by the City of Saint John Carte The Municipal Plan Designation: Local Centre, Stable Residential, r The produlte tJohnSeinlJohn Urban Reserve, Low to Medium Density Residential and Rural Resource SAINT JOHN Date: September 12, 2014 413 Somerset Investments Ltd. (600 and 700 -750 Somerset Street) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 55008858, 00049809, 55123582, 55123590, 55123616, 55123632 and 55149991 Existing Zoning: "I -1" Light Industrial, "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential and "R -1A" One Family Residential September 12, 2014 414 0 125 250 500 Meters t Map created by the City of Saint John + •�y Carte pmdulte par The City of Saint John © 2014 The City of Saint John WNT JOHN I?fr)1J0S J Somerset Investments Ltd. (600 and 700 -750 Somerset Street) I Legend Subject Property (ies) Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 55008858, 00049809, 55123582, 55123590, 55123616, 55123632 and 55149991 Draft Zoning: General Commercial (CG), Future Development (FD) and Rural (RU) : September 12, 2014 415 0 125 250 500 1 t 1 t I t t t 1 Meters Map created by the CRy of Saint Jahn Carte produite par The City of Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN SJ Meltone Inc. (520 -550 Somerset Street) ow o, e lum - — se �1 enslt st '� �� / O ,c•' j �Resldentl_al., Stable Residential ♦' Rural. J P' • - - : ` Resource l > � ✓ , -r!'* z :r t. y Low to M /` RE?std'entlal \ t� ; fJ- Y `{ ct f Legend 0 125 250 500 Subject Property (ies) Meters - Primary Development Area PID(s): 00046417, 00052423 and 55089932 % Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produlte par The City of Saint John Municipal Plan Designation: Local Centre 72014 The City of Saint John Date: September 12, 2014 SAINT JOHN 416 Meltone Inc. (520 -550 Somerset Street) Legend Subject Property (ies) 7k Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00046417, 00052423 and 55089932 Existing Zoning: "I -1" Light Industrial Date: September 12, 2014 417 0 125 250 500 <_ i i i I i t i 1 Meters Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John o—' ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN I Z—PrIles] Meltone Inc. (520 -550 Somerset Street) Legend Subject Property (ies) Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00046417, 00052423 and 55089932 Draft Zoning: General Commercial (CG) Date: September 12, 2014 MM 0 125 250 500 Meters Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite per The City of Saint John C 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN i= !, MST Holdings Inc. (560 Somerset Street) 0 y/ Lnv1, to.Medlum \v' Derfsdy� b / /Re`side`lia! i �4m/ N . . 'st I' J able *: / Resrdential' Stable ;Rural Residential J Resource , 77 1 III ner. Iv 1 WN- A otinr.to Meriufr� t Ca ♦ �.. � I �, r Density GenU ♦ �. , ., • I < st -rnw ResrtiPntral fltarlsity _ ResrJrrl'tlal' f j Stable r Residential r ioe l Metdruiri r 1I\ Ucn ,1ty~ �• L nd mm era Legend 0 125 250 500 Subject Property (ies) I t t I ! I I t ! Meters - - - Primary Development Area PID(s): 00052282 d. Mep created by the City of Saint John Carte produite per The City of Saint John Municipal Plan Designation: Local Centre 02014 The City of Saint John Date: September 12, 2014 SAINT JOHN 419 MST Holdings Inc. (560 Somerset Street) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00052282 Existing Zoning: 1 -1" Light Industrial Date: September 12, 2014 420 0 125 250 500 Meters 9 �— .. �+ 1 ,� Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite per The City of Saint John 0 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN � 5� MST Holdings Inc. (560 Somerset Street) Legend Subject Property (ies) Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00052282 Draft Zoning: General Commercial (CG) Date: September 12, 2014 421 0 125 250 500 l— 1 t i I 1 i i Meters h9ap created by the City of Saint John Carts produille per The City of Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John WNT JOHN Michelle & Sean Luck Rural Property Holdings Various Locations Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning Council Public Hearing Submission M &C- 2014 -153 September 29, 2014 422 Vacant Land (Loch Lomond & Sproule Roads) Legend Subject Property (ies) PID(s): 00433755 Municipal Plan Designation: Rural Resource, Rural Residential and Park and Natural Area Date: September 12, 2014 423 0 125 250 500 Mete rs Map created by tha City of Saint John Carte produite per The City of Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Vacant Land (Loch Lomond & Sproule Roads) Legend Subject Property (ies) PID(s): 00433755 Existing Zoning: "RS -1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential and "RF" Rural Date: September 12, 2014 424 0 125 250 500 11 t f 1 t t t 1 Meters Map created by the City of Saint John �•ryy Garte produite par The City of Saint John W 2094 The City of Saint John SAINT IOHN I S1 Vacant Land (Loch Lomond & Sproule Roads) I Legend Subject Property (ies) PID(s): 00433755 Draft Zoning: Rural (RU) Date: September 12, 2014 425 0 125 250 500 Meters f� Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN P�-z v- - nS I Vacant Land (Airport Arterial) Park al •� � ley r \ /N" IN \� I , Rural Settlement IN \ i T\ IN . ��' ✓.,pf�.Nattart�. Legend 0 125 250 500 Subject Property (ies) , I I I r I Meters PI D(s): 55037410 Municipal Plan Designation: Rural Resource Date: September 12, 2014 426 @-,67 Map created produi by the City it Saint John Carte produde par The City of Saint John 612014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN K.`� \• .. . , , rte• Ij Ir fiRti _v ; �� �� • d��� 4111JIll y i r • ' •� ?.'�� � � stir ..� t ire • ` . 1 ` �, �_ �'K � i '' r 1 �'• .h t . mv Ile -v Div SSt ` - . --Park an Natural Area Rural -�ResidlentiaF- Rural "ResoUrCP Rur'a: Resider,��a'F _ Vacant Land & Pharmacy (Hillcrest Road 1 Loch Lomond Road) :uraly! Park and L-cyci l u Subject Property (ies) Primary Development Area PID(s): 00325209 Municipal Plan Designation: Rural Resource, Rural Residential and Park and Natural Area Date: September 12, 2014 429 0 175 350 700 Meters jar Map created by the City of Saint John _ -f T • Carte produile par The City of Saint John ! ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Vacant Land & Pharmacy (Hilicrest Road 1 Loch Lomond Road) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PI D(s): 00325209 Existing Zoning: "RS -1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential and "B -2" General Business Date: September 12, 2014 430 0 175 350 700 I i t t 1 i r i I Meters Map created by the City of Saint John T Carte produite par The City of Saint John Ir ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT )OHN ZJr, '' ', S Vacant Land & Pharmacy (Hillcrest Road I Loch Lomond Road) II L c Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PI D(s): 00325209 Draft Zoning: Rural (RU) and Rural General Commercial (CRG) Date: September 12, 2014 431 0 175 350 700 Meters Map created by the City of Saint Jahn Carte pmdulle par The City of Saint John ' ®2014 The City of Saint John SAINT )OHN Zc".4,,e j"! CITY COUNCIL Monday, September S 656 432 w r= .4 Zone si I N T 10% 1 . DO Ul, %1- 110` REASONS FOR EXPRESSED OPPOSITION S Ling c cave -10sn- me t in -oral se'ztin s •e-s de.?'!ids will 13n : he iii 0L11w'�. gv,,'d to Migrate to. `�'T:�� ?����j" and .' G r n ~� R • cutside. 'Che PDA (Prer-fe, p ul Develo� nir.�[ g Area in th more- "ruFail. self.- -Inggs f fr om Rs1. to RLJ) favol-s celLain land cwnel,,*s. whHe peirAlZing ot i e r5 657 433 i I Zone Si ILL STRATON -- Discrimination example I ch Lolmnond Road/73prnU .�e cot /A., " =rre nt Zoning RS Proposed IRU r11 � the Amer al rezoned RS while hp tmhu RU (f1-0 m I acr%e t l I':) aC4�s� r" e t y SL1rr0u.nded by aR ad :app t e x i s t lii t' 658 434 Zone,;T ILLu0I RAT — Discrimination continua -~ .c Ss b;p .-e rr; At4� JC _. 4' +G o C.a Roar a; � Second Proce�u � rG l he Atlnr' � 659 435 Zone Sj � STRATO r — : s�.rimi atio example I (may be farr?iliar with -the Lakewood Guardian Pharmacy) Curren Zoning R51 Proposed R "# p4erty was purchased with the invent to oieve!op con Tnercial, Consideration i 71 -jr aCquisition: existing i r UNI'liLIP31 C aq C h- ld -lica .ed nic:. phase for city sere c�:s 660 436 Z I � . i Discrimination continued Reeason.a 9 � v e poi o p te r v £0Ca e- 00 Elx� ng StaP: 40artial s; ..�bdM. -sior pla }? ';not �.� f ....... .r •,,� 661 437 Is. I, iii__ Zone Sj D"Iscrimination continued ro ceri.'r1� own. ed ap ~jroxilmai.,el'y KO ft. horn alkl.a.il o%od Haights (sczrviced, res;ldential de-vellopirnent! r Are n �s�i �Lct Rc.aC,*Zd growing ; es!dertiaii area . r : -'rom, both Loch Lomond Roca d end HH3rrr-A ;+ ,oad 662 438 Zone 5,T SUMMARY IrIg 11, an ci Gi`P rco LP. n a rlu,ra z'° a give ; ,L `A 'P: ��. • '�' Icy • { � �� ` y SE.�^:.'1.�' E ralI1'y bcak� P Ioca, �•" '�}�■71fi�ytl in `"n .ita "`"`y„'�_ .&r. • .r ` , i X11 �'v+ L Lr 4. t' Y 1 G 1 � G � � � �✓ � ;^� � L ° 'fir �• 1 rs opment r icc e -sr,;p IP T`"rti Ti t^e its .g f1� ;� z. .arsi..Pt+.. �/_i: «.a .i�.3IE ori^ �.ria. po3in i. Cl growing dilemaiid 663 439 Zone si R ^ I . -e%-r E%A%JCz I Consider tie ':jjp��t wolulir-,i' be 5-1 resider-0--s .t ax ry 1. tai for .ion. 664 440 September 3, 2014 PLAN SJ PROPOSED NEW ZONING BY -LAW FOR THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN OWNERS: JUDIANNE, DENNIS AND MICHELLE LUCK Re. PID #0325209 PID #0043375S Existing R51 one family lot area 4,000 square meters lot width 54 meters lot depth 38 meters Proposed RU one family lot area 40,000 square meters lot width 120 meters lot depth SO meters LOCATION: LOCH LOMOND RD. To whom it may concern, This letter is to further express our opposition to Plan SJ. We have formally expressed in writing, November 22, 2013 (attachment), our concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. An acknowledgement of receipt was received; however, our concerns were not addressed adequately. We oppose Plan SJ for the following reasons: (1) The reclassification discriminates among land owners with properties located within the city limits and devalues existing properties (2) The restriction of residential development in so called "rural areas" a. discourages developers from establishing new residential dwellings in areas of demand b. further encourages urban sprawl and the development of outlying communities (Rothesay and Quispamsis) We oppose Plan SJ as the proposed zoning revision from RS1 to RU under Plan SJ has devalued our properties located in Lakewood on the Loch Lomond Road, essentially making them worthless and preventing development. The intent has always been to develop these properties when economic conditions in Saint John improved. This is evidenced by the subdivision of these land parcels to provide a 66ft right of ways for future development and, although not registered, the establishment of a preliminary subdivision plan for single family residences for PID # 0325209. At the time PID #0325209 was being considered for acquisition, it was acknowledged by the SJ Planning Commission that this area was slated for city services in the Phase 2 of the municipal plan. This was a major influence on the acquisition of this property and development of Lakewood Guardian Pharmacy. Similarly, a second single family development plan was prepared for PID #00433755, but not registered. This was to further support the development of an adjacent property and provide a land swap. The implementation of Plan SJ will be exercising discrimination among existing land owners who maintain parcels of land within the city with close proximity to city amenities. It is preposterous to reclassify certain parcels of land in a proposed "rural' setting as an RU zone while adjacent properties remain classified as RS1. Furthermore, it is ridiculous that the main artery, Loch Lomond Road, to the 441 city of Saint John with properties located anywhere from 5 to 15min from the downtown core and the primary retail area of the city (McAlister Place and East Point) would be considered rural. The proposed rezoning restricts development in areas of potential growth. "Rural' settings located close to city amenities are a growing area of demand. Land developers only develop when there is a demand and minimum risk. It is improbable that a developer would consider selling loacre lots under the reclassification as the cost to establish an access road would far exceed the sale of the land. Moreover, why would a buyer live within the city limits at an increased expense? The city has always had control over development through existing Planning Advisory and Council determinations. To say Plan SJ will prevent urban sprawl and control development in specific serviced areas is an exaggeration at best. The restriction of development in "rural' areas will simply encourage further urban sprawl with "would be" residents to migrate to Rothesay and Quispamsis. The resulting outcome is a further population decline in the City of Saint John, reduction in tax base, use of city amenities and facilities while encouraging further growth and support of business in outlying areas. We trust in your attention and consideration to this zoning change and the implications to land owners, and the future population and tax base of the City of Saint John. Yours truly, Judianne Luck r Dennis Luck Michelle Luck F,., jr 442 Judianne Luck and Michelle Luck 3749 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, NB E2N iC3 (506) 696 -4584 Growth & Community Development Services Attention: Mark O'Hearn and Stacey Forfar loth Floor City Hall PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 November 26, 2013 Dear Mr. O'Hearn and Ms_ Forfar, Re: Proposed Zone Si Rural (RU) from the current One & Two Family Suburban Residential (RS1) zoning This letter is in response to your request for feedback regarding the proposed Zone 5J. My mother and I are, individually or through our holding company, owners of land parcels on Loch Lomond Road, 3 of which are planned to change from RS1 and RF to RU. We recently attended your public information sessions on October 30 and November 7. While we generally appreciate the efforts and plans undertaken to strengthen the city's urban core, we oppose the proposed restriction of residential development outside the proposed primary development area for the following reasons: Restriction of residential development outside the primary development area will encourage further migration of persons to the outlying areas of Quispamsis, Rothesay and Grand -Bay Westfield; resulting in a further decline in the population and tax base of Saint John. A large cross section of land owner's outside the proposed primary development area will be treated unjustly under some of the proposed zoning_ Permitting some areas outside the designated primary development zone to retain the existing RSl zoning while rezoning others to RU is unjust. This proposed rezoning decreases the land value and future development opportunities for those rezoned RU while creating an advantage in terms of land value and residential development for those whose properties remain RS1_ The stipulated rational of reducing the cost of service delivery (particularly on Loch Lomond Road ) appears non - sensical in light of the requirement to provide fire and other services to the Saint John 443 Regional Airport and the Treadwell Lake area, which is to maintain the current R51 zoning designation. At the very least, those land owners who become subject to the 10 acre penalty stipulated in the RU zone, should be allowed to subdivide their property into smaller parcels if they agree with the City to not burden the City with the cost of additional services, i.e. let the developer establish a private road association and /or let the parties agree that there will be limited City services such as fire protection. In our view, land within City limits should not be designated RU in locations where significant residential development currently exists. In respect to our 3 properties proposed to be classified as RU, we have the following comments: PID 00433755 - 54.2 hectares This property was acquired by my great grandfather in the early 1900's and is located adjacent to the airport arterial highway and the corner of Loch Lomond Road. It is currently zoned RS1 and is bordered by property to the west zoned as RS1 and boarded by property on the south east corner zoned RR. One section of the property borders the Sproule Road residential area and the extension of Sproule Road runs through this property. The property is accessible by both the Sproule Road and a 60 ft road way off Loch Lomond Road. There are no resource related activities on this property. Like the Treadwell Lake residential area (1 mile further from our property) on the other side of the airport arterial highway, this properties highest and best use is for residential development. We request this property remain available for residential development and not be subject to RU zoning. PID 55037410 — 3.19 hectarces This parcel resulted from the expropriation of our property to construct the airport arterial highway. As a result this property was land locked. Despite ourwritten objections to the City, adjacent development has occurred without the City requiring the developers to provide access to this parcel. This parcel is currently designated as RF and is bordered by RS1 and RR zoned parcels. Development and home construction is occurring on adjacent parcels. This parcel is at or near the Treadwell Lake residential area. Its highest and best use should be for residential purposes. There are none and have been no resource related activities on this property. In addition to our request that this property remain available for residential development and not subject to RU zoning we further ask that the city require future adjacent development to provide access to the property. ... PID 00325209 — 49.1 hectares (Eire Holdings) This parcel is located behind Lakewood Guardian Pharmacy and was acquired in 2003 for purposes of establishing the local Pharmacy as well as for developing the remainder of the property for residential purposes. During due diligence and prior to acquiring the property we were advised by City staff that city services (water and sewerage) were scheduled for this area in the near future. Upon rezoning to commercial for the Pharmacy, we understood that the delivery of services was to occur within 5 years. Although we had prepared a subdivision plan, we concluded that from a tax perspective it was best to hold on registration pending delivery of the services by the City. Had we been aware that our rights afforded under the current bylaw could be unilaterally removed without some type of grand fathering provision we would have submitted our plan for registration. This parcel is 3.5 km from McAlister Drive, 7km from the City centre and is accessible by both Loch Lomond Road and Hillcrest Road. It is currently designated R51. This property was acquired for commercial and residential development. There are no existing resource related activities on this property. Its highest and best use remains as residential development. We request this property remain available for residential development and not be subject to RU zoning. We look forward to your reply and assistance with our concerns. We can be reached at the address on this letter. Respectfully submitted, Michelle Luck Judianne Luck 445 1j m dl. ■& city of SWnt John December 101h 2013 Judianne Luck & Michelle luck 3749 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, NB E2N 1C3 Dear Mss. Luck; Re: ZoneSJ Submission Please accept this message as an acknowledgment that we have received your recent submission on November 28, 2013 concerning the ZoneSJ project. Questions concerning individual properties or of the proposed zoning by -law standards will be answered as quickly as possible, although it may take some time to draft a response depending on the complexity of the question(s). We kindly ask for your patience during this period as we are processing a significantly higher number of inquiries than normal. If your inquiry does not contain a property specific matter but instead has general comments, these will be considered by Planning Staff during a further internal review of the Draft Zoning By -law and will ultimately be included in the Report on Public Feedback to Common Council. We thank you for your interest in this project and encourage you to remain involved in this important step in the process toward formal adoption of a new Zoning By -law for the City of Saint John. Sincerely, Stac orfar, Deputy Commissioner, Growth & Community Enrichment City of Saint John Stacey_forfar @saintiohn.ca Front desk: 658 -2835 SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 C.f? 1971 Saint John, NB Saint john, NA. Canada E2L 4L1 Canada E2L 4L1 www.saintjohn.ca 446 The City of Saint John January 24, 2014 Michelle and Judianne Luck 3749 Loch Lomond Road Saint John, NB E2N I.C3 MAILED Dear Michelle and Judianne Luck: Re: Response to ZoneSJ Submission Various Properties Thank you for your submission on November 26, 2013 with respect to your various properties, identified as PID numbers 00433755, 55037410, and 00325209. To provide some background, the City adopted a new Municipal Plan, known as P1aW, in January of 2012. The Plan serves as a guide for development and investment across the City for the next 25 years and focuses the majority of new development inside of the Primary Development Area (PDA) where municipal services are available. The areas outside of the PDA are designated for rural -based land uses. In order to implement the land use designations, the primary purpose of ZoneSJ, while balancing the nature and range of Iegally established Iand uses, the draft zoning by -Iaw proposes zones that are consistent with the land use designations that are in place. As an aside, all existing and proposed draft zone standards referenced in this letter have been attached for your information. Most importantly, please note the current draft of the zoning by --law is just that, a draft zoning by -law. The recommendations in this letter will be incorporated into the final revised draft that will be presented to the community and Common Council in F, 2014 for their consideration. The final document must be translated prior to being formally adopted and as such, it is anticipated that the final zoning by -law will be back before the community and Common Council in the summer 2014 for formal adoption. Please continue to stay informed of this important process as it moves ahead this year. r. -. _� SAINT ; OI Ili PO. Box 1971 C.P. 1971 Saint John, NB Saint John, N: B. Canada E2L 4L Canada EK 4L1 www.saintiohn.ca 447 -2- Loch Lomond Road / Sproule Road PID number 00433755 The subject property is located outside of the PDA and is designated primarily Rural Resource, as illustrated on the attached excerpt of the Future Land Use Map. In order to implement this land use designation, the primary purpose of ZoneSJ, while balancing the nature and range of the legally established land uses on this site, the draft zoning by -law proposes to zone the site from the existing One and Two Family Suburban Residential (RS-]) and Rural (RF) zones to the draft Rural (RU) zone, With respect to the existing development permissions under the current One and Two Family Suburban Residential (RS -1) zone, it is important to recognize that this zone only permits a maximum of six (6) new lots with frontage on an existing public street. Under the old Municipal Plan, rural residential subdivisions requiring new streets required rezoning to Rural Residential (RR) to be approved. Due to the unserviced nature of these subdivisions, this process also often required water quantity and quality studies to be undertaken as conditions of any approval granted. Airport Arterial PID number 55037410 The subject property is located outside of the PDA and is designated Rural Resource, as illustrated on the attached excerpt of the Future Land Use Map. In order to implement this land use designation, the primary purpose of ZoneS1, while balancing the nature and range of the legally established land uses on this site, the draft zoning by -law proposes to zone the site from the existing Rural (RF) zone to the draft Rural (RU) zone. The minimum Iot size of 4 hectares proposed in the draft Rural (R U) zone is the same minimum lot size that has been required in the existing Rural (RF) zone; a requirement that has been in place for decades. This large minimum lot size is a community growth management tool found in most Rural -type zones. As such, the ZoneV team continues to recommend the proposed approach to this property in the draft zoning by -law. The ZoneSJteam has reviewed your inquiry with respect to the existing parcel access for this site. Under the existing Subdivision By -law, when new subdivisions are considered, it is a requirement to provide proposed fixture street connections to adjoining parcels, to ensure the proposed development does not prejudice fixture development of the adjacent parcel. Based on the development applications received to date, none have extended to this property at this time. Beyond the subdivision process, there is no opportunity for the City to become involved in resolving the issue of how the property is accessed. Hillcrest Road / Loch Lomond Road PID number 00325209 The subject property is located outside of the PDA and is designated primarily Rural Resource, as illustrated on the attached excerpt of the Future Land Use Map. In order to implement this land use designation, the primary purpose of ZoneSJ, while balancing the nature and range of the legally established land uses on this site, the draft zoning by -law proposes to zone the site from the existing One and Two Family Suburban Residential (RS -1) zone to the draft Rural (R U) zone. M. -3- With respect to the existing development permissions under the current One and Two Family Suburban Residential (RS -1) zone, it is important to recognize that this zone only permits a maximum of six (6) new lots with frontage on an existing public street. Under the old Municipal Plan, rural residential subdivisions requiring new streets required rezoning to Rural Residential (RR) to be approved. Due to the unserviced nature of these subdivisions, this process also often required water quantity and quality studies to be undertaken as conditions of any approval granted. With this understanding, under the existing RS -1 zone for the property identified as PID number 00433755, this property currently has the right to proceed with approximately four (4) residential lots, based on the existing public street frontage available on Hillcrest Road. There are no further residential subdivision permissions for the portion of this site fronting Loch Lomond Road, as the existing public street frontage has already been subdivided for residential and commercial lots. Under the proposed draft Rural (RU) zone for this property, which is not substantially different from the existing Rural (RU) zone, each lot must be four (4) hectares in size and have a minimum of 120 metres of public street frontage. Based on the existing public street frontage available on Hillcrest Road, the proposed zone retains the opportunity to potentially subdivide two (2) residential lots. If you are not already on our email list and would like to be added, please advise us by sending through an email to planningCa,saintjohn.ca if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact US. Growth & Community Development Services: I Oth Floor, City Hall P.O Box 1971, Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Email: planning@saintjohn.ca Tel: 658 -2835 ZoneSJwebsite: www.saintjohn.ca/zonesi Sincerely, f _ F Stacey Forfar, MBA, MCIP, RPP ZoneSJProject Team Lead Deputy Commissioner, Growth & Community Enrichment Attachments Excerpts, Future Land Use Map Excerpts, existing and proposed zoning Existing One and Two Family Suburban Residential (RS-1) zone Existing Rural (RF) zone Draft Rural (R L9 zone Draft Rural General Commercial (CGR) zone Airport Arterial J Legend I Subject Property (ies) PI ®(s): 55037410 Municlpl Plan ®esigna:lcn: Rural Resource Date: January 24, 2014 450 0 125 250 500 Meters Map created by the CHy of Salnt John Certe produke per The City of Saint John 6 ea 2014 The Cky of Saint John SAINT JOHN 1. L O.V fAm )raft Zoning Eli FR i, 4 ffp� 4L lk d Read 1 Sproule R -oad S #�O-wkand a- _ F 1 � y Rural �1k �a •� � � ,/ '4�Settlemerit , 1 a Federal; Pa no i r agsportation • alurat w i' 0 125 250 500 Meters Map Created bythe Gtyof Saint John - Cane produlle par The qty a( Saint John 2014 The City of Saint Jahn SAINT JOHN SI Lach. ROEd / SPI-OLTIe Road Legend Subject Property (ies) PID(s). 00433755 Existing Zoning. "RS -1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential and "RF" Rural Draft Zoning: Rural (RU) Date: January 24, 2014 453 0 200 400 800 Meters Ua creates the P by City of Selnt John' Carte produite par The City of Saint John l 10� ® 2014 The City of Saint John SANT JOHN Road 1 Lc'E`l Lomond RQt,d■ IN �a , +'t G Stable ; 0 175 350 700 I I 1 Meters )lap creafad by the City of Saint John Carte produfta par The qty d Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John ' r y 1 Road 1 Loch _� -r ci?: Road Llgen i Subject Property (ies) PID(s); 00325209 EExis ng Zonln€ : "RS -1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential and "B- 2General Business Graft Zoning: Rural (RU) and Rural General Commercial (CGR) Date: January 24, 2014 455 0 300 600 9,200 Meters �_- flap created by the Gfy of Saint John Carte produtta par The Ctty of SaInt John ® 2014 The Ctty of Saint John SAINT J01 IN Mike Francis Ocean Westway Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning No written submission M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 456 z Vacant Land (Ocean Westway) . - _ Aaw-59 Legend Subject Property (ies) •- d Primary Development Area (PDA) PID(s): 00287482 Municipal Plan Designation: Stable Residential, Urban Reserve, Rural Resource and Park and Natural Area Date: September 12, 2014 0 125 250 500 Meters T., Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Vacant Land (Ocean Westway) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PI D(s): 00287482 Existing Zoning: T -2" General Business and "RF" Rural Date: September 12, 2014 0 125 250 500 1 t r f 1 r t t 1 Meters Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produife par The City of Saint John ®2094 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN �� Vacant Land (Ocean Westway) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00287482 Draft Zoning: Future Development (FD) and Rural (RU) Date: September 12, 2014 0 125 250 500 Meters f _.1I Map created by the City of Saint John ti "� Carte produite par The City of Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Bev Purinton Lakeview Heights Land Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning Council Public Hearing Submission M & C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 460 sj Aaw Vacant Land (Lakewood Heights) Park and i Park and \ Natural Area ` Ruial Resourc - r. 40 0 rom Clint pr ' _/ \ IT A. i AA, wal Legend 0 100 200 400 Subject Property (ies) y t I I t I I l Meters M Primary Development Area PI D (s ): 55190599 546 __� Mep created by the City of Saint John Carte produke par The City of Saint John Municipal Plan Designation: Stable Residential and Rural Resource 0 2014 The City of Saint John BMNII JOHN Date: September 12, 2014 Vacant Land (Lakewood Heights) Legend Subject Property (ies) PID(s): 55190599 Existing Zoning: "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "RS -1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential Date: September 12, 2014 0 100 200 400 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Meters �,► Map created by the City of Saint John Cafe produite par The City of Saint John © 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN 6ne S,.,;J Vacant Land (Lakewood Heights) Legend Subject Property (ies) PID(s): 55190599 Draft Zoning: Two -Unit Residential (R2) and Rural (RU) Date: September 12, 2014 0 100 200 400 i t l l i t t t i Meters 7„ Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produite par The City of Saint John ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Bev Purinton 210 Lakewood Ave Saint John N8, E2J aP1 July 215t 2014 Letter to Council Re Zone SJ Mayor and Council, ehG�� �-- Gd I was interested in a question asked at a council meeting July 71h regarding the new zoning plan that will be presented to council in September. Councillor Fullerton mentioned she had heard from residents that felt they would be negatively affected by the proposed zoning plan and was asking about a process for them to be heard. 1 would also like Council to know that I'm in a similar situation and like Councillor Fullerton am wondering if there will be ally opportunity for my situation to be address before the new zoning plan is voted on, and approved. I've lived in Lakewood Heights for over twenty years and purchased land there with the intention to build a home and develop additional residential lots. In 20091 approached the Planning department and put together a plan with their guidance, in the report from staff I had Their full support and it was presented to council in February 2010. Staff required I include features in keeping with the "new direction" they were heading in, which included smaller tots and multi- famiiy units to encourage diversity. I suspect this was the first time the council of the day had seen the new direction as they denied the approach and Jacqueline Hamilton said in an interview with the Telegraph Journal shortly after that this was why a new municipal plan was required for Saint John. Pion SJ was launched shortly thereafter. The negative Impact of the new zoning is because of a Primary Development boundary that is so rigid it follows property lines and would require costly and time consuming amendments to the plan for any flexibility. My property is literally on the boundary but has access to City water and sewage, has two city streets to the property and an elementary school on the primary access street only a few yards away. Other developments have been approved in the same neighbourhood since I originally approached the City and were not required to include multi - farnily units as I was originally which was a concern for residents. I've been told by Staff that the primary development boundary in Plan Si is the reason the development of my property can't be supported now and the zoning; will be changed. My property is currently zoned for residential development however it's R.SI and Staff requires smaller lots so now under Plan Si it will be zoned rural resource. it's my opinion that if this happens the types of use that will be 367 permitted to occur under the new zone would be considerably less appealing to th-e residents in the neighbourhood as opposed to new single family homes. A very good case could be made for a practical solution to this problem with a buffer zone along the Primary Development Boundary that would allow for residential development Next to and in keeping with existing residential zones. In this situation anyone developing in the buffer zone would be fully aware that a rural zone exist and could plan accordingly vs the current plan to impose a rural zone next to already existing residents giving them no ability to plan for it. in short, I purchased my property knowing it was zoned residential, indicated my intention to develop and had support from staff before Plan SJ. The public consultation of Plan SJ did not deal with specific issues such as this however the Primary Development Boundary being imposed is very specific to property lines. I have a concern is that if negative impacts of the zoning plan are only heard during the time of council's vote, the opportunity for proper consideration and due diligence will be lost. I would appreciate any opportunity to be thoughtfully heard on my situation before the vote. Regards Bev Purinton 368 465 Dennis Griffin 31 Griffin Lane Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning PAC Public Meeting Submission Council Public Hearing Submission M &C -2014 -163 September 29, 2014 466 � 5 Vacant Land (31 Griffin Lane) Legend Subject Property (ies) Primary Development Area PID(s): 00336701 Municipal Plan Designation: Rural Residential, Rural Resource and Heavy Industrial Date: September 12, 2014 461 0 175 350 700 Meters r _ Map created by the City of Saint John Carle pruduite par The City of Saint John ..r�/ ®2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Vacant Land (31 Griffin Lane) Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00336701 Existing Zoning: "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential and "RF" Rural Date: September 12, 2014 EM 0 175 350 700 L i I I I ! I 1 I Meters Map created by the City of Saint John `r Carte produite par The City of Saint John " ® 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN '�rL Vacant Land (31 Griffin Lane) .r�tr. Legend Subject Property (ies) * Section 39 Conditions Applicable PID(s): 00336701 Draft Zoning: Rural (RU) and Medium Industrial (IM) Date: September 12, 2014 M 0 175 350 700 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Meters t% Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produAe par The City of Saint John (� 0 2014 The City of Saint John SAINT joHN Oudookcom Print Message Print Mips, //blul 80.maii. live. com/ oUmail .mvc/PrintMessages?n*t -en-ca _l{ NI: Plan Saint John & Zone Saint John From: dennis griffin (weusco @hotmail.com) Sent: August-10-147.