Loading...
2022-02-07_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, February 7, 2022 6:00 pm Meeting Conducted by Electronic Participation Pages 1. Call to Order 1.1. Land Acknowledgement 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1. Minutes of January 24, 2022 5 - 22 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1. Proposed Public Hearing Date — 35 Margaret Street (Recommendation in 23 - 24 Report) 5.2. Environmental Trust Fund Letter of Offer, Re: GUDI Assessment for South Bay 25 - 31 Wellfield - 3 wells (Recommendation in Report) 5.3. Issuing Request for Proposals for Off -Season Arena Ice (Recommendation: 32 - 33 Receive for Information) 5.4. Money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes - 120 Paddy's Hill Drive 34 - 45 (Recommendation in Report) 5.5. Canada Games Aquatic Center — COVI D Relief Funding (Recommendation in 46 - 57 Report) 5.6. Engineering Services: Charlotte Street (St. James Street to Lower Cove Loop) 58 - 62 and St. James Street (Germain Street to Charlotte Street) — Street Reconstruction (Recommendation in Report) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 7.1. Black Lives Matter 63 - 63 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m. 9.1. Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment with Planning Advisory Committee report 64 - 432 recommending Rezoning and Staff Presentation - 1429 Loch Lomond Road (1st and 2nd Reading) 10. Consideration of By-laws 10.1. Feedback and Follow-up on Alternate Side Parking program North, East, and 433 - 497 West Sides (Traffic By -Law Amendment 1 stand 2nd Reading) 10.2. Traffic By -Law Amendment (3rd Reading) 498 - 499 11. Submissions by Council Members 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1. MoveSJ Roundabout and Road Safety Strategies 500 - 635 12.2. Fundy Quay Public Space Project Scope 636 - 671 13. Committee Reports 13.1. Public Safety Committee (Verbal Update) 13.2. Finance Committee: North Depot Relocation 672 - 681 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1. Fundy Quay - Option Amendment 682 - 682 17.2. Construction License - North Market Street 683 - 683 17.3. Recommendation for Disability Benefits 684 - 684 2 17.4. McAllister Industrial Park - Sale to McDonough Brothers Landscaping 685 - 685 17.5. Recommended Appointment to Committee 686 - 686 18. Adjournment u City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order Si vous avez besoin des services en fran�ais 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 68(1) of the Local Governance Act and Council / Committee will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session: 4:00 p.m., Meeting Conducted through Electronic Participation 1.1 Approval of Minutes 68(1) 1.2 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.3 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.4 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.5 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.6 Employment Matter 68(1)(b,j) 1.7 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.8 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.9 Nominating Committee 68(1)(b) 1.10 Submission by Council Member Ville de Saint John Seance du conseil communal Lundi 7 fevrier 2022 18h Reunion par participation electronique Comite plenier 1. Ouverture de la seance Si vous souhaitez obtenir des services en frangais pour une seance du conseil communal, veuillez communiquer avec le bureau du greffier communal au 658-2862. Chacun des points suivants, en totalite ou en partie, peut faire I'objet d'une discussion en prive en vertu des dispositions prevues au paragraphe 68(1) de la Loi sur la gouvernance locale. Le conseil/comite prendra une ou des decisions a cet egard au cours de la seance publique : 16 h, reunion menee par participation electronique 1.1 Approbation du proces-verbal 68(1) 1.2 Questions financieres 68(1)c) 1.3 Questions financieres 68(1)c) 1.4 Questions financieres 68(1)c) 1.5 Questions financieres 68(1)c) 1.6 Questions d'emploi 68(1)c) 1.7 Questions financieres 68(1)c) 1.8 Questions financieres 68(1)c) 1.9 Comite des candidatures 68(1)b) 1.10 Soumission par un membre du conseil Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance 1.1 Reconnaissance des terres 2. Approbation du proces-verbal 2.1 Proces-verbal du 24 janvier 2022 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour 2 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1. Date proposee pour la tenue de I'audience publique — 35, rue Margaret (recommandation clans le rapport) 5.2. Lettre d'offre du Fonds en fiducie pour 1'environnement, Re : Evaluation du caractere ESSIDES du champ de captage de South Bay — 3 puits (recommandation clans le rapport) 5.3. Publication d'une demande de propositions pour la glace de I'arena en basse saison (recommandation : obtenir de l'information) 5.4. Argent tenant lieu de terrain a des fins publiques —120, promenade Paddy Hill (recommandation clans le rapport) 5.5. Centre Aquatique des Jeux du Canada — Financement de secours relatif a la COVID-19 (recommandation clans le rapport) 5.6. Services d'ingenierie : rue Charlotte (de la rue St. James a Lower Cove Loop) et rue St.James (de la rue Germain a la rue Charlotte) — Refection de la rue (recommandation clans le rapport) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 7.1 Black Lives Matter 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques 9.1. Projet de modification de I'arrete de zonage avec le rapport du comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage et presentation du personnel —1429, chemin Loch Lomond (1" et 2e lecture) 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 10.1. Retroaction et suivi sur le programme de stationnement en alternance des c6tes nord, est et ouest (modification de I'arrete relatif a la circulation — 11e et 2e lecture) 10.2. Modification de I'arrete relatif a la circulation (3e lecture) 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 3 12.1. Strategies en matiere de carrefour giratoire et de securite routiere de DeplacementsSJ 12.2. Portee du projet d'espace public de Fundy Quay 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du Bureau 15. Correspondance generale 16.Ordre du jour supplementaire 17. Comite plenier 17.1 Fundy Quay — Possibilite de modification 17.2 Permis de construction — rue North Market 17.3 Recommandation sur les prestations d'invalidite 17.4 Parc industriel McAllister—Vente a McDonough Brothers Landscaping 17.5 Nomination recommandee au Comite 18. levee de la seance CI Present: COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN JANUARY 24TH, 2022 AT 6:00 PM MEETING CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION Mayor Donna Noade Reardon Deputy Mayor John MacKenzie Councillor -at -Large Gary Sullivan Councillor -at -Large Brent Harris Councillor Ward 1 Joanna Killen Councillor Ward 1 Greg Norton Councillor Ward 2 Barry Ogden Councillor Ward 3 David Hickey Councillor Ward 3 Gerry Lowe Councillor Ward 4 Greg Stewart Councillor Ward 4 Paula Radwan Also Present: City Manager J. Collin General Counsel M. Tompkins Commissioner Human Resources S. Hossack Fire Chief & Chief Emergency Management Services K. Clifford Commissioner Utilities & Infrastructure Services B. McGovern Commissioner Growth & Community Services J. Hamilton Chief of Staff & Chief Financial Officer K. Fudge Commissioner Public Works and Transportation Services M. Hugenholtz Director Legislative Services / City Clerk J. Taylor Deputy Clerk P. Anglin Administrative Officer R. Evans 61 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 1. Call to Order To conform to the Revised Mandatory Order COVID-19 proclaimed January 20, 2022, Council Members and staff participated by video conference. The City Clerk conducted roll call noting all Council Members in attendance. To ensure public access and transparency the meeting is being livestreamed, video recorded and posted to the City's website after the meeting has concluded. 1.1 Land Acknowledgement Councillor Harris read the Land Acknowledgement and called for a moment of reflection. "The City of Saint John/Menaquesk is situated is the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet.The Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet along with their Indigenous Neighbours, the Mi'Kmaq/Mi'kmaw and Passamaquoddy/Peskotomuhkati signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s that protected their rights to lands and resources." 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of December 13, 2021 Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the minutes of December 13, 2021, be approved. MOTION CARRIED. 2.2 Minutes of December 20, 2021 Moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that the minutes of December 20, 2021, be approved. MOTION CARRIED. 2.3 Minutes of January 10, 2022 Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the minutes of January 10, 2022, be approved. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approval of Agenda Moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the agenda for Monday January 24th, 2022, be adopted with the following revision: • Remove item 5.4 from the Consent Agenda and defer to a later date; And additions: • 17.1 Saint John Trade and Convention Centre Contract Management Agreement • 17.2 Elias Group Confidentiality Agreement C.1 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 • 17.3 Boar's Head Road Development Opportunity • 17.4 Canada Games Aquatic Centre COVID-19 Relief Funding 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2022- 008: 2021 Fall Debenture Terms, the report be received for information. 5.2 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2022- 009: Designation of By-law Enforcement Officers, Common Council approve the following: 1. WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Local Governance Act, S. N. B. 2017 c.18, and amendments thereto (the "Local Governance Act'), including the Saint John Minimum Property Standards By-law, By-law Number M-14, and amendments thereto (the "Saint John Minimum Property Standards By -laud'), and it may from time to time be necessary to commence proceedings in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick, when a person has violated or failed to comply with the said By-law; AND WHEREAS section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may appoint by-law enforcement officers for the local government and may determine their terms of office; AND WHEREAS subsection 25(1) of the Saint John Minimum Property Standards By-law provides that a by-law enforcement officer appointed by council may notify the owner or occupier of premises, dwelling, dwelling unit or structure by issuing an Order where the condition of the premises, dwelling, dwelling unit or structure does not comply with said By-law; AND WHEREAS subsection 150(1) of the Local Governance Act provides that proceedings for breach of a by-law shall be commenced in the name of the clerk of the local government or such other person as is designated for that purpose by the council; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby appointed as by-law enforcement officers with respect to the enforcement of the Saint John Minimum Property Standards By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby appointed and authorized to notify owners and occupiers where the condition of the premises, dwellings, dwelling units or structures does not comply with the Saint John MinimumProperty Standards By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment and authorization shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first; 3 r� COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby designated and authorized to lay informations in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick for breach of the Saint John Minimum Property Standards By-law, effective immediately, and this designation and authorization shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 2. WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Local Governance Act, S. N. B. 2017 c.18, and amendments thereto (the "Local Governance Act'), including the Saint John Minimum Property Standards By-law, By-law Number M-14 and amendments thereto (the "Saint John Minimum Property Standards By -lave'), and it may from time to time be necessary to make inspections for the administration and enforcement of the By-law; AND WHEREAS section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may appoint by-law enforcement officers for the local government and may determine their terms of office; AND WHEREAS subsection 144(2) of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may authorize by-law enforcement officers to enter the land, building or other structure at any reasonable time, and carry out the inspection after giving reasonable notice to the owner or occupant of the land, building or other structure to be entered; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis, by-law enforcement officers, are hereby appointed as inspection officers and authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon any property within the territorial boundaries of the City of Saint John for the purpose of making any inspection that is necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Saint John Minimum Property Standards By- law which received first and second reading by Common Council on September 10, 2018 and third reading on September 24, 2018, being enacted upon approval by the Minister of Local Government, and/or the Local Governance Act effective immediately, and this authorization shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 3. WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Local Governance Act, S. N. B. 2017 c.18, and amendments thereto (the "Local Governance Act'), including the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law, By-law Number M-30, and amendments thereto (the "Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law"), and it may from time to time be necessary to commence proceedings in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick, when a person has violated or failed to comply with the said Bylaw; AND WHEREAS section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may appoint by-law enforcement officers for the local government and may determine their terms of office; 4 E:3 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 AND WHEREAS subsections 132(1) and 132(2) of the Local Governance Act provide that an officer appointed by council may notify the owner or occupier of premises, a building or structure by notice in the form prescribed by regulation when a condition exists pursuant to subsections 131(1), 131(2) or 131(3) of the said Act; AND WHEREAS subsection 150(1) of the Local Governance Act provides that proceedings for breach of a by-law shall be commenced in the name of the clerk of the local government or such other person as is designated for that purpose by the council; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby appointed as by-law enforcement officers with respect to the enforcement of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby appointed and authorized to notify owners and occupiers with respect to premises, buildings or structures that are unsightly; buildings or structures that are a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of being vacant or unoccupied; buildings or structures that are a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of dilapidation or unsoundness of structural strength, as set out in the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment and authorization shall continue until they cease to be an employee of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby designated and authorized to lay informations in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick for breach of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law, effective immediately, and this designation and authorization shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 4. WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Local Governance Act, S. N. B. 2017 c.18, and amendments thereto (the "Local Governance Act'), including the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By- law, By-law Number M-30 and amendments thereto (the "Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By- law"), and it may from time to time be necessary to make inspections for the administration and enforcement of the Bylaw; AND WHEREAS section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may appoint by-law enforcement officers for the local government and may determine their terms of office; AND WHEREAS subsection 144(2) of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may authorize officers enter the land, building or other structure at any reasonable time, COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 and carry out the inspection after giving reasonable notice to the owner or occupant of the land, building or other structure to be entered; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis, by-law enforcement officers, are hereby appointed as inspection officers and authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon any property within the territorial boundaries of the City of Saint John for the purpose of making any inspection that is necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law which received first and second reading by Common Council on May 22, 2018 and third reading on June 4, 2018, being enacted upon approval by the Minister of Local Government, and/or the Local Governance Act effective immediately, and this authorization shall continue until he ceases to be an employee of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 5. WHEREAS subsection 135(4) of the Local Governance Act, S.N.B. 2017 c.18, and amendments thereto, provides that within thirty days after the terms of a notice have been complied with or a debt due to a local government or due to the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, is discharged, the local government shall provide a certificate in the form prescribed by regulation which requires that the corporate seal of the local government be affixed; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Jonathan A. Taylor, City Clerk, is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal of The City of Saint John to a Certificate of Discharge that is issued by Bradley Crowell or Katelyn Davis under the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law, and such authorization shall continue until Jonathan A. Taylor ceases to be the City Clerk of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 6. WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Community Planning Act, S. N. B 2017, c. 19, and amendments thereto (the "Community Planning Act'), including the Saint John Building By-law, By-law Number C.P. 103 and amendments thereto (the "Saint John Building By- law"), and it may from time to time be necessary to make inspections for the administration of the By-law; AND WHEREAS subsection 133(1) of the Community Planning Act provides that a council may authorize persons at all reasonable times, and with the consent of the owner or occupant, enter any land, building or premises for the purposes of inspection if the Director, the development officer or the person authorized by the Minister or the council has reasonable grounds to believe that a development or form of development on or in the land, building or premises violates a provision of this Act or the regulations or a by-law or an order made under this Act; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby authorized at all reasonable times, and with the consent of the owner or occupant, enter any land, building or premises within the territorial boundaries of the City of Saint John for the purpose of making any inspection that is necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Saint John Building Bylaw, effective immediately, and this iK COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 authorization shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 7. WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Community Planning Act, S. N. B 2017, c. 19, and amendments thereto (the "Community Planning Act'), including the Saint John Building By-law, By-law Number C.P. 103, and amendments thereto (the "Saint John Building By- law"), and it may from time to time be necessary to make orders for the administration and enforcement of the By-law; AND WHEREAS subsection 134(1) of the Community Planning Act provides that a council may authorize persons to, when a development is undertaken in violation of the Community Planning Act, a by-law or regulation under the Community Planning Act, a by- law or terms and conditions imposed on the development, order the cessation of the development, alteration of such development so as to remove the violation, or the doing of anything required to restore the land, building or structure to its condition immediately prior to the undertaking of such development; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby authorized to, when a development is undertaken in violation of the Community Planning Act, the Saint John Building By-law or the terms and conditions imposed on the development, order the cessation of the development, alteration of such development so as to remove the violation, or the doing of anything required to restore the land, building or structure to its condition immediately prior to the undertaking of such development, effective immediately, and this authorization shall continue until they cease to be an employee of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 8. WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Community Planning Act, S. N. B 2017, c. 19, and amendments thereto (the "Community Planning Act'), including the Saint John Building By-law, By-law Number C.P. 103, and amendments thereto (the "Saint John Building By- law"), and it may from time to time be necessary to commence proceedings in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick, when a person has violated or failed to comply with the said By-law; AND WHEREAS paragraph 137(a) of the Community Planning Act provides that no person shall violate or fail to comply with a provision of a by-law made under this Act; AND WHEREAS section 139 of the Community Planning Act provides that proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be commenced in the name of the Minister or the clerk of the local government or any other person who is designated for that purpose by the council; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby designated and authorized to lay informations in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick for breach of the Saint John Building By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment and authorization shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. III 11 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 9. WHEREAS, the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Local Governance Act, S.N.B. 2017 c.18, including the Saint John Dog Control By-law, By-law Number M-13, and the MobileHome Parks By-law, By-law Number M-20, including all amendments thereto, and it may from time to time be necessary to commence proceedings in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick, when a person has contravened or failed to comply with these By-laws; AND WHEREAS section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may appoint by-law enforcement officers for the local government and may determine their terms of office; AND WHEREAS subsection 150(1) of the Local Governance Act provides that proceedings for breach of a by-law shall be commenced in the name of the clerk of the local government or such other person as is designated for that purpose by the council; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby appointed as by-law enforcement officers with respect to the enforcement of the Saint John Dog Control Bylaw and the Mobile Home Parks By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby designated and authorized to lay informations in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick for breach of the Saint John Dog Control By-law and the Mobile Home Parks By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment and authorization shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 10. WHEREAS, the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain bylaws pursuant to the authority of the Community Planning Act, S. N. B 2017, c. 19, and amendments thereto, (the "Community Planning Act'), including the City of Saint John Flood Risk Areas By-law, By-law Number C.P. 11, and The Zoning Bylaw, By-law Number C.P. 110, including all amendments thereto, and it may from time to time be necessary to commence proceedings in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick, when a person has contravened or failed to comply with these By-laws; AND WHEREAS paragraph 137(a) of the Community Planning Act provides that no person shall violate or fail to comply with a provision of a by-law made under this Act; AND WHEREAS section 139 of the Community Planning Act provides that proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be commenced in the name of the Minister or the clerk of the local government or any other person who is designated for that purpose by the council; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Crowell and Katelyn Davis are hereby designated and authorized to lay informations in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick for breach of the City of Saint John Flood Risk Areas Bylaw and The Zoning By-law, effective immediately, and this appointment and authorization 12 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Growth and Community Services department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 5.3 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2022- 012: Engineering Services: Rockland Road (Parks Street to Paradise Row) and Burpee Avenue (Rockland Road to Civic #99) - Infrastructure Renewal and Street Reconstruction, the proposal from CBCL Limited, for engineering design and construction management services for Rockland Road (Parks Street to Paradise Row) and Burpee Avenue (Rockland Road to Civic #99) — Infrastructure Renewal and Street Reconstruction in the amount of $188,347 including HST be accepted and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. 5.4 Removed from the Consent Agenda and deferred to a future meeting. 