-25:15 AM To: Bennis griffin (weusco@hotmail.com) Plan Saint John & Zone Saint John Close To the Mayor Mel Norton/Council & Planning Advisory Committee of the city of Saint John Aug 20 & Sept 8/2014 At the July 7th 2014 meeting of council the head planner - Jacqueline Hamilton - presented the final version of the P1anSJ &. ZoneS1 bylaws. These documents with ail the changes were then voted on to be sent to the PAC for an August 20/2014 meeting/approval & to then return to council on Sept 8/2014 meeting & approval _ As many of the PAC & this council members are not familiar with the history of our property & why we take the stand that we have taken we will try to explain. In the mid 70s we bought our first property in Red Head prior to getting married with the intent in establishing a community where we could raise a family & start the next generation of Griffin family members . We then went on to buy more land for the next generation to build on. In the mid 90 Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd. started to rezone lands next to ours in the McAllister Industrial Park. There was a removal of millions of yards of gravel to areas of the city including the King of Cats project in 1998/2000. Around this time the manager of SJIP discussed the rezoning of our RF land to I4rndustrial zone . At another time SJ1P suggested a land swap- all our RF land for S&S lands in the Red Head area - we did not think that this was a good situation to go into so it went no further. In 2003 the provincial government/NB Power & Irving Oil Ltd. teamed up to try to expropriate a 350 foot industrial corridor/ROW through our land next to McIDveen Drive in the McAllister Industrial park. That attempt to take from us our property failed when they could not get any Orimulsion from Venezuela. Shortly after 2003 the city of Saint John & Irving Oil Ltd. teamed up to put an industrial corridor through the Red Head community & our lands taking from us 160 feet of property & going right through a known source of gravel ( test pitted by Gulf Operators in May 7th/2001 ) . This new road was first named " The Secondary Access Road to Red Head " but is now called Bayside Drive . Also at this time IOI, wanted to make it a controlled access road and this is where the Bayside Drive Bylaw was create to give access to parent property owners & the RIGHT to build homes /subdivisions off of Bayside Drive. This was when Mayor Norman Farlane held office _ IOL & Gulf Operators built the new industrial corridor throw Red Head to Mispec Point at NO cost to the city of Saint John saving $10 million . The only catch was that city had to take the land from the Rightful owners because of the history of the 2003 of Orimulsion expropriation fai ure . All of these facts are spelled out in the " Design/Build Agreement 2007 " between the city & Irving Oil Ltd. at that time period. In 2006 we built our first home for our son @ 21 Griffin Lane & placed a mini home @ 31 Griffin Lane. j On Sept 20/2011 we asked for a variance once again to bce7ak off another piece of our land to build a new r Oudook.com Print Message https: I/blu180.nmU.Iive.conVol /umil .nwe/priirtMessages ?mldt —m -ca were told that our lands could not be subdivided further because ofPlanSJ which did not come into effect till Jan 2012 . From reading the reports between the city of Saint John & Enterprise Saint John & Atlantic Potash & the Environment Impact Assessments for Red Head we understand why we were turn down from building our daughters new home. We were never told any of this information prior to making application for permits to build & lost over $1800.00 plus improvements to lot of $25,000,00 . In January of 2012 the council of Ivan Court passed the new PIanSJ in which our lands were changed from RS2 & RF to RR/RU/1M . We have stated from the beginning of the renewal of the Municipal Plan that we did not wantlasked for the zoning changes . We had bought this farmland with the zones RS2 & RF status/zoning & that we intended to build homes on it for our family . We are not deaf to the city needs & understand why you need our lands for the future . As was clearly stated by the manager of SJIP " the till is empty & the cupboards are bare " when it comes to land in the industrial parks in East Saint John & elsewhere . We did offer to the city several proposals but have never had a counter offer to their situation of empty tills & cupboards problem only rejection. When the new PlanSJ & ZoneSJ are studied you will find the very similar to the facts found in the EIAs for Eider Rock Refinery, Secondary Access Road to Red Head, LNG Terminal, Wellfield Protection Area for Harbourview Subdivision, Saint John Waste Water Treatment Plant in Red Head & Final Wetlands Assessment for the Anthonys Cove area . All these Environment Impact Assessments have one thing in common - land & that homes & heavy industry are not a good mix . Add to this a new fertilizer plant of Atlantic Potash Corp & you can see why ZoneSJ bylaws are written as they are with no changes for property owners in Red Head area of Saint John . Once again we state that we do not want our property zone of RS2 & RF changed to RR/RU/B4 . Copies of C.P. 110 & Community Planning Act are provided for your benefit . Please read & understand before you pass judgement/vote. on our land/future . Most Sincerely, Dennis & Janice Griffin 865 Red Head Road Q /� ✓� mid Saint John Nl3 �- E2P 113 i pid - 336701 L alyut.cj Au�N5TO 471 10 THE ZONING BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN BY-LAW N,UMBER C.P. 110 The City of Saint John New Brunswick (Nota: Ce document est aussi disponibie en franols) 3 472 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN This hStMment purports Fxemotaire r)*°sentd comma to be a oopv ri .. „y rte: Original +pa. - • - _ nlnreni 5:famenl du ours- -z ` jas� 1 T 2006 number • n ro � 1, J. PATRICK WOODS, of The City of Saint John in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:- 7. That I am the Common Clerk of the said City of Saint John and as such have the custody of the minutes and records of the Common Council of the said City of Saint John and of the Common Seal of the said City. 2. That hereto attached and marked "A” is a copy of a by -law entitled "The Zoning By -law of The City of Saint John" enacted at a meeting of the Common Council of The 'City of Saint John held on the nineteenth day of December, A.D. 2005. 3. That I have carefully compared the said by -law with the original and the same is a true copy thereof. D A T E D at The City of Saint John on the sixteenth day of January, A.D. 2006. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I, the said Common Clerk of The City of Saint John have hereunto affixed the Common Seal of the said City the day and year first hereinbefore written. IJf-- J. Pa *k Woods Common 47&k 30 ZONES (1) For the purpose of this By -law, the following zones are established and the lands included in each zone are shown on the Zoning Map Sheets appendixed hereto as Schedule A. Zone Short Title one and two family suburban residential RS -1 one and two family and mobile home suburban residential RS-IM one and two family suburban residential RS­2 one and two family and mobile home suburban residential RS -21V! mobile home park MH one family rural residential RR one family serviced suburban residential RSS one family residential R -1A one family residential R -1 B one and two family residential R -2 four family residential R-4 townhouse TH three storey multiple residential RM -1 high rise multiple residential RM -2 central area multiple residential RM -3 multiple residential infill RM -IF neighbourhood institutional IL -1 major institutional IL -2 local business B -1 general business B -2 business residential BR central business B -3 474 12 120 ONE AND TWO FAMILY SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL Rt S -2l (1) Uses Any land, building or structure may be used for the purposes of, and for no other purpose than, (a) the following uses: a one - family dwelling; a two-family dwelling; subject to Section 810(1), a group home; a park or playground; as a secondary use to a residence, a kindergarten, nursery, or day care centre for not more than six children; subject to Section 810(3), a home occupation; an agricultural use, but not including the keeping of animals. (b) the following uses subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Committee: - subject to Section 810(2), a convenience store with or without ancillary take -out restaurant and dwelling unit; - as a secondary use to a convenience store, gasoline sales; - as a secondary use to a residence, a kindergarten, nursery, or day care centre for more than six children; - subject to the Mobile Home Parks By -law, a mobile home park; an office for a doctor or dentist; subject to Section 810(11)(b), the excavation of land greater than one metre for the purposes of preparing the site for development permitted in the zone; (c) subject to Section 830, an accessory building, structure or use, Incidental to a use, building or structure permitted in this Section. (2) Zone Standards (a) Minimum lot area (i) Unserviced 475 22 6 120 IRS -2 ZONE (2) (a) (i) one family ................... ...................................... 4,000 square metres two- family ........... ............................... ...5,400 square metres other... ............................... ..........................4,000 square metres (ii) Municipal Water and Sewer one family . ............................... ............................690 square metres two- family . ............................... .... ........................930 square metres other............................................................... 930 square metres (b) Minimum lot width (i) Unserviced one - family ..... ............................... ..........................54 metres two - family ................................. .............................60 metres other.................................... .............................54 metres (ii) Municipal Water and Sewer one - family ................................. .............................22 metres two- family ................................. .............................30 metres other.................................... .............................30 metres (c) Minimum lot depth for unserviced lots .................................. .............................38 metres (d) Minimum front yard ............................... ............................7.5 metres (e) Minimum side yard ................................. ............................... the lesser of 15 percent of lot width, or 4.5 metres (f) Minimum rear yard ................................ ............................7.5 metres (g) Minimum ground floor area (i) for a semi- detached dwelling - single storey ..................... ............................119 square metres - split-level ........................... .............................95 square metres - 1%. 2 or 3 storey ................ .............................83 square metres (ii) for a dwelling, other than a semi - detached - single storey .................... .............................89 square metres - split -level ........................... .............................71 square metres - 1'h, 2 or 3 storey ................ .............................62 square metres 476 23 120 RS -2 ZONE (2) (h) Maximum height ..................................... ..............................9 metres the maximum height may be increased to 11 metres, if minimum side yards of 9 metres are provided. on 2J77 720 RURAL (1) Uses Any land, building or structure may be used for the purposes of, and for no other purpose than, (a) the following uses: - one - family dwelling; - two - family dwelling; - church; community centre and grounds; elementary school; high school; vocational school; subject to subsection 810(3), a home occupation; - library; - park or playground or wood - lot; - as a secondary use, subject to subsection (2) (a), farming or the keeping of animals; fishing, but not including processing or sales on the premises; - subject to Section 810(9), a group home; (b) the following uses subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Committee: - commercial recreational facilities including golf, tennis, boating, swimming, skiing but not including automobile, cycle, or horse -race tracks; = subject to Section 810(2), a convenience store, with or without ancillary take -out restaurant and dwelling accommodation; as a secondary use to a convenience store, the sale of gasoline; hospital for the treatment of animals; institution of an educational or philanthropic nature; subject to the Mobile Home Parks By -law, mobile home park; office for one or two practitioners of medicine or dentistry; private club, fraternity or lodge without a license under the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act; 1378 720 RF ZONE (1) (b) - subject to clauses (ii) and (iii) of subsection (2)(a), a riding stable; wireless station; temporary seasonal stand for the sale of fruit, vegetables, flowers, sea foods, souvenirs, handicrafts and similar products; subject to Section 810(11)(b), the excavation of land greater than one metre for the purposes.of preparing the site for development permitted in the zone; (c) subject to Section 830, an accessory building, structure or use, incidental to a use, building or structure permitted in this Section, (2) Conditions of Use (a) the keeping of domestic animals is permitted only in conjunction with the residential use of a lot and subject to the following standards and conditions: (1) the lot is not less then 4000 square metres in area with a lot width of not less than 60 metres; (ii) no stable, building, enclosure or structure in which domestic animals are kept is located within 22 metres of any property line or 15 metres of any dwelling; (iii) any necessary approval under the Health Act is obtained; (iv) the total number of all such animals (other than their young under the age of six months) on a lot is limited to: A. in the case of horses, ponies, goats or sheep, (1) two animals, if the lot is a minimum of 4000 square metres, (2) three animals if the lot is a minimum of 6000 square metres with a lot width of at least 90 metres, (3) more than three animals, if an additional 2000 square metres is provided for each animal, B. in the case of cows, one animal per area of 2 hectares with a lot width of at least 180 metres. C. notwithstanding subsection (iv) B, a total of 30 cattle may be located on approximately 4 ha (10 acres) at 586 Churchland Road (NBGIC Number 55020036). 479 0 134 720 (3) Zone Standards (a) Minimum lot area RF ZONE - a dwelling ................................. ............................4.0 hectares other ... ............................... ..........................4,000 square metres (b) Minimum lot width adwelling .. ............................... ............................120 metres other................................... .............................60 metres (c) Minimum lot depth ................................. .............................38 metres (d) Minimum front yard ................................ ..............................9 metres (e) Minimum rear yard ................................ ............................7.5 metres (0 Minimum side yard 15 per cent of the width of the lot to a maximum of 9 metres (g) Minimum ground floor area: (i) for a semi- detached dwelling - single storey ................................................... 99 square metres split -level ........................... .............................79 square metres 1"/z, 2 or 3- storey .......... ..... .............................69 square metres (ii) for a dwelling, other than a semi - detached - single storey ...................... .............................74 square metres - spin -level ........................... ...........:.................59 square metres - 1%, 2 or 3- storey ............... .............................52 square metres (h) Maximum height .................................... .............................11 metres 135480 t- ommunity nannMg Act Page 23 of 81 (a) be a statement of the objectives for the future development of the municipality; (b) contain a statement of the objectives to be accomplished by a zoning or subdivision by -lair, (c) be consistent with the applicable regional plan U any; and (rl) be based on such studies and surveys as the Minister may require, 1672, a7, s.29;1004. e.K s.12. 30(1) Subject to this section, a council may by try -law adopt a basic planning statement preparmi hider the condifions and in the manner aet out in section 29. 30(2) Subject to this section, where a council Is required under paragraph 29(1)(b) to prepare a bash ptanniing statement, it shall by by -law adopt such statement within two years of the effective date of the plan or order mentioned In that paragraph. 30(3) No by -law under this section is vasd unless a majority of the whole council votes In favour of it 30(4) With respect to any municipality, the binlster may extend or reduce a time I" under subsection (2). 1612, a7, s.30. 30.1 If a rural plan under subsecton 77.2(1) is not In effect for a rural community, sections 29 and 30 apply with the necessary modifications to the rural commhshity council- 20115, Q7, s.12. 31 The provisions of sections 25, 2e and 27 pertaining to a munfcipal plan apply mufaft [thuhMft to a basic planning statement adopted under section 30. 1672, M7.621. DEVELDPLENT SCME� 32(i) Whane a munlclpal plan, basic planning statement or rural plan under subeection 27.2(1) or 77,2(1) Is in effect, the ooundl or rural community council, as the case may be, may by by-law adopt a development scheme to carry out or amplify (a) any proposal therein suggested or ou0kAd, or (b) any project that is not inconsistent therew8h. 32(2) For greater certainty without imltng the general paAw conAerred by subsection (1), n development scheme (a) shall p) consist of such written statements, maps, drawings and other descriptive matter, an under seal, signed by the clerk or rural community dark and Indicating that they are a part of "scheme, as may be necessary to illustrate the scheme, 00 delineate the land aSected by the scheme, 00) set out details of the development or redevelopment to be carried out in the scheme area, http :// laws .gn'D.ca /en/showfulldoc /cs/C4f2 /120111013 10/13/2011 Community Planning Act Qv) describe the manner in which the scheme is Intended to be implemented. (v) indicate the amount of any land to be reserved in the scheme area, or if feasible the particular lend to be reserved, and the manner In whim the reservation Is to be effected, and (vl) prem be the manner in which land in the scheme area Is to be subdivided; and (b) may, in relation to the scheme area, (p Prescribe (A) the manner in which existing buildings and structures may be altered or repaired where such develomants would not otherwise be permltted by the scheme, and (S) developments for which no building permit is required, (g) provde for the acqurmtion, assembly, consolidation, sale or tease by the mamiapelty or rural community of Such land, buildings Or *UehRes nary to M" out the WhOme, (lit) indicate land to be acquired at Me arts OF Iocat*n of aLMt&- RSW Ixtiktungs, sdWOMI parks or recreetOn an3ab, nr other tx►bhc servtcell such as W�water Or 9ewdratge, (iv) provide for "arnents with the owners of lard mamhoned In av}lpmragraph 010 es Will perwltt the acquwlbm of such land for such purposes, (v) allacah+ areas of land arallabte for residential, oOMMM1e1, Industrial, agricultural Or other purpose at any parttcutar trmb, and S (v) specify the order and timing for subdivision or development of any particular part thereof. 32(3) A development sdreme shall be prepared under such direction as is provided herein for the preparation of (a) a municipal plan or rural plan under subsection 27.2(1), in the case of a scheme pertaining to a municipallty or rural community. or fb) a regional plan, in the case of a scheme pertaining to an unincorporated area, and shall make provision for such general matters as the MlnJOW may require. 32(4) The provisions of sections 25, 26 and 27 with respect to a municipal plan apply mufaft mrdano9s to a development scheme under this section. 32(5) Notwithstanding any development scheme by -law, a council or rural oomrmun[ty council, as the case may be. may authorize the constuctifg, altering or repalrinq of any land, building or atnaotrrre if (a) in its opinion, such land, building or structure will uniform to the sdneme, or (b) the owner of the land, budding or structure enters Man agreement with the council or rural community council containing such terms and conditions as the council or rural community council considers fit Page 24 of 81 (3 http:/ /laws.gnb.ca/en/showfulldoc /csl � //201.11013 10/13/2011 Community Planning Act Page 70 of 81 notwithstanding the Financial Aftku ion Act, to the commisslon and the commission shat deal with the money in accordance wilh the directions of the rural corm unity eourmil and section 37; (c) where a fee for amending the zoning provisions is provided for in the by-law, it shall be paid, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Art, to the commission and shall be credited to the oust of the delivery of the land use planning service under subsection 272(2) of the Aknkipafes Act and (d) the powers In sections 35 and 36 with respect to certain proposed us" and variance shall be deemed to be vested In the relevant commission. 77 -2(e) The Regulations Act does not apply to a rural plan under subsection (1), 1884, a05, s.31; 1099, c2e, G.% 2005, c.7, s.12. ACOMMON or LAND 78(1) Subject to this section, a rnumkNmkty or rural corrrmm -dy MY acquire by Oft, purcnaw exprol rolliw or o6mrwas any land or interest in land raqutred for the purpose of cenrying out any proposal cont&V*J In a nwniGpal plan, rural plan under subser:tion 27 2(1) or 77 2(1), been planning statlemem or develoFr wt or urban n nw al scheme in et►ect in Ute munlolpairty or rural community 7W2) Laird that may be acquired udder subsection (1), or under subsection 62(1), lncWee (a) the remnants of parceta, porgans of which are 98sential to a purpose mentioned dlereln; (b) any land that may to N*rwtt* affaeked try carrying out a proposal m0rrboned therein_ (a) any Land tirrat, if m*"d to be hunt upon wsthout riftUict1w, might Wcome the 0o of bufftVs or strudines that wotdd orejudc tti at7ed the tuft anjoymerd of any building forming pad of the proposed daYetopment or ttte architedurat effect tlWe& acrd (d) any tend that the o%rxd ar nral community council, 19 the case maybe, considers could be oWyerrantfy subdivided 0; re- arranged and developed as Dart of tha proposal. 78(8) An expropriation under subsection (1) shall he undertaken In accordance with (a) in the case of a m mrcipalsy, section 8 of the Affxrrcgaetdxs4 Act, (b) In the case of a rural community, subsection 180.06(5) of the Munldpalftkea Act 1 till, a7, a_78;1e94, e,9S, s.32; 2005. a7, s.12 78(1) Subjed to this section, the Minister may acquire by gilt, purchase, expropriation or otherwise any land or Interest in land required for the purpose of carrying out any proposal contained in a regional plan or rural plan under subsection 77(21), or in a regulation made pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(1). 79(2) The provisions of subsection 78(2) respecting land acquired by a municipality or rural community apply muta8s mutandis to land acquired under this section. 79(a) Rn awptvprtagrm under this zoom shat be unde+riaken M accandamb MM the Exproprfatlon Act 187$ G7, :.79; 1694, nay, a.83; 2006, C.7, sAX 1`f h4: // laws. gnb. ca/ en /showfulldoc /cs/d'i2//20111013 10113/2011 Community Planning Act 1110(1) sutrjet:t io subsectron (2), where a regional plan, oral plan, municipal pion, basic gaming statement, development scheme or urban raw" scheme mdkmtes that oerlein land may be required by the Minretar. a muniapa5ty or a oral community for a purpose desonbed in 4. oompensation for such land on expropnatwn shay not include any amount in respect of an unauthorized devefopriant on such land alter Cie data of the atatubory notice of intention to adopL ar to recommend adoption of, such plan, statement or scheme. 80(2) A fudge of Tyre Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, on the petition of a person affected by skrbsecWn(I). may order that compensation be paid in respect of a development mentioned therein if he is satisfied that ouch development was undertaken in good faith without knowiedga of any restriction irnposed thereon by this Act or any plan, statement or scheme hereunder. 1972, c.7, s.80;1979, cAl. s.19; 1994, cRf6 sAC 2005. c.7, 9_12. PROHIBITION RE DEVELOPMENT 1i Except as ottrerwise provided in this section, no person Shall undertake a development and no building permit or development and bufldfng pem* shall be issued for such development unless the development officer having jurisdiction approves such development as conforming with, where ft applies to the land on which the development Is located, (a) any municipal plan, basic planning statement, rural plan, development scheme or urban renewal scheme (f) in effect, () In respect of which an adopting by -taw has been the subject of a resokation under paragraph 66(1j(a); or (id) in respect of which the Minister has published a first notice under paragraph 68(1)(b); (b) subject to paragraph (a), any zoning or deterred widening or controlled access street by -law or regulation () In effect, or (II) In respect of which the council has adopted a resolution under sedlon 71, or the Minister has published a fist notice under paragraph 68(1)(x); (c) a regulatlon under subseclion 77(1)(h.1), (i) in eRect, or (1) In respect of which the Minister has published a that notice under paragraph 66(1)(b); and (d) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulation- 81(2) The provisions of subparagraphs (1)(a)(11) and (iii) and subparagraph (1)(b)(h) cease to apply Page 71 of 81 (a) in the case of a resolution under paragraph 66(1)(a), when the byaaw becomes valid or when it fails to become valid because oft" operation of subsection 68(6) or because the council or rural cormunEly council, as the case ,ray be, does not meet the requirements of paragraph 69(1)(b) within a reasonable time, 484 1 �t JM '� 1 1 1 N I1 7 1� RA lIl�n♦ * w n, .. h. . - - .� June 9, 2014 To Mayor Mel Norton & Council of the city of Saint John, We have expressed our concerns to this present council & the past council over the new municipal PlanSJ & ZoneSJ for some time now. On Monday May 12/14 the final bylaws were presented to each of you for consideration by the city's head planner . In the propose bylaws for our area of Saint John in Red Head - it is proposed that our lands be, rezoned to RJR & IM ( Rural Resources & Heavy Industrial) . 'Mey are presently zoned RS2 & RF . This land was originally purchased for our family to build homes on some 20 years ago . We did not ask for or want our property to be rezoned to that which is proposed by your planners at city hall.. In fact from day one of the city's intention to renew the municipal plan we requested that our lands remain RS2 & RF. See letters & emails that you have on record to council & planning. Also nowhere in P1anSJ or ZoneSl does your head planner acknowledge our rights to build homes that are guaranteed by the Bayside Drive Controlled Access Street By-.Law of September 24, 2007. See copy of attached by-law. Once again for clarity - our lands are to be left as RS2 & RF plus the legal right to construct homes on in the future. Sincerely , Dennis & Janice Grim 865 Red Head Road Saint John N13 L2P IJ3 pid - 00336701 MEM BY-LAW N AMER CP 13 ARRMI 140 CP 13 BAY€ 1DE DRIVE COl+1', ROLLED Amtftk DE LmrAmN 1i'ACCtB ACCESS STREET BY-LAW DES RUM -- PROMENADE BAYSIDE Be it cnected by the Cotamon Council Le c:onaeil communal de The City of of the City of Saint John under the authority of Saint John, sous Ie rdgime do, la ,Lai sir the Commwrity Planning Act, as follows: PurbanLww, 6dicte cc qui suit: 1 This by-law may be cited as the 1 Le pr6sent amt peat @tre cit6 sous le "Bgyfide DMus Contr Ued Access Street By- titre: a: Arrag de limitation d'a=es des rues Law' • promenade Bayside n. 2 This by -Mary declares the Bayside Drive arterial street between Old Black River Road OW the Proud Road (previously this was refemed to as the Red Head Secondary Access Road) to be a controlled access street and under this by -law there will be no access allowed to this portion of the street except as set out in this by-law below. 3 For the purposes of this by -law, the term "pa t property(s)" is to refer to the parcels of land that adjoin Bayside Drive between Old Black River Road and the Proud Road and that were existing at the time of the construction of this section of Bayside Drive. 4 The portion of Beside 13rive and the parcels of land or parent properties referred to in ibis by -law are shown on the map in Schedule "A" attached hereto and farming part of this by-law. S Limited local acs to Bayside Drive will be permitted only for the following uses and situations: (a) resource, utility and emergency access; (b) local steed access to be allowed as part of a subdivision plan where the design of the subdivision is such that all of the proposed lots front on the local street and the sole access to those lots is by 2 Cot arm 6nonce que la voie artaiiclle appel6e promenade Bayside antre le chemin Old Black River et le nhemin Proud (aecteur oannu au trefois sous le nom de voie d'acci:s secondaim Red Head) devienne une rue 6 sects limit6 4 on vertu du prbsent =M, qu'aucun aces ne snit permois pour cette perhre de la rue, 61'exoWtion des instances 6now6m ci- dessous. 3 Aux fins du present arrM,1'expression ar propri&6(s) d'origine a renvoic an parcelles de terrain attenantes 6 la promenade Bayside entre le chtmin Old Black River at le chemin Proud at qui 6taient pr&=tes an woment de la construction de cette section de la promenade Drives 4 La partie de la promenade Bayside et lee parcelles ou lea propn&69 d'origme auxquelles it est fait r6f&v= dams cet oast sort indiqudes sur la carte d`am6aagement figurant 6 l'annoxe e A n ci jointe at faisant partie do cat Met& 5 Un aoc6s Hmit6 $ la circulation locale save perms umquement dons Ie cas des usages et situations suivan#s a) u n accts aux ressources, am services publics et on cas dNngcmq b) um accts li la rue locale sera permis daps le cadre d" un plan de lotissement 04 la conception pour Ie lotusseauent est telle que toes lea lots propos6s donnent sur la roe locate et qua le seal 17 means of that local str+ed; in the case of a parent property that was divided by the construction of the Bayside Drive arterial street, local street access is allowed on that parent property on each aide of the Bayside Drive arterial (c) one driveway access in lieu of a local street when the location of the local street, as noted in 5(b), has been assented to by Council but no local street has been developed on that parent property, with the condition Mat; (i) only one driveway access be permitted and is to serve only one lot on each parent property (one on each side of Bayside Drive); (ia) the driveway access be located where a local street would be developed according to the assent of Council; {iii) provision be made for the turning of a vahicle(s) using the driveway so that no vehicle would back onto the arterial road. 6 in each case noted m $(a), (b), (c) above, the developer will The responsible for the design,, construction and paving of the access from the parent property line to the paved travel surface of Bayside Drive in accordance with specifications of the Department of Municipal Operations and Engineering of the City of Saint John, in addition to the normal requirements of the Subdivision By -law of the City of Saint John. This will include providing appropriate culverts and any necessary provisions for public utilities. `a aces 6 ces lots est au moytn de cette rue locale, dare le css dune propri&6 dbrigine qui a 60 divWo en raison de la construction de la voie artrielle promenade Bayside, face& 6 la rue locale est permis sur cdte propri &6 d'origine de chaque c 6t6 de la voie art6rielle promenade Bayside; c) une voie d%oc6s en guise at lieu d'u ne rue locale laraque l'en*acemaA de la rue locale, comme it en est fait mention au point 5b), a rep Passentiment du conseiil mais a mme rue locale n'a 6t6 am6nag6e our cette propri&h d'orrgine, 6 condition 0) gMane seule voie d'acc6s soft pmmisc et no sert uniquement qu'6 un lot sw chaque propriW d'origine (une propriW de cheque c6te de la promenade Bayside); (H) Quo la voie d'acc6s se trouve o4 une rue locale sera constnnte conformesanent A Pa&wntiment du conscii; (iii) quo des dispositions soient prises pour le virage de v61 icules qui utilise la voie d'eeccZs de some qu'aucun Whicule ne puisse reculer sur la route de ftagemc at. 6 Dann chaque css mentioun6 aux points 5a), b) et c) ci- desaus, le promote m sore responsible de la conception, de la construction et de Pasphaltage de la voie d'accbs de la ligne de la propri6t6 d'origine 6 la surface de d6placement asphalt6e de la promenade Bayside went aux sp6cifirationa du service dies Operations et g6nie mumcipaurx de The City of Saint John, en plus des exigences normales de fart t6 ooncernant le lotissemment de The City of Saint John. Le promoteur devm 6galement fourWr des panceaux ad6quats at prendre les mesures n6cewaires pour les services publics. En t IN WITNESS WHl1ItEOF the City of Saint John has a msed the Common Corporate Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the 20 day of September, A.D. 2007 and ripe d by- First Reading Second Reading Third Reading _-:3 ip - --/-- September 10, 2007 - September 10, 2007 September 24, 2007 3 EN FOI DE QUOI, Ilia City of Saint John a fit apposer wn 6M MU communal a r le pr6semt an*6 le 24. jour de septeembre 2007, avec les signet!ares suivantes : PrMlift lecture Dewd4me lecture Troisidme lecture -10 septembm 2007 -10 Mite mbre 2007 - 24 septe mbre 2007 dOs rll;Os Raves" 9 — Apri"a A PIX7,M)IIEVIn Nkysido Ddsve MR1, oe 9 6b f r AIA A -3%g r vvcmr �oiw IT"M F%wr SnImids - Anklaxe A rR UILL1. lit .10 -0 re, iv I e A f-RMh4to %an qum R mio well I PAC) rim EMU A 1p iA y, �. .✓ to � 71V Draft fir' � �• ��� ,y. �` � �' • • �� . � , •. ��,/ � �',� 1 .ate , 1 � CS OFRCE JUN 9 2014 2 2F M June 9 2014 To Mayor Mel Norton & Council of the city of Saint John, We have expressed our concerns to this present council & the past council over the new municipal PlanSJ & ZoneSJ for some time now. On Monday May 12114 the final bylaws were presented to each of you for consideration by the city's head planner. In the propose bylaws for our area of Saint John in Red Head - it is proposed that our lands be rezoned to RR & IM ( Rural Resources & Heavy Industrial) . They are presently zoned RS2 & RF . This land was originally purchased for our family to build homes on some 20 years ago . We did not ask for or want our property to be rezoned to that which is proposed by your planners at city hall . In fact from day one of the city's intention to renew the municipal plan we requested that our lands remain RS2 & RF. See letters & emails that you have on record to council & planning. Also nowhere in PlanSI or ZoneSJ does your head planner acknowledge our rights to build homes that are guaranteed by the Bayside Drive Controlled Access Street By -Law of September 24, 2007. See copy of attached by-law. Once again for clarity - our lands are to be left as RS2 & RF plus the legal right to construct homes on in the future . Sincerely, Dezmis & Janice Griffon 865 Red Head Road Saint John NB E2P 1J3 pid - 00336701 492 M__ p6wa 31 Griffin Lane Legend Subject Property (ies) PID(b 00336701 k'- 1 —cipal Plan Designat!,om Rural Residential, Rural Resource and Heavy industrial . • ;. January 24, 2014 1 � 02014 The City of Saint John a 175 350 700 Meters Map created byte My of Saint Jo4e Carte Modu@e par The City of Sent Jolty 02014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOAN 9 Bryce Beyea 324 & 366 Cottage Road Property Mapping: Municipal Plan, Existing Zoning, Proposed Zoning Council Public Hearing Submission M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 494 P&,nS'l, Vacant Land (324 and 366 Cottage Road) 495 Vacant Land (324 and 366 Cottage Road) Legend 0 75 150 300 Subject Property (ies) i r I r I I t I I Meters PID(s): 00422402,00342212 and 55024202 Existing Zoning: "RS -2M" One and Two Family and Mobile Home Suburban Residential SAINT JOHN Date: September 12, 2014 496 Map created by the City of Saint John Carte produlte per The City of Saint John ® 2D14 The City of Saint John SI Vacant Land (324 and 366 Cottage Road) Legend 0 75 150 300 Subject Property (ies) i i i t i t i t i Meters PID(s): 00422402,00342212 and 55024202 f... , Map created by the City of Saint John Carte Draft Zoning: Rural Residential RR and Rural (RU) ' 02014r The par The City of Saint John g ( ) \ ) ©2014 The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Date: September 12, 2014 497 lei jam' -rr ju 45I P4 (-s R .- MOP-) 0V,6E- TAC-AZE- ANW(CiPAL Pfd �- A.) -'� ��wXr ATC- A& 3 6913AC4 ujit) C ors PROPP° T V J"�,b JI cvV r- ��� -�7� Vii? S %8 M &C- 2014 -163 -21 - September 29, 2014 3. General Comments in SUPPORT of the draft Zoning By -law Submissions 1. Rick Turner, Hughes Surveys & Consultants: oral submission 2. Rick Turner, J.D. Irving Ltd.: oral submission 3. Steve Carson, EnterpriseSJ: oral submission 4. Kent McIntyre, Saint John Development Corp.: written and oral submission 5. Anne McShane, resident: oral submission ,.. 3. GENERAL COMMENTS in SUPPORT of the draft Zoning By -law Speaker / Author Property Owner / Agency Submissions Summary of Comments Received Staff Recommendation 1 Rick Turner Rick Turner PAC Public Meeting Council Verbal Presentation General comments in support of the Zoning By -law and No action required (Hughes Surveys & Consultants) Public Hearing the process undertaken to draft it. 2 Rick Turner J.D. Irving Ltd. PAC Public Meeting Council Verbal Presentation General comments in support of the Zoning By -law and No action required Public Hearing the process undertaken to draft it. General comments in support of the Municipal Plan 3 Steve Carson Enterprise Saint John PAC Public Meeting Council Verbal Presentation and the Zoning By -law and the processes undertaken No action required Public Hearing to draft them. 4 Kent McIntyre Saint John Development Corp. Council Public Hearing Written Submission General comments in support of the Zoning By -law and No action required Verbal Presentation the process undertaken to draft it. General comments in support of the Municipal Plan 5 Anne McShane Anne McShane Council Public Hearing Verbal Presentation and the Zoning By -law and the processes undertaken No action required to draft them. MC- 2014 -163 Septembo(79, 2014 Kent Madntyre Saint John Waterfront Development Corporation Council Public Hearing Submission M & C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 501 SAINT )OH N DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION P.O. Box 7200, Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4S6 Tel: 506 - 649 -6066 Fax: 506 - 649 -6068 September 4, 2014 Mayor Mel Norton and Common Council City of Saint John Saint John, New Brunswick 15 Market Square Dear Mayor and Common Council; RE: Zone SJ The Saint John Development Corporation would like to express and extend support to ZoneSJ and the opportunity it will provide to the City of Saint John for long term sustainable growth. This initiative aligns very well with the "one -stop shop" development principal, allows for streamlined processing and provides rules for private development and re- investment in the urban core. Effective economic and urban development depends upon sound planning and efficient implementation of those plans. Developers and investors will see ZoneSJ as a key tool in their decision - making process as it will identify a clear strategy that is critical to "return -on- investment" analysis. Without a defined plan like ZoneSJ, economic development agencies, developers, investors, builders and Common Council will be subjected to unnecessary "spot" decision - making. It is important that ZoneSJ be activated and given the support to align the City of Saint John for future success. Regards; i Ke t Maclntyre General Manager .c M &C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 'W#M 4. General Comments in OPPOSITION to the draft Zoning By -law Additional Information 1. Dennis Griffin, resident: written submission 2. David Griffin, resident: oral submission 3. Darren J. Hargrove: written submission 503 4. GENERAL COMMENTS in OPPOSITION to the draft Zoning By -law Speaker / Author Property Owner / Agency Submissions Summary of Comments Received Staff Recommendation General comments in opposition to the Municipal Plan 1 Dennis Griffin Property Owner PAC Public Meeting Written Submission and the draft Zoning By -law. Full submission included in Staff recommend no action be taken. Table 2. General comments in opposition to the Municipal Plan Staff recommend no action be taken. Property Specific inquiry 2 David Griffin Property Owner Council Public Hearing Verbal Presentation and the draft Zoning By -law. addressed on Chart 2. 3 Darren J. Hargrove John Law Corporation Council Public Hearing Written Submission General comments in opposition to the Zoning By -law. Staff recommend no action be taken. MC- 2014 -163 Septembj,429, 2014 Darren J. Hargrove John Law Corporation Council Public Hearing Submission M & C- 2014 -163 September 29, 2014 505 Proposed New Zoning By -Law Dear Mayor, Councillors, Common Clerk and City Staff: I support some of the goals of Zone SJ but remain opposed to seeing the plan adopted and etched in stone. I believe the current council and staff have the skills and vision to approve development on a case by case basis. worry that Saint John may lose critical mass unless we consider all prospective development opportunities. The preamble to this plan has already cost Saint John a great deal of lost tax revenue and vitality. We must be guided completely by the adage "from a willing seller to a willing buyer ". As long as property rights are duly considered and thoughtfully enforced, the market will always best be able to determine the best outcomes. My company John Law Corporation has assembled over the past 20 years a parcel of land in the city approximately the size of Rockwood Park. No one purchases land or property without a vision for it's potential greatest use. I have invested many years and several million dollars on a plan that I earnestly believe will benefit all residents of Saint John for now and for ever. It would seem to me to be a gross violation of my rights if my project could not be considered only because it does not fit neatly into a planner's idyllic but necessarily limited vision of potential land use. At the very least, I believe any current owners of property should be exempt from new and very arbitrary planning protocols. Please do not adopt this zoning By -Law. Respectfully Yours, Darren J. Hargrove John Law Corporation 506 26/09/2014 O�?iO Develo dent Shop PLANNING BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE SAINT JOHN PO Box 1971, Saint John NB • Canada • E21.41.7 OneStop @saintjohn.ca • Tel: (506) 658 -2835 507 MOVING FORWARD I AVER DE CAVANT Dee iel pnfent Shop Rini O.:;;;imm I Mr. PLANS, OUR NEW MUNICIPAL PLAN IS MOVING FORWARD. NOUS ALLONS DE UAVANT AVEC PLANS, NOTRE NOUVEAU PLAN MUNICIPAL. W. )sI I 5A DevelopKent Show 26/09/2014 2 Total Public Engagement by the Numbers 616 Written 53 Community ;;� 53°"' � v I. Presentations Comments 10 200 _ Received 1.017 324 1.205;.„ 316C 26 Ci #izen w....a,... 250 ,m;,;,; b 1,017 Storefront Advisory Visits Committee .�° 9 ( 2 Meetings 577- 14 . ri t %� a n:wi 250 ., 26 � 4 a 1.205 340 nwsiwr _ 160.000 .er.. avw.r ..r... 616 a✓N Mwdl..n.M.M ■ Core Municipal Plan Reinvestment j = - Economic Prosperity Smart Growth ex - �� Complete Communities 1169 454 387 221 Portland Moncton Fredericton Saint John (%,1.a yin - Developiient Shop 510 26/09/2014 Saint John 11. 1''J- �'1'l r11 Vin. n Developfire" ShuN � , EQUALS H 0 � 61n 9', Develop'ent Shop 511 26/09/2014 5 SirBIGGEST Urban development provides 4x the return on investment. -° - -- OnG � }A eevelopWent 'Shop 512 26/09/2014 With finite resources — money, people and infrastructure — rural sprawl is not sustainable. x fir SIZE L `2 x x i G,pG x BETWEEN 1981 -2006 OVER 2500 • • • 4 DWELLINGS BECAME VACANT NE 6J . 91n Development Shop Everything new on the edge Dvi�pm , n t Shop 513 26/09/2014 7 ,,,*, :� .G 514 l %itie; y�n i Develop�rent Shop q? 26/09/2014 8 515 26/09/2014 0 5. Planning Application Fees Waived L AN 011, 91n Developeent Strop e • Urban One -Unit Dwellings • Urban Parking Provisions • Elimination of Uptown Amenity Space Development Shop 516 26/09/2014 10 • Rezone Strescon • Amend CG zone to recognize existing vehicle sales & leasing • Amend secondary suite provisions n. n Development Strop • Consider redesignation of Al's Ultra Car Sales & Service to Stable Commercial through process 517 l /atie: >n Develop'ent Shop 26/09/2014 11 L_ • Consider industrial land uses for Local Centre (Somerset Street) • Re- examine Rural Residential Subdivision policies • Re- examine expansion of Primary Development Area n. n Development Strop e Waive planning application fees for any site specific landowner involved with the Public Hearing within 12 months from ZoneSJ adoption date l /atie: >n Develop'ent Shop 518 26/09/2014 12 NEXT' STEPS eevelopFBlq,;mm 519 26/09/2014 13 /0.2 September 29, 2014 His Worship Mayor Norton And Councillors Your Worship and Councillors SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 1808 Hickey Road A Public Presentation was made on August 18, 2014 of a proposed amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate, on Schedule A of the Plan, a parcel of land with an area of approximately 14.5 hectares, located at 1808 Hickey Road, also identified as PID Nos. 00418491 and 55102628, from Rural Resource Area (outside of the Primary Development Area) to Stable Area (within the Primary Development Area); and redesignate, on Schedule B of the Plan, the same parcel of land, from Rural Resource (outside of the Primary Development Area) to Stable Residential (within the Primary Development Area) to permit the development of a residential subdivision. The required advertising has been completed, and attached you will find a copy of the public notice, and any letters of opposition or support received. If Council wishes, it may choose to refer the matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation and authorize the necessary advertising with a Public Hearing to be held on Monday, November 10th, 2014 in the Council Chamber at 6:30 pm, or not to proceed with the proposed amendment process and adopt a resolution to deny the application. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Taylor Common Clerk Attachment ?4 %V SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2LA1 wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint john, N. -B. Canada E2L4L1 BN1 Advertiser Name: Saint John Common Clerk Advertiser Code: S71206 Size: 4.00 x 14.00 in. Sales Rep: Doug Thomson PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT RE: 1808 HICKEY ROAD Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider an amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would: 1. Redesignate, on Schedule A of the Plan, a parcel of land with an area of approximately 14.5 hectares, located at 1808 Hickey Road, also identified as PID Nos. 00418491 and 55102628, from Rural Resource Area (outside of the Pr/mory Development Area) to Stable Area (within the Primary Development Area), as illustrated below, 2. Redesignate, on Schedule B of the Plan, the same parcel of land, from Rural Resource (outside of the Primary Development Area) to Stable Residential (within the Primary Development Area). A public presentation of the proposed amendment will take place at a regular meeting of Common Council on Monday, August 18, 2014 in the Council Chamber, Lobby Level, City Hall. REASON FOR CHANGE: To permit the development of a residential subdivision. Written objections to the proposed amendment may be made to the Council, in care of the undersigned, by September 17, 2014. Enquiries may be made at the office of the Common Clerk or Growth and Community Development Services, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. If you require French services for a Common Council meeting, please contact the office of the Common Clerk. Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk 658 -2862 PROJET DE MODIFICATK)N DU PLAN MUNICIPAL OBJET: 1808, CHEMIN HICKEY Par les pr6entes, un avis public est donn6 par lequel le Conseil communal de The City of Saint John a I'antention d'6tudier la modification du plan d'amknagement municipal comme suit: 1. Modifier la d6signation, z I'annexe A du plan, d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 14.5 hectares, situee au 1808, chemin Hickey, et portant les NID 00418491 et 55102628, afin de la faire passer de secteur de resources ruralet (hors du principal secteur de developpement) a secteur stable (dons le principal secteur de developpement), comme it est indiqu6 ci- dessous. 2. Modifier la designation, 5 I'annexe B du plan, de la parcelle de terrain pr6citie, afin de la faire passer de secteur de resources rurales (hors du principal secteur de developpement) a secteur residentiel stable (dons le principal secteur de developpement). Une presentation publique du projet de modification aura lieu lors de la reunion ordinaire du conseil communal le lundi 18 gout 2014 dans la salle du conseil, au niveau du hall d'entr6e, a I'h6tel de ville. RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Permettre I'am6nagement dune subdivision r6sidentielle. Veuillez faire part au conseil par ecrit de vos objections au projet de modification au plus tard le 17 septembre 2014 a I'attention du soussign6. Pour toute demande de renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec le bureau du greffier communal ou le bureau de service de la croissance et du developpement communautaire a I'h6tel de ville au 15, Market Square, Saint John, N. -B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf les jours f6ri6s. Si vous avez besoin des services F en fran4ais pour une reunion E de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal. Jonathan Taylor, greffier communal 658 -2862 Ad Number: A168376 Ad ID: 6977156 Ad Legacy: 7265991 Current Date: Jul 29 2014 03:43PM Start Date: 8/5/2014 End Date: 8/5/2014 Color: B/W Client Approval OK ❑ 521 Corrections ❑ City of Saint John Planning & Development Application X Municipal Plan Amendment Contact Information: Applicant: Haldor (1972) Ltd. P.O. Box 1289 Saint John, NB E21, 4G9 Attention: John Wheatley 506 - 634 -5717 (office) 506- 634 -2236 (fax) jheatley@northrupgroup.ca Property Owner: Clear View Mobile Homes Ltd. P.O. Box 1289 Saint John, NB E2L 4G9 Property Information: Location: 1808 Hickey Road PID #'s 00418491 & 55102628 Existing Use of Property: Undeveloped Land Proposed Use of Property: Residential Development Existing Plan Designation of Property: Rural Resource Area Proposed Plan Designation of Property: Residential Existing Zoning of Property: "R -2" One and Two Family Residential "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential Proposed Zoning of Property: "R -2" One and Two Family Residential "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential 522 Description of Application: The subject property was rezoned from "RF" Rural to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential in September of 2009 to facilitate the development of a residential sub- vision. Based on this re- zoning approval Fundy Engineering completed a Wetland Delineation Report of the property in October of 2009. A provincial WAWA (Watercourse and Wetland Alteration) permit was then applied for in October Of 2011 and approved and issued in February 2012. Again, based on the re- zoning approval, the landowner subsequently engaged an engineering consulting firm (Genivar, now WSP) to work in consultation with the City's Engineering Department to design the storm water culvert required to handle the water flow of the existing stream crossing the property. This design work was completed in June of 2012 and submitted to the City Engineering Department for approval as had been previously requested by them. The applicant also met with then Commissioner of Planning, Ken Forrest, in January of 2012 at which time Mr. Forrest expressed his support for this development and suggested that a subdivision application later in 2012 would be appropriate and well received by his department. The City of Saint John conducted a review of its Municipal Plan, adopting a new Plan SJ in early 2012. Unfortunately, and unknown to the property owner at the time, the revised Plan SJ's Primary Development Area (PDA) ran along the western edge of the subject property leaving this property just outside the newly defined PDA. The property owner has invested considerable time and resources, and in full consultation with the City's Engineering Department, in preparing this land for development with a full expectation that the current zoning designation would allow the development to proceed. We are now requesting a very slight adjustment to the PDA boundary to allow this planned development to continue as expected. The land is currently zoned appropriately and only this minor change to the Municipal Plan is required to allow this project to continue to move forward. The property owner feels strongly that there is, and will continue to be, a strong demand for affordable housing units within the City and that this development will make a contribution to retaining and attracting more residents to live within City boundaries and to increasing the municipal tax base. 523 a `a' o Sheen MOare Tes," Mum q eas0� arP>n rs.>L F.I° N J Bhon Englneenng Ue, NOTE: This plan 0 for coneeptual puryoses i �4MA ,' ! yd / q $' / 7 J(t only. Males MM'oes,eree ngReleanan of 'ryes 'Ne Pkn �.y property lines may varylollowing Bale survey M6 0 .� - _ A _.. . #M ,. t4�gt, ,d� -. r and lot ealNle0ona. � -• � %C 'S °°° 9 ya s - LEGEND, are Co t. i,, .. -'�' "_. ._ -,( v., p • ar- sx�a.�'""'"'"'..>.,r.„, S ,ae�`Sr°✓ . j'.7�° a, /fie ' .._.yba O.. .. -qy =•?; t�, 4 0lana`. t>a + IM ' •9. +`� 4 \ \��a> . °t ' d ` � �. ' 6 �' a .. r �"e� -`x�al lo^ar°a'.r.aa»....� lent ,•) I �t _ ° %% %'• "'j° 1dt .• ,a \ I - �..�.,�..". W y a t t t+ r , �S' s H r9y e s e e n t .'.- �+ '- a • f .'} 90 \j ®`nP+.r.°— en°— �` % is �' ®2 � - �i- '-'!•� _. h O _( a�, wOrR 79.' �8, �,. 2 w 1 ....�.naaxa l..,,,,,.,,,,, Blt Ee1127 Luc'^ 6a, se+r 4 27 o m0. 0 tee Lot 176 / ` 'u err $ R NOTES: mrtw�>x.e.PR. xswaxurawa � has n ` a - o Immv. nta.ae w.e"e..n wla.a. Lot _. _ ,. ,� : • 9 , F . y Sltipe Cresrept as r r L 9 .at 'y..,'•- ..p <•b� 'fe r. �F. l a e a•T \ P.Pa��...a.: oa eN..«.ar........x o.w (pf 13p b.6 1•�`, . $ 5i_ " °. ' ' b . , S , w. ^' 3 u s< a talal ':-.•e • ;- .:::'. Taet7 ardEa�r�3" gy ra, , +,.; �t..a. .e,aa�..�.«..,..a..a.._ oN Wyatt Cressa7 __ as yes. 1:: a B6 o ~n t w Lpt 8. =6 �\ .a Pe • . ark i ♦ F o. agar c� • e7 ee 1aa _ .. - -'4,�• `` - Rat,.$ w..� �o �`.�.. -o '',, ... .) ; �.��- 1 t anrAs ..` _ \Fe• r weAf. aaptaa, p {7 •. "yaws. 7a a \V- ... a T , , a �. ., �aa,,.R 'Ww4 wMU :a:e`'78b, ',.. y r Q°�r Tofal Area ]SS.d11 m� se _ .. ..: ... „• ,_Y�` - `.. .ya a� „� � : 7.nsm Drive �r�g-et) /� X107 101 .100 �._`_�A^• ^� LPP -8,309 ma (7.4%) a0r . "a to Nan kefst •.� P,me- aw.p�nr n .5� 5v ��• � �M . .. _ ., - • �.- . '...- � e .are �� •7Y3: n° a o �y -:. w - ^ �e � d i saN 9e C�1,�E. $b t� • ,- � - ,: _ , ••,• • r�r!_ wake. {` -- .i�.- _ �' � >�ee r� i - - - - a i - "'� - - -- • •"• 'tbnd'FyrPUmICP.urpoee} -.. . ~:�'- - -" y.� . �y •,. -� Bye- C' /��. 4a.c o-, L 0. - a.ws'� AAl. _._ Aft,' �lA �m \�4\ �.. -Ile _ - .- \, � >: f .. ._e., • - Wayne a Stephen Mlchei MacLellan , tu.staw n..xe :,u ,a.ra.,..Nnxe v>4 •e76 /� a' 11y •�' -_ ` ::� � '. \�:� 4,y Tentative flan 125 , r�� ��,`'"•. . \ Eastcllff Subdivision e 3e '� Hof Saint John M3> �9 139 7 1zs County, E Saint John N.8 R c� Albert a,oeeget at 4 to ap m sa '�' rn.rn. op 122 ,,.r.�ti 12a ear V a U Vii: r a- D-aldA us son swa . lnaee ,° ? KIERSTEAD QUIGLEY °r L. J and ROBERTS Ltd. Saint JOhn• New Brun WM n ..`_ Grandview Avenue - m Dwg. No T -0343 524 Evans, Richard From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk Sent: August -14 -14 8:47 AM To: Evans, Richard Subject: FW: Hi Richard, Would you please add this to the relevant Council meetings as part of correspondence for this public hearing? Thanks, Jon From: Nicoles, Maria [ma ilto : Maria. Nicoles @cra- arc.gc.ca] Sent: August -14 -14 8:19 AM To: External - Planning Subject: I'm writing in regards to the proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment for Hickey Road where the new owner wants to rezone the lands. My family has lived on Wyatt Cres for over 30 years. When my siblings and I were old enough to purchase our own homes we didn't venture far; we each bought properties either on Wyatt Cres or right across on Boyaner Cres. We work in town, and are contributing members of society. When everyone else around was moving outside the city to the neighbouring communities of Rothesay, Quispamsis, etc., we decided to stay in Saint John and specifically on Heatherway. We are happy to be in that area, we are 10 minutes from work, the malls, the airport and on a bus route. And no one could argue that there was a more beautiful, peaceful area than Heatherway and Hickey Rd. The divided road with the beautiful trees on both sides was breathtaking. Hickey Rd and it's beautiful rural atmosphere gives us the pleasure of living in the city and still having the serenity and beauty that those moving to the neighbouring communities are searching. All that changed a few years ago when you allowed the developers to cut down the trees along Heatherway towards Grandview Ave and add subdivisions. There were a few new homes added to our street on Wyatt Cres, and when they could not be sold the remaining lots are still there empty with for sale signs. Gone are the beautiful trees and in their place is the overgrown grass and for sale signs. And you can't forget the incredibly disgusting empty lot on Heatherway where you allowed the owners to destroy all the trees in anticipation of building subdivisions that could never sell. The lot up until a few weeks ago was a dumping ground for everyone's trash. I was disgusted to even walk by there. Now that you have allowed all these developers to destroy Heatherway, you are considering rezoning Hickey Rd just behind us. For what purpose, so that these new owners can destroy all the beauty and then realize they can't sell the properties and we have to look at empty lots with for sale signs! There is an area on Heatherway heading towards Hickey Rd where signs went up at the beginning of the summer for new townhomes to be built. You have allowed them to be build, only one has been sold. Enough is enough, you have allowed all the beauty around us to be destroyed, please do not allow these new owners to destroy Hickey Rd. Since moving to area over 30 years ago, we seriously considered moving to the neighbouring towns I mentioned above when you were considering rezone Heatherway a few years back. We X525 were very pleased with your decision not to rezone that area and we actually thought all this was behind us. Now again, we are seriously considering moving! Then those other towns would benefit from our tax dollars (the tax dollars of 4 families) and not Saint John. We ask you to reconsider and NOT ALLOW the rezoning to be accepted. Concerned and Disappointed owners on Wyatt Cres and Boyaner Cres. X26 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -166 September 22, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment Haldor (1972) Ltd. -1808 Hickey Road Potential Need for Rezoning BACKGROUND: City of Saint John On August 18, 2014, Common Council held the statutory public presentation for the Haldor (1972) Ltd. application for an amendment to the Municipal Plan with respect to the above -noted property (see attached Site Location Map.) The proposed amendment would: redesignate the subject site on Schedule A of the Plan, from Rural Resource Area (outside of the Primary Development Area) to Stable Area (within the Primary Development Area); and redesignate the subject site on Schedule B of the Plan, from Rural Resource (outside of the Primary Development Area) to Stable Residential (within the Primary Development Area.) The thirty -day period for the filing of initial objections to the proposed Municipal Plan amendment expired on September 17, 2014. ANALYSIS: The Common Clerk will be reporting the results of the initial objection period to Common Council at its meeting on September 29, 2014. At that time, Council will be in a position to refer the application to the Planning Advisory Committee and to schedule a public hearing on the matter, if it so wishes. The earliest date on which the hearing may take place is Monday, November 10, 2014, by which time the City's new Zoning By -law (ZoneSJ) may be in place. Under the present Zoning By -law (By -law C.P. 100), the subject site is zoned partly "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and partly "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential. This present zoning would permit the applicant's proposal to develop a residential subdivision as had been originally proposed in 2009, 527 M & C — 2014 —166 - 2 - September 22, 2014 provided that the current application for amendment to the Municipal Plan is approved by Council. Therefore, at this time, the application does not include a request to rezone the site. However, if the proposed new Zoning By -law (ZoneSJ) has been adopted between now and November 10th, the zoning of the subject site will have changed to Rural (RU), which conforms to the current Municipal Plan designation but not to the designation being requested by the applicant. If Common Council, at its September 29, 2014 meeting, decides not to proceed with consideration of the Haldor (1972) Ltd. application for Municipal Plan amendment, then nothing further need be done. However, if Council does decide to proceed with consideration of the application, the advertisement for public hearing should include the possibility of a potential rezoning of the property in the event that the new Zoning By -law has already been adopted by the date of the hearing and Council wishes to approve Haldor's proposal. The potential rezoning would be from Rural (RU) to Two -Unit Residential (R2) and High -Rise Residential (RH). RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended if and when Common Council decides to proceed with consideration of Haldor (1972) Ltd.'s application for an amendment to the Municipal Plan at 1808 Hickey Road: That Common Council include consideration of a possible rezoning of the property at 1808 Hickey Road, from Rural (RU) to Two -Unit Residential (R2) and High -Rise Residential (RH), in the advertisement for public hearing of the application of Haldor (1972) Ltd. for amendment to the Municipal Plan, in the event that the proposed new Zoning By -law has been adopted and By -law C.P. 100 has been repealed. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline Hamilton, MURP, MCIP, RPP Commissioner, Growth & Community Development Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager JH /r Project No. 14 -463 528 BY -LAW NO. M -16 A LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE ARRETE NO M -16 ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE CONCERNANT LES RESEAUX WEAU ET D'EGOUTS Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une r6union du conseil communal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a d6cr&6 ce qui suit : A By -law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Water and Sewerage ", enacted on the 7th day of June, A.D. 2004, is hereby amended as follows: 1. Sections 2(6), 2(7), 6 and 16 are repealed. 2. Subsection 2(3) is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following: "2(3) No permit shall be issued under this section until a fee of $100.00 is paid for the inspection of the installation of services or laterals, which must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Commissioner. It shall be necessary for a permit to be issued and the corresponding fee paid on a per property basis." 3. Subsection 2(4) is repealed and replaced with the following: "2(4) All work performed under a permit granted pursuant to this by -law shall be completed in accordance with the City's General Specifications." 4. Subsection 2(5) is amended by deleting "2(3)(b)" and replacing it with "2(3) ". 5. Section 3 is amended by deleting "street line" and replacing it with "applicable main line(s) ". IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the day of , A.D. 2014 signed by: Par les pr6sentes, 1'arret6 de The City of Saint John intitul6 « Arret6 concernant les r6seaux d'eau et d'6gouts >>, d6cr&6 le 7 juin 2004, est modifi6 comme suit: 1. Les articles 2(6), 2(7), 6 et 16 sont abrog6s. 2. Le paragraphe 2(3) est abrog6 dans son int6gralit6 et remplac6 par ce qui suit : o 2(3) La d6livrance du permis pr6vu an pr6sent article est conditionnelle au paiement d'un droit de 100 $ pour Finspection de Finstallation des branchements ou conduites secondaires, le tout a la satisfaction du commissaire. Le permis d6livr6 et le paiement des droits aff6rents le sont en fonction de chaque bien- fonds. » 3. Le paragraphe 2(4) est abrog6 et remplac6 par ce qui suit: 2(4) Tous les travaux effectu6s conform6ment au permis d61ivr6 en vertu du pr6sent arret6 doivent etre effectu6s selon le Cahier g6n6ral des charges de la Ville. » 4. Le paragraphe 2(5) est modifi6 par la suppression de « 2(3)b) » et son remplacement par « 2(3) ». 5. L'article 3 est amend6 par la suppression de « alignement de la rue » et son remplacement par canalisation(s) principale(s) applicable(s) » EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arret& le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes : 530 Mayor /Maire Common Clerk/greffier communal First Reading - August 18, 2014 Premiere lecture Second Reading - August 18, 2014 Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 531 - le 18 aout 2014 - le 18 aout 2014 August 12, 2014 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: City Vehicles With the thought of saving money in our upcoming budget I would like Council to consider the following. In the past in order for City Staff to have use of a vehicle paid for by the taxpayers they would have to send a request to the Dept looking after a small fleet of vehicles and state when they needed it, how long they need it and the reason for the need of using a vehicle paid for by the taxpayers. They would then proceed to the location that this small fleet of vehicles are kept, pick up the keys and return the vehicle to the same location. This would not apply to the equipment needed to keep our City moving forward but would include the four wheel drives, SUV's and cars that staff are able to use at their discretion. Motion: That Council ask the City manager to put in place a system of control that would see a smaller number of vehicles used on a daily basis by City Staff, with the above noted thoughts, and that there be a central location to access these vehicles for staff and that this be in time for the 2015 budget process_ Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Bill Farren Councillor —Ward 1 City of Saint John �_ SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint iohn, NB Canada E2L 4L1 wwwsaintjohn.ca ; C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-S. Canada E2L 4L 1 M2 i2,�.� REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C -2014 -171 25 September 2014 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Update on Fleet BACKGROUND: The City of Saint john In December 2011 staff brought forward a report to Common Council based on a review of fleet operations conducted by Mercury Associates Inc. Mercury Associates Inc. have extensive direct experience with fleet operations and have established processes and bench marks for fleets of a similar type and size. ANALYSIS: As outlined in the Report to Common Council in December 2011, Mercury Associates Inc. was engaged to perform an evaluation of the City's Fleet Services and Fleet Administration functions with a focus on Governance, Business Model, and Operational Structure (Phase I). Conditional upon the results of Phase I, a "Right Sizing" review of the size, mix and effectiveness of the existing fleet of vehicles and equipment (Phase II) was undertaken. A copy of the Council report along with the Executive Summary prepared by Mercury is attached for the reference of the members of Common Council. The purpose of this evening's presentation is to provide a high level review of the contents of the Mercury report and to address questions that the members of Common Council may have with respect to the Fleet Operations. 533 Fleet Update RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report. Respectfully submitted, Robert Russell Manager of Fleet Gregory J!Y,1om#s, CGA, MBA Commissioher, Finance and Administrative Services cl atrick Woods, CGA ity Manager 534 Page 2 IL -1 I F=leet Management Review Update September 29, 2014 535 1. Purpose /Objective 2. Vir "' gat / ho is Fleet Nfl.anagement 3. Mercury Associates Inc. Report- Overview 1. Phase I 1. Governance 2. Fleet Financial Business Model 3. Fleet Operations 2. Phase 11. Fleet Right Sizing 4. Direction from Common Council — December 201.1 5. Wha has been clone & what needs attention 6. 6u rn nia ry /Questions ql;)�, SAINT JOHN 536 0 Mercury Associates Inc. report: was presented to � :orrirnon Council in December of 2011 — Conduct an assessment of fleet operations (Phase 1) — conditional' upon -:he results of phase 1, undertake a "Right Sizing" eview of the size, mix and effectiveness of the existing fleet of vehicles and equipment (Phase II) • Purpose' Objertive of this presentation — Provide a brief overview of the Key areas examined by MercurN/ — what nas been ac omplished or is underway — What still needs to be done u SAINT JOHN 537 • "The Department's primary goal in having Us conduct this review was to identity weaknesses that need to be overcome, not to get "a pat cm he back" for things that it already does well, already in the prccess of improving, or already recognizes need to !De improved. Readers should bear this in mind as I l ey review our critique. There are many areas Zvi Iere Materials and Fleet Management- is following best practices and yherefore we have not ncltided Lhenn ir. this report or have touched on t hern only briefly." 538 SAINT JOHN • "headers should also be aware that there are mariv R dedicated and hardworking individuals in the Fleet- IV ,anaernert Division. In general we found thaR:. ,.. naJ Materials and f=leet Management is effective in fulfilling their) mIssion. Across the board, the management and technical staffs were found to he professional, hardworking, and motivat -ed to ,provide their cu stoners with efficient services., J 539 Zzi r `4 SAINT JOHN • the Fleet Management group provides service "'24/7" — 365 with a staff cornplement of 34. Current staffing levei: -- Management (one acting) 2 — Administrative staff (Inside workers) 2 -- Flees: Services 20 — Welding & Autobody Shops 6 — Engine Sinop 2 — Fuel truck 1 — Tire Sinop 1 540 � -N SAINT JOHN The com. position of the fleet is approved by Common council based on the operational needs as identified by each service area (Council priorities & SSR). • Total — 325 :.omprised of the following: — TES 112 — Saint John Water 62 Fire Services — vehicles 17 — Fire Services — apparatus 15 — BUS 13 — Leisure Se; vices 25 — Police Services 58 — other 23 a 541 SAINT JOHN Phase I of the review of fleet manageimen't operations focused on three key areas: — An evaluation of-the Governance of the fleet management functions, — A review of the fleet business model (including the chargeback system), — A high -level review of fleet operations ZZ),16. W0,4_," - SAINT JOHN 542 r 11 L A • Mercury made four specific recommendations relative to the Governance issue: The Fleet organization is centralized and reports to an authority which is not a fleet customer. The City should write an over - arching fleet responsibilities document for sign -off by senior management that clearly delineates Fleet Management responsibilities (and by default responsibilities of service areas). The City should create Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between Fleet Management and each of their customers. These SLAs should describe responsibilities, services, timelines, fees, and standards for all fleet activities. The City should develop a comprehensive fleet policies and procedures manual. 543 SAINT JOHN • "The present. mode of operation for the C�J is in accordance with our recommended hest practice approach with the fleet organization reporting to a Corporate Services type organization. • lV AI considers -he centralization of fleet administration, �-leet ope;atior s and risk management functions, as -thee relate to f !ee -�, to he the most effective organizational structure 'for a municipality -the size of (.:SJ. '.!Moreover, to retain autonomy and avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, we believe that fleet management activities should be administered by a Corporate Services -type organization rather than a large useFgroup:' :G 544 SAINT JOHN "In addition to the organizational aind reporting structure, governar ice involves erisuri ng that these organizations have the proper accountabilities and authorities in place 'to fulfill their responsibilities. Authorities should be agreed boy aI`, weii- domcuiaentedr and well - understood." 545 SAINT JOHN 1 `� =Ie4t rnanagernent policies are one of the foundalJon.r., for effective and uniform control of fleet assets, their operation and maintenance. A policy should reflect the organizations goals and allow consistent decisions "Co he made under quite d:fferen-t circumstances. To achieve this policies are Usually quiote broad in scope and must he approved and authorized by senior management. Policies are g€ idel l-les that regulate organizational acl.ion and t4ney control the conduct of people ana� the activities Of systems. The CSJ has M- ni -ted fleet specific policies and procedures in place today." 546 SAINT JOHN • Mercury's recommendation relative �o the Fleet Financial Business model: --- The CSJ should, replace the current fleet financial yodel I ,i."�� a servi -e based charge -back rate model that reflects the total actual costs of the fleet operation. The capitat or vehicle replac ement cos pon ie A should he calculated on a vehicle by vehicle basis and charged separately. a ° ?t VI e,,,c- r -,;1 A�' "eiri':P i I "Y�' rlCirf`i, ^I�tra'`.l ? Ser rlC i SAINT JOHN 547 "Given the general cost - cutting pressures facing ali government jurisdictions these clays making fleet costs more understanclable—especiallyastheyreiatetotrade- offs between vehicle capital and operating cost. - -- and therefore more controllable is important." here are basically two ways that operating funds can be provided to a flees management organizatlion to support the_ management, maintenance, and fueling of a fleet: —r Through direct appropriations to the organizational unit esponsib�,e for the costs, or -- Through the use of a charge -back system which recovers the fleet organization's costs through charges to vehicle users for the goods and services it provides them." RM SAINT JOHN • "Si n larly there are two ways that capital funds can be provided ro support the acquisition of new and replacement vehicles: — Lump -sum amounts can be appropriated to the fleet management organization or to the departments it serves on an ad hoc basis, or Capital costs can be amortized over the lives of the vehicles in the fleet through the use of a reserve 4und and charge -back system or a debt financing arrangement such as a lease- purchase program ". "ire our experience, implementation of an accurate cost charge -back system is one of -'Che most powerful 'financial management tools that an organization can implement to contro! feet ire ated costs:" 549 ( nU__7W*.1 10;,� SAINT JOHN "The CISJ 'gas a hybrid fleet financial model'. Most depalImerts are charged a monthly fee than is broken down into a replacement component: and a maintenance and repair component. :r Police vehicles and fire apparatus are not iincluded in the 'S' fleet replacement program managed by Materials and Fleet 01anagement." • Mercu; y me de a number of additional com ��ents about the curt ent fleet financial model v✓hich have not been i- eproduc`d here but speak to the recognized short comings of t ►re current system and ore the driver of their recommendation cited above. 550 rAf-4, SAINT JOHN "Our review of fleet operations included several functional areas such as staffing, preventative maintenance, repair quality, parts management and supply, fleet utilization, customer relationship, fleet management information systems, performance measurements, shop facilities, and fleet replacement planning. We found that industry best practices were being followed in many areas (e.g. use of a fleet management information system, tactical fleet replacement- analysis — the Op-'Cimum Replacement Point System, centralization of the commercial vehicle rental program, fuel management, and many others). However, we also identified several areas where opportunities for improvement e;zist. While we have not !isteG a!I of them in the Executive Summary, a few of our recommendations relative to this area are provided below: cis. ;r,,' 551 l� SAINT JOHN • Conduct a comprehensive fleet rightsizing study. Assess the utilization of the fleet in terms of both the number and types of vehicles, and identify specific changes in both areas that would reduce fleet costs without impairing the level of service provided by fleet users. • Develop a long -term (20 -year) strategic fleet replacement plan that identifies annual funding requirements for fleet replacements. • Continue "Co use the ORP tactical replacement analysis methodology developed by the City to establish fleet replacement priorities. 552 ��, SAINT JOHN 3, • Replace the Main Shop with facilities that are appropriately sized and configured to support the fleet maintenance mission in a positive manner. Manage the fleet replacement reserve fund balance to ensure that appropriate funding levels are maintained and available to meet projected replacement funding requirements. • Develop a formal training program for fleet management, administrative, and technical staff. 553 f/ SAINT JOHN • CSJ's parts processes and procedures need to be formalized in a comprehensive written procedures manual. o Create an environment that fosters teamwork and cooperation within the fleet organization. • In the near -term, the CSJ should reconfigure the system to best meet the needs of the fleet organization today, and in t-he near future. • Consider expanding the fleet maintenance effort at the East Shop to accommodate additional workload. 554 SAINT JOHN The policy for holding inventory in satellite locations needs to be clarified and published. At a minimum, fast moving parts (e.g., filters) should be stocked at these locations. Fleet Management should have a comprehensive, proactive customer relationship management program. le Provide additional fleet management information system training to the mechanics and other technicians on the use and application of the system. A system of key performance measures should be developed, dara tracked and reported regularly ". 555 SAINT JOHN "-i "he City retained the services of Mercury Associates to examine the sleet in detail and make recommendations, if applicable, for fleet size reductions." — Scope — concentrated on the approximately 354 vehicle flee -' — Result —14. vehicles were recommended for elimination based on Current utilization and assessed cr ticality. — This !ow leve.1 of recommended eliminations reflects tree fact that t'le CSJ 'i leet size is very close to optii-nal ". 556 SAINT JOHN • "In addition to -the specific vehicle recommendations, a number of ;policy areas require attention. CSC does not have sufficiently detailed fleet policies in many key areas such as: — Eligibility for a City vehicle and personal use guidelines; — Service justification to renew or acquire a new vehicle; — Vehicle rotation and sharing; — Vehicle suitability analysis; and — Multi- purpose vehicle acquisition ". • The report elaborates on -these points and provides rational X or their utilization. 557 0 SAINT JOHN "f=inally, it rriust be recognized -that an effective fleet size- rna nelgernent program does not start and end with this study. k,SJ must use this as a starting point, create and implement the .�iecessary poli(:v guidance, and continually review flee UMILLCMIon within the City. As a basic philosophy, CSJ dries not need to own ail olf the vehicles necessary srrvlCe delivery. It sini-ply has to have access -to such assets when they are needed, for the duration that -they are needed; and at a reasonable cosh: and level of convenience. As business ;fee c ds change, so do vehicle support re "ire ents and the methodology in this report should be used to recognize opportunities for efficiencies and capture cost savings:' '24 558 �V.4 -� SAINT JOHN Common Council adopted the following resolution in December 2011. a) The development of a comprehensive fleet utilization and replacement policy, b) The development of a business model that will see the complete recovery by the Fleet Services Division of their operating costs while providing sufficient funding from the annual operating budget to facilitate a stable and sustainable Meet replaceme:it program, c) The development of a Fleet operational model that will support an efficient and effective division that will work cooperatively with the user departmelats to provide them with the information they need to determine the most cost effective levels of service they can provide with the available assets, and d) To create a process fior the periodic review of the size, configuration and effectiveness of the fleet related to service delivery. l� 559 jar SAINT JOHN • 'Meet right sizing review completed. • A draft feet policy has been prepared that needs review by service areas and Senior ilanagernent. • s recommended we continue to use the ORP — tactical replacement analysis methodology as a key cornp {anent ire the review of units to,e replaced. • A fleet review committee has been established to :t) develop a service based charge -back rate model. 