5.5 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2022- 011: Contract No. 2021-08: Wentworth Street (Elliott Row to Orange Street) - Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Street Reconstruction, Contract No. 2021-08 the contract be awarded to the low Tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd. at their tendered price of $1,682,485.65 (including HST) as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. 5.6 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2022-014: Neighbourhood Service Agreement Renewals, Common Council approve the following: The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $22,000 between the City of Saint John and Saint John Human Development Council Inc. (Around The Block Community Newspaper) for a period of one (1) year, from January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2022, in the form attached as `Appendix A' to this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation, and 2. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $20,000 between the City of Saint John and Carleton Community Centre, Inc., for a period of one (1) year, from January 1, 2022 until December 31, 2022, in the form attached as `Appendix B' to this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 5.7 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2022- 020: License for Winter Navigation Training in Rockwood Park, the City of Saint John enter into the License Agreement with Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, in the form as attached to M & C #2022- 020, for the purpose of conducting EX LOYAL BRISK (winter navigation training) on a portion of PID No. 52548, known as Rockwood Park, situated near to Fisher Lake, and further that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said License Agreement. 13 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 5.8 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2022- 022: Letter of response to the NB Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, Common Council receive this report for information and authorize the Mayor to sign the draft reply letter attached, addressed to Ms. Shelley D. Petit, Chair of the NB Coalition of Persons with Disabilities. Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in each consent agenda item respectively, with the removal of item 5.4, be adopted. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations/Presentations 8.1 YMCA of Greater Saint John The City Manager introduced the President and CEO of the YMCA of Greater Saint John Shilo Boucher. Referring to the submitted report entitled YMCA of Greater Saint John Ms. Boucher described the core services and strategic priorities of the YMCA, diversity and social inclusion, community outreach, childcare and after school programs, overnight and day camps, health and recreation, newcomer connections. Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that the presentation entitled YMCA of Greater Saint John be received for information. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Public Hearings- 6:30pm 10. Consideration of By -Laws 10.1 Parking Ban Towing with By -Law Enforcement Officers (Traffic By -Law Amendment 1st and 2nd Reading) Commissioner Hugenholtz introduced the proposed Traffic Bylaw amendment to appoint City bylaw enforcement officers with authority to cause vehicles to be towed during parking bans. The appointment of City bylaw enforcement officers will lessen this burden on the police force. Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Harris: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1 A By -Law to Amend a By - Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John and amendments thereto" repealing and replacing Section 4.1 regarding the authorization of vehicles to be towed during parking bans, be read a first time. 10 14 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 MOTION CARRIED Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1 A By -Law to Amend a By -Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John and amendments thereto." Moved by Councillor Radwan, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1 A By -Law to Amend a By - Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John and amendments thereto" repealing and replacing Section 4.1 regarding the authorization of vehicles to be towed during parking bans, be read a second time. MOTION CARRIED. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1 A By -Law to Amend a By -Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John and amendments thereto." 10.2 Street Closina By -Law — Jack Street (3,d Readin General Counsel reviewed the purpose of the street closure to enable the construction of balconies encroaching on Jack Street. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number L.G.4-1 A By -Law respecting the Closing of Roads, Streets or Highways in The City of Saint John", regarding a portion of Jack Street by adding thereto Section 5 immediately after Section 4 thereof, be read. MOTION CARRIED. The by-law entitled, "By -Law Number L.G.4-1 A By -Law respecting the Closing of Roads, Streets or Highways in The City of Saint John" was read in its entirety. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number L.G.4-1 A By -Law respecting the Closing of Roads, Streets or Highways in The City of Saint John", regarding a portion of Jack Street by adding thereto Section 5 immediately after Section 4 thereof, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. MOTION CARRIED Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number L.G.4-1 A By -Law respecting the Closing of Roads, Streets or Highways in The City of Saint John." 10.3 Zoning By -Law Amendment — 166 Leinster Street (3,d Reading) Commissioner Hamilton advised the application on 166 Leinster Street has met all legislative requirements and the matter may receive 31d reading. Moved by Councillor Radwan, seconded by Councillor Hickey: 11 15 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-129 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John", amending Schedule "G" Central Peninsula Maximum Building Heights, by increasing the maximum building height of PID Number 55203368 from 14 metres to 20.6 metres, be read. MOTION CARRIED. The by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-129 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John", was read in its entirety. Moved by Councillor Radwan, seconded by Councillor Lowe: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-129 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John", amending Schedule "G" Central Peninsula Maximum Building Heights, by increasing the maximum building height of PID Number 55203368 from 14 metres to 20.6 metres, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. MOTION CARRIED. Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-129 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." 10.4 Zoning By -Law Amendment — 35 Water Street (31d Reading/Recission of previous conditions/Section 59) Commissioner Hamilton advised the application on the Fundy Quay site has met all legislative requirements and may proceed to third reading. Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Radwan: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-130 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 rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 2.5 hectares, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Number 55235105 and 55235113, from Waterfront Commercial (CW) to Waterfront Commercial Integrated Development (CWID); amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 531 square metres, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Number 55221881, from Uptown Commercial (CU) to Waterfront Commercial Integrated Development (CWID); and amending Schedule "G" Central Peninsula Maximum Building Heights, by increasing the maximum building height of PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113 from 28 metres and 42 metres to 70 metres, be read. MOTION CARRIED The by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-130 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," was read in its entirety. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, hereby discharges the resolution adopted on May 7, 2012, imposed on the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 35 Water Street, also identified as 12 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 being PID Number 55235105 and which was made pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act in effect at the time (RSNB 1973 as amended; and further that Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, hereby discharges the resolution adopted on December 2, 2019, imposed on the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 35 Water Street, also identified as being PID Number 55235113 and which was made pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act in effect at the time (RSNB 1973 as amended). MOTION CARRIED. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Harris: RESOLVED that Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 3.0 hectares, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as being PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113: a. That the development of the site be limited to the applicant's proposal for a mixed - use development having a maximum floor area of 69,700 square metres plus an internal parkade including a minimum of 350 parking spaces and a maximum of 677 dwelling units as generally outlined on the plans submitted with the application. b. That only Phase 1 (the southeast building) of the development be permitted on the basis of this resolution and that prior to beginning construction on any future phases of this development, that the City shall grant further approvals and impose any additional conditions on such future phases of this development through an amendment to these conditions. C. That the heights of the proposed buildings be between 6 storeys (25 metres) to 19 storeys (70 metres) as outlined on the plans submitted with the application. d. That the massing of the proposed development be generally as outlined on the plans submitted with the application. e. That the uses within the proposed development be limited to the following: • Commercial Uses, including but not limited to a Business Office, Retail, Commercial Entertainment, Personal Service, Restaurant, and Accommodation/Hotel • Multiple Unit Dwelling(s) • Community Centre • Cultural Establishment • A Parking Garage • Surface Parking as outlined in the applicant's proposal for the site • Publicly Accessible Greenspace • The following as interim uses of undeveloped areas of the site as the phased development of the overall site is occurring: a farmers' market or seasonal retail use; special events and festivals held on the site on a temporary basis; 13 17 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 ■ work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; and ■ a recreational use f. That the design considerations outlined in the Wind Study for the development to mitigate the wind impacts on the pedestrian environment around the building entrances and for the proposed upper -level terraces be implemented through the detailed design of the development and that confirmation of the effects of these mitigative measures be provided to the Development Officer with the Building Permit application. g. That the detailed design of the angled parking area and raised sidewalk along the west side of Water Street be subject to the review and approval by the City to ensure appropriate design measures are employed for aspects including landscaping, wayfinding, accessibility, parking operations and pedestrian circulation. h. That the following cladding materials be prohibited in the development: • Vinyl siding, • Plywood, • Exterior insulation and finish systems where stucco is applied to rigid insulation • Vinyl windows • Cinder block i. That the development incorporates the following minimum glazing percentages: • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Ground floor retail: 50-80%. • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Above -grade: 25-60%. j. That the development of the Rezoned Properties be in accordance with the provided Phasing Plan and proposed water and sewer demands provided per phase. Any proposed changes to the master Phasing Plan must be provided to and approved by the City, including any proposed changes to the water and sewer demands. Prior to the start of each Phase of development, the developer's engineering team shall confirm that the next phase of development corresponds to the submitted master Phasing Plan and the estimated water and sewer demands proposed for the site (all phases). If the proposal has changed (phasing or demands), the Developer shall not proceed to the next proposed phase until they have re -submitted their engineered water and sewer demands to the City to compare against the overall master site development plan. Prior to proceeding with each phase, the developer's engineering team must confirm the proposed flows are within the proposed master development plan submitted to the City during this re -zoning. k. That the developer grant any easements and/or rights -of -way requested by the City at the City's sole discretion, for all municipal infrastructure within the Rezoned Properties of and the relocated sidewalk along the west side of Water Street. The suitability of the width of the easements are subject to the review and acceptance of Saint John Water and the City. I. That the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by CBCL Limited be completed. These improvements include: 14 iF:3 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 ■ That a subsequent traffic assessment be completed following the initial phases of construction and the return of normal traffic conditions (after Phase 2 and before Phase 3) to verify the results of the submitted study. ■ Study recommendations related to the installation of Traffic Signals in conjunction with Phase 4 of the proposed development be updated based on the updated traffic assessment. ■ Construction of the elevated sidewalk during Phase 1 to remove the need for pedestrians to walk adjacent to Water Street traffic from the angled Water Street parking spaces and the adjacent sidewalk. m. If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. M. If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. MOTION CARRIED. Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Councillor Harris: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-130 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 rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 2.5 hectares, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Number 55235105 and 55235113, from Waterfront Commercial (CW) to Waterfront Commercial Integrated Development (CWID); amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 531 square metres, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Number 55221881, from Uptown Commercial (CU) to Waterfront Commercial Integrated Development (CWID); and amending Schedule "G" Central Peninsula Maximum Building Heights, by increasing the maximum building height of PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113 from 28 metres and 42 metres to 70 metres, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. MOTION CARRIED. Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-130 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Proposed Resolution to Strengthen Democracy by Supporting Local Journalism (Councillor Ogden) Moved by Councillor Ogden, seconded by Councillor Harris: Whereas a healthy, professional news media is essential for the proper functioning of civil society and democracy at the local, regional, federal and international levels; 15 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 Whereas the Public Policy Forum declares — on its website for the 2017 report The Shattered Mirror: News, Democracy and Trust in the Digital Age (commissioned by the federal government) — that "real news is in crisis" in this country; Whereas the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cited eight "critical information needs" the media help to provide including emergencies; other public risks to health; education; the environment; economic opportunities; civic and political knowledge of policy initiatives; and the conduct of public officials, and candidates for office (The Shattered Mirror p.4); Whereas Canadians have lost the essential services provided by roughly 3,000 media workers across Canada due to temporary and permanent layoffs from the time the COVID- 19 pandemic began and advertising revenues have plunged — a time it became clearer to the public how important it is for Canadians to receive accurate information; Whereas residents of 190 Canadian communities lost 250 established news outlets due to closings or mergers between 2008 and 2018; Whereas two thirds of Canadians agree or somewhat agree that because of the Coronavirus/COVID-19 outbreak the federal government should treat widespread media bankruptcies and layoffs as an emergency, according to a Nanos Research poll of April 2020; Whereas Canada's federal government acknowledged in its 2019 budget (p. 173) that "A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well -functioning democracy."; Whereas at least 26 municipal councils in eight provinces have already passed resolutions similar to the one proposed below; Whereas the news media in the Saint John area have been instrumental during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring local citizens have accurate local information; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saint John council recognizes that a healthy, professional news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in our city; urges nearby municipal councils and across Canada to recognize that a robust news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in their jurisdictions; endorses legislation and regulations to support and rejuvenate news outlets across Canada; and urges the federal government to move quickly to pass legislation to ensure an ecosystem for a healthy news media to serve all Canadians. And that the resolution be forwarded to the area municipalities, local M.P.s and M.L.A.s; the Cities of New Brunswick Association (CNBA); and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. MOTION CARRIED. 12. Business Matters -Municipal Officers 12.1 MoveSJ: Context in Advance of Phase 3 Consideration 16 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 Referring to the submitted presentation Move SJ: Context in Advance of Phase 3 Consideration, Director T. O'Reilly briefed Council on the two phases of Move SJ adopted by previous Councils and the proposed path forward in Phase 3. Moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the submitted report entitled M&C 2022-19: MoveSJ: Contextin Advance of Phase 3 Consideration, be received for information. MOTION CARRIED. 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separate from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 15.1 Loch Lomond Elementary School: Request for Solar Panel Speed Limit Signage on Loch Lomond Road (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager) Moved by Councillor Norton, seconded by Councillor Lowe: RESOLVED that the submitted letter from Jill Comeau re: Request for Solar Panel Radar Speed Limit Signage on Loch Lomond Road be referred to the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Saint John Trade and Convention Centre Contract Management Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Radwan: RESOLVED that the City enter into a Non -Disclosure Agreement with Hilton Ltd. for the purpose of obtaining information related to separately contracted audio-visual services for the Saint John Trade and Convention Centre in the form as presented to Committee of the Whole at its meeting held January 24, 2022, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Non -Disclosure Agreement and any documents ancillary thereto. MOTION CARRIED. 17.2 Confidentiality Agreement with Elias Management Group Inc. Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that the City enter into the Confidentiality and Non -Disclosure Agreement with Elias Management Group Inc. in the form as presented to Committee of the Whole at its January 24, 2022 meeting, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Confidentiality and Non -Disclosure Agreement and any document ancillary thereto. MOTION CARRIED. 17 21 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL January 24th, 2022 / le 24 janvier 2022 17.3 Boar's Head Development Opportunity PID 42622 Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that City enter into an Option Agreement, in the form as presented to Committee of the Whole at its meeting held on January 24, 2022, with Rehabitat Inc., for the potential sale of City -owned lands located on Boars Head Road and bearing PID 42622, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Option Agreement and any document ancillary thereto or necessary to effect the transaction. MOTION CARRRIED. 17.4 Canada Games Aquatic Centre COVID-19 Relief Funding Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that: 1. Common Council approve the transfer of $250,000 from Safe Restart Reserve Funds to provide COVID relief to the Aquatic Centre. 2. The City COVID-19 relief funding be conditional on the Canada Games Aquatic Centre Commission (CGACC) agreeing to be fully cooperative with and fully engaged in the City's renewed efforts to find a suitable long-term business model that is practical, of value to our community, and affordable. 3. The City COVID-19 relief funding be conditional on the CGACC making a request to all members of the Regional Facilities Commission to contribute their share of the COVID-19 relief funding. 4. The City Manager be required to complete the analysis on all alternative business models, as part of the ongoing review of the City's agencies, boards, and commissions, and bring forth recommendations no later than September 1st, 2022. MOTION CARRIED. 18. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on Monday January 24th, 2022, be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. 18 WA COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-028 Report Date February 01, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Date — 35 Margaret Street AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Jennifer Kirchner Jacqueline Hamilton I John Collin RECOMMENDATION RESOLVED That Common Council schedule the public hearings for the Zoning By- law rezoning application submitted by Alan Goebel for 35 Margaret Street (PID 00316950) for Monday, April 4, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. at the Council Chamber, City Hall 2n6 floor, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise Common Council of the Zoning By-law amendment applications and the rezoning applications received and to recommend an appropriate public hearing date. The next available public hearing date is Monday, April 4, 2022. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION At its meeting of August 3, 2004, Common Council resolved that: 1. the Commissioner of Planning and Development receive all applications for amendments to the Zoning By-law and Section 39 [now referred as section 59] resolutions/agreements and proceed to prepare the required advertisements; and 2. when applications are received a report will be prepared recommending the appropriate resolution setting the time and place for public hearings and be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee as required by the Community Planning Act. REPORT In response to the motion above, this report indicates the 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 ofthe documentation at the public hearing. W -2- The following applications have been received for the March 7, 2022 Public Hearing date: Name of Location Existing Proposed Zone Reason Applicant Zone Alan Goebel 35 Margaret Two -Unit Low -Rise To legalize an Street (PID Residential (R2) Residential (RL) existing 4-unit 00316950) multiple dwelling. While the holding of public hearings for proposed Zoning By-law amendments and rezoning are a legislative requirement of the Community Planning Act, it is also a key component of a clear and consistent land development processes envisioned in the One Stop Development Shop Program. These processes provide transparency and predictability for the development community and City residents. On a broader note, the development approval process works towards fulfilling key Council priorities including: • ensuring Saint John has a competitive business environment for investment, • supporting business retention and attraction; and • driving development in accordance with PlanSJ which creates the density required for efficient infrastructure, services, and economic growth. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The scheduling of the public hearing and referral to the Planning Advisory Committee satisfies the legislative and service requirements as mandated by the Community Planning Act. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS N/A ATTACHMENTS None 0z! COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-037 Report Date February 02, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Utilities and Infrastructure Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Environmental Trust Fund Letter of Offer, Re: GUDI Assessment for South Bay Wellfield - 3 wells. OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Pierre LeBlanc J. Brent McGovern / Kendall Mason John Collin RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that: The Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign the attached Environmental Trust Fund Letter of Offer, Re: GUDI Assessment for South Bay Wellfield - 3 wells. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign the attached Environmental Trust Fund Letter of Offer for the GUDI Assessment for South Bay Wellfield - 3 wells. PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS November 15, 2021: M&C 2021-303 — 2022 General Fund and Utility Fund Capital Budgets, approved. November 29, 2021: M&C 2021-332 — 2022 Utility Fund Operating Budget, approved. REPORT The City of Saint John operates 3 production wells as part of the South Bay Wellfield. Water quality from all three production wells are regularly tested and OR -2- this water quality data is submitted to the New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government (NBDELG), as per the requirements of the Potable Water Regulation — Clean Water Act. Groundwater under the direct influence (GUDI) of surface water refers to groundwater sources where conditions are such that microbial pathogens can travel from nearby surface water to the groundwater source. The New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government (NBDELG) has developed a protocol to determine whether a groundwater source is GUDI, defined as: " ....... any water beneath the surface of the ground with: • Direct hydraulic connection to the surface or surface water by way of local geology and well construction; or • Significant and relatively rapid shifts in water characteristic such as temperature, turbidity, conductivity, pH, and other parameters which closely correlate with climate or nearby surface waters; or • Significant occurrence of insects or other macro -organisms, algae, organic debris, or micro-organisms including large -diameter pathogens such as Giardia lamblia or Cryptosporidium". The objective of the groundwater source screening is to identify obvious non-GUDI or GUDI wells, and potentially GUDI wells that may require further assessment in the future. This screening includes an on -site inspection to evaluate the physical condition of the source and the source setting (location, land use, etc.), along with a review of available information such as well construction details, well logs, water chemistry and related reports. An analysis completed in 2015 concluded that the 3 production wells included in the South Bay Well Field are considered non-GUDI. The Department of Environment and Local Government (DELG) indicated that typically approximately 5 years' worth of data is ideal for GUDI assessment, and it would best to have these 3 wells reassessed as more operational data is now available. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with Council's Priorities for PERFORM and GREEN as it demonstrates environmental stewardship and leadership by protecting our natural environment while also being Financially Responsible by securing 75% funding from other sources. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The $5,625 funding allocated through the Environmental Trust Fund is estimated to cover 75% of the cost of the GUDI Assessment for South Bay Wellfield with the remaining balance being included in the Saint John Water 2022 operating budget. 41.1 -3- INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Legal has reviewed the Letter of Offer and it is a standard form used by the Province of New Brunswick. ATTACHMENTS Environmental Trust Fund Letter of Offer, Re: GUDI Assessment for South Bay Wellfield - 3 wells WA nBrWck C A N A D A January 21, 2022 Pierre MK Leblanc City of Saint John 175 Rothesay Avenue Ave North Saint John, NB E2J 2134 Subject: Environmental Trust Fund Letter of Offer Project Title: GUDI Assessment for South Bay Wellfield - 3 wells Project No.: 210388 Recipient: City of Saint John Award Amount: $5,625 (75% of eligible expenses, up to a maximum of $5,000 per well) I am pleased to extend this letter of offer to you for the above -mentioned project. The goals of this project are consistent with the Environmental Trust Fund (ETF) Priority Areas and as such will contribute to important environmental objectives. Designated staff within the Department of Environment and Local Government (ELG) will be following the project to ensure that the proposed project outcomes are achieved. With respect to your application to the Environmental Trust Fund (ETF), an offer of financial assistance is hereby authorized by the Department of Environment and Local Government, hereafter referred to as the "Department" for the project herein contained subject to the following conditions. For the purposes of this project, the project expenses and criteria are as follows: Eligible Project Expenses and Criteria: • must work closely with Department staff — Mallory Gilliss • that the work be carried in accordance with the document called "Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GUDI) Screening" • maximum reimbursement for each well is 75% of eligible expense, up to a maximum of $5,000 www.gnb.ca Environment and Local GovernmentlEnvironnement et Gouvernements locaux P.O. Box/C.P. 6000 Fredericton New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E 11 Canada Page 1 of 4 In addition to the foregoing, this offer is subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. This offer is governed by the laws of the Province of New Brunswick. 2. No contributions shall be made by the Department from the ETF with respect to any costs incurred other than the eligible project costs. The Department may approve eligible costs other than those set out above, but no costs except those specifically approved in writing by the Department will be considered eligible project costs for the purposes of this offer. The total Environmental Trust Fund contribution to the project will not exceed the original Environmental Trust Fund award. 3. No changes shall be made in the scope, specifications and budget of the project without written consent from the Department. 4. Financial claims requesting re-imbursement for expenditures may be submitted as required. Each financial claim must be submitted using the claim portal at the following website: https://www.elgegi.gnb.ca/ETF-FFE/en/Application/Index. Copies of invoices and proof of payment, such as cancelled cheques or bank statements, must be attached in PDF format. 5. A 10% holdback of project funding will be applied until the final report, Priority Area Measures (if applicable) and all financial back-up, including proof of expenditures, have been received by the Department. Expenses incurred after March 31, 2022 will not be reimbursed. 6. The final financial claim must be received by the Department no later than March 17, 2022. 7. A final report must be provided to etf-ffe@gnb.ca by March 1, 2022. The report must include a description of the project, how it was carried out, project outcomes and Priority Area Measure(s) delivered. 8. Any written material developed and printed for public distribution that promotes responsible environmental activities that may have regulatory requirements must be reviewed by the Department prior to publication. 9. In the event of an intentional breach of any of the terms and conditions of this Letter of Offer by the Recipient, no further contributions shall be made by the Department and all previous payments shall be returned to the Department within 30 days of written notification to that effect. 10. The New Brunswick Wordmark and the slogan "Your Environmental Trust Fund at Work" shall be displayed in a prominent location on all documents, signage and other printed media related to the project. The logo can be found at: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/government services/wordmark gu idelines.html or phone: (506) 457-4947. Page 2 of 4 Wee 11. The project site shall be accessible to Departmental staff on a continuing basis. Project records shall be made available to the Department for the purposes of auditing the financial records at a time mutually agreed upon. All records must be retained for audit purposes for a period of seven years following final payment on the project. 12. The Recipient must receive prior approval for any public announcement concerning the project, from the Department of Environment and Local Government. 13. The Recipient will at all times indemnify and save harmless New Brunswick, its officers, servants, employees, or agents, from and against all actions, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, claims and demands, losses, costs, damages, suits or other proceedings by whomsoever brought or prosecuted in any manner based upon or occasioned by any injury to persons, damage to or loss or destruction of property, economic loss or infringement of rights caused by, in connection with or arising directly or indirectly from this contract, or a project, except to the extent to which such actions, claims, demands, losses, costs, damages, suits or other proceedings relate to the negligence or breach of this Agreement by an officer, servant, employee or agent of New Brunswick in the performance of his or her duties. 14. This offer is to remain open until February 18th, 2022. To indicate your acceptance, please return this Letter of Offer, signed by an authorized person to Levis Theriault, Department of Environment and Local Government, PO Box 6000, Fredericton, NB E313 51-11. It is important to note that any form of conditional acceptance of this offer renders the offer null and void. Page 3 of 4 30 210388 15. Is your organization eligible to receive an HST rebate from the Canadian Revenue Agency? Yes If yes, recoverable HST percentage: No Melips4 Awad Assistant Deputy Minister Department of Environment and Local Government This offer accepted this day of (month) (year) On behalf of recipient: Mayor Clerk Seal 31 Page 4 of 4 COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-031 Report Date January 24, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Issuing Request for Proposals for Off -Season Arena Ice AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Amy McLennan Jacqueline Hamilton I John Collin RECOMMENDATION It is recommended Common Council receive and file this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Saint John will be issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for licensing agreements for off-season ice at a City -owned arena. The issuing of an RFP ensures equal opportunity through a fair and transparent process. It will also ensure the City is maximizing the potential for use of the facility, as well as maximizing the revenue associated with that use. Once proposals have been received and evaluated, recommendations on whether to proceed with one or more licensing agreements will be brought to Council. Should no proposals be received, the City of Saint John will evaluate the possibility of offering spring and/or summer ice bookings directly based on demand. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A. REPORT In past years, the City of Saint John has entered into one-off licensing agreements with third parties for the use of ice at City arenas during the off-season months (April -September). As multiple parties are now expressing interest in this opportunity, the City will be issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for licensing agreements for off-season ice in 2022. The issuing of an RFP ensures equal opportunity through a fair and transparent process. It will also ensure the City is maximizing the potential for use of the facility, as well as maximizing the potential revenue associated with that use. WA -2- The Peter Murray Arena has been identified as the preferred facility for off-season ice in 2022; however, the City reserves the right to explore opportunities for usage of other arenas, dependent upon proposals received and overall facility availability. Arena availability is impacted by factors such as required maintenance and existing commitments for non -ice related bookings. Once proposals have been received and evaluated, recommendations on whether to proceed with one or more licensing agreements will be brought to Council for consideration. Should no proposals be received, the City of Saint John will evaluate the possibility of offering spring and/or summer ice bookings directly; this decision will be based on demand. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with Council's priority of 'Belong' by supporting the quality of life of residents through the availability of recreation opportunities in Saint John. It also aligns with the priority of 'Perform' by maximizing the use of City recreation facilities to generate sources of revenue. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES Any proposals received will be evaluated by City staff to ensure the potential revenue from a resulting agreement would meet or exceed the costs and resources associated with operating the arena for off-season ice. Any revenue resulting from off-season ice licensing agreements would be reflected in the 2022 revenue budget for the associated facility. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS This report was reviewed by City of Saint John staff from the following areas: • Growth and Community Services • Parks and Recreation • Materials Management ATTACHMENTS N/A. 091 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 20, 2022 Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes 120 Paddy's Hill Drive The Planning Advisory Committee considered the attached report at its January 18, 2022 virtual meeting. The applicant, Richard Turner of Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc., appeared before the Committee in agreement with the staff report and recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: :�n111 The City of Saint John That Common Council accept a money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes dedication for the proposed Simpson Truck and Tractor Parts Ltd. Subdivision at 120 Paddy's Hill Drive. Respectfully submitted, ZWL--- Alex Weaver Crawford Chair Attachments Page 1 of 1 34 The City of Saint Jahn Date: To: From: Meeting: SUBJECT Applicant: January 14, 2022 Planning Advisory Committee Growth & Community Services January 18, 2022 Hughes Surveys and Consultants Inc. Landowner: Simpson's Truck & Tractor Parts Ltd. Location: 120 Paddy's Hill Drive PID: 55172282 Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial Zoning: Heavy Industrial (IH) Application Type: Subdivision and Variance Jurisdiction: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to advise Common Council concerning the acceptance of money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes dedications. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is seeking to subdivide a large, unserviced industrial property located at 120 Paddy's Hill Drive into two parcels (Lot 21-1 and Lot 21-2) for the purposes of dividing the existing business into two separate entities. Both lots are proposed to have frontage on the Paddy's Hill Drive public road right-of-way, which currently terminates at the entrance to 120 Paddy's Hill Drive. As a result, the Development Page 1 of 5 35 Hughes Surveys Inc. 120 Paddy's Hill Drive January 14, 2022 Officer will consider a variance from the minimum lot frontage requirement. The remainder of Paddy's Hill Drive comprises a Future Street, with limited development potential. Jurisdiction for the subdivision and the variance fall under the purview of the City's Development Officer and do not require any decisions rendered by the Planning Advisory Committee. The Planning Advisory Committee is responsible for advising Council on the request to accept cash in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes. It is recommended to accept cash in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the creation of the new lot. RECOMMENDATION That Common Council accept a money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes dedication for the proposed Simpson Truck and Tractor Parts Ltd. Subdivision at 120 Paddy's Hill Drive. DECISION HISTORY On June 3, 2003, the Planning Advisory Committee granted a variance to allow for the creation of a new industrial lot (121 Paddy's Hill Drive, approx. 10.87 hectares) to the south of the subject property without requiring any improvements to the adjacent Future Street right-of-way, on condition that a notation be placed on the final subdivision plan indicating public street access is limited to the fully developed portion of Paddy's Hill Drive at the present time. On August 10, 2004, the Planning Advisory Committee recommended assent to a subdivision plan application made by Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd. that extended the public street of Paddy's Hill Drive and granted a variance to permit the Paddy's Hill Drive cul-de-sac to be 1000 metres long. No subdivision agreement was required for the extension of the street at the time, as the work was to be completed prior to the street extension becoming public. The street extension and turnaround area were never designed and constructed; instead, improvements were made to make the Future Street more functional. ANALYSIS Proposal The applicant is seeking to subdivide a large industrial lot that is already developed into two separate lots. The purpose of the subdivision is to divide the metal recycling/demolition and construction/aggregate functions of the business into two separate entities. Currently, the metal recycling and business office (Lot 21-2) is accessed from the edge of the public street. The construction/aggregate portion of the business (Lot 21-1) is also proposed to be accessed from the edge of the public street via a flag lot configuration. As a result of the subdivision, authorization for cash in lieu of Land for Public Purposes is required. Site and Neighbourhood The proposed Lot 21-1 is 9.07 hectares and Lot 21-2 is proposed to be 7.48 hectares. The property is located east of the former Spruce Lake landfill, in the Spruce Lake Industrial Park. The business currently operates an array of activities including scrap metal recycling and sales, demolition, heavy equipment rental, and crushed rock and sand sales. Page 2 of 5 36 Hughes Surveys Inc. 120 Paddy's Hill Drive January 14, 2022 The property is situated at the end of Paddy's Hill Drive and was the final lot to be developed off the public right-of-way. Paddy's Hill Drive serves several large industrial properties, including an asphalt plant and waste disposal business. Paddy's Hill Drive was created to provide isolation for such heavy industrial uses that would be well screened and buffered from the medium and light industrial uses along King William Road and in the Lorneville neighbourhood. The Paddy's Hill Drive public portion of the right-of-way currently ends at civic 120. The street is paved with "cold millings" for another 250 metres to provide access to 121 Paddy's Hill Drive. There is a partially completed driveway opposite 121 Paddy's Hill Drive. City vehicles currently plough up to this point. The full length of the future street runs the length of the 120 Paddy's Hill Drive property at approximately 375 metres. The street serves as an access to the former Spruce Lake landfill for ongoing close out operations and monitoring. There will be limited future redevelopment potential in this area. Municipal Plan and Zoning Schedule B of the Municipal Plan designates the subject property Heavy Industrial. The property is also zoned Heavy Industrial (IH), which accommodates large-scale heavy industrial uses with outdoor storage activities, including scrap/salvage yards and General Contractor Service. The proposal satisfies the lot standards required by the Subdivision By-law with exception to the lot frontage requirements. Subdivision The Development Officer will consider a variance to reduce the minimum required lot frontage from 60 metres to approximately 25 metres because of the limited frontage available on the public portion of Paddy's Hill Drive. The Development Officer will consider this variance on the following conditions: (1) the 15-metre buffer between the future street be maintained and no storage of outdoor materials occur within this area, and (2) the partially completed driveway be removed opposite 121 Paddy's Hill Drive. As recent as 2019, the surface of the future street was rebuilt with cold millings by Saint John Industrial Park Ltd. City vehicles currently plow up to the entrance of GFL Environmental access. Beyond the access, the roadway is unpaved. Infrastructure Development have reviewed the request and staff are satisfied with the current servicing arrangement. On this basis, the lot configuration and variance request can be supported. Land for Public Purposes The Subdivision By-law requires ten percent of the area of a proposed subdivision to be vested to the City as Land for Public Purposes (LPP). Such land dedications must be assented to by Common Council. However, at the discretion of Council, a money in -lieu of LPP dedication may be accepted. The Subdivision By-law encourages the assent of proposed LPP dedications that involve a pedestrian walkway between streets or land required to support the City's Trails and Bikeways Strategic Plan. Otherwise, the Subdivision By-law encourages the acceptance of money in -lieu of LPP dedications for subdivisions that do not offer these benefits. This approach is supported Page 3 of 5 37 Hughes Surveys Inc. 120 Paddy's Hill Drive January 14, 2022 by The City of Saint John Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (PlaySJ) and the Parks and Recreation service area. Since the proposed subdivision does not meet the land dedication requirements of the Subdivision By-law, staff is recommending the acceptance of a money in -lieu of LPP dedication. The Community Planning Act requires that money in -lieu of LPP dedications represent eight percent, as required by the Subdivision By-law, of the market value of the unimproved land at the time of subdivision. In the case where both lots have already been developed, this amount will be determined based on the estimated unimproved land value of the proposed new lot. The Act also requires that money in -lieu dedications be deposited into a special account and that Council expend the money for "acquiring or developing land for public purposes' and for no other purpose." Conclusion Money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes is recommended. The subdivision will permit the division of the current business into two entities. As a result, several variances are required to permit both lots to maintain frontage at the end of Paddy's Hill Drive. Few changes are anticipated because of the subdivision of property. ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS None proposed. 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 property on October 8, 2021. A revised application was circulated on January 7, 2022. APPROVALS AND CONTACT Author I Manager/Senior Planner Andrew Reid, MCIP, RPP I Jennifer Kirchner, MCIP, RPP Contact: Andrew Reid Telephone: (506) 658-4447 Email: Andy.Reid@saintjohn.ca Application: 21-0148 APPENDIX Map 1: Site Location ' Land for public purposes means land, other than streets, for the recreational or other use or enjoyment of the general public (Community Planning Act, 2018). Page 4 of 5 38 Hughes Surveys Inc. 120 Paddy's Hill Drive January 14, 2022 Map 2: Future Land Use Map 3: Zoning Map 4: Aerial Photography Attachment 1: Site Photography Attachment 2: Tentative Subdivision Plan Page 5 of 5 39 O O O cD Olp r o O C' Cfl O O 0 0 O — O A N L QD O IL Q � o U) EL 0 � N C � � N ^C L W U � Q N U O d U) U N O N 7 IE � Y o � 0 0 0 0 00 N o M o LO o � � 0 0 0 _ 0- - w r c 0 N U) N � � � N Q U L O � U a) o Q o o U) U) d N 0 N Y 0 N L cn c D — M O 2 LL k U C fa 41 C LU i �L fa a- 0 N r -I 41 L D 41 D LL C 41 . . }i 41 D 41 7 LL - - �rm F °°fix o �•?oa ° ooz z E a bbbwi w � o - - ` E� _cnU VJ -O O U � > _0 O O a N Doi o - O QN oawE o oo� ry E n vN in eoo�z � � cn i ) E R -2' I�d'15 .aJing ap,m m _ IFEItF�tR l•CEn a : / i �- Lames r " m � I `r s 3 \ E / . s . z E o _ l v s i > � t 1 s � � /�'W •�OO�J�o�N/3a t W _71 � / Z W � w ��S��o=s56gaa�=suu�,= w F Om U o a)ai A E o (n 0 0 Z z - u) m ' �. � O cnU co -O O U � E� — QN oo� E U7 \ oawE o aN N �o�z _ — — — — — _ — �•15 tng aP:m 0'St bv:is.x3 — — — — a � �. I � � _ _ � I 41 m k oos nI J I I I �I I N E P II ! O OO StJI '05e ' - J 001� I / I I I I o I \ I o I \ I I\ I \ E \ POBu�Id n9ne , I I o C E Loc L i a a �3Z ne Ou+ I I cn S \ I � I n w \ _71 w s w o�s��o=s56gaa�=suu�,= COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-036 Report Date February 02, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area General Counsel Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Canada Games Aquatic Center — COVID Relief Funding AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Melanie Tompkins Melanie Tompkins I John Collin RECOMMENDATION That the City enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Saint John Aquatic Center Commission in the form as attached to this M&C No. 2022-036 for the provision of COVID Relief Funding to the Commission for the Canada Games Aquatic Center, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Memorandum of Understanding and any other document ancillary thereto. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek authority for the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Saint John Aquatic Center Commission for the provision of COVID Relief Funding for the Canada Games Aquatic Center ("CGAC"), in accordance with Council's resolution adopted at the January 24, 2022 meeting of Council. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION At its meeting held January 24, 2022, Council resolved as follows: "RESOLVED that: 1. Common Council endorse option 2 and direct staff to draw $250,000 from Safe Restart Reserve Funds to provide COVID relief to the Aquatic Centre. 2. The City COVID-19 relief funding be conditional on the Canada Games Aquatic Centre Commission (CGACC) agreeing to be fully cooperative with and fully engaged in the City's renewed efforts to find a suitable long-term business model that is practical, of value to our community, and affordable. 3. The City COVID-19 relief funding be conditional on the CGAC making a request to all members of the Regional Facilities Commission to contribute their share of the COVID-19 relief funding. 4. The City Manager be required to complete the analysis on all alternative business models, as part of the ongoing review of the City's agencies, boards and commissions, and bring forth recommendations no later than September 1st, 2022." -2- REPORT At its January 24, 2022 meeting, Council resolved to provide COVID Relief Funding to the Aquatic Center Commission for the operation of the CGAC. To do this, the City must draw from its Safe Restart Reserve Fund. To ensure that the conditions imposed by Council on the provision of the COVID Relief Funding can be enforced, staff drafted a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Commission which essentially gives effect to Council's January 24, 2022 resolution and will manage the parties' relationship. The CGAC Commission voted in favour of the attached MOU at its meeting of February Y6 2022. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Maintaining and revitalizing the CAGC aligns with Council's priorities of Perform, Grow and Belong. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The City will draw from its Safe Restart Reserve Fund to provide the COVID Relief Funding. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Working with the CFO and the City Manager, the GCO drafted the attached Memorandum of Understanding and shared it with the Saint John Aquatic Center Commission. ATTACHMENTS Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Saint John Aquatic Center Commission. THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") made as of this ISTART DATES (the "Effective Date"). BETWEEN: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick E21- 4V1, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick ("the City") OF THE FIRST PART - and — THE AQUATIC CENTER COMMISSION, having its registered office at 50 Union Street, Saint John, NB, a body corporate by an Act of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, the Saint John Aquatic Center Commission Act, and amendments ("Commission") OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Commission, through its legislated mandate, has the management and control of a facility known as the Canada Games Aquatic Center ("CGAC") in Saint John, NB, which facility is owned by The City of Saint John (the "City"); and WHEREAS the CGAC has experienced a significant ongoing operating deficit for years and is currently facing a number of compounded factors that impact its sustainability; and WHEREAS the City developed a Restructuring Plan which contemplates fundamental reforms to the manner in which the City does business and offers services; and WHEREAS aspects of the Restructuring Plan include a review of the City's agencies, boards, and commissions and a re -thinking of the operation of City - owned facilities such as the CGAC, aimed at improving effectiveness and achieving efficiencies; and WHEREAS the City wishes to be able to consider other arrangements for the operation of the CGAC, subject to compliance with applicable procurement and other requirements; and !E:3 2 WHEREAS the Commission wishes to consent to the City exploring: a) other models for the management and operation of the CGAC, including the procurement of management services or any other arrangement or partnership with a third party intended to improve the operation of the CGAC, b) a fundamental internal re -design of the operation of the CGAC by the Commission leading to a new business model; and c) the potential lease or sale of the CGAC (hereinafter the "CGAC Revitalization), (the "Purpose"); WHEREAS the Parties have agreed that confidential information provided to Third Parties about the CGAC through the CGAC Revitalization will, to the extent permissible by law, be kept confidential by the Third Parties; and WHEREAS the Parties have agreed to the City providing Covid Relief Funding to the CGAC in 2022 under certain conditions; NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND WITNESSED that the Parties, for and in consideration of the promises and mutual benefits contained in this MOU, as well as other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1.1 Definitions In this MOU: (a) "Business Day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, statutory holiday or civic holiday in the Province of New Brunswick; (b) "Effective Date" means the date first set out above; (c) "Lands" means the lands upon which the CGAC is situated and any structure thereon and, as applicable, adjacent thereto; (d) "MOU" means this memorandum of understanding and includes any riders and schedules hereto and shall also include any agreements entered into which have the effect of amending this memorandum of understanding from time to time; (e) "Party" means a party to this MOU; (f) "Purpose" means the purpose described in Paragraph 7 of the Preamble; and (g) "Term" means the period set out in Section 3.1. 3 ARTICLE II TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF MOU 2.1 Purpose and Grant The purpose of this MOU is to set out the basic terms upon which the City will provide Covid Relief Funding to the Commission in 2022 with the objective of achieving the CGAC Revitalization. The Commission hereby grants the City a right to procure and negotiate with respect to the CGAC Revitalization. The Commission acknowledges and agrees to work collaboratively with the City and that the City is free to lead discussions in a manner it determines appropriate, including identification of the appropriate third party or parties and partnering with another entity or entities, as applicable. 2.2 Binding Nature This MOU contains an outline of terms that shall be legally binding upon both Parties hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if for any reason whatsoever the CGAC Revitalization is not achieved or consummated, the Commission shall not be entitled to any form of relief whatsoever, including, without limitation, injunctive relief or damages. 2.3 Good Faith Cooperation Commencing on the Effective Date and at all times during the Term (as defined in Section 3 hereof), the Parties shall collaborate together in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation with a view to concluding a new arrangement on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City for the purposes of the CGAC Revitalization and other definitive documentation necessary to complete any necessary transaction. The City shall provide progress reports to the Commission at a frequency determined by the City as appropriate in its sole discretion, having regard to third party confidentiality and other considerations. For clarity, the Commission shall actively cooperate with the City at the beginning of the Term with a goal of providing a recommended course of action to the Common Council of the City at its September 5th, 2022 meeting regarding the CGAC Revitalization. 67i] El 2.4 CGAC Relief Funding Subject to paragraph 2, the City shall draw from its Safe Restart Reserve Fund and pay to the Commission an amount of $250,000 (the "Covid Relief Funding") in Q1 of 2022, which funding is essential to the immediate financial stability of the CGAC, on the following conditions: a) that the Commission grant the rights to the City referred to in section 2.1; b) that the Commission request all members of the Regional Facilities Commission to contribute their share of the Covid Relief Funding. 2. The City's payment of $250,000 to the Commission in Q1 of 2022 shall be made in two instalments as follows: a) $150,000 shall be paid on February 15, 2022; and b) $100,000 shall be paid on April 29, 2022. 2.5 Investigations and Due Diligence At all times during the Term, the City shall have and be entitled to grant a right of access to the third party proponent (including its advisers and representatives) to the CGAC or the lands upon which it is located (the "Lands"), upon notice to the Commission and shall be entitled either itself, as the City, or through any such third party, to conduct, at its or their sole cost, discretion, and risk, as applicable, whatever inquiries, tests, investigations and inspections the City or such third party deems necessary with respect to the condition of or relating to the CGAC or the Lands (the "Investigations"), including, without limitation, Investigations as to: (a) The physical and environmental condition of the Lands; (b) The suitability of the Lands for any such third party's intended use and costs of development, improvements, remediation, and otherwise relating thereto; and (c) Any other matter which may affect such third party's use and enjoyment of the CGAC or the Lands as contemplated. 2. The Commission permits the City, and any such third party as the City may identify, to enter upon the Lands to make such Investigations provided that the City agrees, and shall procure that such third party, as applicable, agrees, to keep the Lands free from all liens caused as a result of the Investigations. 51 5 3. After making such Investigations, the City agrees, and shall procure that a third party, as applicable, agrees, to promptly restore the Lands to the condition existing prior to such Investigations and to remove from the Lands any material extracted or sampled during such Investigations. 2.6 Costs and Expenses Each Party shall bear all expenses incurred by it in connection with this MOU unless otherwise expressly set out herein, including, without limitation, the charges of their respective legal counsel, accountants, financial advisors and finders. ARTICLE III TERM AND TERMINATION 3.1 Term The term of this MOU shall commence on ISTART DATES and end two (2) years after such date, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the MOU or otherwise agreed between the Parties (the "Term"). After expiry of the initial Term the Parties may consider a renewal or extension if their relationship proves to be mutually beneficial. 3.2 Termination for Insolvency If the Commission is adjudged bankrupt, or if the Commission makes, attempts to make, or gives notice of intention to make a proposal, arrangement or any general assignment for the benefit of any insolvency, liquidation, or arrangement laws, or a receiver, receiver -manager, trustee, liquidator or similar person or official is appointed in respect of the whole or any part of its assets, or if, in the City's reasonable opinion, the Commission is unable to meet its liabilities generally as they come due, the City may, entirely without prejudice to any other right, remedy or claim it may have under this MOU or otherwise, immediately terminate this MOU by giving the Commission or any such receiver, trustee or similar official, written notice of termination. 3.3 Termination for Breach If the Commission neglects or fails to perform the Purpose in accordance with this MOU or fails to observe and perform any provision of this MOU, the City may give the Commission written notice that the Commission is in default under this MOU and, entirely without prejudice to any other rights, remedies or claims it may have under this MOU or otherwise, terminate this MOU forthwith. ARTICLE IV 61 0 NOTICES 4.1 Address for Notice Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person, transmitted by telecopy or similar means of recorded electronic communication or sent by registered mail, charges prepaid, addressed as follows: (a) if to the City: email: with a copy to email: The City of Saint John General Counsel Office City Hall 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E21- 4L1 generalcounsel@saintjohn.ca The City Clerk cityclerk@saintjohn.ca (b) if to the Commission: The Aquatic Center Commission C/O General Manager 50 Union Street Saint John, NB E2N 1A1 email: amy.mclennan@aquatics.nb.ca with a copy to: Shalen Losier, Chair email: salgal@live.ca Any such notice or other communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the day on which it was delivered or transmitted (or, if such day is not a Business Day, on the next following Business Day) or, if mailed, on the third Business Day following the date of mailing; provided, however, that if at the time of mailing or within three Business Days thereafter there is or occurs a labour dispute or other event that might reasonably be expected to disrupt the delivery of documents by mail, any notice or other communication hereunder shall be delivered or transmitted by means of recorded electronic communication as aforesaid. 4.2 Change of Address Any Party may at any time change its address for service from time to time by giving notice to the other Party in accordance with this Section 4.2. 6V 7 ARTICLE V CONFIDENTIALITY 5.1 Confidential Information Each of the Commission and the City will, to the extent permitted by applicable law, keep this MOU and their mutual interest in a CGAC Revitalization (as well as all information obtained in connection with their respective due diligence investigations), including any negotiations between the City and any third party, strictly confidential. Neither of the Parties (including their respective representatives, employees, directors and agents) will disclose any information about the CGAC Revitalization or issue any statement or communication to the public or press regarding such CGAC Revitalization without the prior written consent of the other Party. If negotiations are terminated by a Party, the terms of the CGAC Revitalization and all transaction related discussions will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to any person without the prior written consent of the other Party, except as required by law or regulatory authority. The City shall be permitted to disclose Committee confidential information to a third party, subject to appropriate confidentiality commitments by such third party. ARTICLE VI GENERAL TERMS 6.1 Applicable Law and Jurisdiction This MOU will in all respects be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of New Brunswick and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein, excluding any choice of law provisions and without effect to principles of conflicts of law, regardless of the place of making or performance. New Brunswick courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising in relation to this MOU, and each Party accepts the jurisdiction of New Brunswick courts. 6.2 Additional Assurances The City and the Commission each agree to do all such acts and provide such further assurances and instruments as may reasonably be required in order to carry out the provisions of this MOU according to their spirit and intent, provided that this Section 6.2 shall not be construed as obligating the City to amend or enact any by-law or regulation. 6.3 Assignment, Third Parties Neither Party may sell, assign, or transfer this MOU, without the other Party's written consent, but no consent is required if the assignment: (a) results from the assignor's merger, consolidation, spin-off, split -off or acquisition, provided the 6'i! A assignment is limited to the assignor's survivor, subsidiary or successor; or (b) is to an affiliate or other related party capable of performing the assignor's duties and obligations under this MOU. Subject to the foregoing, this MOU will enure to the benefit of and will be binding upon the Commission, the City and their respective successors and permitted assigns. This MOU is not intended to be for the benefit of any person other than the City and the Commission. No other person or party will be considered a third -party beneficiary of or otherwise entitled to any rights or benefits arising in connection with this MOU. No partnership is created by this MOU. Nothing contained herein shall or shall be deemed to constitute the Parties hereto as partners nor as agent of the other nor any other relationship whereby either could be held liable for any act or omission of the other. Neither Party shall have any authority to act for the other or to incur any obligation on behalf of the other or of the other save as specifically provided by this MOU. 6.4 Amendment and Waiver No amendment of this MOU is effective unless made in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of each of the City and the Commission. No waiver of any provision of this MOU is effective unless made in writing, and any such waiver has effect only in respect of the particular provision or circumstance stated in the waiver. A Party's failure at any time to enforce any of the provisions of, or any right or remedy available to it under, this MOU or at law or in equity, or to exercise any option provided, will not constitute a waiver of that provision, right, remedy or option or in any way affect the validity of this MOU. A Party's waiver of any default by either Party will not be deemed a continuing waiver, but will apply solely to the instance to which that waiver is directed. 6.5 No Indemnity Notwithstanding anything else in this MOU, any express or implied reference to the City providing an indemnity or incurring any other form of indebtedness or contingent liability that would directly or indirectly increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of the City, whether at the time of execution of this MOU or at any time during the Term, shall be void and of no legal effect. The Commission shall not have any claim against the City for loss or damage of any nature, kind or description whatsoever arising from the exercise or purported exercise of the MOU herein granted. 6.6 Counterparts and Execution This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, in which case (a) the counterparts together shall constitute one MOU, and (b) communication of execution by fax or electronic transmission shall constitute good delivery. This MOU shall not be enforced or bind the Parties, until executed by all the Parties that are party to such MOU. Each Party hereto represents and warrants that it is duly 6V e✓ authorized and has all necessary power and authority to execute and deliver this letter and to perform its obligations hereunder. 6.7 Miscellaneous No provision of this MOU will be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any Party, because that Party has or is deemed to have drafted the provision. The division of this MOU into articles, sections, subsections, and paragraphs and the insertion of headings and captions are for the Parties' convenience only, are not part of the text, and will not be deemed in any way to limit or affect the meaning, construction, or interpretation of this MOU. When used in this MOU, "including" means "including without limitation." In this MOU, all references to dollar amounts are in Canadian currency, unless otherwise expressly identified. Each Party is responsible for paying its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the negotiation, preparation, and execution and delivery of this MOU. Those sections of this MOU that are intended by their nature to survive termination or expiration of this MOU will survive. The Parties hereto have agreed that this MOU and any other documents attached or relating to this MOU, as applicable, will be drawn up in the English language only. 6.8 Entire Agreement This MOU contains the entire agreement between the City and the Commission regarding the subject matter of this MOU and supersedes any previous representations, statements, discussions, proposals, agreements, negotiations and understandings, regarding the same subject matter. There are no agreements, promises, representations, warranties, terms, conditions or commitments regarding the subject matter of this MOU, except as expressed in this MOU. Neither Party has relied upon or been induced to enter into this MOU by any representations, statements, oral or written, discussions, proposals, agreements, negotiations or understandings not expressly contained in this MOU. Under no circumstances will such terms be considered an amendment to this MOU. Signature page follows) 67� 10 SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED ) THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN in the presence of: ) 2022 Per: 2022. Mayor City Clerk Common Council Resolution: , 2022. DATED on THE AQUATIC CENTER COMMISSION Per: Name: Title: Name: Title: DATED on 61FA COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-030 Report Date February 02, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Utilities and Infrastructure Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Engineering Services: Charlotte Street (St. James Street to Lower Cove Loop) and St. James Street (Germain Street to Charlotte Street) — Street Reconstruction AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Kevin O'Brien J. Brent McGovern / Michael Baker John Collin RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal from Englobe Corp., for engineering design and construction management services for Charlotte Street (St. James Street to Lower Cove Loop) and St. James Street (Germain Street to Charlotte Street) — Street Reconstruction in the amount of $228,359.82 including HST be accepted and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The work on Charlotte Street and St. James Street includes the replacement of the existing watermains and sanitary sewers, the installation of new storm sewers for separation as well as a full street reconstruction. The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council award the contract for Engineering Services for the design and construction management services for Charlotte Street (St. James Street to Lower Cove Loop) and St. James Street (Germain Street to Charlotte Street) to Englobe Corp. PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS November 15, 2021: M&C 2021-303 — 2022 General Fund and Utility Fund Capital Budgets, approved. 611:3 -2- November 29, 2021: M&C 2021-334 — Revised 2019-2023 Canada Community - Building Fund (Formallythe Gas Tax Fund) Capital Investment Plan & General Fund Capital Program — Revision I, approved. REPORT BACKGROUND The approved 2022 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund and General Fund Capital Programs include funding for design and construction management for infrastructure renewal (water and sanitary), new storm sewers and street reconstruction on Charlotte Street (St. James Street to Lower Cove Loop) and on St. James Street (Germain Street to Charlotte Street). The design of the work will commence immediately following award of the Engineering Services and execution of the subsequent Agreement. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was advertised to engage an Engineering firm to carry out the following services for the project and included the following components: • Part A — Site Surveys, Preliminary Investigation and Data Collection • Part B — Preliminary Design, Cost Estimates and Design Report • Part C—Conduct Public Consultation Process • Part D — Detailed Design • Part E — Tender Period Services, Materials Testing & Inspection, Red Books and Record Drawings • Part F — Construction Management PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for consulting engineering services for this project. ANALYSIS With a comprehensive terms of reference document developed by staff, a public call for proposals was made for consulting engineering services. The Request for Proposal (RFP) closed on January 13, 2022, with responses received from the following four (4) consulting engineering companies: • CBCL Limited, Saint John, NB • Dillon Consulting, Saint John, NB • Englobe Corp., Saint John, NB • EXP Services Inc., Moncton, NB 611%] -3- A Review Committee consisting of staff from Supply Chain Management and Utilities and Infrastructure Services was formed to evaluate the submissions. Each member completed an independent review of the submissions, and a meeting was held to develop the final ranking of submissions. The Review Committee concluded on their recommendation, which follows later in the report. The evaluation process uses the expertise of a variety of staff from Supply Chain Management and Engineering to ensure a thorough review of the various submissions. Care must be taken to ensure that the necessary level of effort and expertise is being directed to the various tasks involved in the work, while still ensuring that costs to be incurred are appropriate and controllable. It is for these reasons that cost, although very important, cannot be the sole nor most critical deciding factor in making the selection of a consulting engineering firm. The Committee was tasked with the role of reviewing each submission against the proposal evaluation criteria as defined in the proposal call document. The criteria consisted of the following: 1. Quality and Completeness — Does the proposal address all the needs raised? Is the proposal presented in an organized and professional manner? 2. Consultant's Experience — Has the consultant demonstrated a level of expertise with the requirements of this project? 3. Experience of Employees / Sub -consultants — Has the consultant demonstrated a level of expertise for the employees of the company and sub consultants listed? 4. Methodology — Does the approach to the project outlined in the proposal address, in a realistic sense, attainable goals and is it in keeping with the City's expectations for the project? 5. Value Added — Has the consultant included any additional information, technology, process, or options in their proposal? 6. Cost — Cost will be a factor, however not the only factor to be considered. Is the price quoted in line with the City's estimate for the work and has it allowed for each aspect of the project to be adequately addressed? After careful, independent consideration of presentation, company experience, personnel and technical proposal, the Review Committee compiled the findings of each member. After completion of the "technical" evaluation, the financial proposals were opened and evaluated. The financial proposals were submitted separately and were not part of the technical review. After due consideration, the Review Committee selected the submission from Englobe Corp. as the best proposal based on an overall rating of the evaluation criteria - presentation, company experience, personnel, technical proposal, value added and cost. The submission from Englobe Corp. met all the requirements of Ais] -4- the proposal call, in a manner acceptable to the committee and with a cost- effective bid for the project. POLICY — ENGAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS The costs incurred by the consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Request for Proposal at the rates submitted and accepted in the consultant's proposal not to exceed the Recommended Hourly Rates as contained in The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies — New Brunswick fee guideline. The Construction Management component of this project fee is based on an estimated 20-week overall construction period. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual construction management period. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with Council's Priorities for GROW, MOVE, GREEN AND PERFORM as the project includes reconstructing sections of two city streets that are currently in poor condition with City and Other Share funding. The design of the overall project on Charlotte Street and St. James Street will incorporate recommendations from the Council approved Central Peninsula Secondary Plan as well as MoveSJ which is currently before Council. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The proposed cost of work from Englobe Corp. to provide engineering design and construction management services for the Charlotte Street (St. James Street to Lower Cove Loop) and St. James Street (Germain Street to Charlotte Street) — Street Reconstruction project is $228,359.82 including HST. This cost is based on an estimated 20-week construction management period. An amount of $1,649,300 is included in the 2022 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund and General Fund Capital Programs (Integrated Bilateral Funding Program) for engineering design and construction management services, and construction for this project. Engineering fees to cover the costs of design and construction management generally do not exceed 15-20% of the total overall project cost, depending on the nature of the project and the engineering services required. This upset fee is approximately 13.8% of the total estimated project cost, which when reviewing the submitted prices from the four (4) consultants would reflect current market value for this type of work. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Supply Chain Management facilitated the RFP process to solicit proposals from Engineering Consultants for the Charlotte Street and St. James Street project. The committee was tasked with the role of reviewing each submission against the proposal evaluation criteria as defined in the proposal call document. AI -5- In accordance with the City's policies and procedures, separate assessments of the technical and financial aspects of the submissions were undertaken by the evaluation committee members. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Supply Chain Management support the recommendation being put forth. ATTACHMENTS N/A I' The city of swat John PROCLAMATION — Black Lives Matter WHEREAS: The mission of Black Lives Matter New Brunswick is to provide "the platform upon which black communities across New Brunswick can actively dismantle all forms of anti -black racism, liberate blackness, recognize black excellence, support black healing, affirm black existence, to create freedom to love and self- determine and to help offer education to those who seek it"; WHEREAS: The City of Saint John strives to accommodate the needs of the diverse people who reside in Saint John; those people who may face a different experience due to systemic racism and discrimination; WHEREAS: Saint John Common Council unanimously resolved on November 29, 2021 to support anti -racism and anti -racial discrimination initiatives; WHEREAS: Common Council resolved that racial discrimination in Saint John will not be tolerated and that it is the objective of the City of Saint John to eliminate racial discrimination and to hold those who racially discriminate to publicly account; WHEREAS: Common Council, under the signature of the Mayor, issued a letter to the Government of Canada calling on the Federal Government to enact amendments to appropriate legislation so as to make racial discrimination an illegal act under the Criminal Code of Canada. NOW THEREFORE: I, Donna Noade Reardon, Mayor of Saint John proclaim the following: 1. Racial discrimination and institutional racism continue to create barriers to success for people of color in Saint John; 2. The principles of inclusiveness, multiculturalism and respect arevalues that can create a healthier and more productive workplace, improve access to opportunity, and drive policies and outcomes that benefitthe entire City; 3. Supporting the Black Lives Matter movement at the local level demonstrates the City's commitment to combating racism and all forms of anti -black racism. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. 63 Staff Recommendation for Council Resolution Property: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Public Hearing, 1" Reading and 2nd Reading: February 7, 2022 Item Required: Recommendation (Y/N) Municipal Plan No N/A Amendment Zoning By -Law Yes That Common Council give 1st and 2nd reading to an Amendment Amendment to the Zoning By-law which: a) rezones a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.97 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (1112) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM), and b) rezones a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.95 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (1112) to Low -Rise Residential (RL). 3rd Reading Proposed date for 3rd Readina: February 21. 2022 Item: Required: (Y/N) Recommendation Municipal Plan No N/A Amendment Zoning By -Law Yes That Common Council give 3rd reading to an Amendment to Amendment the Zoning By-law which: a) rezones a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.97 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from AElI Two -Unit Residential (112) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM), and b) rezones a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.95 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (112) to Low -Rise Residential (RL). Recission of No N/A Previous s. 39/s. 59 Conditions Section 59 Yes That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section Conditions 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.91 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900: (a) That the development be limited to a maximum of 82 dwelling units. Within the portion of the site zoned Low -Rise Residential (RL), development is limited to four buildings having a maximum height of two stories and a maximum of four units per building, and one building having a maximum of six dwelling units and a height of two stories. Within the portion of the site zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM), development is limited to two buildings having a maximum height of three stories and a maximum of thirty units per building. (b) That a landscaping plan be prepared for the site, for the approval of the Development Officer, demonstrating the following elements: • Landscaping along the Loch Lomond Road frontage of the site which includes the planting of a minimum of one tree or shrub for every 45 square metres of required front yard, provided at least 50 percent of the required plants are trees. • Landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing ARI dwellings along Lakefield Court incorporating the retention of existing landscaping and a treed berm incorporating two separate rows of coniferous trees (minimum tree height of 1.5 metres at time of planting) where each row of trees is offset from the other row in a manner that obscures visibility through the two rows of trees. (c) That the final design of the site incorporates the following pedestrian connections to be maintained by the developer: • A sidewalk along the private access. • A pedestrian connection between the private access sidewalk and the current terminus of Norman Drive. (d) That the final design of the private access for the site incorporate a minimum width of 7.2 metres as recommended by the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the development. (e) That signage and pavement markings be installed and maintained to prevent vehicles from parking on or blocking any required turnaround area for fire fighting access on the proposed private access. (f) That the exterior design and materials of the proposed building facades facing Loch Lomond Road be subject to the approval of the Development Officer in order to ensure compatibility with the adjacent neighbourhood context, and that the approved elevation plan(s) also be attached to the required building permit for the development. The exterior design of these building facades must incorporate the following elements: window trim, door trim, corner boards, a differentiation in siding materials, and a minimum of 15 percent of the facade area covered by windows with clear glass. The exterior elevations of buildings within the development are to have a cohesive design incorporating elements including but not limited to similar colours, siding materials and door and window proportions and trim. (g) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle, and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; and (h) The above elevation, landscaping, and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. (i) That any proposed changes to the development that would result in an increased sanitary sewage flow be reviewed by Saint John Water to determine that the sanitary sewer has adequate capacity to accommodate any proposed change. (j) The developer shall provide interconnectivity for the water distribution system (from Norman Drive to the proposed development site) prior to the final phase of this proposal and shall provide the required Local Government Services Easement. The width of the easement is subject to the review and acceptance by Saint John Water. The cost and responsibility for the interconnectivity of the water system shall be of the developer and shall be acceptable to the City. (k) The developer shall provide the required Local Government Services Easements for the water main and sanitary sewer mains within the proposed development to provide for City ownership of this buried infrastructure. This AYA requirement also extends to the water main connection to Norman Drive. The acceptance of these easements will be subject to review by Saint John Water. Acceptance of the watermain and associated easement by the City will not occur until the entirety of the watermain and associated interconnection between Loch Lomond Road and Norman Drive is constructed. (1) If the developer does not provide watermain interconnectivity to Norman Drive and/or does not provide all required municipal services easements, the developer shall be responsible to provide premise isolation at Loch Lomond Road (at the developer's cost and responsibility) and all infrastructure piping on site shall remain private. (m) If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. (n) That the developer provides a Wetland and Watercourse Alteration Permit, should one be required by the Province, or written confirmation that one is not required, to the Development Officer at the time of Building Permit application for portions of the project that are within 30 metres of a watercourse or wetland. Section 59 No N/A Agreement Section 131 No N/A Agreement Other No 1. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases in general accordance with the site design and Tentative Plan of Subdivision for the proposed development with respect to the vesting of any C�:3 Local Government Services Easements to be determined during detailed design. 2. That Common Council accept money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the proposed subdivision. That Common Council amend the list of Official Street Names and approve the following change: - Add the name "voie Blue Jay W C3'] COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-027 Report Date January 26, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Supplemental Report - 1429 Loch Lomond Road - MC 2022-027 - Council Report - January 26 2022.docx AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Mark Reade Jacqueline Hamilton I John Collin RECOMMENDATION 1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.97 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM). 2. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.95 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Low -Rise Residential (RL). 3. That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.92 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900: (a) That the development be limited to a maximum of 82 dwelling units. Within the portion of the site zoned Low -Rise Residential (RL), development is limited to four buildings having a maximum height of two stories and a maximum of four units per building, and one building having a maximum of six dwelling units and a height of two stories. Within the portion of the site zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM), development is limited to two buildings having a maximum height of three stories and a maximum of thirty units per building. (b) That a landscaping plan be prepared for the site, for the approval of the Development Officer, demonstrating the following elements: • Landscaping along the Loch Lomond Road frontage of the site which includes the planting of a minimum of one tree or shrub for Me] -2- every 45 square metres of required front yard, provided at least 50 percent of the required plants are trees. • Landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing dwellings along Lakefield Court incorporating the retention of existing landscaping and a treed berm incorporating two separate rows of coniferous trees (minimum tree height of 1.5 metres at time of planting) where each row of trees is offset from the other row in a manner that obscures visibility through the two rows of trees. (c) That the final design of the site incorporates the following pedestrian connections to be maintained by the developer: • A sidewalk along the private access. • A pedestrian connection between the private access sidewalk and the current terminus of Norman Drive. (d) That the final design of the private access for the site incorporate a minimum width of 7.2 metres as recommended by the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the development. (e) That signage and pavement markings be installed and maintained to prevent vehicles from parking on or blocking any required turnaround area for fire fighting access on the proposed private access. (f) That the exterior design and materials of the proposed building facades facing Loch Lomond Road be subject to the approval of the Development Officer in order to ensure compatibility with the adjacent neighbourhood context, and that the approved elevation plan(s) also be attached to the required building permit for the development. The exterior design of these building facades must incorporate the following elements: window trim, door trim, corner boards, a differentiation in siding materials, and a minimum of 15 percent of the fagade area covered by windows with clear glass. The exterior elevations of buildings within the development are to have a cohesive design incorporating elements including but not limited to similar colours, siding materials and door and window proportions and trim. (g) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle, and bicycle 71 -3- parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; and (h) The above elevation, landscaping, and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. (i) That any proposed changes to the development that would result in an increased sanitary sewage flow be reviewed by Saint John Water to determine that the sanitary sewer has adequate capacity to accommodate any proposed change. (j) The developer shall provide interconnectivity for the water distribution system (from Norman Drive to the proposed development site) prior to the final phase of this proposal and shall provide the required Local Government Services Easement. The width of the easement is subject to the review and acceptance by Saint John Water. The cost and responsibility for the interconnectivity of the water system shall be of the developer and shall be acceptable to the City. (k) The developer shall provide the required Local Government Services Easements for the water main and sanitary sewer mains within the proposed development to provide for City ownership of this buried infrastructure. This requirement also extends to the water main connection to Norman Drive. The acceptance of these easements will be subject to review by Saint John Water. Acceptance of the watermain and associated easement by the City will not occur until the entirety of the watermain and associated interconnection between Loch Lomond Road and Norman Drive is constructed. (1) If the developer does not provide watermain interconnectivity to Norman Drive and/or does not provide all required municipal services easements, the developer shall be responsible to provide premise isolation at Loch Lomond Road (at the developer's cost and responsibility) and all infrastructure piping on site shall remain private. (m) If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. (n) That the developer provides a Wetland and Watercourse Alteration Permit, should one be required by the Province, or written confirmation that one is not required, to the Development Officer at the time of Building Permit application for portions of the project that are within 30 metres of a watercourse or wetland. 4. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases in general accordance with the site design and Tentative Plan of Subdivision for the proposed development with respect to the vesting of any Local Government Services Easements to be determined during detailed design. 5. That Common Council accept money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the proposed subdivision. 6. That Common Council amend the list of Official Street Names and approve the following change: - Add the name "voie Blue Jay Way". EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the January 18, 2022, Planning Advisory Committee (referred to as the "Committee") meeting, the Committee recommended approval of an amended staff recommendation for the rezoning application for the proposed multiple unit residential development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. The Committee amended the recommendation to provide details related to the proposed landscaping in the area adjacent to the existing development along Lakefield Court and recommended that Common Council adopt a revised Section 59 condition relating to the exterior design of the buildings. This revised Section 59 condition would require enhanced exterior design of the building facades facing Loch Lomond Road. The Committee also encouraged the applicant to consider enhancing the overall exterior design of the building. The purpose of this report is to provide an amended staff recommendation that gives effect to the views raised the Committee. The added staff recommendations are found in sections 3, (b), and (f) of the above -mentioned recommendation and further explanation is integrated into the body of this report. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION On December 13, 2021, Common Council referred the rezoning application from Michael Goldenberg and Paul Mangion for the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road to the Committee for a report and recommendation. Common Council also set the Public Hearing for the application for February 7, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. REPORT The proposed rezoning would allow for the site to be developed with seven multiple unit buildings ranging in size from 4 to 30 units and providing a total of 82 dwelling units. The applicant is only seeking a rezoning of the front 1.9- hectare portion of the overall 7.6-hectare site. 01 -5- Area residents attended the January 181" meeting and made presentations to the Committee related to concerns including the density and scale of the proposed development related to the existing development context of the Bon Accord and Ganong Drive/Old Lake Trail developments. Approximately 40 letters were received in opposition to the application with some residents sending letters of opposition for both the November 2021 and January 2022 Committee meetings. A petition signed by 114 area residents opposing the development was also received. Seven letters were received in support of the project with one letter expressing concerns with the project. Common concerns expressed by area residents included neighbourhood compatibility, the proposed density and increased traffic. The Committee recommended approval of the Staff recommendation supporting the development via a 6-2 vote. However, the Committee also made an amendment to the Staff Recommendation as follows: • Providing detail regarding the landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing dwellings along Lakefield Court. The Committee, based on input from Staff, recommended that landscaping along the eastern boundary incorporate the retention of existing landscaping and treed berm incorporating two separate rows of coniferous trees. This is outlined in the second bullet of condition 3 (b). • The Committee also recommended that Common Council adopt a revised Section 59 condition relating to the exterior design of the buildings which would require enhanced exterior design of the building facades facing Loch Lomond. In addition, the Committee also encouraged the applicant to consider enhancing the overall exterior design of the building. Condition 3 (f) related to the fagade design of the proposed buildings. The following highlights how staff have reviewed these conditions and integrated them into the updated staff recommendation. The final recommendation for Common Council has been shared with the applicant, who is in agreement, and the Chair of the Committee. PAC Amended Condition — Landscaping along eastern boundary The Committee amended the recommended Section 59 condition related to the preparation of a landscaping plan for the site. The objective of this condition is to require a landscaping plan, prepared by the developer and implemented by the developer in constructing the project that provides buffering between the proposed development and the area of existing development along Lakefield Court. Two specific areas of enhanced landscaping were recommended by Staff: the Loch Lomond Road frontage of the site and the area along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the existing dwellings along Lakefield Court. Landscaping rLl -6- along the Loch Lomond Road frontage is recommended to improve the Public Realm along Loch Lomond Road, with the landscaping along the eastern site boundary intended to provide an additional buffer between the proposed development and existing development along Lakefield Court. The Committee amended the Staff recommendation to include additional detail regarding the landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site. Based on input from staff at the meeting, the Committee recommends this landscaped area incorporate a treed berm with two separate rows of coniferous trees where each row of trees is offset from the other row in a manner that obscures visibility through the two rows of trees. Trees planted on the berm would also have a minimum height of 1.5 metres at the time of planting. The basis of this planting design is provided in the landscaping section of the Zoning By-law for visual screening. Staff also note the developer has proposed to retain existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of the site which has also been incorporated into the recommended condition. Separation between the proposed development and the eastern property line will also be provided through the location of the proposed buildings which are setback a minimum of 20 metres from the eastern property line of the site. The condition as amended by the Committee is proved as item 3 (b) in the above recommendation. PAC Recommended Revised Condition — Exterior facade design A component of the Staff recommendation was a Section 59 condition (condition (f)) related to the exterior design of the proposed buildings. The following condition was recommended by Staff in the PAC report: (f) Exterior elevations of buildings within the development are to have a cohesive design incorporating elements including but not limited to similar colours, siding materials and door and window proportions and trim. The Committee recommended that Common Council adopt a revised Section 59 condition relating to the exterior design of the buildings requiring enhanced exterior design of the building facades facing Loch Lomond Road. Aside from the Urban Centre Residential (RC) and Business Park Commercial (CBP) zones, the Zoning By -Law does not take a prescriptive approach to building facade design. The Urban Design chapter of the Municipal Plan does provide general criteria with respect to the architectural design of building facades including: • Locating building entrances facing the public street; • Designing for visual interest by incorporating well -articulated building facades, landscaping, local history, public art and/or culture into sites and buildings; and 01 -7- • Utilizing building materials which contribute to the successful integration of the development into its neighbourhood context. Staff note the goal of the current regulatory approach is a non -prescriptive methodology towards building design from the Zoning By -Law. This provides building designers with flexibility to balance aspects of building design including code compliance, aesthetics, and economic viability. To build on the condition related to building design initially recommended in the PAC report, Staff have prepared a revised condition (f) for Common Council's consideration. This condition highlights specific design elements for consideration by the developer in the design of the building facades facing Loch Lomond Road, and the other building facades by extension. (f) That the exterior design and materials of the proposed building facades facing Loch Lomond Road be subject to the approval of the Development Officer in order to ensure compatibility with the adjacent neighbourhood context, and that the approved elevation plan(s) also be attached to the required building permit for the development. The exterior design of these building facades must incorporate the following elements: window trim, door trim, corner boards, a differentiation in materials siding materials, and a minimum of 15 percent of the fagade area covered by windows with clear glass. The exterior elevations of buildings within the development are to have a cohesive design incorporating elements including but not limited to similar colours, siding materials and door and window proportions and trim. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The proposed approach aligns with the Common Council's priorities of Grow and Belong. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The approach proposed by Staff with respect to the comments received from the Public and PAC, seeks to respect the interests and mitigate the concerns expressed by area residents. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The original planning application was circulated to Infrastructure Development, and Buildings and Technical Services for review and comment ATTACHMENTS 01.1 -8- PAC Recommendation Letter PAC Report Package MA Ora 26 0 • 01, a 0 CL 0 L a 0 CL 0 L a 1� m m � f ry. y M � s•' yam.. f:l C' j + A cra L27 r , LU ® 4 'l iL7 La LLF m [� LF m r- r a m i�i yyj'; cam �c !S } 5 '4117. 