560 SAINT JOHN 27 © Support required -for Fleet "governance" and to optimize "Fleet Utilization" (i.e. alternatives to ownership -- pooling, short -term rentals, vehicle needs analysis, etc.), Establish a 20 - year Strategic Vehicle Replacement Program to optimize asset life cycle, identify the relative annual capital funding and maximize asset residual values, Revise and document the Fleet Preventative Maintenance (PM) Program, SAINT JOHN 561 • Enhance and document the Customer FZeiationship Management Program: ; — Establish service area "Fleet Service Level Agreements (SLAB ), Establish a Fleet Advisory Board composed of representatives from each service area, — Establish Fleet Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (i.e. maintenance response time, overall project completion time, repair estimates vs. actual costs). 562 SAINT JOHN • Corporate wide implementation of the CSJ Pre - Operational Vehicle inspections — Operator Requirements program. Implement formal fleet training prcgrams for Management and Staff based on industry recognized certification programs (i.e. NAFA or APWA certification). • Fleet Rep;acement Reserve — needs to be managed try ensure Matl�� t a LroLriaf�e = and�in T �'� *� %;�Y� � � , � ��0 o A m , & pp 1 J •...r v ✓ 'M r �. i r.r a t 1& %4 I I it %. %A K I J {rr Vi va/ I aY �`Ly 7y to meet prr ected repi cement . ui-�dit -7q requireme ts. 563 SAINT JOHN 10 The Mercury Reports covered many areas. Some things are being done we'I, some things need improvement. All initiatives take resources — human and -1 ;alicial. The delivery of fleet services and the improvement and /or implementation of the recommendations rom Mercury Associates needs to be framed in teri*ns of what Lan we realistically afford. f he initiatives also need to be framed in terms of Council's priorities and the outcomes of the Sustainable Service Review. 564 l� �t SAINT JOHN Thank you! Q uestions? 565 q SAINT JOHN REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C — 2011 -320 9 December 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Consultants Report — Fleet Evaluation Project BACKGROUND: In November 2010 staff sought and obtained Councils approval for the award of a Call for Proposals to Mercury Associates Inc., for an evaluation of the City's Fleet Services and Fleet Administration Sections. This evaluation process required the successful vendor to focus of 3 key aspects of the City's fleet operations; Governance, Business Model and Operational Structure. In addition to this engagement staff recommended that should the initial study meet or exceed expectations that we would be authorized to undertake a follow -on contract with Mercury for a "Right Sizing" review of the size, mix and effectiveness of the existing Fleet of vehicles and equipment, related to the services presently provided. ANALYSIS: Once Mercury started their research the scope of the study broadened into other areas of related interest to the identified requirements and as a result they have submitted a series of recommendations. Council will find, enclosed with this report, a copy of Mercury's presentation of their findings and recommendations. These are based on their extensive direct experience, established processes and bench marks for fleets of a similar type and size. ;.. Page Two ANALYSIS... Cont'd; In addition to Katherine Vigneau, who is representing her team of experienced and capable individuals and who is here to provide Council with a presentation of their findings, there was a team of experienced and very capable individuals who work for the City in various capacities. This team consists of Troy Richard the Manager of Fleet Services, Robert Russell the Manager of Fleet Administration, Stephanie Rackley -Roach the Manager of Corporate Planning and Kevin Fudge Deputy Comptroller, Finance Department. The Staff Team, after a review of the initial findings, was satisfied that Mercury had exceeded expectations and as previously approved by Council, engaged them for a second phase of this project which dealt with the size and make -up of the fleet. The recommendations contained in this presentation and report are a combination of short and long term initiatives aimed at providing a stable, effective and sustainable fleet operation that will stand the test of time. These include, but are not limited to; the development of a comprehensive policy and procedures for the deployment, utilization and replacement of publicly owned vehicles and equipment, the creation of a business plan that will not only cover the total cost to maintain the fleet but will support and sustain a stable fleet replacement program funded entirely by Operating Budget funds and the structure and operation of the Fleet Services Section to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. The Fleet Rightsizing analysis, undertaken by Mercury, made recommendations for adjustments to the fleet size and mix without significantly affecting the services presently provided to the public. In addition Mercury provided fleet staff with a process based on criteria established through best practices so that they have the tools necessary to look beyond present fleet requirements to make recommendations for additional reductions in the fleet size. All of these recommendations will be made available to the various front line service providers to assist them in determining the effects on their present levels of service. They can then determine what adjustments they can reasonably make to their operations to facilitate these or other equipment and vehicle reductions. One underlying purpose and outcome of both of these studies is to provide user departments with the information they need to make decisions about the levels of service they provide to the public based on the actual costs to own and operate the vehicles and equipment they need to provide the various levels of service. Page Three FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: It is impossible to determine the actual cost benefits to be garnered as a result of the adoption of these recommendations, however staff are of the opinion that there will be more than sufficient perpetual savings to not only recover the cost of these consultant services but to recover the only identifiable cost, that being the purchase of a Fleet Software System necessary to support the business model and to provide the level of detail required by both Fleet Staff and the user departments. The Manager of the IT section has included in his Capital Budget submission an estimated amount to cover that cost. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council refer this report, along with the detailed information provided by Mercury Associates, to the City Manager and Fleet Staff with a directive to report back to Council with; a) The development of a comprehensive fleet utilization and replacement policy, b) The development of a business model that will see the complete recovery by the Fleet Services Division of their operating costs while providing sufficient funding from the annual operating budget to facilitate a stable and sustainable fleet replacement program, C) The development of a Fleet operational model that will support an efficient and effective division that will work cooperatively with the user departments to provide them with the information they need to determine the most cost effective levels of service they can provide with the available assets, and d) To create a process for the periodic review of the size, configuration and effectiveness of the fleet related to service delivery. Respectfully submitted, David J. Logan Purchasing Agent Patrick Woods City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES FOR THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN City of Saint John MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC. PHASE I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mercury Associates, Inc. (MAI) was retained by the City of Saint John (hereafter CSJ) early in 2011 to conduct an assessment of fleet operations. The scope of work focused on (1) an evaluation of the governance of fleet management functions, (2) a review of the fleet business model including the chargeback system, and (3) a high -level review of fleet operations. In the development of a report like this, there is nothing as valuable as a working knowledge of how the organization operates — how they conduct business, both strategically and tactically. These are the underlying principles of any assessment with a view towards improved maintenance and repair practices and more comprehensive management of the fleet. Once the operational characteristics are understood, the foundation is in hand and a meaningful review of the essential elements can begin. We gained valuable insight of the CSJ fleet organization through on -site visits, interviews with fleet staff and customer organizations, and review of facilities, systems, processes, information, and quantitative data. Motor vehicles and equipment are an essential element in the day -to -day operations and service- delivery activities for the CSJ. In fact, the City could not provide services without them. Thus, the primary mission of a fleet services organization is to maximize the availability of vehicles and pieces of equipment so that their users (that is, the organization's customers) can productively do their jobs. Accordingly, a key goal for fleet organizations is the provision of vehicles and equipment that are suitable (to customer business needs), safe to operate, reliable, and available when needed. A second and equally important goal for such organizations is to provide vehicles and related services to their customers efficiently — that is, at the lowest reasonable cost. We want to emphasize that this report focuses primarily on opportunities for improvement, not on the positive aspects of the fleet operations observed during our assessment. The City has an array of fleet functions, many workers strive to do the right things right, and work is getting done. That would not be true if all were bad. It goes without saying that the first step toward overcoming any weakness cited in this report already has been taken: the commissioning of this study by a qualified, independent third party with no preconceived notions, hidden agendas, or other biases. The Department's primary goal in having us conduct this review presumably was to identify weaknesses that need to be overcome, not to get "a pat on the back" for things that it already does well, already is in the process of improving, or already recognizes need to be improved. Readers should bear this in mind as they review our critique. There are many areas where the Materials and Fleet Management is following best practices and therefore we have not included them in this report or have touched on them only briefly. Readers should also be aware that there are many dedicated and hardworking individuals in the Fleet Management Division. In general we found that Materials and Fleet Management is effective in fulfilling their mission. Across the board, the management and technical staffs were found to be professional, hardworking, and motivated to provide their customers with efficient services. The CSJ owns a diverse fleet with nearly 350 vehicles or `rolling stock' and 850 pieces of ancillary equipment and attachments. This fleet of over 1,100 units is managed and maintained by a staff of 40 Materials and Fleet Management employees. The fleet represents a significant investment - estimated gross replacement cost of the fleet, in today's dollars, is approximately $47 million or roughly $42,000 per asset. The average age of the assets in the fleet is 12 years which exceeds industry standards. The total annual operating budget for Fleet & Materials Management is $6.9 million. The report that follows provides a comprehensive assessment of several fleet management and maintenance functions, from fleet replacement to work order processes. In this Executive Summary, we have focused on a few of the core issues or each of the major sections. Governance - A dominant trend in fleet organizations today is the consolidation of fleet management functions into one centralized service organization. The move toward consolidation in the industry can be traced to the increasing cost and complexity of fleet management endeavors and a simultaneous increase in emphasis on efficiency, particularly in the face of competition from providers of fleet management services. During this period, developments in such areas as computerization, personnel management and professional development, risk management, regulation of environmental protection, occupational safety and health, and automotive technology have changed the definition of effective fleet management, making it prohibitively expensive for many independent fleet management organizations to keep up. In short, the complexity of fleet management today produces significant economies of scale that often can be captured only through collective effort. Fleet centralization, then, is being driven by costs, efficiencies, expertise, and liability. The present mode of operation for the CSJ is in accordance with our recommended best practice approach with the fleet organization reporting to a Corporate Services -type organization. MAI considers the centralization of fleet administration, fleet operations and risk management functions, as they relate to fleet, to be the most effective organizational structure for a municipality the size of CSJ. Moreover, to retain autonomy and avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, we believe that fleet management activities should be administered by a Corporate Services -type organization rather than a large user group. In addition to the organizational and reporting structure, governance involves ensuring that these organizations have the proper accountabilities and authorities in place to fulfill their responsibilities. Authorities should be agreed by all, well- documented, and well - understood. 0 NA "I Fleet management policies are one of the foundations for effective and uniform control of fleet assets, their operation and maintenance. A policy should reflect the organization's goals and allow consistent decisions to be made under quite different circumstances. To achieve this, policies are usually quite broad in scope and must be approved and supported by senior management. Policies are guidelines that regulate organizational action and they control the conduct of people and the activities of systems. The CSJ has limited fleet specific policies and procedures in place today. Specific recommendations relative to the Governance issue for the CSJ are as follows: • The Fleet organization is centralized and reports to an authority that is not a fleet customer. • The City should write an over - arching fleet responsibilities document for sign -off by senior management that clearly delineates Materials and Fleet Management responsibilities. • The City should create SLAs between Materials and Fleet Management and each of their customers. These SLAs should describe responsibilities, services, timelines, fees, and standards for all fleet activities. The City should develop a comprehensive fleet policies and procedures manual. Fleet Financial Business Model - Given the general cost - cutting pressures facing all government jurisdictions these days making fleet costs more understandable — especially as they relate to trade -offs between vehicle capital and operating costs — and therefore more controllable is important. Managing the cost of the CSJ's fleet depends upon the City's ability to accurately accumulate, track, report and analyze cost information. Accounting structures, practices and reports that identify the cost of fleet services in a direct and understandable manner are the cornerstone of any efforts in fleet cost management. If the costs associated with fleet operations are not known, incomplete or inaccurate, effective cost management is not possible. There are basically two ways that operating funds can be provided to a fleet management organization to support the management, maintenance, and fueling of a fleet: through direct appropriations to the organizational unit responsible for the costs or through the use of a charge -back system which recovers the fleet organization's costs through charges to vehicle users for the goods and services it provides them. Similarly, there are two ways that capital funds can be provided to support the acquisition of new and replacement vehicles: lump -sum amounts can be appropriated to the fleet management organization or to the departments it serves on an ad hoc basis, or capital costs can be amortized over the lives of the vehicles in the fleet through the use of a reserve fund and charge -back system or a debt financing arrangement such as a lease- purchase program. r %, Regardless of the method in which funds are provided, cost control procedures are a critical component of an effective fleet financial management process. Appropriate procedures enable an organization to identify, monitor, evaluate the appropriateness of, and adjust fleet ownership, operating, and management costs regularly. In our experience, implementation of an accurate cost charge -back system is one of the most powerful financial management tools that an organization can implement to control fleet related costs. The CSJ has a hybrid fleet financial model. Most departments are charged a monthly fee that is broken down into a replacement component (3620) and a maintenance and repair component (3601). Police vehicles and Fire apparatus are not included in the CSJ fleet replacement program managed by Materials and Fleet Management. Therefore, they only pay the maintenance and repair component of the fleet charge. Although the charges are estimated and then charged monthly, Fleet does perform a reconciliation of actual costs and makes adjustments a few times a year. A number of observations of the current fleet financial model are provided: • Rates are reviewed and adjusted annually, however, they are set to be competitive with the local market, and regularly result in a deficit for the fleet organization. • The rate development methodology is not thoroughly documented and thus cannot be scrutinized, audited, defended, or reconciled to the actual costs of the specific goods and services that the rates are intended to finance. • The current charge -back rates do not provide cost transparency. The charges that are levied for a particular vehicle not only cannot be reconciled to the actual costs of furnishing that specific vehicle to a customer, but cannot easily be evaluated by the customer as to their reasonableness or competitiveness. The organizations paying such rates are unable to discern whether or not they are getting good value for their money. • The rates can create cross subsidization of costs across CSJ fleet service - delivery activities, vehicles, vehicle types, and vehicle user organizations; and do not promote the efficient consumption or provision of fleet resources. These are the reasons for recommending that new charge -back rates and a rate development methodology be developed and implemented. Our recommendation relative to the Fleet Financial Business Model follows: • The CSJ should replace the current fleet financial model with a service based charge -back rate model that reflects the total actual costs of the fleet operation. The capital or vehicle replacement component should be calculated on a vehicle by vehicle basis and charged separately. "4411���'1 Fleet Operations - All vehicles and other pieces of motorized equipment require maintenance and repair during their life. Since a fleet service organization's primary mission is to maximize the availability of vehicles so that its customers can productively do their jobs, the focus of maintenance management for such organizations needs to be in developing practices that minimize unscheduled incidents of repair and so that vehicles requiring repair are returned to service in as little time as possible. Our review of fleet operations included several functional areas such as staffing, preventive maintenance, repair quality, parts management and supply, fleet utilization, customer relationship, fleet management information systems, performance measurements, shop facilities, and fleet replacement planning. We found that industry best practices were being followed in many areas (e.g., use of a fleet management information system; tactical fleet replacement analysis — the Optimum Replacement Point system; centralization of the commercial vehicle rental program; fuel management; and many others). However, we also identified several areas where opportunities for improvement exist. While we have not listed all of them in the Executive Summary, a few of our recommendations relative to this area are provided below: • Accurately track and report on key performance indicators such as mechanic productivity, fleet downtime, repair turn - around time, and others as provided in a later section of this report (Business Planning and Performance Measures). • Create an environment that fosters teamwork and cooperation within the fleet organization. • Develop a formal training program for fleet management, administrative, and technical staff. • CSJ's parts processes and procedures need to be formalized in a comprehensive written procedures manual. • The policy for holding inventory in satellite locations needs to be clarified and published. At a minimum, fast moving parts (e.g., filters) should be stocked at these locations. • Conduct a comprehensive fleet rightsizing study. Assess the utilization of the fleet in terms of both the number and types of vehicles, and identify specific changes in both areas that would reduce fleet costs without impairing the level of service provided by fleet users. • Materials and Fleet Management should have a comprehensive, proactive customer relationship management program. • In the near -term, the CSJ should reconfigure the fleet management information system to best meet the needs of the fleet organization today, and in the near ) wo W "I, " future. System changes should reflect process improvements outlined throughout this report. • Provide additional fleet management information system training to the mechanics and other technicians on the use and application of the system. • A system of key performance measures should be developed, data tracked and reported regularly. • Replace the Main Shop with facilities that are appropriately sized and configured to support the fleet maintenance mission in a positive manner. A fleet maintenance facilities master plan would determine the appropriate number of shops and space requirements. • Consider expanding the fleet maintenance effort at the East Shop to accommodate additional workload. • Develop a long -term (20 -year) strategic fleet replacement plan that identifies annual funding requirements for fleet replacements. Replacement parameters should be developed for specific vehicle and equipment classifications (e.g., mid- size administrative sedan, full -size police patrol sedan, MD backhoe, % -ton 4x2 pickup truck, etc.) and based on total life -cycle cost principles. The replacement plan should be updated annually. • Continue to use the ORP tactical replacement analysis methodology developed by the City to establish fleet replacement priorities. • Manage the fleet replacement reserve fund balance to ensure that appropriate funding levels are maintained and available to meet projected replacement funding requirements. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to City staff for the professionalism and courtesy that they extended to us during this study. We hope that the recommendations contained in this report will be useful to employees involved with fleet operations as they seek to continually improve service levels and cost performance. PHASE II - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Saint John (CSJ), like many municipalities, wants to ensure that the highest levels of service are provided to residents in an efficient and fiscally - responsible manner. As such, CSJ is seeking ways to reduce costs without jeopardizing the services provided to its citizens. One area under review is the number and type of vehicles and equipment held by the various City Departments and Commission. The City retained the services of Mercury Associates to examine the fleet in detail and make recommendations, if applicable, for fleet size reductions. Key findings and recommendations are presented in this Executive Summary, followed by our detailed report describing the project. CSJ has over 1,000 vehicles and pieces of equipment. The scope of the study concentrated on the approximately 350 - vehicle fleet and was further narrowed down to vehicles with at least one year of utilization data available. 282 paper surveys were completed by users and a `Target List' of 31 vehicles was selected for further study based on the data provided. Interviews were held with Departments /Commission to discuss the status of the vehicles on this `Target List'. As a result, 14 vehicles were recommended for elimination based on current utilization and assessed criticality. This low number of recommended eliminations reflects the fact that the CSJ fleet size is very close to optimal. Despite this small number of vehicles recommended for elimination, the onetime cost recovery is $75,100 in resale and a recurring annual cost avoidance of $49,883.85 in maintenance and repair for a total of $124,983.85. In addition to the specific vehicle recommendations, a number of policy areas require attention. CSJ does not have sufficiently detailed fleet policies in many key areas such as eligibility for a City vehicle and personal use guidelines, service justification to renew or acquire a new vehicle, vehicle rotation and sharing, vehicle suitability analysis, and multi - purpose vehicle acquisition. Guidelines for personal eligibility for a City vehicle should be established based on expected annual utilization, position, and job function. These personal vehicle assignments should be the subject of an annual review. In terms of vehicles assigned to Departments /Commission, the policy should reflect the requirement to examine options other than ownership before replacing a vehicle or acquiring a new one. There is no sharing or rotation of vehicles between Departments /Commission and limited use of multi - purpose vehicles. Increases in both of these areas may result in further rationalization in the future. A sample decision tree to support the acquisition and selection of a suitable vehicle is included in the report. Finally, it must be recognized that an effective fleet size - management program does not start and end with this study. CSJ must use this as a starting point, create and implement the necessary policy guidance, and continually review fleet utilization within the City. As a basic philosophy, CSJ does not need to own all of the vehicles necessary for service delivery. It simply has to have access to such assets when they are needed, for the duration that they are needed, and at a reasonable cost and level of convenience. As business needs change, so do vehicle support requirements and the 111 N M methodology in this report should be used to recognize opportunities for efficiencies and capture cost savings. ,r M MAW )2.1. ) R-E"'PORT TO COMMON COUNCIL Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Fleet Usage Policy BACKGROUND: As Common Council is aware in 2011, Mercury and Associates was engaged to do a comprehensive review of Fleet Operations. A report was presented to Common Council and the following resolution was subsequently adopted: RESOLVED that report dated December 9, 2011 entitled Consultant's Report — Fleet Evaluation Project, and the Executive Summary from Mercury Associates, be referred to the City Manager and Fleet Staff with a directive to report back to Council with: a) The development of a comprehensive fleet utilization and replacement policy, b) The development of a business model that will see the complete recovery by the Fleet Services Division of their operating costs while providing sufficient funding from the annual operating budget to facilitate a stable and sustainable fleet replacement program, c) The development of a Fleet operational model that will support an efficient and effective division that will work cooperatively with the user departments to provide them with the information they need to determine the most cost effective levels of service they can provide with the available assets, and d) To create a process for the periodic review of the size, configuration and effectiveness of the fleet related to service delivery. This report is scheduled to will be presented at the next meeting of Common Council scheduled for September 15, 2014. 578 M&C 2014 - 153 August 27, 2014^s 'rhe.' rhy 44 Saint John His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Fleet Usage Policy BACKGROUND: As Common Council is aware in 2011, Mercury and Associates was engaged to do a comprehensive review of Fleet Operations. A report was presented to Common Council and the following resolution was subsequently adopted: RESOLVED that report dated December 9, 2011 entitled Consultant's Report — Fleet Evaluation Project, and the Executive Summary from Mercury Associates, be referred to the City Manager and Fleet Staff with a directive to report back to Council with: a) The development of a comprehensive fleet utilization and replacement policy, b) The development of a business model that will see the complete recovery by the Fleet Services Division of their operating costs while providing sufficient funding from the annual operating budget to facilitate a stable and sustainable fleet replacement program, c) The development of a Fleet operational model that will support an efficient and effective division that will work cooperatively with the user departments to provide them with the information they need to determine the most cost effective levels of service they can provide with the available assets, and d) To create a process for the periodic review of the size, configuration and effectiveness of the fleet related to service delivery. This report is scheduled to will be presented at the next meeting of Common Council scheduled for September 15, 2014. 578 Report to Common Council August 27, 2014 Page 2 There have been, on occasion, questions related to usage of City vehicles. There is, in fact, a Vehicle Usage Policy that was initially approved by Common Council in 1990 with subsequent amendments, the last being approved by Common Council in May of 2007_ There is in addition a related Administrative Procedure under authority of the City Manager. Attached to this report is a copy of the vehicle usage policy. Staff would be pleased to answer questions that members of Common Council may have related to this policy. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that thus report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, ory/>remans, CGA, MBA �lis,o f Finance and Administrative Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager Attachment 579 CITY OF SAINT JOHN POLICY NUMBER: FA 001 SECTION: FLEET ADMINISTRATION SUBJECT: VEHICLE POLICY 1.0 PREAMBLE This policy sets out the general principles governing the use and allocation of cars and similar vehicles owned and operated by the City of Saint John as well as the use of private vehicles for City business. 2.0 STATEMENT OF POLICY The City of Saint John operates and maintains a fleet of vehicles and motorized equipment required for the provision of municipal services to our citizens. The uses of these resources are restricted to those activities required specifically for the delivery or administration of municipal public services. Personal use of City vehicles and equipment is not permitted. .2 Upon the approval of Common Council, a vehicle may be designated as an essential job requirement of a particular position and allocated on a full -time basis as part of the conditions of employment of the incumbent. Given the nature of this type of position, a vehicle so allocated may be used for both civic and personal business. .3 Upon the approval of the City Manager, a vehicle may be assigned for the full -time civic use of the incumbent of a position where such use is necessary for the provision, supervision, or administration of municipal services. A vehicle so allocated will be used for civic business only, in accordance with the guidelines detailed herein and administrative procedures established by the City Manager. ,4 A fair mileage allowance, established annually by resolution of Common Council, will be provided to civic officials and employees who are required to utilize their private vehicles for City business. :1 2 .5 It is the policy of the City of Saint John to expect its management personnel to regularly and routinely, be in attendance when other City employees are carrying out their responsibilities. The presence of management at times, other than normal business hours, is a key to leadership. .6 It is the policy of the City of Saint John to reimburse these employees for the use of their personal vehicles on the basis of a flat monthly allowance. .7 This Vehicle Policy will be administered in accordance with relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3.0 OBJECTIVES To establish a clear and consistent basis for the use of publicly owned vehicles. .2 To enhance the intended utilization of publicly owned vehicles. .3 To prevent the inappropriate use of City vehicles. 4 To provide for the most cost - effective means of transportation required for the conduct of civic business and the management of City resources. .5 To provide a clear understanding that certain positions are required to "regularly and routinely" be present when their employee: are carrying out their responsibilities at times other than what arc considered as normal working hours. 6 To provide a clear understanding that certain positions are expected to respond to the needs of the community other than during normal hours, and at locations other than at the normal place of business. 7 To ensure that City vehicle usage is in conformance with Revenue Canada guidelines. 581 4.0 GUIDELINES Provided in this section are guidelines which are to be applied in administering this policy. .1 City vehicles will be assigned only to those positions which have a definite and continual requirement for operational transportation. Such assignment must be recommended by the member of senior staff responsible and be specifically approved by the City Manager. Senior staff is defined as the Assistant City Manager /Commissioner /Chief level. .2 All vehicles will be appropriately identified as follows; 1) Cars and light trucks, up to and including the 1 tonne range of vehicles, shall be purchased to a standard manufacturer fleet colour of white, 2) The City of Saint John crest presently applied to vehicles, shall be replaced with the official "Explorer Crest ". This crest must be prominently displayed on the front driver's, and passenger's doors, and include the words "Saint John" which are to be placed directly under the crest, 3) Each vehicle in this category shall be identified with a 3 digit "vehicle number" in the form of a numeric decal clearly displayed on each of the front fenders and in an appropriate location at the rear of the vehicle as determined by its configuration. This vehicle number is assigned by the user departments and may change throughout the life of the vehicle, 4) Each vehicle in this category shall be assigned a 4 digit "Equipment Number" which will be displayed in the form of a self adhesive tag applied in close proximity to the fuel fill pipe. This number is assigned by Fleet Administration upon registration of the vehicle and shall remain unchanged throughout the life of the vehicle, 5) Vehicles in this category, shall, as deemed necessary by the Fleet Administrator, be affixed with a high intensity, reflective stripe down each side and across the rear of the vehicle. This high intensity stripe is to be white so as not to act as a department identifier or to add to or detract from the appearance of the vehicle, 582 4 b) Vehicles in this category and purchased for use by Saint John Water may deviate from the policy as it relates to the application of the "Explorer Crest ". Saint John Water may replace the "Explorer Crest" with the Saint John Water Logo. Exemptions from section 4.2 of this guideline are; 1) Vehicles purchased for use by the Saint John Police Force and the Saint John Fire Department, 2) Vehicles assigned to the Mayor, the City Manager and any unmarked vehicles assigned to specific senior management staff, as approved by the City Manager, 3) Commercially rented vehicles, 4) The paint colour of trucks of a size greater than the 1 tonne range of vehicles shall remain unchanged, 5) The paint colour of construction equipment, trailers and floats, attachments and miscellaneous equipment shall remain unchanged. 4 City vehicles are not to be taken outside City limits, unless specifically being used for City business. City vehicles will be used only in connection with civic responsibilities and taken home only by staff who are required to be available for operational purposes or are specifically "on call ". 6 Eligibility for mileage allowance must be approved, in advance, by the City Manager or member of senior staff responsible for the department concerned. .7 Use of a private vehicle for City business will be certified by the department head and payments for such usage approved by the department head. That the City has identified the following positions as being eligible for receipt of a monthly allowance: Manager (Director) of Works $250.00 mth. Mam er (Director) of Water & Sewerage $250.00 mth. Manager (Director) of Recreation $200.00 mth. Manager (Director) of Parks $200.00 mth. 583 5 The receipt of the monthly allowance precludes these positions from claiming any other reimbursement from the municipality for use of their vehicle within the municipality. However, it does not preclude the positions from utilizing a municipal vehicle during normal business hours should one be available when needed. 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES Fleet Mana ement - General fleet management and maintenance of City vehicles and pieces of motorized equipment will be the responsibility of Materials Management, a division of Corporate Services. .2 Department Assignment — Vehicles and motorized equipment will generally be assigned for operational purposes to departments. The department head will be responsible for the internal management of all vehicles and pieces of motorized equipment so assigned. .3 Vehicle Pools — A number of vehicles will be retained for a vehicle pool to meet, as far as possible, day -to -day transportation requirements of civic departments, beyond department allocations. Responsibility to administer the vehicle pool will be in accordance with procedures established by the City Manager. 6.0 PROCEDURES Procedures required for the administration of this policy will be established under the authority of the City Manager. APPROVED BY COMMON COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 26,1990 UPDATES: Sections 2.0.5 and .6, 3.0.5 and .6 and 4.0.8 added per O.C.C. May 15,1995 • Section 4.0.2 amended per O.C.C. May 15, 1995 Section 5.0.1 amended per O.C.C. August 23, 1999 Sections 4.0.2 and .3 amended per O.C.C. May 7, 2007 ME IZZ REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL September 24, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES' BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS, SAGUENAY, QUEBEC, SEPTEMBER 3-6,2014 From September 2nd to the 6t", 2014, the FCM hosted its Board of Directors and Standing Committee meeting in Saguenay, Quebec. As the City of Saint John is an active participant in two FCM Committees, the City's FCM representative — Councilor MacKenzie, was present during the September meeting. FCM has released a "Report to Council" on the major developments during the meeting, and Members of Council are encouraged to review the document (see attachment). City of Saint john While the meeting covered a variety of important matters, this report will focus on four items that may be of particular interest to the City of Saint John. 1. Election Readiness — FCM had developed an entire election readiness strategy, which highlights how municipalities can ensure their presence prior, during and post the next federal election. FCM released its key messaging, which encourages all federal parties to recognize that a strong Canada begins with strong hometowns. FCM is currently reaching -out to Canadians to sign -up as Hometown Champions on the FCM website. FCM will be releasing the entirety of the campaign as the election approaches, as well as methods in which citizens and Council Members can become more involved. 2. The New Building Canada Fund — While the Federal Government has released the new Fund, there continues to be concerns over the level of municipal discretion in defining priorities at the local level as well as cumbersome requirements and criteria for municipalities seeking funding through the new Fund. 585 Mc&C- 2014 -009 -2- January 28, 2014 3. Free Trade with the United States of America — FCM continues to work with the Federal Government in pursuing a more open and fair trade relationship with the United States of America. Such efforts seek to diminish protectionism and address the local challenges surrounding the Buy America provisions. 4. Rail Safety — Through the National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group, FCM continues to work with stakeholders from across Canada to develop regulations and policies that enhance rail safety and reduce risks to our communities. The City of Saint John's Chief Kevin Clifford is one of thirteen experts from across Canada helping the FCM navigate this important public policy matter. For more information, or to review the key findings from the two FCM committees in which the City of Saint John participates — Standing Committee on Municipal Finance and Intergovernmental Arrangements (p_ 6 of 25) and Standing Committee on Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Policy (p. 16 of'25), please refer to the attached document. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Common Council: 1. Receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, Phil Ouellette, MA Executive Director ?trick Woods, CGA City Manager :. Or- CANADIAN C A N A D i F H N E lUE 4- REPORT TO COUNCIL SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SAGUENAY,QUEBEC SEPTEMBER 3-6,2014 587 OVERVIEW The Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Board of Directors met in Saguenay, Quebec from September 3 -6 to debate and direct FCM's 2014 -2015 national agenda. At the top of mind for FCM's Board, is seizing upon the opportunity to showcase municipal leadership and advance the municipal sector leading up to the 2015 federal election_ Within this context, the Board discussed a range of issues critical to Canada's cities and communities including the future of infrastructure, disaster mitigation, and a way forward for Canada's housing crunch. These issues and more are presented in further detail in the summary of committee reports that follow. Investing in Canada's hometowns remains one of the best ways to build our country. With every new road, bridge or transit system, we create new jobs and improve the quality of life in our communities. Housing that is affordable for newcomers, young families, the middle class and seniors alike helps build thriving communities and puts money back into our national economy. Municipal leaders left Saguenay united behind one message that they hope to send to all federal political parties: The solutions necessary to move Canada forward start in our hometowns and we are ready to work together to implement them. STANDING COMMITTEES AND FORUMS FCM's Standing Committees and Forums met to discuss the latest developments and to make recommendations to the Board of Directors. A summary of these activities is provided below. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 2 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Councillor Brian Pincott, Committee Chair welcomed the new and returning committee members and introduced Vice - Chairs, City of Toronto Councillor, Pam McConnell, and Mayor Edgar Rouleau with the Cite de Dorval. The committee Chair and staff presented an update on the policy and government relations activities undertaken in the weeks following the June Annual Conference including FCM's participation at the Liberal Party caucus retreat in Edmonton, progress on the National Forum on Housing and the Economy and meetings with political staff in the office of the Minister of State for Social Development. After in -depth discussion about social - economic trends and issues in member communities and cities, the committee affirmed the following as its 2014 -2015 policy priorities. • Housing Affordability; • Canada's aging population; • Immigrant settlement; and • Aboriginallmunicipal relations. The committee approved the recommended 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities of 1) Election Campaign Development and Launch and 2) Platform Development and Launch. The committee further emphasized the critical importance of board and member engagement to the success of FCM's election campaign and meeting the objectives of significantly advancing of our policy priorities. An extensive list of suggestions and ideas for member engagement was compiled and referred to FCM staff to inform their election engagement strategy. Mr. Evan Siddall, the recently appointed president of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), was a guest speaker at the committee and spoke about strengthening the relationship between CMHC and FCM, as well as updated the committee on the tools and products that the CMHC is promoting to support the health of Canada's housing system. The committee relayed to Mr. Siddall their deep concerns with expiring federal operating agreements and called on CMHC to recognize and match municipal leadership in delivering affordable housing from the one order of government that, outside of Ontario, is not responsible for housing. The committee also discussed concerns around recent changes to Canada's Temporary Foreign Worker Program and referred the issue back to staff for further analysis. The committee approved the following policy and advocacy priorities: FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL :• 3 • Protect and make permanent Canada's $2.072 billion annual federal affordable housing programs and agreements to preserve rent and operational subsidies where needed and, where current operation agreements are no longer needed, invest expiring agreement funds into new capital repair and regeneration programs. • Review federal tax policies with the aim of implementing new tax incentives that will remove barriers to new affordable and market rental housing and preserve existing rental housing so we can start to meet the needs of the almost 200,000 Canadian families on waiting lists for affordable housing. • Work to end homelessness by implementing proven practices like Housing First and provide the supports and affordable housing options that are fundamental to its success. • Meet the needs of a rapidly aging population through investments in adequate transit, accessible infrastructure and home retrofits to keep seniors engaged in community, in their homes longer and out of more costly institutions that put more strain on our health care system. • Remove barriers to successful settlement of newcomers with programs and investments including matching skills and education to jobs and creating adequate affordable housing and better public transit that make it easier to get to and from work. Gridlock and rising commute times are felt disproportionately by new Canadians who are twice as likely to use public transit. • Work with all levels of government to coordinate and provide newcomer services outside of large urban centres and cities, to encourage and support successful immigrant settlement in regions across Canada. • Promote and support successful capacity building programs like FCM's Municipal /First Nation Community Economic Development Initiative and award winning Community Infrastructure Partnership Program to build stronger economic ties and relationships across governments. • Increase national focus and support for the economic and social needs of Canada's urban Aboriginal people to advance the country's economic competitiveness over the long term. • Work with Statistics Canada to address gaps in data and ensure that all municipalities have access to the data they need to make informed policy decisions and better serve their citizens. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities as identified by Policy and Government Relations: • Election Campaign Development and Launch; • Platform Development and Launch; and • Adopt the Platform Priorities. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 590 4 2. Direct staff to provide further analysis on the changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 591 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL FINANCE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS Committee Chair Garth Frizzell welcomed new and returning committee members to Saguenay and introduced Vice- Chairs Councillor Sav Dhaliwal and Councillor Michael Thompson. The Committee approved the agenda as well as the report from the March 2014 Board meeting. Staff provided a comprehensive update on the Election Readiness 2015 plan, including a policy and advocacy environmental scan. The committee discussed the 2014 -15 policy and advocacy priorities: Election Campaign Development and Launch, Platform Development and Launch, and Refreshing the Municipal Fiscal Storyline. The Committee entered into a significant discussion on the proposed issues and campaign rollout. Key discussion points included: • Ensuring that the campaign is established in time for the federal election, whether that be Spring or Fall 2015; • Approaching the Provincial and Territorial Municipal Associations early in the process to ensure that we have buy -in on the campaign objectives and strategies; • Municipal autonomy continues to be at the heart of FCM's overall storyline and must be considered as a piece of our narrative; • The campaign must tap into the pride that many Canadians feel for their hometowns. This pride is based on numerous factors and the campaign needs to be as flexible as possible to capture these emotional ties; • While municipal officials are FCM's chief advocates and champions, every day Canadians should also be seen as vital actors in pressuring federal parties to take action on local priorities; • The fiscal storyline is a key component of telling our story — getting this story right is critical; and • Further, the fiscal storyline will help rebut external challengers to our storyline — we must be prepared to deal with such challengers. Following the discussion on future priorities, staff provided an update on the status of Canada Post's Five Point Action Plan. Numerous questions and concerns were raised, in particular on the nature of Canada Post's consultation with communities. Next, the Committee was provided updates on the status of various international trade and investment issues, including the Canada -E.U. Trade Agreement (CETA), the Trans - Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Buy America 2.0. On the matter of Buy America, staff was directed to reach out to our municipal counterpart associations in the U.S., to write to Minister Fast requesting a meeting to discuss how the municipal sector can support a coordinated Canadian response to these provisions, and to ensure that the FCM -DFATD Joint Working Group on International Trade considered Buy FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 592 9 America as the first issue under its new mandate. The committee also encouraged staff to share FCM's work on this issue with interested and influential stakeholders including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The terms of reference for the new Joint Working Group were considered and adopted by the committee. The new Joint Working Group will establish a permanent table for FCM to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to inform Canada's international trade and investment strategies. The formal recognition of the municipal role in supporting trade and investment internationally represents a significant move forward for the sector. Beyond trade, the new Joint Working Group sets an important precedent for similar dialogues on other key FCM files. Staff then explained the current status of the 2095 State of the Cities and Communities Report, which has been postponed due to an unexpected delay in critical finance data from Statistics Canada. Members agreed with staffs recommendation to postpone the report until this data is released, which will hopefully take place before the end of the 2014 calendar year. The committee received an update on the City of Edmonton's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada earlier in 2014. FCM submitted an application to appear beside the City on their appeal regarding the use of development charges in Alberta. Unfortunately the SCC ruled against the City and the issue was closed. Finally, the committee received an outcomes report on the 2014 Jack Layton Fellowship program. The Fellows designed and developed a municipal youth engagement handbook that presents examples, best practices and additional resources for use by members interested in recruiting and retaining the next generation of municipal employees. Chair Frizzell thanked members for attending the meeting and called the meeting to a close. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities as identified by Policy and Government Relations: • Election Campaign Development and Launch; • Platform Development and Launch; • Refreshing the Municipal Fiscal Storyline. 2. Direct staff to write to the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors expressing FCM's desire to work together to find a permanent solution to Buy America provisions and how they affect Canadian governments and businesses; FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 593 7 3. Write to Minister Fast and communicate FCM's willingness to work together to support the Government of Canada's and FCM's approach to support free and fair trade and address the local challenges surrounding Buy America provisions; 4. Direct staff to ensure that finding solutions to current and future Buy America provisions are amongst the first issues to be considered by the new FCM -DFATD Joint Working Group on International Trade; 5. Approve the terms of reference for the new FCM -DFATD Joint Working Group on International Trade. 6. Direct staff to continue an ongoing dialogue with senior officials at Statistics Canada on the importance to the municipal sector of an expedited release of Government Financial Statistics annual data for 2008 -2009 to 2012 -2013; and 7. Direct staff to proceed with the production of the 2095 State of the Cities and Communities Report as soon as possible following the release of essential Government Financial Statistics data by Statistics Canada. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 594 E-1 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Mayor Churence Rogers, President of Municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador and committee Chair welcomed the new and returning committee members and offered the regrets Of Vice - Chairs, Councillor Dorothy Hector from Kingston, Ontario and Jacques Demers, Maire de la Municipality de Sainte - Catherine -de- Hatley, Quebec_ The committee Chair reviewed the committee mandate and expectations with committee members, adopted the amended agenda and the minutes of the March 2014 Board meeting. The Chair outlined the key objectives of the meeting and staff presented on the high -level advocacy context for the recommended priorities and provided a brief update on recent advocacy activities. Staff then presented on the very tangible outcomes from the policy forum in Niagara Falls. The committee reviewed the recommended priority policy areas and policy solutions for further development. The main points of discussion were: • Consider a specific policy solution directed to adaptation retrofits for the individual homeowner; • Smaller, rural communities are in a particularly vulnerable position when it comes to extreme weather impacts, they simply do not have the resources to recover on their own; • Need to consider modifying best practice to adapting and innovating quickly, not relying on past success but taking a forward looking approach to risk; • Increasing internet capacity in rural areas could produce significant GHG reductions through telecommuting, it's an important link between the rural and environment platform pieces, and • A federal program for scaling up emerging technologies would be very useful. The committee approved the recommended 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities of 1) Election Campaign Development and Launch and 2) Platform Development and Launch. Staff presented recommendations to the committee on a strategy for moving forward with the development of new guidelines, standards or regulations under the revised Fisheries Act which were adopted by committee_ Staff presented an update on the Green Municipal Fund and the Partners for Climate Protection Program. A new recommendation for the Board was brought forward by Councillor Jack Heath, Regional Municipality of York and unanimously passed by committee to direct FCM staff to recommend options for increasing the federal investment in the Green Municipal Fund in the near future to meet ongoing demand as well as capacity building and sustainability goals. Staff provided an update to the committee on revisions made to the policy statement following referral back to staff at the March 2014 Board. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 595 7 Mayor Scott Pearce, Canton de Gore opened a discussion with the Committee on a resolution from his region related to the regulation of environmentally destructive pleasure boating. The resolution will be brought forward to FCM for consideration. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities as identified by Policy and Government Relations: • Election Campaign Development and Launch; • Platform Development and Launch, as amended; • Adopt the Platform Priorities (as amended). 2. Direct FCM staff to form an expert advisory group of municipal and /or regional government staff from a cross section of FCM member municipalities focused on Fisheries Act implementation; and 3. Direct FCM staff to collaborate with DFO representatives on a municipal sector communications strategy for Fisheries Act implementation. Emergency Recommendations for Referral to Executive Committee: 4. Direct FCM staff to recommend options for increasing the federal investment in the Green Municipal Fund in the near future to meet ongoing demand as well as capacity building and sustainability goals. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 596 10 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INCREASING WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT Committee Chair Sylvie Goneau welcomed everyone to Saguenay and introduced the committee's new vice -chair Councillor Lorrie Williams of the City of New Westminster, BC. The committee members and observers were then invited to introduce themselves. The committee approved the agenda and the report from the Thunder Bay meeting. Chair Goneau then identified the six priority areas for 2014 -2015: • Completion and Promotion of Head Start for Young Women Program Tools, Resources and Success Stories • Scholarships and Awards • Long -term Program Funding • Regional Champions • FCM Platform Development • International Partnerships on Gender - related Programs The Chair outlined that the Head Start for Young Women program will be completed this fall and that the tools and resources created by this program will be promoted widely. Vice Chair Williams then outlined the second priority, Scholarships and Awards. With the increased number of applications received this year, Vice Chair Williams will head a subcommittee to develop a new process to evaluate and select the annual recipients. This committee will also consider increases in the amount of funds awarded to each recipient. Chair Goneau then highlighted the recent success of the Regional Champions Community of Practice. With 60 members and growing, FCM elected officials are able to provide direct support to women candidates through a Closed Facebook discussion group. Currently, the group is focused on mentorship and supporting women candidates for fall municipal elections. Mayor Debra Button delivered an update on International Partnerships on gender - related programs, specifically focusing on FCM's role at United Cities and Local Government (UCLG). Through participation in UCLG's committees and events, FCM actively contributes to policy development, advocacy, and knowledge sharing around common local government issues including decentralization, development cooperation, and gender equality. The committee then approved the six priorities for 2014 -2015. The Chair then opened the floor to committee members to share their work as Regional Champions in their own communities to increase women's participation in local government. Many members talked about successful mentorship programs based on the Proteg6 program. Cities of Edmonton, Toronto and Quebec have each run multiple years of successful and popular mentorship programming for women. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 597 11 Chair Sylvie Goneau presented the committee with the proposed strategy for the creation of a Terms of Reference to guide the committee's work. The creation of a Terms of Reference would clearly outline the mandate of the Standing Committee on Increasing Women's Participation in Municipal Government, aims, roles and responsibilities for members, meetings and communications and subcommittees or task groups. The committee supported this proposal and charged staff to present a draft to the committee created through consultation with committee members, especially Councillor Pam McConnell. Further, the committee discussed the level of support provided to their work and the disruption caused at the end of every program funding term. Members agreed to request ongoing funding for staff support to the committee. The committee then moved to a discussion of the FCM 2015 Election Platform. Committee members provided feedback on possible platform pieces that would represent the committee mandate in the broader platform. Members agreed to have further discussion on this matter once the draft Terms of Reference are discussed in November. To close, Councillor Pam McConnell proposed a motion that was unanimously supported stating that: We, the members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Standing Committee on Increasing Women's Participation in Municipal Government, express our solidarity and support to our colleagues in the Committee on Equal Rights and Opportunities for Women and Men of the Association of Ukrainian Cities (AUC). Our thoughts are with you all as you navigate your troubled waters. We are proud of the work that you have done to promote equal rights for men and women in your local governments and we are proud to call you colleagues and friends. Your courage and determination inspire us to continue our own work to advance women in local government with even greater focus and commitment. We look forward to continuing our journey together in solidarity. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following as its 2014 -15 priorities: • Completion and Promotion of Head Start for Young Women Program Tools, Resources and Success Stories • Scholarships and Awards • Long -term Program Funding • Regional Champions • FCM Platform Development • International Partnerships on Gender - related Programs 2. Adopt the following actions as an initial component of developing Terms of Reference for this Standing Committee: FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 12 a. Charge staff to draft a Terms of Reference for the Committee to review and provide feedback before the November meeting; Emergency Recommendations for Referral to Executive Committee: 3. Direct staff to undertake an analysis of and make a recommendation on the following request for the Board's consideration: The Standing Committee on Increasing Women's Participation in Local Government asks that FCM provide funding for staff support to this committee. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 599 13 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE RURAL FORUM The meeting began with roundtable introductions and the election of the Chair and Vice - Chairs for the coming year. President Doug Dobrowolski was acclaimed as Chair, and Vice - President Ray Orb and President Churence Rogers were acclaimed as Vice - Chairs. Following approval of the agenda and the report of the March 2014 meeting, the forum discussed and approved the recommended 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities of 1) Election Campaign Development and Launch and 2) Platform Development and Launch. The platform solutions for the forum include a solution on rural broadband focused on ensuring the new federal Connecting Canadians program addresses critical needs, and securing an interoperable network for emergency responders in communities of all sizes. Members were also provided with a detailed briefing on key platform solutions discussed at the standing committees, in particular the need for additional long -term, predictable funding for core municipal infrastructure, dedicated funding for wastewater and support for asset management capacity building. Staff explained that some issues like small airport viability are being addressed through the normal work of the standing committees, in this case through the upcoming Canadian Transportation Act Review_ Staff then provided an update on recent developments on the broadband file, including the recent announcement by Xplornet Communications that the company intends to bring 25 Mbps downloads speeds to "100% of the rural population" by 2017. Members agreed that the forum should invite Xplornet representatives to the November meeting to discuss this commitment. Finally, an update was provided on the National Disaster Mitigation Program and the work of the technical committee supporting FCM's engagement with Public Safety Canada on this issue. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities as identified by Policy and Government Relations: • Election Campaign Development and Launch; • Platform Development and Launch; • Adopt the Platform Priorities (as amended); 2. Direct staff to invite Xplornet Communications to present at a future meeting of the Rural Forum to discuss their plan to deliver 25 Mbps service to 100% of rural Canadians by 2017; 3. Support the work of the Standing Committee on Community Safety and Crime Prevention to secure the dedication of D Block spectrum and the development of a National Interoperable Emergency Broadband Network. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 14 :11 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CRIME PREVENTION Randy Goulden, Committee Chair and Councillor with the City of Yorkton, welcomed new and returning board members including the new Vice Chairs Chris Coleman, Councillor with City of Victoria and Roger Doiron, Mayor of la ville de Richibucto. The committee Chair and staff presented an update on the policy and government relations activities related to the committee and set the context for a full discussion on the committees priorities related to FCM's campaign and platform development. The committee agreed on the need for our platform to emphasize the significant role and impact of mental health on the Economics of Policing and Crime Prevention_ The committee further agreed that the platform priorities presented to committee reflect well the key federal- municipal issues impacting communities and cities across the country. Following a full and healthy discussion the committee adopted the proposed policy and advocacy priorities for 2013 -2014 and approved the following priorities: Economics of Policing and Crime Prevention: • Develop anew way to pay for policing that reflects the changing and increasingly complex nature of crime. • Break down silos between governments to implement proven crime prevention and early intervention policing models, and to develop evidence -based crime prevention legislation that will help keep people out of the justice system in the first place_ Fix the gaps in mental health services through government collaboration, shared resources, and implement proven approaches like Housing First and supportive housing that target vulnerable populations. Disaster Mitigation: • Build on the federal National Disaster Mitigation Program to ensure the types of infrastructure and emergency systems needed to meet the pressures of climate change and natural and human made disasters. • Establish standardized risk assessment protocols. Build local capacity, especially in smaller communities, by ensuring access to national research and risk assessment tools, databases and best practices. Emergency Preparedness: • Reinstate the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP). • Dedicating the D Block of the 700 MHz broadband spectrum and develop the governance and implementation structure of a national interoperable emergency broadband network. The Chair and staff provided an update on FCM's Disaster Mitigation Working Group. FCM continues to work with Public Safety Canada to ensure municipal concerns and solutions are FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 15 :1 incorporated into the recently proposed federal disaster mitigation program_ The committee approved the identified areas of municipal priority for a National Disaster Mitigation Program as noted in the recommendations at the end of this report. Staff provided an update on the Joint Committee on Community Corrections and the Chair called for expressions of interest to sit on the committee. The committee agreed to invite members from across the Board of Directors to fill the 13 positions on the Joint Committee and to hold at least two positions for members for whom corrections is an issue in their region. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities as identified by Policy and Government Relations: • Election Campaign Development and Launch; • Platform Development and Launch; Adopt the Platform Priorities (as amended); 2. Adopt the following recommended areas of priority for a National Disaster Mitigation Program: a. Emergency Preparedness and Response b. Infrastructure Mitigation c. Inter and Intra - Government Coordination d. Building Capacity. SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL :i 16 Committee Chair Jenelle Saskiw opened the meeting by welcoming new and returning committee members and introducing Vice - Chairs Michelle Morin -Doyle and Allan Hawkins. Following approval of the agenda and the report of the March 2014 meeting, the committee reviewed the proposed infrastructure policy solutions that build upon FCM's 2012 submission to the Long -Term Infrastructure Plan consultations: • Long -term, dedicated funding for core municipal infrastructure; • Reduce gridlock and build transit systems that support growth; • Help communities meet new federal wastewater regulations and improve the environment; • Support innovative practices and build local capacity; and • Retain flexibility and improve predictability of existing application -based programs_ Following extensive discussion on the proposed policy solutions, and in particular on the importance of asset management capacity building, the committee approved the recommended 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities of 1) Election Campaign Development and Launch, 2) Platform Development and Launch, and 3) Rail Safety. The committee was then provided with an update on the status of the New Building Canada Plan and the government's response to outstanding issues. A detailed update on the work of the National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group was then provided by staff and by Mayor Doug Reycraft, Co -Chair of the Working Group. While significant progress has been made over the past year, the August 2014 final report of the Transportation Safety Board into the Lac- Megantic derailment was highly critical of Transport Canada and will require a fulsome response. Staff then informed members of a significant development on rights -of -way, after which the committee adopted the recommendation for FCM to seek intervener status in the matter of the City of Hamilton's August 2014 application to the CRTC related to a dispute with Bell Canada. The intervention will be limited to defending long standing principles that are of significant interest to the municipal sector and are consistent with FCM's existing policy positions. The committee then considered and adopted a recommendation brought forward by Vice -Chair Michelle Morin -Doyle on behalf of the Quebec Caucus requesting that the committee recommend that the National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group be maintained and with the support needed to fulfill its mandate. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL :1 17 Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities as identified by Policy and Government Relations: • Election Campaign Development and Launch; • Platform Development and Launch; • Rail Safety; and • Adopt the Platform Priorities (as amended). 2. Approve the recommendation for FCM to seek intervener status before the CRTC in the matter of the City of Hamilton's August 2014 Application, subject to technical direction from the FCM Technical Committee on Telecommunications and Rights -of -Way, with a financial allocation of up to $20,000 committed from the Rights -of -Way Defense Fund; and 3. That the work of the National Municipal Rail Safety working group continue and be maintained with the necessary resources to carry out its mandate_ FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL •10 18 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Committee Chair Roger Anderson welcomed everyone to Saguenay and introduced the Vice - Chairs, Mayor Debra Button and Councillor Marvin Plett. The Committee then approved the agenda and the minutes from the March 2014 Board of Directors' meeting in Thunder Bay. The Chair put forward a motion to send a letter to Councillor Lise Burcher thanking her for her service to the committee and FCM's international programs. The Committee received an update from the Chair on FCM's international programs, including the implementation of FCM's Ukraine- Municipal Local Economic Development (MLED) in light of the recent conflict in Ukraine. Committee members also received an update on FCM's newest program, Sustainable and Inclusive Communities in Latin America (CISAL), based in Peru and Colombia. The CISAL program aims to strengthen the capacity of local governments so they can play a leadership role in building more resilient and inclusive communities in areas affected by mining activity. Vice - Chair, Councillor Marvin Plett, presented the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the committee. The TORs were reviewed by a task group last year and were presented and circulated to the committee in March 2014 and again prior to the meeting in Saguenay. The Committee also discussed opportunities for its members to become involved in FCM's international programs, which will be communicated by email following the Board meeting, and the continued communication of FCM's international work in Canada. FCM staff agreed to circulate a document prepared by the City of Toronto outlining the benefits to the city in participating in FCM's policies and programming work. The Chair provided an update on FCM's International Relations Framework. He highlighted the work done to date and the process leading up to the November Board meeting, when the framework will be presented for approval. The Committee also discussed their involvement in the implementation of the CISAL program. A governance representative from the committee will be assigned to the CISAL program and will work with a small oversight group to report back to the committee at each Board meeting. The group will include FCM's 1st Vice- President and the Committee Chair, including two to three other committee members. As part of the FCM's Election Readiness Campaign, the committee discussed the inclusion of FCM's international priorities as part of the election campaign and platform. The main points of discussion were: Election Platform - International: • Develop a program to support Canadian municipalities in trade and investment attraction in order to assist businesses to create relationships in strategic and growing markets; • Expand our current portfolio of capacity building projects to assist local governments in developing countries, with focus on democratic governance, economic prosperity, engagement of private sector, disaster preparedness and response, and environmental sustainability; FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL :1 Develop a Public Engagement Program, drawing on FCM's network of 2,000 Canadian municipalities, to make Canadians more aware and engaged in Canada's international activities; and Secure a Special Partnership agreement to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of FCM's relationship with the federal government on programming and policy issues related to FCM's international priority areas. The Committee Chair closed the discussion by emphasizing the importance of FCM's international work to the organization, Canadians, federal government, and partners abroad. The Committee received reports from Councillor Michael Thompson and Councillor Brian Pincott on their recent missions abroad as part of FCM's Caribbean Local Economic Development (CARILED) and Haiti - Municipal Cooperation Program (MCP). Members appreciated hearing from their colleagues involved in the programs and asked that future meetings include a similar format. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the four main elements listed as the core content of the international section of the election platform; and 2. Direct staff to prepare a letter to Councillor Lise Burcher thanking her for her service as Chair of the Standing Committee on International Relations and in FCM's international programs. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL :1. 20 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE NORTHERN AND REMOTE FORUM Vice -Chair Wayne Potoroka, President of the Yukon Association of Communities, began the meeting by welcoming new and returning members and offered the regrets of the Chair, Jeannie Ehaloak, President of Nunavut Association of Municipalities and Vice -Chair Charles Furlong, President of Northwest Territories Association of Communities. The forum adopted the agenda and the minutes from the March 2014 meeting. Staff presented recommendations for the forum's 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities and the priorities for the 2015 election platform related to northern and remote communities. Specific comments received included: that the strategies and activities should include the linkage to the infrastructure platform, and that policies to support rental housing in the North should provide both low rate financing and funding to developers in order to create a successful business case for new rental projects. An update was then provided on the New Building Canada Fund, highlighting the main issues for Northern communities: that local governments and territories are being asked to provide upfront funding for project costs, and that the multi -stage approvals process is challenging for Northern communities and the territorial governments alike. FCM staff continues to support the efforts of the territorial municipal associations to resolve these issues, in particular the provision of advance payments to the territories in cases where a need can be demonstrated. Staff then presented an update on the new Connecting Canadians broadband fund, including the dedicated $50 million allocation for satellite- dependent communities in Nunavut and Nunavik. Finally, staff presented recommendations to the forum regarding search and rescue in the North_ Members agreed that FCM should identify strategic opportunities to advocate for the restoration of federal funding for the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program, and to advance the need for an assessment of federal search and rescue capabilities in the North. The recommendations were unanimously approved. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Adoption: 1. Adopt the following 2014 -2015 policy and advocacy priorities as identified by Policy and Government Relations: • Election Campaign Development and Launch; Platform Development and Launch; • Adopt the Platform Priorities; 2. Endorse the recommendations of the National Roundtable on Arctic Emergency Preparedness that: FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL :1 21 a. National authorities should place needs of northern residents at the forefront in policy discussions at the national level, as opposed to focusing exclusively on visitors to the region; b. The Joint Emergency Preparedness Program should be reinstated to full capacity; and 3. Direct staff to identify opportunities to advance the need for an assessment of federal search and rescue capabilities available in the North, including the feasibility of locating dedicated SAR assets in the Territories_ FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL :1: 22 3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL. September 23, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Common Council: SUBJECT: 2013 Annual Report PURPOSE t-3 The City of Saint John The purpose of this report is to present the City of Saint John Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2013 titled, Investment in Our Priorities — Building a Sustainable Saint John. BACKGROUND During Council's priority setting sessions in 2012, accountability for service results was determined to be a focus area as well as demonstrating citizen focused service delivery. The desire was to support this priority through the publication of an annual report. As a best practice, many Canadian municipalities publish an annual report that enables their Council and the public to monitor progress against a set of specific objectives established by the municipality. Annual reporting promotes a greater understanding of municipal responsibilities and priorities. It also supports Council in demonstrating to citizens the value their investment has in the community. ANALYSIS Essentially there are three primary audiences for the annual report: Common Council to support accountability and transparency objectives, the economic development community to promote further investment in Saint John, and the public to demonstrate the value of citizen investment into service delivery for the community. Investment can be in the form of public funds, corporate and community partnership, and citizen responsibility that contribute to the achievement of Council's priorities for Saint John. M• M &C -2013 Annual Report The 2013 Annual Report is titled Investment in Our Priorities — Building a Sustainable Saint John. The name of the report is intended to build off the investment theme that Council discussed during their priority setting sessions and highlight the many investments in our community in 2013. The title also demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that service delivery to our citizens is valued and sustainable. Council's Priorities and AdvanceSJ, the City's corporate strategic plan, provide the framework for reporting progress on key community initiatives and service results. The annual report focuses on 2013 accomplishments and service results. The City's audited 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements are included in the report to provide a more complete picture of performance. A project team consisting of staff from across the organization including Strategic Sen ices, Finance & Administrative Services, Transportation & Environment Services, and Saint John Water worked collaboratively to develop the annual report. The City's management - professional employees were engaged to identify service and project accomplishments that align with Council's priorities. As a new undertaking for the City, the 2013 Annual Report provides a framework for future reporting. The current format is based on best practices in reviewing the annual reports of many other Canadian municipalities. There is a plan to publish the report earlier next year and determine a way to introduce performance indicators related to citizen satisfaction. The 2013 Annual Report will be available on the City's website once translated. Limited copies will be printed and bound to control costs. Each Councillor will receive a number of printed copies to support their dialog with the community. Rwomm NDA` ioN It is recommended that Common Council receive and file the 2013 Annual Report, Investment in Our Priorities — Building a Sustainable Saint John. Respectfully submitted, At kanie Rackley -Road , P.Eng., PMP, MScEng Manager, Corporate Planning I , 1 ),V� Neil Jacobsen, MBA atrick Woods, CGA Commissioner, Strategic Services Manager Me 7, r 44 *114.1 Milo jP 43 Investment in Our Priori-ties 1�Uivihg a �ntaimVe Saiht�ohv, SAINT JOHN 2013 Annual Report For the year ended December 31, 2013 611 iE. �� �%'i5.?� •�.,.•� �• F. 'i•. ,� I �'^.'`H•? � •4�.,5 r..i••1 � - 'L`•f, s r4 r1' } � ' + ryt�nr. .� .yam, � _ � i . -. •ti,, .:�.;;'7/�,t�` ,�ia,�,.� 'r ti , gip. ICI l I i I �.I_I LLI i .. �• � . :- -�. .:..�: I illllli III�;IIILII� .IIL , R i !/j .� -rr +!�!A�, x ., � - a;, � -1 °Za•• '• •* X17 i� � �t J • •. �` ' i 7� ii' i L - - NORM 11 I The annual report provides an opportunity to communicate with our citizens on major service accomplishments I and significant projects completed during the past year and the City's consolidated financial statements. Progress is measured against Council's priorities for the community. We invite you to take some time to read through the 2013 Annual Report and learn more about how we've been investing in these priorities to build a sustainable Saint John. Table of Contents ANNUAL REPORT Saint John at a Glance 3 Message from Mayor Mel Norton 4 Representing our Community 25 (2012 -2016 Common Council) 5 Message from City Manager, Patrick Woods 6 Service to the Community 7 Council's Priorities 8 Investing in Economic Health 10 Investing in Community of Choice 12 Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure 14 Investing in Citizen- Focused Service Delivery 16 Innovation, Leadership and Recognition 18 FINANCIAL REPORT Message from Commissioner of Finance and Administration, Gregory J. Yeomans 20 Consolidated Financial Statements 23 Auditors Report 25 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position 27 Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus 28 Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Debt 29 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 30 Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements 31 City of Saint JAD'43nual Report 2013 z li 0*0 0 ....� .' / ut WM 41L Aft� Il L' I rr . i • � f i t `, a ;;; •^ I ilk ................................................................... ............................... Transit service within 6 .5 km 580 of 80% of City residents GDII�V�I heritage properties community centres within the City's 11 offering recreation programs 7 fire stations designated heritage in partnership with conservation areas community groups and non with 752 km profit organizations of routing support emergency response Approximately 100 2,943 acres 5 community police pieces of art of parkland and 56 km of trails offices located in various in public places in Rockwood Park for recreation neighbourhoods aimed at and leisure pursuits preventing crime ................................................................................................................................................ ............................... _ 1500 5 wastewater acres treatment facilities and of industrial land in 3 68 pumping (lift) industrial parks under stations that protect our management I �f ra� l ftla r� natural environment '0V`DW` $6.6 billion 1.328 4 arenas assessment base lane km operated by the City offering of municipal streets and 561 k over 1,324 hours of free m $201.7 million of sidewalks to support the safe, public skating efficient movement of people in consolidated expenditures and goods to deliver valued services to our citizens 70 signalized intersections 497.8 km $167 000 and 14 signalized pedestrian 1 of transmission and distribution crossings to ensure safe travel average cost to purchase a watermains that deliver drinking through and around Saint John house in Saint John (CMA— water to the public MLS Data) We've been investing in this special place. We are building a renaissance city with the goal of achieving the community's vision of a more sustainable Saint John. We're investing to ensure we are ready for when the full potential of the City is realized and to restore our place on the national stage. A turnaround This past year marked a turnaround for the City of Saint John. In 2013, Common Council saw significant progress on a number of the priorities we set for the community when we were first elected. We secured funding for the City's Safe Clean Drinking Water project, a rehabilitation of our aging water treatment and distribution system that will treat and deliver quality drinking water across the City. We implemented affordable, sustainable changes to our pension plan to keep our commitment to employees and taxpayers. Message from Apr 4hxr-h�, We continued to improve our roads and recreation assets. Initiatives like PlanS1 and PlaySJ will ensure our continued quality of life with sustainable development of land and infrastructure. Financially we have a good story to tell about 2013. Focused decision - making, disciplined stewardship of community assets and dollars, and a commitment to continuous improvement are paying dividends. Council has been able to maintain the tax rate while retaining our core services and investing in our priorities. Poised and ready For centuries Saint John has connected New Brunswick and our nation to the world. The wood that built the world's fastest ships and the grain shipped west to east from our prairie provinces, all left Saint John's year- round, deep water port to reach ports of call around the globe. Along the way we've invested in transportation and industrial infrastructure. We have developed a hardworking, skilled workforce and a culture open to change, innovation and development. We are open for business — poised and ready to take that next step to become a global energy connector. I've had the pleasure of taking our renaissance message on the road. In 2013, 1 met with business and government organizations in Calgary and Toronto. We have their support. More importantly, we have piqued their interest. The past becomes the future Two particular events in 2013 crystalized our renaissance and demonstrated how investment —continued and new —contribute to quality of life in Saint John. The City Market was named 'Best Public Space 2013' in Canada by the Canadian Institute of Planners. The Market, a City owned and operated historic landmark, celebrated its 2281h year of continuous service in the heart of Saint John. Through the investment of two private donors, the King's Square Bandstand was restored to once again bring live music and entertainment to our cherished square. It is important to pause and celebrate our wins but then we must quickly focus on our next objectives and the task ahead. This annual report not only captures the financial position of the City, it recognizes the work and investment Common Council, City staff and the community has taken to ensure a sustainable future for Saint John and our residents. With the momentum that has started, the support of citizens and the daily effort of our hard - working staff, Saint John is once again going to be a leading Canadian city. On behalf of Saint John Common Council and City staff, I am pleased to present the 2013 Annual Report of the City of Saint John. City of Saint JAD'616nual Report 2013 lw�a + AWN Deputy Mayor Councillor -at -Large Representing our CDVWWI-t� 2012-2016 COMMON COUNCIL Saint John Common Council consists of a Mayor and ten Councillors. Two councillors represent the City at large with the other eight representing the City's four electoral wards (two councillors per ward). The Deputy Mayor is elected by Common Council at its first meeting following the election. The Mayor and Council of the City of Saint John are elected for a four -year team. Municipal elections are held the second Monday in May and the newly - elected Common Council assumes office the fourth Monday in May. Council's role is to set policy and strategic priorities for the community that guide decision - making and allow the City to demonstrate accountability for service results. City of Saint Jo6nlFYinual Report 2013 L Our Annual Report highlights the investments that Common Council, staff, organizations and citizens have made in Saint John in 2013. In 2012, Common Council identified their key priorities: investing in a healthy economy; making Saint John a community of choice by enhancing recreation and neighbourhoods; and ensuring sustainable infrastructure, specifically roads and drinking water. Staff have been challenged to deliver citizen focused and cost effective services. A year in review In 2013, our financial investments addressed Council's priorities and PlanSJ, the City's multi- award- winning municipal plan. Significant investments were made in roads and transportation; the tools and equipment necessary to deliver services effectively and efficiently; implementation of PlanSJ; improved recreation infrastructure; and support required to redevelop our priority neighbourhoods. We continued to address the challenging drainage issues across the City, and we worked to promote economic development. Careful attention to our debt and expenditure levels allowed us to finish 2013 with an operating budget surplus. Message from City Manager atric VIT)D s� Accomplishments and achievements I am struck by the volume and variety of our achievements in 2013, and the extraordinary collaborative effort behind them. We are incredibly fortunate that other levels of government, organizations, corporations and our citizens work together to move our city forward. We invested in True Growth 2.0 an integrated approach to economic development that emphasizes community partnerships. Our capital investment program supported upgrades to the Saint John Trade and Convention Centre (STCC) in order to ensure it remains competitive in the growing convention business market. Our financial commitment to Saint John Waterfront Development was designed to stimulate private sector investment in Fundy Quay. Our partnership with the Saint John Hotel Association allowed us to continue to invest aggressively to promote tourism in Greater Saint John. Through partnerships with the Government of Canada and the Province of New Brunswick, we continue to make great gains in upgrading our infrastructure. Perhaps the most noteworthy examples are the significant progress made on Harbour Clean -up, and the record -level financial commitments announced by all levels of government for the Safe Clean Drinking Water project. With the assistance of corporate and community partners, we are working towards becoming a community of choice. Mispec Park and the Little River Reservoir were restored as key recreation assets and phase one renovations at the Nick Nicolle Community Centre were completed. With the leadership of ONE Change, services will be delivered under a new community based model consistent with PIaySJ. The ideas and expertise gathered from two citizen engagement processes were used to develop initiatives that are strategic and citizen focused. We adopted PIaySJ a multi-year, city -wide recreational strategy to guide investments and programming for years to come. ZoneS1 will result in zoning bylaws that will give life to the community's new municipal plan and ensure sustainable development in the City's Primary Development Area. City Employees developed AdvanceSJ, a Corporate Strategic Plan that sets out how we will deliver programs and services that contribute to achieving Council's priorities and ensuring cost effective and sustainable service delivery. It will allow the Administration to make progress on our primary goal — to establish the City of Saint John as a service - based, results- oriented, high - performance public service organization. We are committed to spending tax dollars wisely. Initiatives such as: a new west operations depot; an automated brine system; an in -house solid waste collection model; our award - winning Municipal Energy Efficiency program (MEEP); and, a new and improved web mapping tool are examples of changes that have allowed us to achieve efficiencies, reduce costs and better address community service needs. The long -term prospects for our community are promising and it is only by being innovative and forward looking that we will be able to capitalize on these opportunities and best respond to the needs of our citizens. It is my hope that this annual report begins to provide an understandable, meaningful and transparent picture of how we are investing in the community to build a sustainable Saint John. City of Saint JAD'616nual Report 2013 . 1 11 . i Mt 1_ I e-vice to the Community Common Council, City employees, citizens and other stakeholders work together to achieve Our Saint John — the Community's vision to lead the nation as an example of a sustainable community. Through seven service areas and a number of agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs), the City delivers over forty public services that matter to our community. Public Safety Services Saint John Strategic Water Services • Common Council f, N� City Manager Growth & Community Transportation & Finance & Administrative Legislated Development Services Environment Services Services Services 56ii&tl i FUNGI S- hDribes. Setting priorities is about determining what goals and objectives will be acted upon during Council's term to support the community in achieving its long -term vision — Our Saint John. These strategic priorities will guide decision making and allow the City to demonstrate accountability for service results. On October 29, 2012 Common Council formally endorsed a set of priorities for their four year term. Council's priorities establish three key outcomes for the community; economic health, community of choice, and sustainable infrastructure. With PlanSJ as a guiding framework for decision - making, Council's priorities specifically identify investment in economic development, roads, drinking water and recreation. Council has also made a commitment to good governance. EalKWIC/ ftmkk • Implement clear and consistent internal processes to facilitate investment and development in Saint John while maintaining City standards that align with PlanSJ • Deliver an integrated approach to economic development • Cooperate with neighbouring municipalities to advance the economic prosperity of the region through the True Growth 2.0 initiative • Invest wisely to continue to build our community and deliver services while maintaining a healthy financial position • Implement an affordable and sustainable plan to address pension issues City of Saint JwAnual Report 2013 CDYWW1tW T)f c6cp, • Implement policies that create a livable community, one that has vibrant neighbourhoods and provides diverse and accessible opportunities to engage in arts, culture and recreation in a safe and caring environment • Continue to invest in key community recreation facilities such as Rockwood Park and Harbour Passage • Work with community partners to develop and maintain a new signature multi- purpose recreation facility and strategic neighbourhood projects that support PlanSJ • Improve the 'face' of our City by increasing investment in our roadways and sidewalks that connect our neighbourhoods • Build a more robust transit system that is aligned with the principles of PlanS1 �vs,U m��e I 4rastrwtvre, • Implement policies that maintain and protect the quality and integrity of all our infrastructure assets in an environmentally sustainable way and reinforces the principles of PIanSJ • Execute an equitable city -wide strategic road improvement plan that supports PIanSJ • Implement a city -wide strategic recreation plan that 'right-sizes' the delivery of quality recreation programs and facilities for our diverse population • Secure funding for projects to deliver quality drinking water to our citizens Cj-U-;_M- foWS4�ervicp, b4iVnir • Citizens expect value for their investment in the community. With the strength of our workforce, the City is committed to investing in strategic communications, accountability for service results, responsive customer service and service -based decision - making. City of Saint AD'anual Report 2013 Facilitating Investment and Sustainable Development The 2013 service -based budget committed resources over a three year period to support the One Stop Development Shop initiative —a project to enhance customer service with clear and consistent internal processes to facilitate investment and quality development in Saint John while maintaining community standards that align with PlanSJ. Transforming the development service also requires a full review of the by -laws and processes necessary to effectively implement PlanSJ. This work is well underway with the ZoneSJ initiative – public engagement and modernization of the City's zoning by -law. A draft by -law was completed in 2013. The new integrated service model and related suite of by -laws are expected to be completed by 2016. Investing in... 0 VTYKIC/ fte4tk Located in the heart of the waterfront, this six acre site will be the location of a potential redevelopment project of significant value that will transform Saint John and the waterfront. The Fundy Quay property is already generating a new revenue stream of $464,000 annually for the City of Saint John and the Parking Commission. When fully developed, the property will create new residential, business, and investment opportunities. Economic Development The City supports four economic development agencies including Saint John (Waterfront) Development Corporation, Saint John Industrial Parks, Enterprise Saint John, and Discover Saint John. Each of these agencies contributes to the City's long -term growth, affordability and sustainability. Encouraging Wealth Creation Investing in Saint John's Waterfront The Economic Development envelope was increased by $143,000 in 2013 with the additional In 2013 a development agreement was funding going to Enterprise Saint John in order completed for the Fundy Quay. to allow it to take a leadership role in the City of Saint Jo2nual Report 2013 implementation of True Growth 2.0— a plan to drive development and pride in Saint John. Projects include advancing the Energy East Pipeline and continuing development of Health & Life Sciences New Brunswick knowledge cluster at the Tucker Park campus. A number of community leaders serve on a variety of True Growth 2.0 working groups. New wealth creation and tax base growth will provide the revenue needed to deliver affordable services in the future. Engaging the Business Sector The City has revised the Sunday Shopping By -law to provide flexibility to retail owners in setting their hours of business. This flexibility allows retailers to tweak their business practices in order to meet their customer demands. Enhancing Transparency and Accountability All municipalities across Canada are required to follow Public Sector Accounting (PSA) standards. In 2013, the City produced its first set of consolidated financial statements for 2012 that integrate the financial results of over 100 City functions and 17 entities. PSA provides a more complete picture of a municipality's financial position to enhance transparency and accountability. It also provides information for the development of financial and capital investment strategies. With tangible capital assets, the City can start to develop a more detailed plan of the assets it owns and how they are replaced, upgraded and /or financed. Adopting an Affordable, Sustainable Pension Solution The City of Saint John's Pension Plan converted to a shared risk model in December 2012 when the municipality and its four unions all signed a memorandum of understanding. The new model went into effect January 1, 2013 and a new pension board has been appointed. Under the shared -risk model, the City and its workers will share the risk for future deficits. Taxpayer contributions to the plan reduced from $26,470,886 in 2012 to $15,117,102 in 2013. City of Saint Jnual Report 2013 L. 7 i 1 l l Strengthening Neighbourhoods The Neighbourhood Stimulation Grant Program is a catalyst in strengthening priority neighbourhood organizations. By effectively engaging residents to identify needs, issues and concerns, they are empowered to take the actions required in their own neighbourhoods. The City awarded $152,000 in grants to seven organizations in 2013 including Waterloo Village and East Side Neighbourhood, Around the Block Neighbourhood Newspaper, One Change Inc., PULSE (People United Lower South End), Crescent Valley Resource Centre, Teen Resource Centre for Youth, and Westside PACT (Police and Community Together). Safer Community Additional funding was allocated in 2013 to double the efforts of the City's by -law enforcement program with a particular focus on dangerous, vacant and unsightly properties. Enforcement activity protects residents of these buildings and reduces the risks to neighbouring properties to improve neighbourhood safety. Service targets were exceeded by hiring one additional staff person mid -year. Voluntary compliance increased substantially with 40 buildings being repaired and/ or occupied and 15 buildings being demolished by property owners (13 and 8 respectively in 2012). Investing in a... The City has also experienced five years of significant, sustainable crime reduction. This is a result of the Police Commission's investment in intelligence led policing and other crime prevention activities. Promoting Arts and Culture Activities The City has aligned its arts, culture and neighbourhood enrichment (recreation) services under one program. In a variety of ways, this team supported the investment of over $590,000 in arts and culture grants in the community. The Saint John Arts Summit, sponsored by the Saint John Community Arts Board, was held November 1, 2013. Over 75 stakeholders from a wide variety of arts' backgrounds participated in this event. The session addressed how to encourage participation and engagement in the arts, access resources and promote art, and make art connect with and be accessible to the larger community. This information will be used to set a strategic direction for arts and culture sector over the next five to ten years. Enhancing Recreation Facilities Recreation infrastructure plays a key role in establishing the quality of life in a community. The largest single investment in 2013 was Phase 2 of the renewal of the Nick Nicolle Community Centre in the City of Saint Jnual Report 2013 North End. This project is consistent with the direction of PlanSJ, PlaySJ and Council's commitment to invest in our priority neighbourhoods. Other investments included a mini skate park and outdoor exercise equipment at Market Place West, improvements to Rainbow Park and commissioning of Greenslade Park. Summer lifeguard services were also restored at a number of City beaches. Partnerships The City worked with corporate and community partners to make improvements at the Little River Reservoir, Lou Murphy Park, Mispec Park, and the King's Square Bandstand. These initiatives would not have been possible without the support of our partners. Improving the 'Face' of Our City Recognizing the need to improve the overall condition of our road and sidewalk infrastructure, Council increased funding for roadway maintenance projects by $1.3 million for a total of $4,400,000. Council also approved $1.45 million to implement the concrete curb and sidewalk renewal program. This allowed the City to meet its target of approximately 60 lane kilometres of asphalt rehabilitation and /or reconstruction work to be completed in 2013. The program also afforded the replacement and upgrade of 14.6 kilometres of asphalt curb and 5.7 kilometres of asphalt sidewalk with concrete. Active Transportation Under the leadership of Uptown Saint John and the Green Feet Committee, the Campus Harbour Connection was introduced providing a bicycle route between the Tucker Park Knowledge Cluster and the Uptown. Extending Public Transit Hours In 2013, the City increased funding to Saint John Transit. The additional $350,000 supported extended service hours (early morning, evening and night, Sunday or holiday) in priority neighbourhoods. Frequency of trips was also increased on key routes. This resulted in an additional 6,200 service hours and 54 trips (combination of daily, weekly and holiday trips). The Transit Commission continues to work to stabilize ridership. City of Saint Jnual Report 2013 Managing Our Assets ROADS The City uses a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to develop a preventative maintenance strategy to ensure that roads are repaired in a timely manner to avoid more expensive reconstruction costs. Additional funding in 2013 of over $1.3 million dollars in roadway maintenance resulted in improving the PCI to 77 from 72 in the previous year. The number of streets that are considered to have a poor or lower rating (PCI < 55) decreased from 12.56% in 2012 to 7.5% in 2013. FACILITIES The City manages the maintenance, capital investment, and operational requirements of approximately 80 City -owned buildings (not inclusive of Saint John Water). In 2013, staff calculated and analyzed Facility Condition Indices (FCI) for these assets based on estimations of deferred maintenance and building replacement costs. In the long -term this work will allow the City to more efficiently invest in these facilities. The City also streamlined the Facilities Work Order system. This improved Investing in... jrastrvc, re, system allows the service area to prioritize maintenance of City facilities to ensure a more cost - effective response. Strategic Plan for Recreation and Parks In 2013, Common Council adopted PIaySJ — a parks and recreation strategic plan for Saint John. In addition to looking at innovative ways of delivering recreation programs more cost - effectively, PIaySJ sets a direction to 'right-size' and modernize recreation and sports facilities. Quality Drinking Water The Government of Canada and the Province of New Brunswick have demonstrated their faith in the future of Saint John by announcing up to $114.6 million in funding through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to renew the City's drinking water system. This is the largest infrastructure project in the history of Saint John and the Province. It will ensure citizens have access to quality drinking water. It includes the construction of a water treatment plant, watershed improvements and upgrading a network of water mains and pipes. City of Saint Jnual Report 2013 The City plans to send out a request for proposals in 2014. The design and construction phase is expected to begin in late 2015 with work continuing over the next three construction seasons. The project is expected to be completed in 2018. Harbour Clean -Up Common Council adopted a plan for Harbour Clean - Up with the goal of enhancing the quality of life in the community by ensuring our waterways are free of untreated sewerage. Joint funding with the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada was announced in March 2007. Construction of the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility was completed in 2011. In 2013, an additional six lift stations were commissioned. To date, construction on 23 of the 24 pumping (lift) stations required are complete with only the Mill Street Sanitary Lift Station construction remaining. The completion date for the final lift station under the Harbour Clean -Up Program is expected in 2014. Once this project is completed 100% of the City's wastewater will be treated to benefit the harbour for future generations. One -Mile Interchange The City played a key role in working with the Province of New Brunswick to construct the One - Mile Interchange. City staff was responsible for renewing the underground infrastructure to allow for the completion of the project at Kane's Corner. The intersection at Westmorland Road and Loch Lomond Road was reconstructed with new traffic lights to improve traffic flow. The One -Mile Interchange was officially opened on December 13, 2013. Working in coordination with the Province, this new interchange is intended to improve access to the industrial parks and redirect heavy vehicle traffic from local roadways to ensure their long -term sustainability. City of Saint Jinual Report 2013 The City is committed to engaging citizens and neighbourhoods so that residents contribute to decision - making. In 2013, larger scale public engagement programs were delivered to support ZoneS1 and PIaySJ initiatives. ZoneSJ held 12 stakeholder events with over 350 people participating in the program. Over 60 people attended open houses for PIaySJ. Investing in... iIt IZP,V�- foUna &rV I C.o 1)4 IVPXL�- U In an effort to inform citizens and better understand their concerns related to specific construction projects, the City held six open houses in 2013. Continuous Improvement ROADS The City initiated a brine program to support winter maintenance of streets. Two brine units were purchased in 2013 (east and west). Brine (liquid salt) is an effective, pre -wet solution for combating icy winter roadways. As a result, roads stay wet and clear, and the driving public benefits from safer travelling. The goal is to reduce the amount of salt used by 20 %. SOLID WASTE In the fall of 2012, the City began collecting solid waste and compost on all of its 53 residential routes. After a full year of utilizing the 'in- house' service model, the City has saved $723,000 compared to 2011 expenditures. Employees are engaged and productively working in this service area. Additional staff and three new packers (fleet replacement efforts) have contributed to the efficiencies gained— keeping workers healthier and reducing downtime respectively. As a result, citizen complaints to customer service have declined considerably due to more efficient collection. City staff have also been able to respond more quickly to citizen concerns. WASTEWATER Savings of over $130,000 in energy costs were realized at the Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility through repairs to the aeration system and changes in operating procedures. ARENAS A spring and summer ice program was implemented in 2013 at the City's four arenas. This allowed for more equitable access to all recreational program operators. As a result, approximately $79,000 in new revenue was generated. The City also invested in facility upgrades with the installation of carbon dioxide monitors at all arenas and energy efficient lighting and a low emissivity ceiling at the Peter Murray Arena. City of Saint JA26nual Report 2013 Risk Management The City is incorporating risk management in its decision making, business planning, and performance management practices. With the realignment of this service area and related resources, the City is in a better position to limit the financial impact (from asset loss or destruction) and liability. As a result of service changes, the City reduced the overall claim count by 7% in 2013 on top of a 13% reduction from the pervious year. The City also experienced a 20% reduction in claim payments in 2013. Responsive Customer Service The City consolidated the booking of all Anglophone South School District fields to one point of contact allowing for better facility usage, management and customer satisfaction. This initiative resulted in generating approximately $6,000 in revenue. The City introduced a new and improved web mapping tool that provides citizens with enhanced and easy access to visualize various types of data (e.g., civic addressing, parks and recreation facilities, public transit, winter management plan, sanitation schedules, zoning). AdvanceSJ City staff completed a draft of AdvanceSJ, its new Corporate Strategic Plan. Aligning with Council's priorities, the plan outlines the strategic directions and initiatives that will allow the organization to make progress on its goals. City of Saint Jf)2lgnual Report 2013 v,m)vxhml Leadership and Recognition Saint John City Market named Canada's Great Public Space The Saint John City Market was honoured as Canada's Great Public Space for 2013. The title is awarded each year as part of the Canadian Institute of Planners' (CIP) Great Places in Canada contest and is based on popularity and planning excellence, as judged by a panel of professional planners. City Wins Premier's Energy Efficiency Award for Energy Efficiency Champion (Individual) As of 2011, the projects championed by Mr. Samir Yammine, the City's Energy Manager, have resulted in annual energy savings of $1.8 million, a 16 percent energy use reduction. Greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 6,200 tonnes, the equivalent of removing 1,172 cars off the road for one year. One Peel Plaza Chosen for a Premier's Awards for Outstanding Energy Efficiency Project Award, Commercial New Construction One Peel Plaza, Saint John's new Police Headquarters, was awarded the Premier's Energy Efficiency Award as the best performer in Efficiency NB's Start Smart New Commercial Buildings Incentive program with the highest annual energy savings performance of all new commercial buildings in the program in 2012. M.E.E.P. Program Receives Provincial Community Recognition Award The City of Saint John has won a "Community Recognition Award" for its Municipal Energy Efficiency Program (MEEP), the first program of its kind in Canada. City of Saint A&Inual Report 2013 AL . \ r i t ♦~ i Marigold Project earns spot in Guinness World Records More than 5,600 students simultaneously planted marigolds at 52 sites between Sussex and St. Stephen in June. The project started as a beautification project in the City of Saint John called "Marigolds on Main Street" and blossomed to include the Greater Saint John and Fundy area. Saint John Named a Top Port of Call on Yahoo Travel Site Smarter Travel ranked Saint John as one of seven travel destinations in their 'Best Ports of Call' feature. The City is listed alongside ports like Marina Bay, Singapore and Tasmania, Australia. The article focuses on Saint John's quaint uptown area, filled with Victorian charm and the experience of the famous Reversing Falls... noted as being 'a perfect destination for seafarers'! Harbour Station Hosted Skate Canada —An International Sporting Event Saint John's hosting of Skate Canada International in 2013 resulted in an economic boost of between $2 million and $4 million for the community. The event, which is the second stop of the competition season for the International Skating Union Grand Prix of Figure Skating, saw skaters from around the world take to the ice at Harbour Station, Saint John Mill Rats Host NBL Canada All Star Weekend The Saint John Mill Rats, presented by Rogers, hosted the second annual National Basketball League of Canada All Star Weekend, April 13 -14 at Habour Station. In May of 2011, the Saint John Mill Rats joined forces with the Halifax Rainmen and launched the National Basketball League of Canada. Saint John Named one of the World's Top 7 Intelligent Communities The City has been named one of the world's Top 7 Intelligent Communities by the Intelligent Community Forum, an international -based think -tank dedicated to economic and social development in the broadband economy. The designation recognizes Saint John's culture of innovation, particularly in the growth of ICT start -ups, the development of public services and the connections between the city's schools – and in particular UNB Saint John – and the wider community. City of Saint AWnual Report 2013 Commissioner of Finance & Administrative Service �riefr . yeomavv�- Pleasure to submit the City of Saint John's audited Consolidated I Statements for the year ending December 31, 2013. late Financial Results The Consolidated Financial Statements have been audited by Deloitte LLP, Chartered Accountants who have expressed a qualified audit opinion in relation to the Shared Risk Plan (pension). Except for this qualification, these statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Saint John as of December 31, 2013 in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting (PSA) standards. The City maintained a strong financial position in 2013 with a consolidated annual surplus of $14.2 million. Revenues were $215,948,028. Expenses were $201,744,295. The City realized tax base growth and maintained the tax rate of 1.785 per $100 of assessment in 2013. Commitment to Debt Management The City has made a commitment to manage its long -term debt and is capping capital investment to ensure sustainable debt management. The City has also demonstrated its responsibility to maintain a sustainable debt service ratio. In 2013, Saint John's debt service ratio was 10.07% (for the general fund), well below the Province of New Brunswick's maximum ratio of 20 %. Over the last several years, the City has maintained a debt service ratio below the average of other cities in New Brunswick. The preparation and presentation of the consolidated statements are the responsibility of the Financial Management Service. We are committed to sound, sustainable financial management designed to support the community and Common Council's priorities with a focus on a long term financial plan. The annual report is a collaborative effort from staff across all service areas in the City. I extend my appreciation for their cooperation and assistance with this annual report. City of Saint Jnual Report 2013 �vmvo� W ErAtvrels_ 2013 Revenue: Consolidated Statements Total Revenue: $215,948,028 Unconditit Grant 9% Contributions Miscellanous from Others Revenue ` 7% 2013 Expenditures: Consolidated Statements Total Expenditures: $201,744,295 Recreational & Cultural Loss on Energy Environmental 5% services Health 4 1 r 3% 2 Environme Developm 10% The City is required to prepare consolidated financial statements. Thl reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues, expenditures, and changes in r the City. The consolidated financial statements include all organizatic owned or controlled by the City are included. The 17 entities include financial statements are listed on the right. The charts above provide City's operating results in 2013 on a consolidated basis. Detail of whz each category of revenues and expenditures can be found in the cons statements included as part of the 2013 Annual Report. bktlI� 6r�er4 & d 16.00% 14.00% 12.00°% 0 10.00% V 8.00% 6.00% 0 4.00 2.00% 0.00% $120M $100M $80M $60M $40M $20M $M 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Debt Ending Balance - General Fund Debt Service Ratio -Saint John Debt Service Ratio- Other Municipalities (Average) z z 0 H a D z The debt service ra debt service cost a! expenditures of the of a municipality. l Board (Province of adopted a maximui budget ratio of 205 reflect the City's ge management. Resl the City's commitrr in areas where thel authority. Benchm Brunswick cities is: the Annual Report New Brunswick (2C City of Saint J6nual Report 2013 I L 4► ON i ir The City of Saint John Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2013 City of Saint John Annual Report 2013 The City of Saint John December 31, 2013 CONTENTS Consolidated Financial Statements Auditor's Report Consolidated Statement of Financial Position Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Debt Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 Page -2 3 4 5 6 7 -38 Deloitte °lu°s 1 LP P O BOX 6549 44 Chlperan Hill 7tn rlw Saint .1oM N9 E2L 4R9 CanWa Tel 506- 632.1090 Fax. -106-632-12 10 WWW Oelotte ca Independent ,auditor's Report To His Worship -The MaN or and Mcmbcrs of Compton Council of The City of Saint John We have audited the accompanying financial statements of I he City of Saint John, which comprise the consolidated statemems of financial position as at December 31, 2013, and the consolidated statements of operations and accumulated surplus, change in nct debt and cash flow for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management's Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements Management is tesponsihle lot the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as Management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of consolidated financial statements that are tree from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Rcsponsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit to accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. I -hose standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. •fhe procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair prescrrtaticm of the consolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that a.e appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropnatenass of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our qualified audit opinion. 