11 F! m 4 L! .yr. tw t y4 -13 Ql r4 P :;' """ r VO4, t 4 Y F a i o 13 0 0 =a LM =1 a� 0 z 08 N . ol Fj m 4-0 .C/) N _a) 4-0 U) 0 ca N L ca cn N E Q _O a) N c (a a--� N (u N c N z3 E o O ate+ O j •— U C: N (a a cn (a U (u N 'L � 0 U 0 . 0 Lcu 'V (u E N '� O > cn p •� a) E cn O O N O O cu Co += Z3 cu cn N U J U) Q m L a) Q a) L in CD �- U � N -r- O L M Q co � cn ' E (u N Q N p O }' L N f to U U ca N `• Fn L cn �� E _ ' O � : v ♦= — CO cn N Q C _ •V N ♦-�+ 0 'E 2-1 70 N �>+ 70 O Q 2 = 0 0 0" — C/) 3: 3:U m O O oN - O Q LO — O L 4-- O Q CU NO Z a) a a) ry N U N Q .cn D co I 0 a) E _O N N n a) L U N N 0- cn Ir- LO i cn 0) O cY) 0 O U cn cn N }, > N C: C: U U m 0) .a) m cCLa 0 CL 0 l-_ O O_ Q L m N t .C: }, U cfl cn -0-0 Co ch Co E � U 0) .C: O N N O 0 Q Q m O E E O U N ,, W 70 N L- O W N L := O • > 0 }' C Co 70 - 0 N _ 0 L c O O aN U }, > c _ Q E N 0 N L L Q 0 N CO �= ca O O 0 = cn Q o co Z U - L � O c 0 L O -IS •?� a) Q 0)� O }' O c 4-O • a) a U (�Co 1- �_ O cc: E E � � U a)coI O O C: cu a E m ca a) E O 0 •� 0 i N C ca ?� 4-- m i � 3 N N U }' U N N O J � 0 J cu Wu) U N� ti (n N 0-'Q i 7 00 a)j U) :i CL a x 'on ar o U ` r d -ti Q� a a u, z C) �CN m hm C0 i p.� U) . 6 m U Cl) L C: a cn O v �--+ O a)� Q CD > a).L E N •� a) a) W CD 4-1 � N a)U I N U � — N� C� m a)� o }, >_ 4-1 O }' O a) a-.L a) U Q a) E O 4-1 CD 42 m N� :t'- c 0 �CU a)� a 0 U Cl) U) � �� .�� a) O O N U J iU J C/) 0 . 0 N O O aj cu 4-0 O � .� N cn _ O cn M Q N � � L O aL 0 Q O C/) O O L }' o a�U a) QL o to O U 0 m LU a� :3 a) a) — E v .cn N i � a) O i a) N > 0- U- 0 p O O Q _D Q L- N cY) P. a) O U N L- Q N N a) a .C/) a) m a) a) a) L- Q X a) N .C/) N .cn N 0 N cn O Q N m N r U O v) .� 7 O a) o 4-0 a) C C: C: O U E J U N c/) U to 0 O — W O N LE5cn E : ^ O L U m L p° U 0- c CDO Z L4-0 C.� � � L- CY) C: 4-0 O U O O N a) C� � L m 4 a) O O > > L a) O a is (D O j O c CL E a)F m _ a)_ iE � � >O 'U O U 'U O VJ L VJ L C: N Q Q O O Q Q U U U a NG O 0 CN O O E E cn O C: � O N N Cn � N N E � O a)U E N Q L O L cn m a) O C/) C: m O CY) �Q U 0 c U � 0 O) N U-) E cn C: C: 0 0) O O N cu cu cy) N 0 M ._ U N E N E m O • cn U cn N cn Q cn a) cQ cn O 4-0 Q C: L a) L.� a) U cn W cn O U 4 .> J � O N E .O J N C: O N C U O O � J . . 0 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE :�n111 January 19, 2022 Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council The City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road On December 13, 2021, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its January 18, 2022, meeting. Michael Goldenberg, one of the applicants, appeared before the Committee, and provided an overview of the design changes made from the proposal presented to the Committee in November. He noted the unit count was reduced from 105 to 82, and changes were made to the building types and building layout. With respect to the impact on the adjacent dwellings to the east of the site along Lakefield Court, Mr. Goldenberg noted they are no longer proposing a 17-unit building in the southeast corner of the site but are instead proposing a 6-unit building in its place. In addition, the buildings would be setback a minimum of 20 metres from the common property line with the existing dwellings along Lakefield Court. Mr. Goldenberg responded to questions from Committee members and noted the original proposal, presented at a community meeting in September 2021, involved a 130-unit development and that they had also reviewed other sites in the eastern area of the City, but that they were committed to this site. Joe Pelletier of Spitfire Design, the applicant's design consultant, outlined the proposed design and presented renderings of the development. He noted the two storey buildings would be approximately 9.8 metres high and the three storey buildings approximately 13.7 metres high (measured to the roof peak). Mr. Pelletier also noted the parking lots are located internal to the site which minimizes their impact on neighbouring properties. He responded to questions from Committee members related to the number of bedrooms and lot coverage, noting the units would have a mix of 2 and 3 bedrooms. Mr. Pelletier also responded to questions from Committee members who expressed concern regarding the scale of the proposed renderings with respect to the surrounding Page 1 of 7 100 Michael Goldenberg and Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 19, 2022 buildings along Lakefield Court and the surrounding development context. He noted satellite images from GeoNB were used, however site grading may not be exact as a topographic survey was not yet completed. Jeff Cyr of Envision Saint John spoke in favour of the project, noting that the reduction of density will lower the economic benefits of the project and emphasized the need for more diverse housing throughout the City to meet the changing needs of residents. He also noted affordable housing, which is proposed to be a component of the development, should be provided across the City as a whole and not concentrated in select geographic areas. Mr. David Fischer appeared before the Committee and referenced the letter he sent to the Committee opposing the application. He questioned the developer's intent to only develop a third of the subject site and noted concerns with the density of proposed development in relation to the surrounding neighbourhood. Janice Goodine, also speaking on behalf of her husband, noted they chose this neighbourhood to live in as they didn't want to be near larger, multiple unit buildings. She also noted concerns with noise, air quality, reduced privacy, increased crime, increased traffic, snow removal, stormwater runoff, and garbage collection in the proposed development. She also expressed concern with the scale of renderings produced by the designer, and the comparison of density with respect to the O'Leary Court and Inverness Place developments outlined in the Staff Report. Trudy Hanley also spoke in opposition to the development, noting area residents do not want rental properties but instead owner -occupied homes and that the development should be constructed on a different site. Ms. Hanley expressed concern with the density comparisons in the Staff Report contending the Inverness Court area contains a different number of dwelling units than the proposed development and was constructed in conjunction with the original Bon Accord subdivision. She also expressed a concern with construction impacts of the development. Seamus Hanley spoke in opposition to the proposed development and was skeptical of the scale of the renderings of the proposed development. He also did not agree that the proposed development conformed to the Municipal Plan and noted the adjacent development along Old Lake Trail is a low -density development that only provides for the development of single -unit dwellings with secondary suites through covenants. Christina O'Keeffe appeared before the Committee and noted she bought in the area in good faith that it would remain a residential area. Page 2 of 7 101 Michael Goldenberg and Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 19, 2022 Mr. Goldenberg reappeared before the Committee and in responding to questions from Committee members, noted the concerns expressed by the surrounding residents are consistent with those expressed at the November Committee meeting. He also noted he felt the area residents would like for the site to retain its current zoning and highlighted there is significant existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of the site with the Lakefield Court properties which will remain, and noted additional plantings will be added. Responding to questions from Committee members, Mr. Mark Reade, Senior Planner, noted that the Committee could amend the condition related to landscaping to require a specific landscape design along the eastern boundary of the site such as a berm with staggered rows of trees. Mr. Reade also noted that various areas of the City are designated as Stable Residential, and that the context of a specific Stable Residential area provides context for new development in that area. He also noted the subject site is zoned Two -Unit Residential which allows for single, two unit and semi-detached development and has a maximum building height to allow for two to three storey development. Councillor Sullivan noted a separate rezoning process would be required if other areas of the property to the north of the subject site were rezoned. Committee members also expressed their views on the proposed development, with some members being of the opinion that 82 units was too high of a density for the site and that the proposed building form was not within the surrounding neighbourhood context. Other members of the Committee noted this type of housing is needed (middle housing) in the community and that the changes made by the developer were balanced between community considerations and providing a viable project. No other persons appeared before the Committee and letters were received from 36 members of the Public in opposition to the application with some residents sending letters of opposition for both the November 2021 and January 2022 Committee meetings. A petition signed by 114 area residents opposing the development was also received. Seven letters were received in support of the project with one letter expressing concerns with the project. Following consideration of the Staff report, presentations, letters and petition, the Committee adopted a motion to adopt an amended Staff Recommendation with the amendment providing additional detail relating to the landscaped buffer along the eastern property line of the site adjacent to the dwellings along Lakefield Court. Two members of the committee were opposed to the motion (Alex Weaver Crawford and Gerry Lowe). Variances from the Zoning and Subdivision By -Law Page 3 of 7 102 Michael Goldenberg and Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 19, 2022 were also approved by the Committee, subject to the rezoning receiving Third Reading. The Committee also recommended that Common Council adopt a revised Section 59 condition relating to the exterior design of the buildings which would require enhanced exterior design of the building facades facing Loch Lomond Road. The Committee also encouraged the applicant to consider enhancing the overall exterior design of the building. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.97 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM). 2. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.95 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Low -Rise Residential (RL). 3. That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.92 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900: (a) That the development be limited to a maximum of 82 dwelling units. Within the portion of the site zoned Low -Rise Residential (RL), development is limited to four buildings having a maximum height of two stories and a maximum of four units per building, and one building having a maximum of six dwelling units and a height of two stories. Within the portion of the site zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM), development is limited to two buildings having a maximum height of three stories and a maximum of thirty units per building. (b) That a landscaping plan be prepared for the site, for the approval of the Development Officer, demonstrating the following elements: • Landscaping along the Loch Lomond Road frontage of the site which includes the planting of a minimum of one tree or shrub for every 45 square metres of required front yard, Page 4 of 7 103 Michael Goldenberg and Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 19, 2022 provided at least 50 percent of the required plants are trees. • Landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing dwellings along Lakefield Court incorporating the retention of existing landscaping and a treed berm incorporating two separate rows of coniferous trees (minimum tree height of 1.5 metres at time of planting) where each row of trees is offset from the other row in a manner that obscures visibility through the two rows of trees. (c) That the final design of the site incorporates the following pedestrian connections to be maintained by the developer: • A sidewalk along the private access. • A pedestrian connection between the private access sidewalk and the current terminus of Norman Drive. (d) That the final design of the private access for the site incorporate a minimum width of 7.2 metres as recommended by the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the development. (e) That signage and pavement markings be installed and maintained to prevent vehicles from parking on or blocking any required turnaround area for fire fighting access on the proposed private access. (f) Exterior elevations of buildings within the development are to have a cohesive design incorporating elements including but not limited to similar colours, siding materials and door and window proportions and trim. (g) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle, and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; and (h) The above elevation, landscaping, and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. Page 5 of 7 104 Michael Goldenberg and Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 19, 2022 (i) That any proposed changes to the development that would result in an increased sanitary sewage flow be reviewed by Saint John Water to determine that the sanitary sewer has adequate capacity to accommodate any proposed change. Q) The developer shall provide interconnectivity for the water distribution system (from Norman Drive to the proposed development site) prior to the final phase of this proposal and shall provide the required Local Government Services Easement. The width of the easement is subject to the review and acceptance by Saint John Water. The cost and responsibility for the interconnectivity of the water system shall be of the developer and shall be acceptable to the City. (k) The developer shall provide the required Local Government Services Easements for the water main and sanitary sewer mains within the proposed development to provide for City ownership of this buried infrastructure. This requirement also extends to the water main connection to Norman Drive. The acceptance of these easements will be subject to review by Saint John Water. Acceptance of the watermain and associated easement by the City will not occur until the entirety of the watermain and associated interconnection between Loch Lomond Road and Norman Drive is constructed. (1) If the developer does not provide watermain interconnectivity to Norman Drive and/or does not provide all required municipal services easements, the developer shall be responsible to provide premise isolation at Loch Lomond Road (at the developer's cost and responsibility) and all infrastructure piping on site shall remain private. (m) If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. (n) That the developer provides a Wetland and Watercourse Alteration Permit, should one be required by the Province, or written confirmation that one is not required, to the Development Page 6 of 7 105 Michael Goldenberg and Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 19, 2022 Officer at the time of Building Permit application for portions of the project that are within 30 metres of a watercourse or wetland. 4. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases in general accordance with the site design and Tentative Plan of Subdivision for the proposed development with respect to the vesting of any Local Government Services Easements to be determined during detailed design. 5. That Common Council accept money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the proposed subdivision. 6. That Common Council amend the list of Official Street Names and approve the following change: - Add the name "voie Blue Jay Way". Respectfully submitted, Alex Weaver -Crawford Chair Attachments Page 7 of 7 106 The City of Saint John Date: January 14, 2022 To: Planning Advisory Committee From: Growth & Community Services Meeting: January 18, 2022 SUBJECT Applicant: Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion Landowner: 651413 NB Limited Location: 1429 Loch Lomond Road PID: 00312900 (portion) Plan Designation: Stable Residential Existing Zoning: Two -Unit Residential (R2) Proposed Zoning: Low -Rise Residential (RL) and Mid -Rise Residential (RM) Application Type: Rezoning, Variance and Subdivision Jurisdiction: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law. Common Council will consider the Committee's recommendation at a public hearing on Monday, February 7, 2022. The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to advise Common Council concerning the acceptance of money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes dedications. Page 1 of 21 107 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to grant reasonable variances from certain requirements of the Zoning By-law and Subdivision By-law. Terms and conditions can be imposed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant has applied to rezone a portion of the parcel at 1429 Loch Lomond Road to accommodate a multiple -unit residential development. The applicant's current proposal involves a total of seven buildings ranging in size from 4 units to 30 units and providing a total of 82 dwelling units. A proposal involving a total of 105 dwelling units (five, 4-unit buildings and five, 17-unit buildings) was recommended for denial by the Committee at their November 2021 meeting. Prior to the scheduled Public Hearing, the applicant requested the Public Hearing scheduled for December 13, 2021, be cancelled, and rescheduled to allow them to revise the proposal. Common Council grated the request and referred the revised proposal to the Committee for its consideration. Approval of the rezoning is recommended as the proposed density and building forms integrate with the surrounding neighbourhood and conform to the policies established in the Municipal Plan. Approval of the required variances and assent for money -in -lieu of Lands for Public Purposes and Local Government Services Easements for the proposed subdivision are also recommended. RECOMMENDATION 1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.97 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM). 2. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.95 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Low -Rise Residential (RL). 3. That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.92 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00312900: (a) That the development be limited to a maximum of 82 dwelling units. Within the portion of the site zoned Low -Rise Residential (RL), development is limited to four buildings having a maximum height of two stories and a maximum of four units per building, and one building having a maximum of six dwelling units and a Page 2 of 21 108 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 height of two stories. Within the portion of the site zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM), development is limited to two buildings having a maximum height of three stories and a maximum of thirty units per building. (b) That a landscaping plan be prepared for the site, for the approval of the Development Officer, demonstrating the following elements: • Landscaping along the Loch Lomond Road frontage of the site which includes the planting of a minimum of one tree or shrub for every 45 square metres of required front yard, provided at least 50 percent of the required plants are trees. • Landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing dwellings along Lakefield Court. (c) That the final design of the site incorporates the following pedestrian connections to be maintained by the developer: • A sidewalk along the private access. • A pedestrian connection between the private access sidewalk and the current terminus of Norman Drive. (d) That the final design of the private access for the site incorporate a minimum width of 7.2 as recommended by the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the development. (e) That signage and pavement markings be installed and maintained to prevent vehicles from parking on or blocking any required turnaround area for fire fighting access on the propsoed private access. (f) Exterior elevations of buildings within the development are to have a cohesive design incorporating elements including but not limited to similar colours, siding materials and door and window proportions and trim. (g) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle, and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; and (h) The above elevation, landscaping, and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. (i) That any proposed changes to the development that would result in an increased sanitary sewage flow be reviewed by Saint John Water to determine that the sanitary sewer has adequate capacity to accommodate any proposed change. Page 3 of 21 109 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 0) The developer shall provide interconnectivity for the water distribution system (from Norman Drive to the proposed development site) prior to the final phase of this proposal and shall provide the required Local Government Services Easement. The width of the easement is subject to the review and acceptance by Saint John Water. The cost and responsibility for the interconnectivity of the water system shall be of the developer and shall be acceptable to the City. (k) The developer shall provide the required Local Government Services Easements for the water main and sanitary sewer mains within the proposed development to provide for City ownership of this buried infrastructure. This requirement also extends to the water main connection to Norman Drive. The acceptance of these easements will be subject to review by Saint John Water. Acceptance of the watermain and associated easement by the City will not occur until the entirety of the watermain and associated interconnection between Loch Lomond Road and Norman Drive is constructed. (1) If the developer does not provide watermain interconnectivity to Norman Drive and/or does not provide all required municipal services easements, the developer shall be responsible to provide premise isolation at Loch Lomond Road (at the developer's cost and responsibility) and all infrastructure piping on site shall remain private. (m) If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. (n) That the developer provides a Wetland and Watercourse Alteration Permit, should one be required by the Province, or written confirmation that one is not required, to the Development Officer at the time of Building Permit application for portions of the project that are within 30 metres of a watercourse or wetland. 4. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the following variances from the standards of the Zoning By-law: (a) A variance to permit parking within 3 meters of the side lot line for the proposed four -unit buildings. (b) A variance to increase the maximum front yard building setbacks from 9 metres to: i. between 13.7 metres and 18.42 metres for the five buildings in the area proposed to be zoned RL, and ii. between 11.3 metres and 29.3 metres for the two buildings in the area Page 4 of 21 110 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 proposed to be zoned RM. (c) A variance to reduce the minimum rear yard from 6 metres to 3.25 metres for the proposed six -unit building. (d) A variance to permit parking in the required front yard of the proposed four -unit and six -unit buildings. (e) A variance to increase the access width from 30% of the lot frontage to 88% (approximately 23.5 metres) for the lots accommodating the 4-unit and 6-unit buildings. These variances are conditional on Common Council approving the rezoning and only come into effect should Common Council give Third Reading to the proposed rezoning. 5. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the access to all proposed lots from the proposed private street network, suitable for the passage of motor vehicles, as being advisable for the proposed development of land. This approval only comes into effect should Common Council give Third Reading to the proposed rezoning. 6. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following variances from the Subdivision By-law: (a) A variance to permit a Private Street serving a form of development other than a Cluster Townhouse Dwelling subject to the condition that the Final Plans of Subdivision for the proposed development incorporate a notation stating the City of Saint John is not responsible for any maintenance of the Private Access; (b) A variance from the requirements from subsections 14(8)(b)(i) and 22(1)(f) of the Subdivision By-law to allow for dwelling units in the proposed subdivision to be serviced by a storm sewer system other than a Municipal Storm Sewer System. These variances only come into effect should Common Council give Third Reading to the proposed rezoning. 7. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases in general accordance with the site design and Tentative Plan of Subdivision for the proposed development with respect to the vesting of any Local Government Services Easements to be determined during detailed design. 8. That Common Council accept money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the proposed subdivision. 