6P City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 Basis for Qualified Opinion In December 2012, the City's defined benefit pension plan was converted to a shared risk model under Part 2 of the Pension Benefits Act ('dew Brunswick). The City has concluded that the shared risk model is a defined contribution plan. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to conclude that accounting for the shared risk model as a defined contribution plan is compliant with public sector accounting standards. Consequently, we were unable to determine whether any retirement benefit liability and related retirement benefit expense should be recorded as at December 31, 2013. The determination of the amount of the retirement benefit liability and related retirement benefit expense would require an actuarial valuation as at December 31, 2013 %%hick was not prepared. Qualified Opinion In our opinion, except for the effects of the matter described in the Basis for Qualified Opinion paragraph, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The City of Saint John as at December 31, 2013, and the results of its operations, changes in net debt, and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Chartered Accountants August 5, 2014 2 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Consolidated Statement of Financial Position As at December 31, 2013 December 31, December 31, 2013 2012 Contingences (Note 14) Co,nrrtrlents (Note 15) Approved by: Mel Norton, Mayor avid errith , Chair of Finance Committee The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 3 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 S S Financial assets Cash and cash equivalents (Note 4) 14,346,982 4,673.020 Accounts receivable (Note 5), (Note 6) and %Note 7) 18,556,841 26,302,672 Investment in Energy Services (Note 8) 51,520,621 57,728,154 Other investments (Note 9) 7,585,183 6,797,471 92,009,627 95,501,317 Financial liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (Note 10) 31,870,303 36,325,649 Deferred revenue 1,741,250 1,893,969 Deferred government transfers (Note 11) 5,529,618 13,849,716 Accrued pension liability (Note 13) 600,878 5,067,131 Post employment benefits ar.a compensated absences (Note 13) 22,779,800 25,050,701 Bank loan payable (Note 3) 201,159 12,167,000 Long term debt (Note 12) 212,973,226 200,935.872 275,696,234 295,290.038 Net debt (183,686,607) (199.788 721) Non - financial assets Inventory 1,408,270 1,293,937 Prepatds 1,134,764 1,178,957 Deferred expenses 778,000 910,400 Tangible capital assets (Note 2') 922,092,631 923,928.752 925,413,665 927,312,046 Accumulated surplus 741,727,058 727.523,325 Contingences (Note 14) Co,nrrtrlents (Note 15) Approved by: Mel Norton, Mayor avid errith , Chair of Finance Committee The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 3 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus For the year ended December 31, 2013 Expenses 2013 Budget (Unaudited) (Note 3) S 2013 S 2012 (Note 2) S Revenues 42,466,803 34,774,439 57,224,560 Property taxes 118,239,743 118,239,743 114.504,445 Unconditional grant 18,889,923 18,661,353 18,958,731 Other revenue from own sources 16,962,264 26,333,352 26,892,750 Water & sewer revenue (Note 17) 34,309,000 34,269,330 32,656,592 Miscellaneous revenue 802,228 2,922,330 721,875 Contributions from others 780,000 15,521,920 23,997,376 Loss from energy services (Note 8) 189,983,158 215,948,028 217,731.769 Expenses General Government Services 42,466,803 34,774,439 57,224,560 Protective services 47,666,669 48,639,089 46.190,164 Transportation services 38,700,770 47,017,579 44,262,482 Water and sewer services 37,679,000 32,106,431 31,879,822 Environmental health services 3,568,529 3,237,844 3,589,905 Environmental development services 21,869,869 19,907,895 19,299,870 Recreational and cultural services 10,080,651 9,853,485 8.998,162 Loss from energy services (Note 8) - 6,207,533 130,312 202,032,291 201,744,295 211,575,277 Annual (deficit) surplus (12,049,133) 14,203,733 6,156,492 Accumulated surplus, beginning of year - 727,523,325 721,366,833 Accumulated (deficit) surplus, end of year (12,049,133) 741,727,058 727,523.325 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 4 -6� City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Debt For the year ended December 31, 2013 2013 2012 S S Annual surplus 14,203,733 6,156,492 Acquisition of tangible cap�tal assets (Note 21) (35,312,602) (63,096,444) Disposal of tangible capital assets (Note 21) 1,820,773 2,002,380 Amortization of tangible capital assets (Note 2') 35,327,950 34,343.898 Increase (decrease) in inventory (114,333) 62,311 Decrease in prepaids 44,193 8,020 Decrease (increase) it deferred expenses 132,400 (179,700) Increase in net assets 1,898,381 (26.859,535) Net debt, beginning of year (199,788,721) (179,085,678) Net debt, end of the year (183,686,607) (199,788,721) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated forancial statements. 5 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows For the year ended December 31, 2013 Investing transactions Investments (Note 8) and (Note 9) 5,419,821 (535,909) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 9,673,962 (3,153,659) Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 4,673,020 7,826,679 Cash and cash equivalents, end of year 14,346,982 4,673,020 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 0 � %- City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 2013 2012 s s Operating transactions Annual surplus 14,203,733 6,156,492 Items not Involving cash Amortization of : angible capital assets (Note 21) 35,327,950 34,343.898 Loss on disposal of tangible capital assets 1,542,177 1,762,693 Change in non -cash assets and liabilities Accounts receivable 7,745,831 10,888,382 Inventory (114,333) 62.311 Prepaids 44,193 8.020 Deferred expenses 132,400 (179,700) Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (Note 10) (4,455,346) (9,388,323) Deferred revenue (152,719) 158,118 Deferred government transfers (Note 1 (8,320,098) 1,917,'93 Accrued pension liability (4,466,253) (3,663,340) Other post employment liabilities (Note 13) (2,270,901) 11,453,501 39,216,634 53,519,245 Capital transactions Acquisitions of tangible capital assets (Note 21) (35,312,602) (63,096,444) Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets 278,596 239,686 (35,034,006) (62,856`58) Financing transactions Repayment of long term debt (Note 12) (18,466,646) (20,168,494) Proceeds from long term debt (Note 12) 30,504,000 24,721,257 Proceeds from (repayment of) bank ban (11,965,841) 2,167,000 71,513 6.719.763 Investing transactions Investments (Note 8) and (Note 9) 5,419,821 (535,909) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 9,673,962 (3,153,659) Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 4,673,020 7,826,679 Cash and cash equivalents, end of year 14,346,982 4,673,020 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 0 � %- City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 t. Purpose of the organization The City of Saint John (the "City") was incorporated by royal charter In 1785. As a municipality, the City is exempt from income taxes under Section 149(1)(c) of the Canadian Income Tax Act. The City has the following vision statement, 'We are energized, engaged people committed to working together to provide services that are responsive to Community reeds and delivered in a sustainable, cost effective way." 2. Summary of significant accounting policies The consolidated financial statements of the City are the representations of the City's management prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accourting principles fo• local governments, as recommended by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada Public Sector Accounting Board ( "PSAB "). Significant aspects of the accounting policies adopted by the City are as follows: Reporting entity The consolidated financial statements reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues, expenditures, and changes in net debt and cash flows of the reporting entity. The reporting entity is comprised of all organizations and enterprises accountable for the administration of their affairs and resources to the City and which are owned or controlled by the City. Interdepartmental and organizational transactions and balances are eliminated. The focus of PSAB financial statements is on the financial position of the City and the changes thereto. The Consolidated Statement of Financial Position includes all of the assets and liabilities of the City. The entities included in the consolidated financial statements are as follows: 1. The City of Saint John General Operating Fund 2. The City of Saint John Capital and Loan Fund 3. The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility Operating Fund 4. The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility — Capital and Loan Fund 5. Saint John Parking Commission 6. Saint John Transit Commission 7. Saint John Non Profit Housing Inc. 8. Saint John Development Corporation 9. Saint John Industrial Parks Inc. 10. Harbour Station Commission 11. Saint John Aquatic Centre Commission 12. Saint John Trade and Convention Centre 13. Saint John Energy 14. Lord Beaverbrook Rink 15. Saint John Police Commission 16. Saint John Free Public Library ri City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 2. Summary of significant accounting policies [Cont'd] Reporting entity [Cont'd] 17. Saint John Jeux Canada Games Foundation. Inc. investment in Energy Services The City's investment in Saint John Energy is accounted for on a modified equity basis, consistent with generally accepted accounting principles as recommended by PSAS for government business enterprises. Under the modified equity basis of accounting, the business enterprise's accounting principles are not adjusted to conform with those of the City and inter - organizational transactions and balances are not eliminated. The City recognizes its eouity interest in the annual income or loss of Saint John Energy in its consolidated statement of operations with a corresponding increase or decrease in its investment asset account. Budget The budget figures contained in these financial statements were approved by Council on January 7th, 2013 and the Minister of Local Government on February 18th, 2013. The budget is unaudited and does net include elimination of inter - organizational revenues and expenses with controlled entities. Revenue recognition Unrestricted revenue is recorded on an accrual basis and is recognized when collection is reasonably assured. Restricted contributions are recognized as revenue in the year in which the related expenses are incurred. Other revenue is recorded when it is earned. Property taxes, which are author.zed by Council, are recognized as revenues m the period for which the taxes are levied. Government transfers The City has early adopted the accounting standards contained in PS 3410 — Government transfers in the preparation of these financial statements. Early adoption of this standard did not result in any changes in the City's accounting policies or financial statements from those previously reported. Government transfers are recognized in the consolidated financial statements as revenues in the period in which events giving rise to the transfer occur, providing the transfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met, except to the extent that transfer stipulations give rise to an obligation that meets the definition of a liability and reasonable estimates of the amounts can be made. Transfers are recognized as deferred revenue when amounts have been received but not all eligibility criteria have been met. Expenses Expenses are recorded on an accrual basis. The cost of all goods consumed and services received during the year is expensed. City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 2. Summary of significant accounting policies [Cont'd] Measurement uncertainty The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in accordance with Canadian PSAS requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the year. Key components of the consolidated financial statements requiring management to make estimates include: the useful life of capital assets, impairment of tangible capital assets, rates for amortization and allowance for doubtful accounts in respect of receivables. Estimates are based on the best information available at the time of preparation of the financial statements and are reviewed annually to reflect new information as it becomes available. Measurement uncertainty exists in these financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Financial instruments The City's financial instruments consist of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, investment in Energy Services, other investments, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, bank loan payable, and long term debt. Unless otherwise noted, it is management's opinion that the City is not exposed to significant interest, currency or credit risk arising from these financial instruments. The fair value of these financial instruments approximates their carrying values, unless otherwise noted. The City is subject to credit risk through accounts receivable. The City minimizes credit risk through ongoing credit management. Cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand, balances with banks and short term deposits with original maturities of three months or less. Tangible capital assets Tangible capital assets are non - financial assets having a physical substance that Are held for use by the City in the production or supply of goods and services, for rentals to others, for administrative purposes or for the development, construction, maintenance or repair of other tangible assets; Have useful lives extending beyond one year and are intended to be used on a continual basis; Have a minimum value of $5,000 for individual assets. or $25,000 for pooled assets, and Are not intended for sale in the ordinary course of operations. City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 2. Summary of significant accounting policies [Cont'd] Tangible capital assets (Cont'd] Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost which includes all amounts that are directly attributable to acquisition, construction, development or betterment of the asset. Assets that fall below the threshold amounts are expensed for accounting purposes. The cost of the tangible capital asset is amortized on a straight line over the estimated useful life as follows. Asset Type Years Equipment and light machinery 3 -25 Fumiture and office equipment 5 -15 Information technology equipment and software 1 -15 Land N/A Land improvements 5 -100 Leasehold improvements Term of lease Municipal buildings 10 -70 Transportation 5 -50 Motor vehicles and mobile equipment 5 -20 Water and wastewater networks 5 -100 In the year of acquisition and the year of disposal. one half of the annual amortization expense is recognized. Assets under construction are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use. Tangible capital assets are written down when conditions indicate that there is impairment iri the value of the assets and the reduction in the value can be objectively estimated and it is expected to be permanent. The net write -downs are accounted for as expenses in the statement of operations. Donated or contributed assets are recorded at fair market value at the date of construction or donation. In some circumstances, replacement cost may be used. Segmented information The City provides a wide range of services to its residents. For management reporting purposes, operations and activities are organized and reported by function. This presentation was created for the purpose of recording specific activities to attain certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or limitations. Municipal services are provided by service areas as follows General government services This segment is responsible for the overall governance and financial administration of the City. This includes Council functions, general and financial management, legal matters and compliance with legislation as well as civic relations. 10 6*- City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 2. Summary of significant accounting policies [Cont'dj Segmented information [Cont'd] Protective services This segment is responsible for the provision of policing services, fire protection, emergency measures, animal control and other protective measures. Transportation services This segment is responsible for common services, roads and streets maintenance, street lighting, traffic services, parking and other transportation related functions. Water and sewer services This segment is responsible for the provision of water and sewer services including the maintenance and operation of the underground networks, treatment plants. reservoirs and lagoons. Environmental health services This segment is responsible for the provision of waste collection and disposal. Environmental development services This segment is responsible for planning and zoning, community development, tourism and other municipal development and promotion services. Recreation and cultural services This segment is responsible for the maintenance and operation of recreational and cultural facilities, including the swimming pool, arenas, parks and playgrounds and other recreational and cultural facilities. Energy services This segment comprises a non - generating distribution utility that supplies electricity to municipal, resident;al, general service and industrial customers through 12 interconnection supply points and substations located in the City of Saint John. It also provides street lighting, area lighting and water heater rental services. Inventory Inventory is valued at the lower of cost and net replacement cost with cost being determined on the first In first out basis 11 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 2. Summary of significant accounting policies [Cont'd] Post employment benefits The City recognizes its obligations under post - employment benefr' plans and the related costs, as disclosed n Note 13. Where appropriate, the City has undertaken actuarial valuations. 3. Bank loan payable The City has credit facilities with the Bank of Nova Scotia. According to the terms and conditions of the commitment letter signed between the City and the Bank of Nova Scotia, the City can borrow up to $5.5 million to fund general operations and $25 million to assist in financing capital expenditures pending fall -in of long term ` inancing. The interest rate for !he credit facilities is the Bank's prime lending rate from time to time less 0.5% per annum with interest payable monthly. As at December 31, 2013, the balance of the bridge financing credit facility was zero (2012 - S10.000,000) and the balance of the operating line of credit was zero (2012 - $2,167,000). 4. Cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents consists of the following: December 31, December 31, 2013 2012 S f Unrestricted cash 10,381,248 1,148,382 Restricted cash Reserve for capital purchase 259,000 234,500 Airspace 2049 fund 12,279 5.042 Land sub - division fund 57,381 56.696 Saint John Non Profit Housing future development fund 49,360 48,772 Deposits on contracts 495,811 261,602 Saint John Non Profit Housing replacement reserve 3,032,757 2,834.417 Saint John Nor Profit Housing subsidy surplus reserve 59,146 83,609 14,346,982 4,673,020 12 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 S. Due from the federal government and its agencies Amounts due from the federal government and its agencies consist of the following December 31, December 31, 2013 2012 S f Canada Revenue Agency HST receivable 1,023,877 1,624,366 Harbour Cleanup Fund 2,660,000 2,946,580 Gas Tax Fund 2,643,941 - Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund - 351,661 Other 358,658 344.29' 6. Due from the Province of New Brunswick Amounts due from the Province of New Brunswick consists of the following: 6,686,476 5,266.898 December 31, December 31, 2013 2012 S S Harbour Cleanup Fund 3,214,000 Peel Plaza Provincial Contribution - 5,633,454 Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund - 351,661 Other 1,090,720 936,219 1,090,720 10,135,334 13 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 7. Accounts receivable Accounts receivable consist of the following December3l, December3l, 2013 2012 S S Due from the Province of New Brunswick (Note 6) 1,090,720 10,135.334 Due from the Federal Government (Note 5) 6,686,476 5,266,898 Water and sewer charges to ratepayers 6,856,083 6,668,103 Other 4,824,018 5,245,467 Allowance for doubtful accounts (900,456) (1,013.128) 18,556,841 26, 302.674 8. Investment in energy services Change in equity in Saint John Energy 2013 2012 S S Equity at beginning of year 57,728,154 57,858,466 Employee future benefits asset write off (6,306,728) - Net earnings (loss) 99,195 (130,312) Equity at end of year 51,520,621 57,728,154 As of June 1, 2013, Saint John Energy offers pension employment benefits under a Shared Risk Pension Plan. On conversion. Saint John Energy wrote off ;he future benefit asset of $6,306.728 to the capital reserve liability. 14 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 9. Other investments Other investments consist of the following: December 31, December 31, 2013 2012 5 S Canada Games Foundation investments 6,558,250 5,823,908 Other investments 1,026,933 973,563 Total other investments 7,585,183 6,797,471 The investments of the Canada Games Foundation are held in the custody of Scotiatrust and CIBC Melon The Foundation's investment strategy is to hold high quality corporate or Government bonds and liquid equity investments which bear no unusual credit or interest rate risk. Fair values of investments in fixed income securities and equities are determined using year end quoted market prices. 15 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 10. Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities consist of the following December 31, 2013 s December 31, 2012 s Trade payables 24,865,641 30,027.634 Payroll 4,657,047 4,354,559 Deposits 902,472 570,884 Canada Revenue Agency (10,584) 23,625 Conferences and holdings 589,246 399,269 Interest payable 620,969 661,442 Other 245,512 288,237 31,870,303 36,325,650 11. Deferred government transfers Deferred government transfers consist of the following December 31, December 31, 2013 2012 S $ Gas tax funding 5,529,618 6,082,184 Parking garage - 7,767,532 5,529,618 13,849,716 Funding received as part of the Gas Tax Funding program is recorded as revenue In the year during which related expenditures are incurred. Amounts that have not been spent are recorded as deferred government transfers on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. 16 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 12. Longterm debt Debentures consist of the following Annual Interest Rato Term Paymont 2013 2012 Year of Issue % (Years) $ S $ New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation Debentures 2003 3.050 to 5.000 10 1,788.000 1,788,000 2CO3 2.750'o 5 '25 10 1,862 000 1,882,000 2003 3.375 to 5.750 10 44,000 44,000 2004 2.750 to 4.800 10 1255,000 9,875,000 11,130,000 20C` 3.050 to 5.000 10 57,000 337,000 394.000 2005 3.750 to 4.375 10 648,000 5,416,000 6.064.000 2005 2.750 to 5.125 10 40,000 280,000 320,000 2006 4.150 to 4.450 10 1,133,000 11,069,000 12,202,000 2006 2.750!o 4.800 10 60.000 480,000 540,000 2007 4.450 to 4.850 10 730,OCO 8,320,000 9,050.000 2007 3.750 to 4.375 10 33,000 302,000 335,000 2008 3.300 to 4.850 10 692,COC 7,540,000 8.232,000 2008 2.100 to 5.550 15 542,000 6,290.000 6.832,000 2008 4.150 to 4.450 10 100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 2009 1.000 to 4.500 10 1,008.000 11,468,000 '2,476.000 2009 0.950'o 5.000 10 817.000 10,232,000 11,049,000 2009 4.450 to 4.850 10 100,000 1,100.000 1 200,000 2009 3.300 to 4.850 10 333.000 3.668,000 4,001,000 2010 1.500 to 4.550 10 1,250,000 16,250,000 17,500,000 2011 1.650 to 4.250 10 2.367,000 36,266,000 38,633 000 2011 1.350 to 3.450 10 650.000 10,200,000 10,850.000 2011 2.100 to 5.550 15 200.000 3,600,000 3,800,000 2012 1.350 to 3.550 15 1,492.DCO 23,008,000 24,500,000 2013 1.350 to 3.700 15 30,300,000 OTHER DEBENTURES Canada Mortgage and Housing Debentures 2009 17.201.000 197,001,000 183, 902, 000 3.97 15 81.286 1,138,008 1,219,294 Total debentures 17.282.286 198,139,008 '85.21.294 17 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 12. Long term debt [Cont'd] Mortgages and other long -term debt consist of the following: Date of Maturity Interest Rate x Payment s 2013 s 2012 s Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages Bicentennial Col.f1 April 1, 2021 1.80 50,979 403,102 454,081 Rotary Admiral Beatty Apr 1, 2021 1 .80 302.383 2,390,983 2,693,366 Main and Rodney Projects Jun 1, 2026 2.26 39.942 582,926 622,868 North End Prcject Jan 1, 2024 2.86 41,906 496,178 538.084 West Side Prcject Oct 1. 2024 2.65 37,810 480,126 517 936 HarbcursiW Aug 1, 2019 2.61 264,969 1,638,570 1.903.539 South End Project Dec 1, 2022 3.16 69,710 708,084 777,794 105 Queen Street May 1, 2025 2.40 19,422 257,906 277,328 46 St. James Street Feb 1. 2023 3.90 30,718 315,062 345.840 147 Oueer Street Aug 1, 2028 3.09 8.375 155,049 163.424 28 Taylor Averue Nov 1, 2029 2.65 10,401 208,291 218.692 Other mortgages CIBC - Rotary Court Nay 1. 2014 4.16 19.524 429,116 448,640 Manuilk Financial - Leinster Street Aug 1, 2018 4.70 122.856 4,041,777 4,164,633 Bank of Nova Scotia - Broadview Avenue April 1, 2014 4.45 6,269 90,302 96,570 Bark of Nova Scotia - 289 Tumb -.: , Sep 2018 5.90 11,037 253,996 265,033 Family and Community Services Affordable Rental Housing Program Fo,groable loan - 40-46 Main Street May 1, 2026 4.45 7,000 86,333 93,333 orgivable loan - Lc,nster Street July 1. 2028 4.45 45,500 659,750 705.250 Forgivable loan - 3roadview Avenue July 1. 2027 4.80 5,000 67,500 72,500 Forgivable Ivan - 183 - 185 Wentworh Jun 1, 2026 5.30 7,000 79,917 86,917 Forgivable loan - 2 Newmar. Street April 2031 3.10 8,500 195,500 Now Brunswick Housing Corporation Promissory no*.e payable -Rotary Admiral Beatty Corr. April ',2031 4.30 75,000 1,293,750 1.368.750 1,184,361 14,E 34, 218 15.814,578 18 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 12, Long term debt [Cont'd] In total. long -term debt consists of December 31, December 31, 2013 2012 S S Debentures 198,139,008 185,121,294 Mortgages 14,834,218 15,814,578 Total long -term debt 212,973,226 200,935,872 Mortgages with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are secured by specific rental properties situated in Saint John and, In some instances, a general assignment of rental income. Forgivable loans from the Family and Community Services Affordable Rental Housing Program and the promissory note payable to New Brunswick Housing Corporation are forgiven over a period of twenty years from the first day of the month following project interest adjustment date, provided certain conditions are continuously met. Should a loan become payable as a result of default, the remaining unforgiven balance will bear interest at the rate shown in the table. The forgivable loans are secured by specific rental properties situated in the City of Saint John. During the year, $73,000 was forgiven by the Family and Community Services Affordable Rental Housing Program (December 31, 2012 - $64,500). During the year, 575,000 of the promissory note from New Brunswick Housing Corporation was forgiven (December 31, 2012 - $75,000). The aggregate amount of principal repayments required in each of the next five years to meet provisions of long -term debt, assuming maturity debt is renewed at terms comparable to those currently in effect, is as follows: 2014 25,306,113 2015 19,444,863 2016 22,438,556 2017 18,878,217 2018 16,658,885 Thereafter 110,246,592 19 City of Saint John Annual report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 13. Post employment benefits and compensated absences Description of plan benefits The City provides for the payment of retirement allowances to retiring employees in accordance with the terms of the various collective agreements and Municipal policy. The retirement allowance is based on the member's final annual salary and years of service at retirement. Employees upon retirement from the City are entitled to a retirement allowance equal to one month's pay. to a maximum of six months, for every five years of service. The program has been amended to provide certain employees with a payout option prior to retirement. Accepting the early payout option eliminates further accumulation of retirement allowance entitlement for those employees. The City also provides for employee sick leave. Unused sick leave accumulates to a maximum number of hours which varies by employment agreement, Under this program, employees are not entitled to a cash payment in lieu of sick leave when they leave the City's employment except as described below with respect to the retirement of both outside workers (Local 18) and firefighters (Local 771). Upon retirement, members of Locals 18 and 771 will be eligible to receive 10% of the;r regular rate of pay for accumulated sick leave credits in excess of 1,760 hours or 2,280 hours respectively. For employees of the City of Saint John Fire department, who are unable to work due to heart disease or permanent injury to the lungs, the City pays certain amounts to disabled firefighters or their survivor spouse as a result of the provisions of an Act of the Legislature, known as the Act respecting the Saint John Firefighters's Association. As at January 1, 2013, the City's pension plan was converted to a shared risk model. As part of the conversion the City assumed the obligation for paying existing disability pensions, that had been granted under the old plan. until disabled members reach the age of 65. On a go forward bans, disability coverage is now provided for employees through a long term disability program administered by an insurance carrier. Finally there are specific agreements that obligate the City to pay top up pensions to certain individuals. During the year, the City made payments of $43,441 ($2012 - $42,443) related thereto. Valuation techniques and assumptions Actuarial valuations of the above benefits are completed for accounting purposes using the projected benefit method prorated on services. The last actuarial valuation of the post - employment benefit plans was conducted as at December 31, 2013. Previous to that, an actuarial valuation was performed as at December 31, 2012. The above benefit plans are unfunded and as such, there are no applicable assets. Benefits are paid out of general revenue as they become due. 20 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 13. Post employment benefits and compensated absences [Cont'd] A reconciliation of the accrued benefit obligation for these plans, along with the main assumptions used for disclosure and expense calculations are as follows: 2013 2012 S S Accrued benefit obligation, beginning of year 25,050,701 13,597,200 Current period benefit cost 712,500 12,606,301 Past service improvement costs, plan amendments (232,001) (500,000) Benefit payments (3,736,800) (1,639,500) Interest cost 899,700 524,700 Actuarial loss 85,700 462,000 Post employment benefits and compensated absences, end of year 22,779,800 25.050,701 2013 2012 S S Main assumptions used for these plans: Discount rate 4.48% 3.74% Salary increase 3.00% 3.00% EARSL Range from 13 to 20 Range from 14 to 22 21 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 13. Post employment benefits and compensated absences [Cont'd) These benefit plans require no contributions from employees. The benefit liability as at December 31, 2013 includes ,he following components: Accrued benefit obligation (carrying value) Retirement allowances Sick leave Heart and lung pension Disability benefits Contractual top up agreements Sick leave - Saint John Transit Commission Unamortized actuarial loss 2013 2012 S i 3,311,000 3,531,000 4,976,000 5,117,000 2,833,000 2,992,000 10,192,000 11,913,000 719,300 742,600 748,500 755.101 22,779,800 25,050,701 (778,000) (910,400) 221001,800 24,140,301 The unamortized actuarial fosses will be amortized over the expected average remaining service life (EARSL) of the related employee groups starting in the next fiscal year. EARSL is determined separately for each benef3 program. The total expense related to other employee benefits described above includes the following components: 2013 2012 S S Current period benefit cost 712,500 12,606,300 Amortization of actuarial loss (158,500) 266,000 Other employee benefit interest expense 554,000 12,872.300 899,700 524,700 Total expense related to post- employment benefits and compensated absences 1,453,700 13,397,000 22 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 13. Post employment benefits and compensated absences [Cont'd] Pension obligation The City of Saint John Pension Plan (Former CSJ Plan) was converted to the City of Saint John Shared Risk Plan (CSJ SRP or the Plan) effective January 1, 2013. The purpose of the CSJ SRP is to provide secure benefits to members of the plan without an absolute guarantee but with a risk focused management approach delivering a high degree of certainty that Base Benefits can be met in the vast majority of potential future economic scenarios. As a Shared Risk Plan, all future cost of living adjustments for current and future retirees and other Anc-llary Benefits under the CSJ SRP shall be provided only to the extent that funds are available for such benefits. as determined by the Plan's Board of Trustees, in accordance with applicable laws and the plan's Funding Policy. The assets of the Plan are held by RBC Dexia Investor Services which acts as custodian of the Plan. The assets of the Plan are managed by ten different investment managers who have discretionary investment authority within the investment mandates given to them by the Plan's Board of Trustees. The performance of the Plan relative to others is measured on a regular basis by API Asset Performance Inc. Significant features of the Plan are as follows. For service prior to January 1, 2013, the Plan provides for pensions on the defined benefit basis at the rate of 2% per year of service times the average of the three consecutive years of service having the highest salary. Upon conversion to shared risk, the targeted benefit basis for service earned after the conversion date is now 1.8% per year of service times the salary (excluding overtime pay) earned during the relevant year to a maximum salary of $120,000. For service prior to January 1, 2013. the Plan provides indexing at the rate of 1% per year on the basis of service between January ', 1975 and December 31, 1992 and at the rate of 2% after January 1, 1993. The shared risk pension plan extinguishes all accrued rights to automatic future indexing. These automatic adjustments have been replaced by contingent indexing as permitted by the Funding Policy. Under the shared risk model, initial required contributions will based on covered payroll (excluding overtime) and will be 9% for employees and 12% for employees in the International Association of Fire Fighters and Saint John Police Associatior (subject to approval from Canada Revenue Agency under the (Income Tax Acl. Members in public safety occupations who accept a non -union position will have a one -time opportunity to elect to continue to contribute at the higher rate. The employer will make initial matching contributions of 11.4% and 15.2% respectively. representing an average contribution rate of 13% of covered payroll. The initial contribution rates for both employee and employer may be subject to change as a result of the triggering mechanism and limitations imposed by the shared risk funding policy. Also, commencing April 1, 2013, the City is also required to make contributions of 17% of covered payroll (excluding overtime) that will cease in 15 years or when the Plan achieves a minimum funding level of 150% of liabilities using a 15 year open group method. 23 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 13. Post employment benefits and compensated absences (Cont'd] Pension obligation [Cont'd] Under shared risk, the vesting date is defined as the earlier of five years of continuous employment with the employer or two years of membership in the City of Saint John Shared Risk Plan. During the year, the City made pension contributions of $15.117,102 (2012 - $26,470,886). 14. Contingencies In accordance with the Clean Environment Act, the City is also liable for a pro rata share of the debentures and other long -term debt issued on behalf of the Fundy Solid Waste Commission ( "Commission "). The portion attributable to the City is determined on the basis of its percentage of total population within all participating municipalities and unincorporated areas. The total of such debt outstanding at December 31, 2013 amounted to $2.649,000 (2012 — $4,079,000). Based on 2003 population figures, the City is liable for approximately 55% of the Commission's debt. The City is, from time to time, subject to various investigations, claims, and legal proceedings covering matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. Management believes that any liability that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or operating results of the City. Legal proceedings were filed against the City of Saint John, the Saint John Police Commission and the Saint John Police Department in December 2013 related to the alleged activity of a former employee. The relief sought has not been quantified in the documents filed with the court and therefore the City is not in a position to estimate the amount of potential liability, if any, in this matter. 15. Commitments Greater Saint John Regional Facilities Commission During 1998, the Greater Saint John Regional Facilities Commission ('Regional Facilities Commission') was created by an Act of 'he Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Under the provisions of the Act, the Regional Facilities Commission has the authority to determine the annual amount of total municipal contribution to be made towards the operation of five regional facilities: the Saint John Aquatic Centre Commission, Harbour Station Commission, the Saint John Trade and Convention Centre, the Imperial Theatre and the Saint John Arts Centre. Under the provisions of the Act, the City's contribution is its pro rata share of the Regional Facilities Commission's operating budget based on the tax bases of the participating municipalities of the Town of Quispamsis, the Town of Rothesay, the Town of Grand Bay - Westfield and the City of Saint John. The City's contribution is 68.14% in 2014. 24 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 16. Short-term borrowings compliance Inter -fund borrowing The Municipal Financial Reporting Manual requires !hat short !erm inter -fund borrowings be repaid in the next year unless the borrowing is 4or a capital project. The amounts payable betweer. Funds are in compliance with the requirements. Operating borrowing As prescribed in the Municipalities Act, borrowing to finance General Fund operations is limited '.o 4% of the City's operating budget. Borrowing to finance Utility Fund operations is limited to 50% of the operating budget for the year. In 2013, the City has complied with these limitations. 17. Water and Sewer fund surplus/deficit The Municipalities Act requires Water and Sewer Fund surplus/deficit amounts to be absorbed into one or more of four Operating Budgets commencing with the second ensuing year, the balance of the surplus /deficit at the end of the year consists of: 2013 2012 s s 2013 surplus 1,475,129 - 2012 surplus 505,103 505,103 2011 surplus 32,377 43,169 2010 surplus 108,555 162,834 2009 surplus 37,574 75,150 2008 deficit - (29,455) 2,158,738 756,801 18. Water cost transfer The City's water cost transfer for fire protection is within the maximum allowable by Regulation 81 -195 under the Municipalities Act, based upon the applicable percentage of water system expenditures for the population. 19. Funds held in trust Funds administered by the City for the benefit of external parties are not included in the consolidated financial statements. The amount administered as at December 31, 2013 was $468.497 (2012 - $466,723). 25 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 20. Funds and reserves 2013 2012 S S Reserve for capital purchase, beginning of year 234,500 210,000 Additional funds set aside during the year 24,500 24,500 Reserve for capital purchase, end of year 259,000 234,500 The City received funding from the Canada — New Brunswick Municipal Rural Infrastructure Program between 20C1 and 2006 to assist with the cost of construction of water and sewerage assets The agreements require the City'o maintain replacement reserve funds, which can only be used to pay for the cost of replacement of specified capital items, unless otherwise approved by the Minister of Environment and Local Government. 26 City of Saint John Annual report 20113 N_ F N O N N H o � a9� c a N • M C c 0 U a E r C r V y N w � e o N F y L � e7 � w v N • J 01 C N m • sc Ld L E v b N n O �o J E c C � M J E w N J N Y Wn ttVDD Oi Q01i t eh N m C) h m ll� at � a N r a1 M p h M V W eD o � � W M N ? W N (14 r W O N C) Pi QD N W W f` N W M /. N aD n C) aQ N O COQ t• N O Ln V CO � LO .r 10 LO Q N cc e0 Q� ♦ N fh N u'f W V Lri O Ln F, n a) to N In CoY 40 W co f M W t0 N S c� In 2 W ao e-i �fl ya V' N dl � W W O N �p W N W r, cr w N 0 H FL C C U` A D n mc w N_ m < c to T O m f e. h h Y co N 7 to e7 V) N 0 4 n co N cOn GOO � airti o N M W N v O cc f m n o e� o n ao en M P. a al e N tD N O h N H 1• CWit f0 O � W cc tQp� L"1 t0 t0 N e7 N Y n N rN ep fa. W ff) O OP O W m LO � r W to M V N N {Np QQ�� tp eO Q1 pNp �- n O t-1 N W 7 O O � N r � M M h � N � N ' tp 10 In Qi O r) N N C7 O k V n Q1 C� f7 r, M � n N c0 c� p 1!f t0 G W o n b N m eV 0 0 o Ct N of O h N O W) n e!1 P1 ! O M � m c-) P1 rn M N W N N W N e7 c-f f7 Ln N r r N W pp t�0 Q A C W N N O O N � N Vi V t. h N en O c� O 0 0) W to ao M O O N O n n N O O N Ln N co P t4 W W tC 1� P Q1 N m N N en to to w 0 O LO � u O N N ' en u> M e7 N N t7 � T N 1 � r O d d O U. 0 h 2 Z E p� pi C q C' m _a o 0 0 c = C E m J ii v r s a V >UJ UJ '`C V C eh c U0 � r E V c C o N �a t) LL E �-0 A ui r a m << m z u33 7 w is V} � O U d d � m .a C y Y a v U 67 L� = O Z LL. N N_ F N O N N H o � a9� c a N • M C c 0 U a E r C r V y N w � e o N F y L � e7 � w v N • J 01 C N m • sc Ld L E v b N n O �o J E c C � M J E w N J N Y Wn ttVDD Oi Q01i t eh N m C) h m ll� at � a N r a1 M p h M V W eD o � � W M N ? W N (14 r W O N C) Pi QD N W W f` N W M /. N aD n C) aQ N O COQ t• N O Ln V CO � LO .r 10 LO Q N cc e0 Q� ♦ N fh N u'f W V Lri O Ln F, n a) to N In CoY 40 W co f M W t0 N S c� In 2 W ao e-i �fl ya V' N dl � W W O N �p W N W r, cr w N 0 H FL C C U` A D n mc w N_ m < c to T O m f e. h h Y co N 7 to e7 V) N 0 4 n co N cOn GOO � airti o N M W N v O cc f m n o e� o n ao en M P. a al e N tD N O h N H 1• CWit f0 O � W cc tQp� L"1 t0 t0 N e7 N Y n N rN ep fa. W ff) O OP O W m LO � r W to M V N N {Np QQ�� tp eO Q1 pNp �- n O t-1 N W 7 O O � N r � M M h � N � N ' tp 10 In Qi O r) N N C7 O k V n Q1 C� f7 r, M � n N c0 c� p 1!f t0 G W o n b N m eV 0 0 o Ct N of O h N O W) n e!1 P1 ! O M � m c-) P1 rn M N W N N W N e7 c-f f7 Ln N r r N W pp t�0 Q A C W N N O O N � N Vi V t. h N en O c� O 0 0) W to ao M O O N O n n N O O N Ln N co P t4 W W tC 1� P Q1 N m N N en to to w 0 O LO � u O N N ' en u> M e7 N N t7 � T N 1 6 Aft- City of Sain[John Annual Report 2D13 i O_ U) N nI rnl �i W N n N V N —1 rl- N � r O d d O U. 0 h 2 Z p� pi C q C' W ~ _a o 0 0 c = C E m J ii v r s a V >UJ UJ '`C 0mf' 0 LO LL c U0 o E V c CD W mzv� p „ �a t) m E �-0 A ui o a m << m z u33 6 Aft- City of Sain[John Annual Report 2D13 i O_ U) N nI rnl �i W N n N V N —1 rl- N C E a) C m CO R! C O U- N r d � C E L O p �+ C C O v O +• 0 U y t m w f z LL m O V Jn C d E m N N z N s N r O V a s 4 r1 a 0 « H w O V • U w M Ol e C � s -r e� c w `c c w r r n� O Q � o c r r a o W .y u b E a w M 0 W L w b 9 _V A s « e w T� w c 0 Z3 r Y u CL Z ~ w b r F t, a v Q e a r • O Um !- N N I�AD N N CD r ui LO m n N LO 0 tG O ♦ f 6� O ONi N O co O rn CO N 9 r r 0 N l N 00 {O O No O) N W uuuu7��� C� m r cl Y 10 tN 0 N M M Ei M N M M N O O O 1- e n n M M M M QI 01 M N O) r M i0 M N t0 N N IO M 01 N b m m 1N 0 N d 0 N C r'! !- N N I�AD N N CD r ui LO m n N LO 0 tG O ♦ f 6� O ONi N O co O rn CO tT N 9 r r 0 N l N 00 {O M O n U Q M � � o N M Ei c L c� M PP Cl) 1- e n !� N O N n c t n M M O t0 Y N Ln m m N C � co M rn m E r m N M Q1 M N M m m d 0 N O CU b m OD IO IO N m O M co ao a_ cli ?I Y w to n rn C) M 01 rn IO M M IO M N N 10 d Ln N w O City O� W m r N N tT N m wp r 0 N l U 00 {O O U O n U N � � o CO M Ei c L N PP Cl) 1- e n Y N O h U n c t n V M m u7 Ln m m N C � co M rn m E r n N M Q1 M N m m d 0 M O CU b m OD IO IO N m O o co ao a_ cli ?I Y w w N C) M 01 IO M M IO M b 10 d Ln w w O City O� N h N N , dtp M cc N tn M N v N n o n O rI n cti ao Ni r cv n o N N C N h h 01 rf N n d tpp'f n N r V O r �1 Io + v C m C) � f � n n v, O A T m r v 00 N M M M l U 00 {O O U O r M N � � o CO M Ei c L N PP Cl) 1- R Y d O h U N c t n V d u7 � m m n C cD co M rn E (h IfY OD ad w �f1 CU fh7._ CO w. Y O O n O) Ix 4 D O C7 W N C) O R A N IA N 4o1 O City S N 2013 N , dtp cc N tn N v N n o rI n cti ao Ni M r- 00 N O n Y N N O d N y♦ IA f0 R N O m M d r O Of r m Ci m M N IA d n O� N fmV S C-5 O W d d r cv n o N N C N h h 01 rf N n d tpp'f n N r V O r �1 Io + v C m C) � f � n n v, O A T m r v 00 N O U � � y Ei c L h O a i W o c� U h U Lm s cd Y c t n 0 � C O � O E o O CU L_ In e0 4Q K I —y O ti vl Ix 4 D O C7 W N C) O J -6* City of Saint John Annual Report 2013 r cv n o N N C N h h 01 rf N n d tpp'f n N r V O r �1 Io + v C m C) � f � n n v, O A T m r v 00 N A a w v O h d 0 y H 1/ 1+ C C O LLJ U •Q dU c N 3 ;`L CU otS � C ;t�acr, Q% LL a O C 7 A LL O V► � A m O a ro U ` C w 3 0 d LL_ 00 M W r W C O d d O W N N n Y Y tt7 N O Ci r M h r gn r O r h W o h <D Y M 10 t0 C r N 7 O I1 v. � M N C .0 O Y ._ O i � G m � C m O C 0 c C0 U d _ O _p O L v O Z LL. N M W r W O O O O W N N n Y Y O N O Ci N r M h r gn r O r h W o h <D Y N 10 N Y Q O co M O LO d co r d N r c, co r r a). < t0 < iti v ri c� .iS M rNi v tD Cii tl c7 f t0 O � c 0 E c e C c O O - v U C c � V 7 c Cl. M w % O O � eo G 7 N L t 7 'G io C 1 L G vm �O z Y q O h C C t�0 d o�v OL A H v 3 exi i n c v c m o t o v 6 E u o y u O N W< M (T1 d- L Q 3 o 665 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 I N h n O OI M Y h r m N � r o Y cn cn �o M 07 M � N O n ti' u c G c m A 9 h N r � N 6 O j y N C C E p A N UO to O N r- N- r N cc, cNn ro Q U 'E w O U C cn O ( v V co O O 0 tD L E v. O U Cl) L ro O .` ro c n ao c G7 O N o E rl cn li a+ Q Q N M c —y a m > Q N C) 0 O C O C O a ? N N G O O = Z C cc cn m O O C m N H w tw �+ ` C c4 C ro E N �a o � U C � c O m o O C m E N ccn; O ro O N U N w c A W F o O M co .= cv O A Qf N A Of O N a N O O CID to � � d � N W T + N m aD O MMp M COO W e N m a � � In P7 l'7 N Of r N eq OQ N eq V M N N C7 to O N co In co m . t0 N f� fffDDD a0 CID M m C m N � N N C M N u q N L6 C O V O ppNff N U � v V y N m to a ro M � M — O O H C M R C C_ Cl 5 N N H y Mc o y 0 cli M O � ro c A To ro U� 0 u 0 C -gyp E a L C U Q O u '7 N d y C Q1 D C p � U)U. � iv U •� o O O g � = O y � N ro 0 � m GO co o �D � d7 � d L O ` 0 � 2 C Z N UO to O N r- N- r N cc, cNn ro Q U 'E w O U C cn O ( v V co O O 0 tD L E v. O U Cl) L ro O .` ro c n ao c G7 O N o E rl cn li a+ Q Q N M c —y a m > Q N C) 0 O C O C O a ? N N G O O = Z C cc cn m O O C m N H w tw �+ ` C c4 C ro E N �a o � U C � c O m o O C m E N ccn; O ro O N U N w c A W F o O M co .= cv O A Qf N A Of O N a N O O CID to � � d � N W T + N m aD O MMp M COO W e N m a � � In P7 l'7 N Of r N eq OQ N eq V M N N C7 to O N co In co m . t0 N f� fffDDD a0 CID M m `o m N � N N C M N u q N L6 C O V O ppNff N U � v V y N m to a ro M � M — O O H N C O 5 N U H y Mc o y 0 cli ro c A To ro U� 0 0 w 0 N C U O t L N 7 « a M C Q1 D U)U. r Y o O O g � = O N J O ro O m GO co �D � d7 � d a0 .V n C Z N w rn M 9' C O C14 c. C m .36 d 0� C m � V► C O U ~U o � O N GO V N N � h rn �o n Q h h n in cmt0 A n m N Co. N N m � to n e n N O n f� n rn top N C� N R N N N 66 City of Saint John Annual Report 2013 I > I n N n r .2 N Ncn N n CD Uf 0) N b h 0/ Yf P9 N N M cv �Y NN A `o V N � N u co N L6 O V a ppNff N � � N a 5 N H y E o a a z u A To 66 City of Saint John Annual Report 2013 I > I n N n r .2 N Ncn N n CD Uf 0) N b h 0/ Yf P9 N N M cv �Y NN A M tD N 0 0 \7 , N C) � u y a x � U N c R E $ � � T u M a 7 a A I c o M co N L6 O V 41 N ppNff N M tD N 0 0 \7 , N C) � u y a x � U N c R E $ � � T u M a 7 a A I c The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 25. Restatement The comparative amounts for the year ended December 31, 2012 have been restated to exclude $2,029,479, which was previously recorded as assets under construction and also as transportation tangible capital assets. As a result of the restatement, accumulated surplus and tangible capital assets deceased by S2,029,479 from the balances previously reported in the Statement of Financial Position as at December 31, 2012. 26. Reconciliation of funding deficit upon adoption of PSAS Deferred Special Top - Pension up Heart and Retirement Expense Agreements Lung Allowances S S f S Liabilities at December 31, 2012 as calculated on adoption of PSAS 7,910,000 742,600 2,992,000 3,531,000 Amount of December 31, 2012 liabilities funded in current year (5,990,000) (23,300) (159,000) (220,000) Balance to be funded In future years 1.920,000 719,300 2,833,000 3,311,000 31 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 27. Revenue and expense support EXPENDITURES General government services Legislative Mayor's Office Common Council 780,000 15,521,920 23.997,376 183,305 172,400 169,119 402,480 428,385 721.762 2013 2013 2012 City Manager Budget City Manager (Unaudited) 356,481 341,920 Corporate Planning f S t REVENUE 148,658 147,519 132,441 Other revenues from own sources 521,505 431,188 408,140 General Government Services 2,875,912 1,540,756 2,176,324 Protective services 2,799,062 3,643,387 3,045,020 Transportation services 5,510,652 9,748,298 10,127,626 Environmental health services 82,000 85,908 82,722 Environmental development services 4,122,025 9,927,416 10,226,245 Recreational and cultural services 1,572,613 1,387,587 1,234,813 16,962,264 26,333,352 26,892,750 Contributions from others General Government Services - 188,936 58,637 Protective services - 1,072,467 Transportation services 230,000 11,056,315 3,335,802 Water and sewer services - 3,483,557 19,008.399 Environmental development services 550,000 535,910 334,769 Recreational and cultural services - 257,202 187,302 EXPENDITURES General government services Legislative Mayor's Office Common Council 780,000 15,521,920 23.997,376 183,305 172,400 169,119 402,480 428,385 721.762 32 A City of Saint John Annual report 20113 585,785 600,785 890,881 City Manager City Manager 401,268 356,481 341,920 Corporate Planning 499,585 373,073 400,909 Intergovernmental Affairs 148,658 147,519 132,441 Corporate Communications 521,505 431,188 408,140 1,571,016 1,308,261 1,283,410 32 A City of Saint John Annual report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 27. Revenue and expense support [Cont'd] Common Services City Hall Building Property Assessment Public Liability Insurance 2013 2013 2012 Budget (Unaudited) S 5 S 1,979,795 1,734,349 1,681, 895 1,285,071 1,285,071 1,244,474 608,700 608,775 596,597 3,873,566 3,628,195 3,522,966 Other 36,436,436 29,237,198 51,527,303 Common Cleric 735,400 613,184 763,695 Human Resources 1,428,037 1,434,984 1,272,442 Finance 1,962,447 2,233,197 1,622,342 City Solicitor 703,834 766,215 913,597 Materials Management 971,819 943,191 1,095,244 Information Systems and Support 2,087,058 1,988,529 1,998,163 Insurance 157,977 162,684 - Debt Charges 28,347,810 11,251,711 21,790,529 Amortization - 6,300,196 5,653,140 General Government Services - 1,974,207 14,674,144 Other - 1,527,046 1,744.007 Regional Services Commission 42,054 42,054 - 22,777,842 24,003,445 22,471,100 33 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 36,436,436 29,237,198 51,527,303 Total general government 42,466,803 34,774,439 57,224.560 Protective services Police Protection Police Operations 12,178,847 13,601,068 11,869,612 Support Services 2,308,992 2,124,365 2,359,485 Administration 2,029,290 1,880,603 2,034,362 Stations and Buildings 1,151,180 971,306 1,373,879 Criminal Investigation 3,588,133 4,362,634 4,284,825 Detention Services 498,000 479,163 - Automotive 1,023,400 584,306 548,937 22,777,842 24,003,445 22,471,100 33 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 27. Revenue and expense support [Cont'd] 2013 2013 2012 Budget (Unaudited) s s s Fire Protection Fire Operations 17,830,127 18,341,033 17,864,379 Emergency Dispatch Centre 2,491,853 2,231,023 2,198,010 Fire Administration 834,703 681,924 517,037 Fire Investigation 21,055 15,057 12,209 Fire Prevention 927,111 893,972 717,177 Fire Training 510,993 449,820 403.153 22,615,842 22,612,829 21,711965 Other protective services Inspection Services 993,679 991,356 932,287 Enforcement Services 156,779 186,155 157,933 Minimum Standards 237,671 220,099 263,565 Dangerous Buildings 476,692 362,725 418.493 Animal Control 82,743 84,810 67,217 Emergency Measures 325,421 177,670 167,604 2,272,985 2,022,815 2,007,099 Total protective services 47,666,669 48,639,089 46,190,164 k City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 27. Revenue and expense support [Cont'd] Fleet Maintenance and Repair Fleet Administration General engineering Transportation Traffic Engineering and Systems Parking Administration Parking Administration External controlled entities Saint John Transit Commission Saint John Parking Commission 20,125,126 27,868,889 26 404,979 1,081,302 1,187, 285 1,417, 264 - 296,825 306,280 1,081,302 1,484,110 1,723,544 541,451 319,116 189,866 1,684,800 1,697,769 1,539.570 2,226,251 2,016,885 1.729.436 560,379 496,625 480,819 560,379 496,625 480,819 12,001,491 12,829,548 12,285,804 2,706,221 2,321,522 1,637,900 14,707,712 15,151,070 13.923.704 Total transportation services 38,700,770 47,017,579 44.262,482 35 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 2013 Budget (Unaudited) S 2013 S 2012 S Transportation services Public works Roads and Sidewalks 16,421,905 12,333,318 10,858,51 Other Drainage Services 2,266,348 1,930,471 1.843,938 Street Lighting 1,075,350 1,008,380 1,027,148 Municipal Operations 361,523 330,532 316,753 Amortization - Transportation - 12,266,188 12.358.549 Fleet Maintenance and Repair Fleet Administration General engineering Transportation Traffic Engineering and Systems Parking Administration Parking Administration External controlled entities Saint John Transit Commission Saint John Parking Commission 20,125,126 27,868,889 26 404,979 1,081,302 1,187, 285 1,417, 264 - 296,825 306,280 1,081,302 1,484,110 1,723,544 541,451 319,116 189,866 1,684,800 1,697,769 1,539.570 2,226,251 2,016,885 1.729.436 560,379 496,625 480,819 560,379 496,625 480,819 12,001,491 12,829,548 12,285,804 2,706,221 2,321,522 1,637,900 14,707,712 15,151,070 13.923.704 Total transportation services 38,700,770 47,017,579 44.262,482 35 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 27. Revenue and expense support (Cont'dj Total environmental health services 3,568,529 3,237,844 3,589,905 Environmental development services Research and planning Community Planning Plan SJ 1,241,017 1,141,759 1,059,66' 345,820 136,847 35.108 1,586,837 1,278,606 1,094.769 Administration and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) GIS 311,563 272,057 284,742 Carpenter Shop 438,876 293,944 333.906 2013 2013 2012 Economic development Budget Growth Strategy (Unaudited) Market Square Common Area S S f Water and sewer services 475,000 475,000 332,000 Saint John water & wastewater 1,527,444 724,164 667,045 Drinking Water 8,570,000 7,316,154 6,797,504 Industrial Water 1,566,000 1,114,345 1,356,440 Wastewater 8,992,000 7,584,578 6,270,012 Infrastructure Management 1,099,000 437,530 623,261 Intemal Charges 542,000 101,725 538,360 Fiscal Charges 16,910,000 4,224,349 5,202,256 Amort zat on - 11,327,760 11.091,989 Total water and sewer services 37,679,000 32,106,431 31.879.822 Environmental health services Sanitary Service 3,568,529 3,237,844 3,589,905 Total environmental health services 3,568,529 3,237,844 3,589,905 Environmental development services Research and planning Community Planning Plan SJ 1,241,017 1,141,759 1,059,66' 345,820 136,847 35.108 1,586,837 1,278,606 1,094.769 Administration and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) GIS 311,563 272,057 284,742 Carpenter Shop 438,876 293,944 333.906 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 750,439 566,001 618.648 Economic development Growth Strategy - Market Square Common Area 2,273,352 2,067,726 2.042,009 Regional Economic Development 475,000 475,000 332,000 Regional Facilities 1,527,444 724,164 667,045 Saint John Industrial Parks 300,000 - - 4,575,796 3,266,890 3,041 054 City of Saint John Annual Report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 27. Revenue and expense support [Cont'd] Real estate management Property Management Real Estate Other environmental development services City Market Tourism Community Development External controlled entities 2013 2013 2012 Budget (Unaudited) S S S 1,031,337 1,183,393 907,363 371,310 300,241 323.444 1,402,647 1,483,634 1,230,807 937,265 896,181 930,234 845,000 836,830 850,585 300,994 234,449 210,134 2,083,259 11967,460 1.990 953 Saint John Development Corporation 1,097,015 2,193,836 1,761.993 Harbour Station Commission 3,258,130 3,409,919 3,764,560 Aquatic Centre Commission 2,392,920 2,148,301 2,229,515 Trade and Convention Centre 814,511 776,604 767,675 Non Proft Housing 3,408,940 2,535,369 2,540,683 Saint John Industrial Parks 499,375 281,275 259,213 11,470,891 11,345,304 11,323 639 Total environmental development services 21,869,869 19,907,895 19 299,870 Recreational and cultural services Cultural grants Cherry Brook Zoo Other Cultural Grants 60,035 60,035 60,070 1,923,434 1,214,470 874,283 1,983,469 1,274,505 934,353 Parks Rockwood Park 496,728 520,530 420,262 Parks General Services 1,741,193 1,564,612 1.657,443 2,237,921 2,085,142 2,077,705 37 City of Saint John Annual report 20113 The City of Saint John Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2013 27. Revenue and expense support [Cont'd] Community services Parks and playgrounds Recreation and parks Pro Kids 2013 2013 2012 Budget (Unaudited) S S S 258,627 222,132 74,212 316,053 231,611 262,097 110,416 95,716 86,648 4,322,337 5,048,798 4,652,645 External Controlled Entities Lord Beaverbrook 376,298 350,017 355,803 Saint John Free Public Library 475,530 545,564 554,699 851,828 895,581 910.502 Total recreational and cultural services 10,080,651 9,853,485 8,998.162 Energy services Energy services - 6,207,533 130,312 Total energy services - 6,201,533 130.312 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 202,032,291 201,744,295 211,575,277 38 City of Saint John Annual report 20113 685,096 549,459 422,957 Other recreational and culture services Sports and Recreation 3,130,205 3,123,186 2,866,765 Community Centres 1,083,155 866,068 838,841 Cultural Affairs 108,977 86,281 94,230 Amortization - Recreation - 973,263 852,809 4,322,337 5,048,798 4,652,645 External Controlled Entities Lord Beaverbrook 376,298 350,017 355,803 Saint John Free Public Library 475,530 545,564 554,699 851,828 895,581 910.502 Total recreational and cultural services 10,080,651 9,853,485 8,998.162 Energy services Energy services - 6,207,533 130,312 Total energy services - 6,201,533 130.312 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 202,032,291 201,744,295 211,575,277 38 City of Saint John Annual report 20113 t?• { " . s `. A-All ! i ti Y• r �`�.- ...e+v.,�AL':I:'_ �.•�Iw••._ .1... ..L.1.11�! 4L� ���/ 1.1 11 rw lispr��irais��...�.- ...YA�II�J_ _ _�.Mww1Yi��u.__ ._ �1♦� il C, z - - - �- �► - - - — - - � ��-r _ _ _ -_��� jai.: r� - - - s� M i p i ' G �,- SAINT JOHN Aussi disponible en franpis. www.saintjohn.ca 676 ppppp-� cc. s VA00 00 PO 1 IL— M &C— Common Council Open Houses REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL September 23, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Common Council: SUBJECT: Common Council Open Houses, Fall 2014 PURPOSE Tile City of Saint john The purpose of this report is to provide details regarding Common Council Open Houses scheduled for later this fall. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2014 Common Council adopted the following resolution: "Resolved that item 11.2 Ward 1 mid -term Ward Meeting (Councillor Norton) be referred to the City Manager for a report on the process to organize ward meeting(s) in the September /October 2014 timeframe." City Staff have prepared the following Action Plan in support of a series of events that will allow them to meet with citizens in a public forum this fall. Events will not be set up by Ward, but by area. This will ensure parity across areas where Councillors have indicated that they will not be participated. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors - at -Large and Councillors are free to attend any or all of the sessions. Scheduling In the original resolution, Council requested that meetings be held in the fall. Staff had previously recommended that meetings could be arranged during the week of October 20. 677 M &C — Common Council Open Houses Councillors requested that the sessions be scheduled on weekday evenings. Councillors Lowe and Reardon indicated that the week of October 27 would best suit their needs. Councillor Fullerton has also indicated that she will not be participating in the open houses. After verifying dates and venues with all Council Members, City Staff have tentatively booked accessible venues on transit routes. • East: Monday, October 20 (Forest Glen Community Center — confirmation pending) • North: Tuesday, October 21 (Nick Nicolle Community Center) • ' West: Tuesday, October 28 (Beaconsfield School) • East /Central: Wednesday October 29 (Boys and Girls Club) Logistics Council requested minimal staff involvement and preferred an informal approach that will focus on one -on -one dialogue between themselves and citizens. With the above in mind, the open house meetings will be organized with the following specifications: • Events will run from 5 :30 until 7:30pm. • Councillors, with staff support, will be responsible for the opening and closing of venues. • One (1) bilingual staff member will be present at each meeting should translation services be required. • Materials such as Council Priorities brochures, copies of the service based budget and P1anSJ will be made available (subject to Council input). • Staff will prepare feedback and comment cards for distribution (subject to Council direction). • Council Members will record and report any items that require follow up (including comment cards) to the Common Clerk's Office, who will distribute the information to the City Manager's Office. • Participating Councillors could rotate as event greeters and encourage citizens to sign in. • Each meeting will include light refreshments, which will be coordinated by the Common Clerk's Office. Staff will ensure that refreshments are set -up and available. • Note: Venues will not include audio /visual set -up. Advertising and Promotion Staff will arrange the following advertising and promotion: • Public notification on the City's website and social media (beginning October 9). • Facebook advertising (as required). • PSAs /Media Advisories (as required). • Posters and flyers (as requested — will be available October 9). • One ad in the Telegraph Journal (placed Saturday, October 18). M &C— Common Council Open Houses Councillors will also be encouraged to promote the sessions through their own communications channels and contact lists. Budget The projected cost to host and advertise all sessions will total less than $2,000. City Staff will carefully monitor planned verses actual expenditures, and report final costs and participation numbers back to Council through the Common Clerk's Office. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council proceed with Common Council Open Houses as detailed. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Moar Jonathan Taylor Manager Common Clerk Communications Neil Jacobsen, MBA J. Patrick Woods, CGA Commissioner City Manager Strategic Services City of Saint John 679 �,3 . � ( ;�J'AkQ J% &,Ip FUNDY REGIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION PO Box / CP 3032, Grand Bay - Westfield NB E5K 4V3 T. 506 738 -1212 • F. 506 738 -1207 hotline @fundyrecycles.com September 25, 2014 Pat Woods, City Manager City of Saint John Stn Floor, City Hall PO Box 1971 Saint John NB E21-41-1 Reference: Waste Diversion Program — Fundy Region Dear Mr. Woods, Please find attached a presentation by Jack Keir, Executive Director of the Fundy Regional Service Commission, reviewing our future waste diversion options and recommendation as presented by the Waste Diversion Committee. This review was requested by motion at the August 2014 meeting to allow the Commission to assess the three options and recommendation presented to determine a path moving forward. At the September 23, 2014 Commission meeting it was moved by Director Norton, seconded by Director Seeley and adopted unanimously: To have the Municipalities and Local Service Districts review the Waste Diversion recommendations and bring back to the Board their recommendations for further discussion and adoption at the October board meeting. We respectfully request you include this agenda item in your next available Council meeting with your Commission representative, Mayor Norton as the lead. After consideration, the Commission would like to have an indication of your community's decision on waste diversion by October 14, 2014 so that it can be included in the kit for the next meeting scheduled for October 21, 2014. In addition, if Mayor Norton would like any support from us including a presentation, please let us know immediately for scheduling purposes. Your Waste Diversion Committee representative David Merrithew can also be a resource through the process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ' Marc MacLeod General Manager Fundy Region Solid Waste T: 506 738 -1213 mmacleo4,@ Lndyrecycles.com amff ji Aft FUNDY REGIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION PO Box / CP 3032, Grand Bay - Westfield NB E5K 4V3 T. 506 738 -1212 • F. 506 738 -1207 hotline @fundyrecycles.com September 25, 2014 Pat Woods, City Manager City of Saint John 8`h Floor, City Hall PO Box 1971 Saint John NB E21-41-1 Reference: Waste Diversion Program — Fundy Region Dear Mr. Woods, Please find attached a presentation by Jack Keir, Executive Director of the Fundy Regional Service Commission, reviewing our future waste diversion options and recommendation as presented by the Waste Diversion Committee. This review was requested by motion at the August 2014 meeting to allow the Commission to assess the three options and recommendation presented to determine a path moving forward. At the September 23, 2014 Commission meeting it was moved by Director Norton, seconded by Director Seeley and adopted unanimously: To have the Municipalities and Local Service Districts review the Waste Diversion recommendations and bring back to the Board their recommendations for further discussion and adoption at the October board meeting. We respectfully request you include this agenda item in your next available Council meeting with your Commission representative, Mayor Norton as the lead. After consideration, the Commission would like to have an indication of your community's decision on waste diversion by October 14, 2014 so that it can be included in the kit for the next meeting scheduled for October 21, 2014. In addition, if Mayor Norton would like any support from us including a presentation, please let us know immediately for scheduling purposes. Your Waste Diversion Committee representative David Merrithew can also be a resource through the process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Marc MacLeod General Manager Fundy Region Solid Waste T: 506 738 -1213 mmacleoclPfundyrecycles.com Ln y m 4 ti m 0 z �o rTl 0 �0 n n ti m � T C-') C M z o� �: :Do (Mon cQ z� rn-o m� O zz �cQ C cn (mf) X O 0 2m M 0 M C CIS Z c-� Ln 682 ai Z3 0_ ai 77 rD v rD n O 3 c r+ O 0 L 0 v 0_ rD r-+ rn 3 O O r+ O rD X rD n C r+ rD 0 rD n r+ O rD rD Z3 v N rD n C Ln (D CD n n t0 O ai ::3 LL nn C 3 FD 3 o' rD :3 Z3 Ln r+ Qj O r' _0 O r+ rt O w I n � O 3 N r+ _0 rD rD 0 f-+ < rD rD l0 Ul v D Lo n n O O 3 rD 3. n r+ r+ O rD Z3 rD n 3 O ai 3 0- rD O rD rD Ul n r+ n O o 3 rD n rD r+ O r+ O Ln MO. rD N c n C n� n O Ln C r+ O m C 0_ rD rD O n O Ln C C r+ MIN O O O 0 0 0 r.+ O O O W N N � ( I n n �u C C rD 0- (7' -< to cn n Q Q �. rD rD l0 (DD n n rD n n 0 — r+ C Z:3 LA l0 1,0 QO Q2OOn n O -< 3 -o OrD O Ln Q r+ r+. O < r+ LO aj v O C h Ln O p 3 o O Ln r+ im a) Ln r+ rD 0 rD N O Z) 0 3 3 r-r rt rD rD rD n rD Q- 0 r+ m CD rt O Z3 NJ rn 0' n O 3 3 r+ CD CD r+ O rD v 0_ v 0 rD n C rD C rt N l0 3 n -n w C c � O �+ Ln O rD m r+ O cu h r-t n rD O C 3 rD -o rD O 0_ Ln rD r+ rD O n Ln r) n -0 rD l0 Cl- --h 4A n 1, r-r O (D U) C C _0 O r+ � rD Ln r+ rD n -h n' (ri sZ n M rr, c r+ r) o _ L.r)• r+ -C3 ro �. o Ln rD � c' a` I rD �. C Q rD Q — rD L c rD rD (D � r+ 0 O Ln Ln C v o m v, c �- � p vi Ln v c— C c- c o r+ L Ln Q0 QO 3 O rD Ln I n -v O O O -C3 rD Q rD �' — rD L c rD rD (D r+ C c*. - rD 3 3 c �- � p m c v c— C O rD fl J lQ : ai Ln rD Ln rD Z3 o 3 Ln rD Ln Ln rD < C Ln rt n O RO rD O I rD _ O .� ton I 684 O bq FA tf� k p Ff� H4 c� U) rte* �.-+- p � L ~ L LM LM O O + U1 N v O I� Ql l.0 W (� W rr+ p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L rD Ln h F 0- 4A bq FA tf� k tf� Ff� H4 co � O ~ LM LM O O U1 N N W <D l n I� Ql l.0 W (� W rr+ p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 685 n � o � � N N O N OO O N O O � W, N n tn tn e 0 O N 0- RD 0 n 0 m to p r- D ° G) r r <_ ° rD r 0 -s CD Q1 rD �' Z3 rD rD rD rD C rD Q rri Z) n ° Cl) Ul r--t. Ln rD M -? D rD n o __ rD 3 - ° ° rD M 3 z3 r`�1- rD rD Q � — Ln < rD Lo rD m Ln r-� �+, r=r r Ln' � n v, �' rD v, n rD to Q to ai 0' r-r z3 rD Q Ln Z) �G rD O un un n n m O oc Ln rb 0 M c, Ln Ln 0 Ln Q sz o o 0 0 Ln Q C L r-+ o � v n rD � Ln rD rD Ln n Ln QO n 0 Ln n c o e 0 O N 0- RD 0 o °c°Lnn kA kA iA 6q po kA w V p _ o �, . r =- - N �-0 n v � r O r+ v 0=- N v Ln In v 00 3 N Ol N Ln Ln N u C G L' co � rD r, lam, 0 0 N N n 00 -� Ol Oo -+ to O O p O O p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 in b4 kA kA iA 6q kA kA iA V p O—i n 0~o N CO N v Ln In v 00 N N Ol N Ln Ln co � .� r, lam, 0 0 N N n 00 -� Ol Oo -+ to O O p O O p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n � O Ln t)q4A 4A N O� N n Am Ln Ln n — (b o Z' Z O o c ru v _. � o` • o D o m LA � o QO Ln c 3 O � C- o vn (D � C � o m o � 3 Ln C�- Ln n� CD o I � � rb � o O � O O 0 O r+ n CD a) Ln I O 0 fl+ O� W I C I cr n n 20 O O O O m = m rn O r+ (D Lo � ('D C)- v � Ln r'. � cn r+ E Q O rD O rrDD Ln o. 0 0 rD v r+ 0 fl+ O� W I C I cr n n 20 O O r� y r- n= L p�u Ln o c v) v c-* c p v o N to �p Q -o 0) LO o Ln m O rr 00 cu O l0 Ln W n 3 � X00 O N co � 00 In `^ LP N -� Ol U1 Ln r-+ 0 O p rD 0 0 0 p Ln O O Ln p 0 0 0 p Am n � � n � a � � N oo� 0 0 0 O� W I n o N W LO o m p 00 O N l0 Ln n n W X00 O N co � 00 In co N -� Ol U1 Ln r-+ 0 O p p 0 0 0 p Ln O O p p 0 0 0 p Am n � � n � a � � N oo� 0 0 0 O� W I n C, :•1 n 0 �0 S�. O� L ® ® ® L rn 0 r.+ O O O N —I v -0 = _0 -6 = -h �- C r+ o = � L = O a o rD n Ln CL N � (D in' a) n O = _0 — _ p �' O r+ Q Ln 0.1 r-+ O W Z3 m -p}, O O O 0- � Q' N 0- p Ln O C LJO (D (D r+ p- O_ O r+ C S LO flJ (D (D rt (D O r-+ to lQ p r-+ -D (D (D Qj r+ O — n :3 ca- _ . (D (D Q p < n o -1, a) �, O ZT < n (D cn D (D r+. r+ Q -D O ' r+ p O < Z5 = `<< �' (D (D O rD < o 3 Lo X O rD rD -` r+ to rD p 3 rD � v C O r+ In zr, '-+ (D r-+ Q1 D rD Z3 rte+ r-+ N � Z3 r+ O (1. Ln C (D rD rD o a, v o w Ln (l n r+ O p — 3 r+ rD DJ ' Ln (D QJ � O rD C Q :•1 n 0 �0 S�. O� W IN September 26, 2014 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Larche Memorial Park Background Larche Memorial Park is being named in honour and memory of Cst. Douglas James Larche of Saint John. Cst. Larche was one of three RCMP officers who tragically lost his life in the line of duty in Moncton on June 4, 2014. Residents are invited to attend the unveiling of the Larche Memorial Park on Sunday, October 19 at 1:00 P.M. Motion: Resolved that Common Council endorse the official naming of the Quinton Heights Park, on the City's west side, as the "Larche Memorial Park ". Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Greg Norton Councillor — Ward 1 City of Saint John 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 M PARC COMMEIvIORATIF L A R C H L MEMORIAL PARK Please join us for the opening of the Larche Memorial Park Sunday, October 19 at 1:00 p.m. Hillcrest Drive (off Manawagonish Road) Saint John, NB Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Saint John Common Council, together with project donors, invite you to join us as we dedicate a park in honour and memory of Cst. Douglas James Larche of Saint John. Cst. Larche was one of three RCMP officers who tragically lost his life in the line of duty in Moncton on June 4, 2014. A reception will follow at 2 p.m. at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69. A Y .1. `SAINT 10 HN 1� Whereas the Committee of the Whole at its Closed Session Meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 2014, adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED that the City Solicitor or his designate is hereby authorized and directed by Common Council to commence and proceed with an appeal of the August 27th, 2014 decision of Mr. Justice Christie of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench issued in the matter of Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 18 and M.B. v. The City of Saint John (further identified by the citation 2014 NBQB 201) to the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick. WHEREAS pursuant to the aforesaid Committee of the Whole resolution, a Notice of Appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal on the 25th day of September 2014. AND WHEREAS the Common Council Meeting of September 29th, 2014 is the first Common Council Meeting to be held subsequent to the Committee of the Whole's adoption on September 22" d, 2014 of the aforesaid resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Common Council hereby ratifies the filing of the aforesaid Notice of Appeal. M-K