9. That Common Council amend the list of Official Street Names and approve the following change: Page 5 of 21 111 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 - Add the name "voie Blue Jay Way". DECISION HISTORY In July 1993, the Planning Advisory Committee considered an application from Thomas Construction Limited and Paul Folkins to subdivide a large area of land situated at 1429-1433 Loch Lomond Road. This subdivision application involved the creation of approximately thirty- three (33) serviced residential lots and two new public streets. In August 1993, Common Council assented to the overall subdivision plan, and authorized the preparation and execution of a City/Developer Subdivision Agreement to ensure provision of the required work and facilities. In addition, Common Council authorized the preparation and execution of a Section 101 Agreement to regulate the substantial excavation of the subject lands, which involved the regrading of the large site with the removal of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of gravel prior to subdivision development. Since this time, the Committee has favourably considered additional phases of the adjoining Folkins Estates Incorporated subdivision at 1433 Loch Lomond Road. The 1993 applications involved a residential subdivision for single unit homes on the area where Lakefield Court currently exists and the area of PID 00312900 that is the subject of the current application. The proposed residential development on the portion of the subject site did not occur. On June 27, 2000, the Committee considered an application to create three serviced residential lots along Loch Lomond Road from the subject parcel at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. The Committee recommended in favour of the application and Common Council assented to the tentative subdivision plan on July 4, 2000, however the lots were never created. On June 17, 2011, the Committee considered an application to rezone the subject lands to "R- 2" One and Two Family Residential and subdivide the subject site for the creation of 76 serviced lots. Considering the staff recommendation to approve the proposal, the Committee recommended denial to Common Council. Common Council agreed with the Committee and denied the application. In December 2011, the Committee considered an application to develop a residential subdivision on the site in accordance with the standards of the "RS-2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential zoning of the site which existed at the time. Consistent with Staff Recommendation, the Committee recommended that Council provide the necessary assents to the proposed subdivision. These assents were given by Common Council on January 3, 2012; however, the proposed subdivision was not developed. ANALYSIS Proposal The applicant is proposing to construct a multiple -unit development including 82 dwelling units in 7 multiple -unit buildings. Two 30-unit buildings would be located on the western portion of the property, with these buildings being three stories in height and envisioned to contain a mix of 1, Page 6 of 21 112 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 and 2-bedroom units. Four four -unit buildings and 1 six -unit building will be located on the eastern portion of the site and will contain 3-bedroom units. The development will be accessed via a private access. The developer has also initiated discussions with the Provincial Department of Social Development and has applied to have 9 units in the development included in the Federal/Provincial Affordable Rental Housing Initiative which funds affordable housing. An earlier design concept developed for the site and presented at Public Open House held in the neighbourhood on September 23, 2021, proposed eight, 17-unit buildings with an additional private access connection to Norman Drive. The earlier design concept is provided in Submission 3: Comparison with Previous Proposals. The current concept reduces the overall site density to 82 units, representing an overall net density of 43 units per hectare and does not provide a vehicular connection between Loch Lomond Road and Norman Drive. The four- and six -unit dwellings, which are two stories in height, are located in the eastern portion of the site and provide a transition between the two three story, 30-unit buildings and the adjacent area of existing development along Lakefield Court. In addition to the revised building topology, a 20-metre open area is provided as a buffer between the four -unit and six -unit dwellings and the eastern property line of the site. Staff note the proposal is substantially different than that considered by the Committee in November 2021 given the following changes: • A reduction in the total number of dwelling units from 105 to 82. • A reduction in the number of buildings from 10 to 7. • Avoidance of the watercourse and associated setback in the northern portion of the site. • Removal of a 17-unit, 3 story building in the eastern portion of the site and replacing it with a 6-unit two storey building. • Removal of four, 3 storey, 17-unit buildings in the eastern portion of the site and replacing these with two, three storey 30-unit buildings. • Provision of a 7.2-metre-wide access width and pedestrian walkway in accordance with the recommendations of the earlier Traffic Impact Study. This provides for reconsideration of the application in accordance with Paragraph 2.10 (c) of the Zoning By -Law and Subsection 7(8) of the Subdivision By -Law. Target markets for the proposed development are singles, couples, families, and seniors. Rent levels for the affordable units will be in accordance with negotiated Provincial funding agreements, with rent levels for the other units similar to current rent prices on newly constructed units. Construction of the development is anticipated to occur over five years, with the buildings fronting onto Loch Lomond Road being constructed first and with development proceeding northward from Loch Lomond Road. Page 7 of 21 113 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 Site and Neighbourhood The subject site has an area of approximately 1.9 hectares and is located on the north side of Loch Lomond Road, east of the Bon Accord subdivision. The vacant site has approximately 100 metres of frontage along Loch Lomond Road. The elevation of the site ranges from 59 metres in the northern portion of the site to 52 metres along Loch Lomond Road. The current proposal only deals with the 1.91-hectare portion of the site fronting on Loch Lomond Road, generally located south of the existing watercourse. This area represents approximately 25% of the 7.59-hectare overall site which extends approximately 820 metres north of Loch Lomond Road. The majority of the site will retain its current Two -Unit Residential (R2) zoning, with no development currently planned for the 5.68-hectare rear portion of the site. Staff note that while no development is currently planned for the rear portion of the site, the current Two -Unit Residential (R2) zoning does provide for single, two -unit and semi-detached dwellings to be constructed as -of -right. While there are as -of -right provisions related to land use and zoning, additional assents and/or approvals related to aspects related to subdivision or access could be required for the as -of -right use. Lands in the vicinity of the site are largely zoned Two -Unit Residential (R2) with existing development including the Bon Accord subdivision to the northwest of the site and the Folkins Estates and Ganong Subdivisions to the east and northeast of the site. Development within these areas is mostly single -unit dwellings with some two -unit and semi-detached dwellings. An area of multiple unit development, zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM), is located in the Bon Accord subdivision northwest of the site along Inverness Place. The adjacent property to the west of the subject site is zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM) with two, six -unit buildings. Staff note the multi -unit development along Inverness Place is immediately adjacent to lots containing single -unit dwellings, with the lot containing the two six -unit buildings west of the site located approximately 30 metres away from lots containing single and two -unit dwellings. Commercial, Institutional, and higher density residential uses also exist along this section of Loch Lomond Road with a 39-unit building recently completed at the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and Eugene's Way for seniors housing located approximately 700 metres west of the subject site within an area zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM). This segment of Loch Lomond Road also contains other non-residential uses including a convenience store and gas bar, churches, and a telephone switching facility. Municipal Plan Municipal Plan The site is designated as Stable Residential in the Municipal Plan. An analysis of the proposal with respect to the relevant policies of the Municipal Plan is provided in Attachment 2. Key findings indicate that the built form and density is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and aligns with the policy direction provided in the Municipal Plan. Staff also note that the proposed development would be considered infill development of a vacant parcel Page 8 of 21 114 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 of land utilizing existing municipal services, which conforms to a key direction established in the Municipal Plan. Staff note the area is designated as Stable Residential in the Municipal Plan. While a density target is not provided for Stable Residential areas, in this case the surrounding residential neighbourhoods have predominately lower density building types such as single and two -unit dwellings with higher density multiple unit dwellings also located in the surrounding neighbourhood. These areas of multiple unit development include two, 6-unit buildings located immediately west of the site at 1421 Loch Lomond Road, five buildings ranging between 12 and 30 units along Inverness Place, and a 39-unit building at the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and Eugene's Way. Of relevance is the mid -rise residential development located in Bon Accord Subdivision, along Inverness Place approximately 300 metres northwest of the subject site. These five lots along Inverness Place have between 45 and 61 units per hectare, with an average density of 51 units per hectare. The proposed development has a density of 43 units per hectare, which although comparable, is lower than the average density of the existing area of multiple unit development in the Bon Accord subdivision. This overall net density for the propsoed development has been reduced from 55 units per hectare in the proposal considered by the Committee in November and from the proposed 105-unit count in the applicant's original proposal. The proposed overall net density of 43 units per hectare is also comparable to the density targets established in the Plan of between 20 and 45 units per hectare for Low Density Intensification Areas and between 35 and 90 units per hectare in Low to Medium Density Residential areas. While the Stable Residential land use designation does not have a numeric density target, instead relying on the context of the surrounding neighbourhood, Staff note the proposed density of 43 units is within the density target of between 35 and 90 units per hectare envisioned in Low to Medium Density Residential areas and is slightly under the upper threshold of 45 units per hectare in Low Density Intensification areas. In addition, there are developments within the surrounding neighbourhood that have comparable levels of density. Given this Staff are of the opinion that the propsoed density is reasonable for the propsoed development site. The proposal also conforms to other Policy directions for the Stable Residential designation including: • Compatibility with Existing Development — Separation is provided from adjacent areas of residential development along Bon Accord Drive and Lakefield Court through buffering and a transition in building massing and density. • Adequacy of Servicing and Transportation — Water and sanitary sewer capacity exists for the proposed development. Loch Lomond Road is served by transit and a Traffic Impact Study has identified that no off -site transportation improvements are Page 9 of 21 115 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 required to support the development. As the site is located within the Primary Development Area, it represents the infill of a site along an arterial roadway corridor where services exist. • Building Design - While the architectural finishes including cladding and window and door treatments are subject to detailed design, the massing of the proposed buildings is consistent with multiple unit buildings located within the surrounding area. Site Location - The site is located on an arterial roadway and is located approximately 650 metres east of the Forest Hills / Lakewood Suburban Intensification Area and 300 metres east of the existing Stable Commercial designation along Loch Lomond Road. • Impact on Intensification Areas — Multi -unit residential development has been and is currently being constructed in the adjacent Intensification Area with the recent completion of the Knights of Columbus apartments at the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and Eugene's Way and the construction of the Calabria Estates development off Mountain View Drive. Other intensification areas such as the Uptown and Millidgeville area are also experiencing strong demand and given this, the proposal is not anticipated to detract from demand being experienced in the Intensification Areas established in the Municipal Plan. The proposal represents an opportunity to introduce additional density into a suburban context within East Saint John to meet the demands of future population growth and evolving housing needs in this area of the City and the broader community. Housing provided by the development can provide affordability for many sectors of the market including a growing student population at NBCC and provide housing in proximity to employment nodes in East Saint John including the refinery, industrial parks, and regional retail districts. Development in this area is also supported by recreational assets such as the Irving Oil Fieldhouse and the Little River Reservoir District Park. Also, the site is located along a corridor that is transitioning with commercial, institutional, and other medium density residential developments. Affordable Housing A key goal of the Municipal Plan is to provide an appropriate range of housing types. Unit sizes and affordability and form of ownership at various densities are needed to meet the needs and income levels of current and future City residents. The developer has applied to the Provincial Department of Social Development for funding to incorporate 9 affordable housing units in the development under the Federal/Provincial Affordable Rental Housing Initiative. Funding for these units could be provided as early as Spring-2022. This approach conforms with the intent of the Municipal Plan to integrate mixed incomes across all neighborhoods within the City. From the above summary and the analysis of conformance with the Municipal Plan Policies (Attachment 2), Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development achieves the intent of the Municipal Plan based on the density, the proposed uses, and the building forms in the proposed development. Page 10 of 21 116 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 While recent developments have involved the provision of public benefits by the developer which have been formalized through Section 59 conditions of Section 101 Agreements, Staff note the provision of the affordable housing component is subject to funding flowing through the developer through a Federal/Provincial agreement and as such is not within the total control of the Developer. Given this, a specific condition attached to the rezoning requiring the provision of affordable housing units is not recommended by Staff. Rezoning and Variances The subject site and parent parcel is currently zoned Two -Unit Residential (R2). A rezoning is proposed as follows: • a 0.97-hectare portion of the site, comprising the western portion of the site is proposed to be rezoned to Mid -Rise Residential (RM) to accommodate the two 30-unit buildings. • a 0.95-hectare eastern portion of the site is proposed to be rezoned to Low Rise Residential (RL) to provide for the four, 4-unit buildings and one, 6-unit building. The provision of the Low Rise Residential (RL) zone in the eastern portion of the site provides a transition in building form and density between the area of proposed Mid -Rise Residential (RM) development and the area of existing Two -Unit Residential (R2) development to the east of the site along Lakefield Court. Amenity spaces within the development will consist of balconies for the dwelling units and landscaped and grassed communal areas exterior to the buildings. Staff note the four and six -unit buildings will incorporate three -bedroom units and the proposed lot sizes are adequate to meet the requirements of the Low Rise Residential (RL) Zone. The two 30-unit buildings will incorporate a mix of one and two -bedroom units, and staff note the building located on Lot 21-6 may require a variance to reduce the required lot area from that required by the Zoning By -Law when the design is confirmed. Staff note the area of Lot 21-6 provides sufficient area for the building to be located within the required setbacks along with the required parking and amenity areas. The development will require five variances from the Standards of the Zoning By-law as detailed below. Section Variance Requested 10.3(3)(e) A variance to increase the maximum front yard setback from 9 metres to: 10.4(2)(e) a) between 13.7 metres and 18.42 metres for the five buildings in the area proposed to be zoned RL, and b) between 11.3 metres and 29.3 metres for the two buildings in the area proposed to be zoned RM. Page 11 of 21 117 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 Staff Response The Zoning By -Law requires a maximum front yard setback in the RL and RM zones to encourage buildings to be placed close to the street and create a sense of enclosure along the public realm. In this case, the increased front yard setbacks for five of the seven buildings are along the private access for the development, limiting their impact on the public realm. These variances are also a function of locating parking for the proposed buildings along the private access which seeks to mitigate the impacts of the development on the surrounding residential areas, especially those to the east of the proposed development. With respect to the increased front yard setback along Loch Lomond Road for the two southernmost buildings in the development Staff are recommending a Section 59 condition requiring enhanced front yard land landscaping along Loch Lomond Road. Section Variance Requested 6.1(e)(i) A variance to permit parking in the required front yard of the proposed four -unit and six -and buildings and the northern 30-unit building. Staff Response The intent of restricting parking within the front yard is to minimize the impacts on the public realm. In this case, there is no impact on views from a Public Street, such as Loch Lomond Road, as the proposed access will be a private access. As a result, it will only be the view from the internal "private street" that is impacted. In addition, the placement of the parking areas adjacent to the Private Street eliminates it from the view of the adjacent area of existing residential development to the east of the site. Given the lack of impact on the public realm, Staff consider the variance reasonable and recommend it be granted. Section Variance Requested 4.1(1)(e)(i) A variance to increase the access width from 30% of the lot frontage to 88% of the lot frontage (approximately 23.5 metres) for the lots accommodating the 4- unit buildings. Staff Response The intent of the access width restriction is to manage the impacts of turning traffic on adjacent roadways and to manage the impacts of a wide paved area on the aesthetics along the Public Street corridor. A dead-end private access will serve the proposed development. As the site access does not involve a Public Street designed to handle through traffic, impacts on the traffic accessing an adjacent building in the proposed development will be minimal. Staff also note the proposed parking and access configuration for the four -unit buildings seeks to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential area along Lakefield Court by providing an uninterrupted, landscaped rear yard between the proposed buildings and the adjacent development. Given this, Staff recommend approval of the variance. Section Variance Requested 4.2(5)(i)(i) A variance to permit parking within 3 meters of a side lot line (1.4 metres) for the proposed four -unit buildings. Staff Response Parking for the proposed four -unit buildings is located at the front of the buildings in a single - tier layout. This design seeks to limit the impact on the adjacent residential area to the east Page 12 of 21 118 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 along Lakefield Court by locating the parking along the private street and providing an uninterrupted, landscaped rear yard between the proposed buildings and the adjacent development. Given this, Staff recommend approval of the variance. Section Variance Requested 10.4(2)(f) A variance to reduce the minimum rear yard from 6 metres to 3.25 metres for the proposed six -unit building. Staff Response This variance relates to the six -unit building fronting on Loch Lomond Road. As the building has a front lot line along Loch Lomond Road, the rear yard of the lot is located adjacent to the lot containing the four -unit building to the north. As the building fronts onto the private access the rear yard functions as a side yard. Given this impact is related to an internal property line within the development, Staff are supportive of the variance and recommend it be granted. Servicinq and Traffic A preliminary review of servicing and infrastructure modelling has been completed by Infrastructure Development and Saint John Water and has not yielded any concerns with respect to water or sewer capacity. A consultant engaged by the applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Statement' for the proposed development scenario with 105 dwelling units. It has been noted the 82-unit proposal would have a lower traffic impact on study area intersections through reduced traffic volumes. Key findings of the Traffic Impact Statement are summarized below: • It is expected that the proposed development will generate 40 vehicle trips during the AM Peak hour (10 entering/30 exiting), 48 vehicle trips during the PM Peak hour (29 entering/19 exiting), and a total of 608 trips daily. • An analysis of the Level of Service (LOS) for the 2030 horizon period with the development in place indicates that the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and the development access (site driveway) will operate efficiently and be well below capacity with the development in place. • The development is expected to increase traffic volumes on Loch Lomond Road by 4%, which is equivalent to approximately 4 years of background growth. The consultant does not anticipate significant impacts to traffic operations on Loch Lomond Road to occur as a result of the development. • A sight distance review was completed for vehicles exiting the proposed development access. It was determined that the existing sight distances from the proposed intersection of 345 metres to the east and 245 metres to the west meet the minimum intersection and stopping sight distances recommended by Transportation Association of Canada JAC). ' Englobe Corp. Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development. October 29, 2021 Page 13 of 21 119 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 • A sight distance review was completed for a potential crosswalk on Loch Lomond Road at the development access. It was determined that the existing sight distances towards the proposed crosswalk location to the west of the proposed access of 88 metres from the east and 79 metres from the west do not meet the minimum decision or stopping sight distances recommended by TAC. Based on the sight distance results, a crosswalk is not recommended across Loch Lomond Road at the development access. The existing crosswalk at Bon Accord Drive should be sufficient in meeting any additional pedestrian crossing demand from the development. • A left turn lane warrant was completed for vehicles turning left into the development from Loch Lomond Road. The analysis concluded that a left turn lane would not be warranted at the intersection because the left turning volumes during the AM and PM peak hours would not be high enough. • Based on a review of the proposed access road, it was determined that the proposed width of 6 metres does not meet the TAC recommended width range between 7.2 metres and 12.0 metres for a two-way multi -unit residential development. It is recommended that the width of the access road be widened to fit within this range. Staff note a Section 59 condition is recommended related to the increased access width and Staff note this has been shown on the most recent concept plan. • A turnaround area will be required in accordance with the building code for large emergency vehicles in accordance with required standards for fire access. It is recommended that signage and pavement markings be installed to prevent vehicles from parking on or blocking the area. Staff note a Section 59 condition is recommended related to these design features. • Based on a review of the existing and proposed pedestrian infrastructure, it is recommended that a pedestrian connection be included between the development and Loch Lomond Road. This could be achieved by adding a sidewalk along the access road into the development site. It was also noted that a multi -use trail could be added on the northeast corner of the development property to provide an Active Transportation connection between Norman Drive and the development. Staff note these features are recommended through proposed Section 59 conditions and have been shown on the revised plan. • A review of the existing transit stops near the proposed development site concluded that transit users will have the option between two transit stops that are in proximity to the development site. The reduction in dwelling units from 105, as assessed in the traffic impact study, to 82 will result in lower traffic volumes and impacts than forecast. Recommended Section 59 Conditions Page 14 of 21 120 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 Staff are recommending a series of conditions be imposed in accordance with Section 59 of the Community Planning Act. These conditions include considerations relating to the scope of the development, access and pedestrian connections and landscaping along the Loch Lomond Road frontage and the eastern boundary of the site. Scale of Development — Staff recommend a condition limiting the development proposal to the parameters proposed in the application. This condition will limit the development to a maximum of 82 dwelling units. Development within the area zoned Low -Rise Residential (RL) will be limited to four, 4-unit buildings having a maximum height of 2 stories, and a two story six -unit building. Development in the portion of the site zoned Mid -Rise Residential (RM) is recommended to be limited to two 30-unit buildings (maximum number of units per building) having a height of three stories. • Landscaping Plan — A condition is recommended to require a landscaping plan, for the approval of the Development Officer, which details the landscaping to be completed by the developer along the Loch Lomond Road frontage of the site and along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing dwellings along Lakefield Court. • Pedestrian Connectivity — Staff recommend a condition requiring a sidewalk to be provided along the proposed Private Access and a pedestrian connection between this sidewalk and the current terminus of Norman Drive, with this sidewalk and pedestrian connection to be maintained by the developer. Also, with respect to active transportation, Staff note bicycle parking will be required in accordance with the Zoning By -Law requirements. Access Width — The Traffic Impact Study for the site recommended the proposed 6 metre width of the Private Access be widened to between 7.2 metres and 12 metres. Staff are recommending a Section 59 condition in relation to the 7.2-metre-wide access width detailed on the applicant's recent submission. • Wetland and Watercourse Alteration Permit — A watercourse was noted in the northern portion of the site through consultation with the New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government and a review of aerial photography and mapping. The revised design has development occurring outside of the 30-metre watercourse buffer. NBDELG also noted the potential for unmapped wetlands on portions of the site. Staff recommend a condition requiring the Developer to provide a Wetland and Watercourse Alteration Permit, should one be required by the Province, or written confirmation that one is not required to the Development Officer at the time of Building Permit application for portions of the project that are within 30 metres of a watercourse or wetland. • Sanitary Sewer Servicing — While Staff are proposing a condition limiting the development to 82 dwelling units, a condition is also recommended that any proposed changes to the development that would result in an increased sanitary sewage flow be Page 15 of 21 121 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 reviewed by Saint John Water to determine that the sanitary sewer has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed change. • Water Distribution Network — Staff are recommending a condition requiring the developer to connect the water distribution for the proposed development to the existing system on Norman Drive. This will provide an additional connection between Loch Lomond Road and the area of existing development to the east of the site. This work shall be completed prior to the final phase of this proposal. This looping of the water system will provide improved water quality and connectivity in the distribution network. The City will not assume ownership of the watermain and associated easement(s) until the watermain has been constructed in its entirety with the interconnection between Loch Lomond Road and Norman Drive. If the developer does not provide watermain interconnectivity to Norman Drive and/or does not provide all required municipal services easements, the developer shall be responsible to provide premise isolation at Loch Lomond Road (at the developer's cost and responsibility) and all infrastructure piping on site shall remain private. • Provision of Local Government Services Easements - The developer shall provide the required Local Government Services Easements for the water main and sanitary sewer mains within the proposed development, to provide for City ownership of this buried infrastructure. This requirement for easements also extends to the water main connection to Norman Drive. The acceptance of these easements will be subject to a review by Saint John Water. Required Infrastructure Upgrades — Consistent with City Policy, if any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, these will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant for review and approval by the City. • Detailed Plans — Staff are also recommending the standard condition requiring the development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, and submitted with the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. • Building Elevations - The Mid -Rise Residential (RM) and Low -Rise Residential (RL) zones do not regulate facade materials or building design elements such as cladding. Staff have recommended a Section 59 condition requiring exterior elevations of buildings within the development to have a cohesive design utilizing design elements including but not limited to similar colours, siding materials and door and window proportions and trim. Staff note that detailed engineering plans for the development will be subject to review and approval by the City. Saint John Water has noted a water flow (hydrant) test is required to be Page 16 of 21 122 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 completed by the developer prior to detailed design. The development will also be subject to the City's Drainage By-law which requires that the engineered stormwater management plan achieve a zero net increase from the site (i.e., limits post -development discharge to the existing pre -development discharge). Staff are of the opinion the rezoning meets the intent of the Municipal Plan and that the variances to support the proposed development are reasonable. Given this, approval of the rezoning and variances are recommended. While staff recommend the Committee approve these variances, the variances would only come into effect following approval of the rezoning by Common Council. Given this, staff recommends a condition making the variances conditional on the approval of the development by Common Council through the provision of Third Reading. Subdivision A subdivision of the site is proposed which will result in the creation of separate lots for each of the proposed buildings. This approach is often taken in developments involving, multiple buildings as the separate parcels of land for each building provide for construction mortgages and refinancing to occur on an independent building basis. Under the Community Planning Act, it is the jurisdiction of the Planning Advisory Committee to consider authorizing access other than a public street. As the development is serviced entirely by a private street, this authorization is required. In addition to this, variances from private street parameters set out in the Subdivision By-law are required. With these variances, the proposal is still able to meet the intent of the Subdivision By-law. Section 14(8) of the Subdivision By-law limits the use of Private Streets to the following criteria: 1. The development is in the Primary Development Area; 2. The proposed development consists of cluster townhouse dwellings; and 3. The proposed dwellings are serviced by Municipal Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer. Access to Multiple Unit Dwelling The site is in the Primary Development Area; however, the proposed private street serves a series of multiple unit buildings. The intent of this requirement was to specifically permit private streets for forms of residential development which provide a higher density form of development and an ownership structure such as a condominium association, which would fund and maintain the ongoing operation and maintenance of the private streets. In this case, the intent of the by- law is met through the provision of a higher density housing form in an urban area of the city. This is also justification for approval of the lot(s), block(s) or parcel(s) of land which do not abut a Public Street in accordance with Subsection 15(2) of the Subdivision By-law. Private Stormwater System Subsection 14(8)(b)(i) of the Subdivision By-law allows for Private Streets to be developed Page 17 of 21 123 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 where Municipal Water, Municipal Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Storm Sewer is provided. This is also a requirement through subsection 22(1)(h) of the by-law requiring the provision of Municipal Storm Sewer infrastructure by the Developer. Servicing for the proposed development includes Municipal Water and Municipal Sanitary Sewer Mains that would be located within easements in the private street. Stormwater management would be provided via a private system. The provision of the private stormwater system requires a variance from the requirements of subsections 14(8)(b)(i) and 22(1)(h) of the Subdivision By-law. Staff recommend approval of the variance as the design of storm water management within the proposed development, including the internal collection system, will be subject to the review and approval of the City through the Drainage By -Law. As with the variances to the Zoning By -Law, Staff recommend a condition on the variances that the variances only come into effect upon Third Reading of the rezoning along with a condition requiring a notation on the Final Plans of Subdivision that the City of Saint John does not provide any maintenance of the Private Access. Design of Private Streets Private streets are required to be designed to the City's General Specifications which provide for sidewalks, concrete curb, and roadway surfaces having asphalt paving to ensure emergency and vehicular traffic can be accommodated. The private street network may be owned and maintained by a private entity but would be suitable for fire, emergency and municipal maintenance vehicles. The applicant has engaged an engineering consultant to prepare a Traffic Impact Statement which included a review of the proposed site access. The consultant has recommended the width of this access be increased from 6 metres to between 7 metres and 10 metres with the provision of a sidewalk to provide for pedestrian access to Loch Lomond Road. These elements have been recommended as Section 59 conditions by Staff. Servicing and Local Government Service Easements A preliminary review of servicing has not yielded any concerns with respect to water/sewer capacity. It is recommended that Council assent to all necessary Local Government Service Easements to provide for the proposed water and sanitary sewer mains. These easements will be finalized through work associated with the plan of subdivision and will provide access to the water and sanitary sewer mains which will be municipally owned. Land for Public Purposes The Subdivision By-law requires ten percent of the area of a proposed subdivision to be vested to the City as Land for Public Purposes (LPP). Such land dedications must be assented to by Common Council. However, at the discretion of Council, a money in -lieu of LPP dedication may be accepted. The Subdivision By-law encourages the assent of proposed LPP dedications that involve a pedestrian walkway between streets or land required to support the City's Trails and Bikeways Page 18 of 21 124 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 Strategic Plan. Otherwise, the Subdivision By-law encourages the acceptance of money in -lieu of LPP dedications for subdivisions that do not offer these benefits. This approach is supported by The City of Saint John Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (PlaySJ) and the Parks and Recreation service area. Since the proposed subdivision does not meet the land dedication requirements of the Subdivision By-law, staff is recommending the acceptance of money in -lieu of a LPP dedication. The Community Planning Act requires that money in -lieu of LPP dedications represent eight percent, as required by the Subdivision By-law, of the market value of the unimproved land at the time of subdivision. In the case where both lots have already been developed, this amount will be determined based on the estimated unimproved land value of the proposed new lot. The Act also requires that money in -lieu dedications be deposited into a special account and that Council expend the money for "acquiring or developing land for public purposes2 and for no other purpose." In this case, money -in -lieu of LPP will be taken for the proposed subdivision. Street Name The applicant has suggested three names for the proposed street which have been reviewed by the City's GIS Service Area, with `Blue Jay Way' approved by the City. Unlike Public Street names, which are subject to the approval of the Committee, the names of Private Streets are subject to the approval of Common Council. The Staff recommendation contains the appropriate approval of the proposed street name. In 2022, the City will be reviewing the process by which street and facility names are reviewed and this may result in changes to the current process where the Developer provides possible street names to the City for review. Conclusion The proposed development conforms to the policy direction in the Municipal Plan and generally meets the standards provided in the Zoning and Subdivision By-laws with variances related to the design of the internal areas of the development. The proposed density and building forms fit within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. Approval of the rezoning is recommended subject to Section 59 conditions and conditions related to specific design elements for the proposal. The proposed subdivision is supported by Staff and the required Council assent is provided in the recommendation. ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS No alternatives are proposed. z Land for public purposes means land, other than streets, for the recreational or other use or enjoyment of the public (Community Planning Act, 2018). Page 19 of 21 125 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 ENGAGEMENT Proponent The proponent held a public open house on the evening of September 23, 2021, at the Renewed Hope Church of God (1411 Loch Lomond Road), with notification distributed to area residents. The original design for a 136-unit development with eight, 17-unit buildings was presented at this meeting. The applicants, their design consultant, a representative of Envision Saint John and City staff, and between 40 and 60 residents attended the event. As a result of input gained at the Open House, the applicant prepared a revised proposal for the application submission considered by the Committee at their November 2021 meeting which proposes 105 dwelling units and a lower density and building scale adjacent to the lots along Lakefield Court. The developer provided information regarding the revised design concept to landowners in the immediate neighbourhood of the development prior to the November 2021 Committee meeting. Based on the outcome of the November 2021 Committee meeting the applicant reduced the unit count within the development to 82-units. As with the November 2021 proposal, the current proposal incorporates a minimum 20-metre buffer between the 4-unit and 6-unit buildings and the eastern property line of the site which seeks to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the existing residences located along Lakefield Court. Public In accordance with the Committee's Rules of Procedure, notification of the revised proposal was sent to landowners within 100 metres of the subject property on January 5, 2022. Notice of the Public Hearing for the rezoning will be posted on the City of Saint John website on or before January 17, 2022. APPROVALS AND CONTACT Author Manager/Senior Planner Commissioner Mark Reade, P.Eng., MCIP, RPP Jennifer Kirchner, MCIP, RPP Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP, RPP Contact: Mark Reade Telephone: (506) 721-0736 Email: Mark.Reade@saintjohn.ca Application: 21-166 APPENDIX Map 1: Aerial Photography Map 2: Future Land Use Map 3: Zoning Attachment 1: Site Photography Attachment 2: Municipal Plan Policy Review Submission 1: Site Plan Page 20 of 21 126 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 1429 Loch Lomond Road January 14, 2022 Submission 2: Tentative Plan of Subdivision Submission 3: Comparison with Previous Proposals Page 21 of 21 127 co N N ` N � O N OwlO _ N E E N 1 O M O C O LO O X 0 p 0 O O u CO O O m z O CD c� CD U) CD ca L D 7-6 0 —6 y-+ CD 0 E E o N UCD U) a� U) ca CD _ Q ca Lr— a a E O CD > > CD U � � o Lcu J J N 7 7 LL O7 C � C N O N N ca U) C — O U +_ L N N 0 Q O O L U) U N O N J (n U D U C O N fN N U N (6 � d M U O (D Q H O U a N O LN J O M C N t O O N 4.1 W C L (6 V — E O N _ O U Z WE co nz O c O E O J s U O J Ol N -I 3 a) a) c nz a 76 a U E C a) E s U f6 Q > as s c c L a) U +, a O C O a0 '� a E� 7 ° E a) a) an c c a) ao = a n5 +, a) a0 i- a) O u O C L O N -a (L6 +' a) +O+ O C (6 +, — U h0 C E +, a -a m -a Q rrO -0 � a) In .� a) In > •L S Q i6 V) Q ' C L L O N to M W � I O U s 111 > 3 i�1 ° E W s J 00 U p U 0 +, a) c-1 O C O a) 'a to N p C 'a O U ° N (6 p Q O O •L N C s f6 a0 s Q- S a I • 3 L +� a) -°� C +- O N a) s O +� +� C p -a O N o a 41 bD O a 3 '3 o o a) s tin c L O f6 �_ ON -a — a) f6 C VI L J L f6 (6 U L16 O In C +, a0 c E s -a C 7 a) C u C a) a) O C +' s 41 O a+ +O+ vOi M s 7 -a C C s 0 s (L6 (L6 s +a) CbD -0 C 3 u o o s +, aa) +� u u a c a) c vi s ° a o c o o �, c� a s s In +� o a; ° In L L 3 'u +, a) ao C O 3 In a0 ,� C } C a) . L s a) L a) L a) C C a) -0 L In N o c s c -O s O O a) 'L -a CL ° > a a c a aco N O c = +� E s L '3 O +� c In +t >- m 2 In :t In +� Ln a (6 a 0 a) sue_ �-+ N L E L `0 7 U 'C — +� In C +' s E 'a to W C C O s 7 7 O O O 4. nz a) p o s 0' aco c 3 s a; •� Q ) °Ln L S +° aa)) M °' a) E +� c 4- 4- a) c I (6 C a) C c s u O c c (6 a) C C E o n N E a +� O a) f6 a0 c6 °° L L c6 c6 a) a) O ,� •� a C ° E +, > r 1 s 00 a Q o Ln E +� E o > C O L E c 3 ._ L U E In E N rn f6 a) C s> a>i a) L 4 O O c a) U6 c c +� ' a>i `c~a) s p p U a c 4 3 a) +1 a >> o s o 0 1 a)L " o � +c c N c CL 4- a �E E Os oo ° "� O CC a O +1 f6 o 76 a sH Ln a)° a'-C ccaw > > bD a)O QN c Ins In o Q � }ai o U a) cn E a) D o m s s +, c +, c -a -a c O E nz O E s +� O n3 a L a) a) d > O O C: CL 0 a L tw a 3 - s " •5 3 ° a O a) s + s c s a o f�6 O ° os> c a) ° +, +6 M a � � 3 ° Q' " c o E o— ,E U a) 4' In a) a) a 0 C U >, U +� -a C O N a) In C = C U 'N -a C O 'O (6 (6 C: 41 E C a) s a) con o -Fas " a) E E 41 c L 4' a) (E6 ao nz E c o o-a o s U o c C a) > — s _ 30 +� O o a) nz c a *' a) > p N +� 3 c a) a) 76 u f1 a) m N s O O to C: C a) to L p cLo to O 5 m a) E a) c a) Q c s E s o a N c m -a a a� c � o-0 a>)) U O _ 00 W 1 4- C c W E i6 N 00 1 - � i6 a) L >. s 4 L Q- s s 0 Z, f6 +' U Q O +, O a) +' s N +' E -a C 7 O .E J ao In ? a) N C X U 1 .E U c L a) C a° v +� a E s v N C L a° U"E s° � O� o c a° � o c° c N C7 ° " > ° a, 4, a? ( a) aco a ss +bio +', 7 _6 Q s ofN (.0 >- o s c L 0 " .>u>_ Q) 0 C 4- 0 s ) cs c6 s s o 3° a) a) - L +, s U 3° -a s Ln c N 3 c; c c6 ai 3 ° c 3 0 M 10 41 °= 4 m -� a) C M N o O U o a) L C O o Q O s O a) a) L C N (6 a) .L C o o aj� 'v i-� �, L a) O 3 a+ O t]A �' i L VI O N O L VI �' -a (6 O O a) O (6 C O Q O s O L (6 -0 a) >, N Ln � O O O -a Q +� L O +, +, J W C f6 +, C-j -� m C O +' a) to -0 a) a) a) ° U 'a E L U Q : s U O V o " s U Cn o a a ° 41 a) 0 aco ° E o cL " ° `—' s s c a) m c O E �' 3 aco ° u u U -� J 3 c 3 s VI Vl s a) O L L O •L •L a) : •x a) C�> O N O � +� 0 O s •a) L •° U U Q) CA °) 3 a) a) °° a " O L +� +1 3 o E c ° s o s a� +� c s c c m o Q c J= c m o -a C s -a L (6 Q M 4, > O L (6 C O C C (6 L +1 C +1 +' +� a) O Ln +� 7 s C L +� U O ° mmo f6 VI a) N 4, L s L x U-0 CA +' > L a) a) U m •3 o a) a) +, n5 a) O s 3 c c ° a) ._ ° 4� L m -0 +° '� +' •? E c a) s ° c ao L Cn +' `� o c6 E a) E m a 2 +� aci � ° o Ln CL O 0 o 0 3 o s c a > m -0 O a o-a O +6 V) c -a M E -0 -0 > 0- N a) +�bio E U a; c W o> c c m a) to o o L O° o � c N 3 c° 0° m a>) a) ° L° N L C E Q U +� C� a) a) -0 M- m .� t6 -0> 7 4- E M >> O a) Q in a) N a) s m +, -� c Ln C W (L6 O c CL t6 +� f6 a) J Ln C a) '� +� J a) C 7 a) +, O s +, s 0 O 'n a) 'a s C t6 •L - N CA j t6 O U _ +' +' -le 4, N N +- -0 O C m _�Ln 0 a) O o a) nz N O sLn C 1 C a) a a) a `� L 4- LnO a) •C N C O .0 (6 C CL O L 'n +' Ln 'x -a Ln Q 'a O C CA CL a) O o U o `~ L -a s 0 4s Q O O N U� h0 CL Q N E ci C '� O Q .� 'Q o s a; a c o s � s 'x a) E E 0 c `—' a) .� E s a"i `� E Ln s +� 'n as +' CL -a a) s c6 C C L> O +� a Q a) a s -a E -a 'L a) 4, > L C O t6 N O t6 +� E +� a) Q L U L O > +� C s a) O a) a) L ° M o H 3-0 c-0 s 4 M CL °C ° 3� c`o + 0 M° 3 0 s > 000 Ln L U m CL 0 C (6 U -a C O O O m � V a) N " O L L 3 (6 E L U a) c6 s O +� ° �' a mL +� Q of -a +' -a a) C ° 0> CLa) ja) -ca ° a) o c a) VU -0 M M a) C° Lc +, O Vi va ' a) L C,C U C 4,W O L C .. m m +, a) Vf a) O a) a) mO 'a f6 a) C 7 m Q" m 0 •m U -a C Q C -a a a) U a a) E L u -a L E i tw ° 'a 7 0 L aci m° •` 3 o N °° ° c Wu a C L s _ L 0 3` a) s 3 M o U o L s 4 N c c -a a a) O Q -a t6 -a 4= C a) U 0 0 O a>i 0 a) L o vi c 0 4� c c c6 0 'n c +1 +� -a -a U 3 M c6 a) s 0 O c M L a) C a) CA CL O C O 4 V0i m C E 0 C L M 4� s +' .0 S (C6 a) U C L + .0 7 CA c x +� m 0 .� ° a) a) C .� a) a) U > C C t6 a) s C .� 0 > � c a) ` 3 0 0 �aoi aa)) 0> .Ln C a) U C ° can U Ln m Cn +, c6 -a > Ln of t6 a a) CL Q a) Vi ��s 0 > 0 3s �°�� c Qo CA to 1 CL a 3 O a) E Cn 'E a v o ° a) a) s o a) U o s c a) ° E c J 4, a) L o s O s s c U L +' U +, O c s s 0 0 a) O C C a) (6 a w m 0 -0 s ° 0 ° aco nb o `� bio a) V) -a ° c U -a 4�c o to u O 0 c° c`o c c a s c ° N-a 0 o 4- X c c o a� c 4� s *' Q E ° L E a� MU (; ° too ° L o 0 3 0° .° O J m c .� -0 " o 0 +' � :t - tin L a � " 41 '— s N O � nz ° o - s u .� a n5 c a O U w +� N> `� U c + a) a) s ai as' L os O +- c '+E E Ea) +, 01 �o 4,oU °" E o c=°41 WCu � +� oo naSu O O U L 0 �c aC0 a LC U jO LnO 0 � a) o 'a -0 O a) in U° U a) - 3°� c c 0 oc 4- 4� a) .3 46 c 3 N o M ° to sS E \ L as E tw E w .cc a _ -a EU a. M +, MC4, tm . OM _o 41 tin 4� c O c p c _ — E E: O a) a) n5 as -0 ° +� a) c M a) 4� —_ o a) +� a) L +, +� a a) U ° U a c° E s c a) L a 3 a) L.a) E - =7 O.0 ccQ c•E O a6 >L•' Q tw C O a) ? a) ° L C Q oN M > O -a O O (6 OU a) M-a M >m C 0 0-x C :t CL � E .0 '0 C 7 0 > -a -a tw a) s s 4� N a) 0C3~ W a) s4' N a+ L OC m to NO 41 � = 1 >, M aEL)S6 O Oa+ aN)}0 41 OO L a 0-0 O C !E 11 M 4a- 41- CL O O> s 0 -a o ° 'N° C ° s L a) ti�0 0 a) C ° C 0 •c o s 3 Q Q N � ° Ln Q -0 E a3i c a) "' -a . .Ln 0 +' o -a E s aEm -0i a) ° E aci o E •= -0 a) o 0 N C a) a N c a �, a a) r L .� w .c w-a o +, N N M a) c 4, 0 7 ' i 4� 0 O to tw -a N C to -0 -0' u E +° o s o o° a) O a`) s ao M> u o E Q ° 3 a) cco o m .E U 0 a) C L 0 O L s LfI L C O a) +, 0 0 m Q U-a E n5 a H �o Q E a) (6 a) � tw C as vi U a) a) C O +�+ a) s 4— stio + do 0 a c O O aa) ° s W 3 '� +� U 4� 0 0 c -0c> c c O s >, -a O s a) " M U M M .- C: 1 s a) Q u :t Q — 41 -a N C Q V U -0 C O CA V) a a s -0 u a) '� 0 .ao C ._ s Q 0 a) 4� 0 U >N U Q Q 4' M M 41 C O C -0 CA ;t CL Q C a) ° a) ,C U N Q > U N N a) a. Ln L E � a; m o Q- — c to E E a) o 3 c 'L a > a) a) a c L O +� > C Q 0 a) N U M -a N f6 -a 0- — > a) — W H cca -a E -°a o M c > ` 3 a O o c p a w 4- a) +, s s+, nzL O�UC:+, C a0 sa) Q a) O � UC +� L r oo O � o nO E 4' c E E JQ nz 4� a)s ai +� s N O 3 p O +� a) +' O 'N U N O C O +' U +� N O 0+: a) L> +� E E a) O O p N c6 C > N (6 > 'a '� JO tw M 'a 4- s a) C cU6 a) •� to -0 O 4s N ° U 'a N +� _ Ln s ao s U U -a E s `r' s tin °' +� a�i •E +' 3 o N u� +' E L H a) c p �n +� U n5 a d L O �n c a) +, O O a) 0 O a) s tw L Ln U > +, L O s (6 — a) N C a) •C ,+�� 0 •i N C (U6 O to s H 0 L VI (6 a) s >' CL (6 a) +� +0.� o U C to L U +� C •� C a) M }; -� U s C V, a) = — Q f6 N f6 tW tW VI O Ln ,— :.% CA �_ 3 s (6 :.% CA L 0 •= a=+ •L a) : % > C s L qA O > Ln > 'a a) 7 'O s VI 4- 0 s a) qA (6 •L L .tw �-+ f6 > U C a) °L a..� S m 3 a) O +' >, i ,C_ C f6 �) C O L p p L s Q O N N �n a) C a) E M— (6 N Q a) N u a) .0 a) U u V C O LO O O L a) -0 a) a) > i0 (6 ate+ M Z d 4 + a) W >. 41 a) a) 0 O +' � U a) 0 � E O�� N Q m � C �, M � �� s a) M O cU6 Q O � 3 C p 4- O° C O U C N N O a) ° 0 0 u +' O C a) ° a) m +' a) +� M c M C U 4 O 41 _ a) +� -p a) a) — E a) s L > s C O o E � �, a > 3 E to L .L do -0 C +� o +� +� a) M +, s N N 'L ° N a)i L) 0 N > 4m 0 a) M VI O Q" � CC: O N aU) s *' +� ° +° p a�i •E `) c s o a 3 a a) C Ca) W � u cn O Q s L3 �° s o °��° •� �--� o .� c c a) 4' a) 4' ao °' 0 c o a) U a) _ — — 7 C C• n C S � cQ6 +O+ p 'a -p a) O S ,+O—•' O a) Q- a) a) p C �n S S C CL > a) ° s s �a) C O +, U m O s > O tw N •L N ° 0-0 u-0 M O a -a c o— �aa)(6) > O O° U aE Eo Vn C OO OCLnp s O p cU 'a Q o a)4- 4- E EL C� U Ln 0 do � E N �n -p p a) C 'a ate) a) 76 Ln +� a) Ln -a -a ° nz nz >_ a) Ln = O C:o E +' O a) 4' L 'n a) U Q L U C , m s O p U `� a) U M C (6 C •U Q OU O S iiiLn L a) O 5 V) f6 'a s t]A t]A aL, U (6 s (6 C ° O s a) C-+ L N O Q C L L f 6 C 7 a) � Q U to � L CA -0 E C O ° C C a) do OL E S s U N 4O C 7 a) Q Q 'O Q s C v�i s -p to 4� C s C a) +� C M C o +� a) Q a) +� t o E °' tw E u- a) ° u Q- 0 ago ` Q 'a�i a) a) ° o .c x a) 3 +' s o a) s 'c °) E a) .E a) a Fn a) C CL a) -0 a) � a) a " � s to — � a -0 no °C° s O o :t s o a) L o N N to U p .� M 3 C a) C Q) L N VI +� VI Ln ,c U 3 ao •N S O L a) L +� +, •a) (6 s (6 C 'O_ 0 a) a) C tw C a) C (n a a) U O U N � p (6 'a VI -a VI L 'O C In 4" L N '�_ c6 Q °' c6 O L O N° O U-0 CL *' C N m e +' s *' E" X s -p f6 •� a) M p +� U O C N C 7 N 3 a) _ 0 +� C� N a) Q E •�, s s aa) ,E a o 0 0 +� E '� °�° u �,° o ate) Q) a) O U CA O O U C C a) M +' O_a Q L C L �n O U +� L a) 'a z U s° — Ln s Ln 3 .E O Q •w c V U nz � \ ao aCo aco W c`a (6 (�,) 'N s � a) Q a) •a) to u i p L •a) O C C L � s .L (6 •IV CA -a N — >, •t]A f6 uj C C f6 L O L +' O +� .� 0 C W a) +1 CA _ C C C c% Q C CA CA C (6 `� O CA Q (C6 -O CA a) (6 N CA N +� s +' a) 'h0 W C O C L Q f6 f6 a) C 4, 7 C +, L C: CA s C Q M -p p CA C: tE ' a) }Li -p a) 6 `� 'C (6 C C L L �'•� CA O CA •� Q) L L N CA Q CA ° t o � ,U a-+ 'L o � O 'a +� — U JO c .E O C OU O> N C 0 EO N> D i " C C C — Q m 0 U D (6 Q a) M L U a) CA s _ LO M ON C L a) C o 00 4�4, ° > a � �) s ° s tio o �u N aa o 4� C - -c axi a +' � o c U s c °° 4� to a) *' 4� a) a ° X ° •• E a) sn E Lzo Ca) W 'a;E tIO � a a) ° E L 4- sL4� �a° +o o °> Q C C C a L� U _°c n CN°M m aa) M O u nan a c oo COO O°Oa) M> CL C 4,W C O do 'O •N> C Q CL n L f6 N L Laani •° +� as , ' aa)S a)'•'�s U° U� ) +CO E +' O C: -s U Oaus+aam4� 4J acti6n E C-0a)0C > m U M 4, a O O C U s 0 'a 4� CUO E C QN C UO ° a O S C N a Oo E .° > OCo O C Ca) c6 a) a) C -a c6 CA L ° a) °' ° o s > a) -0L E L) f6 J a) 3 •L C a) -0 a +, a L 3 a) a) a) a) •U s > +� +� s a E o o nz C ° .� a) O aL O s°O O o n 0 a « � s u E a+,° UEUo a)° O - a C C C M o a 0 a�+u EOO Cc a) -.° ~C 3 ' � �aE > a > O a O W C OE 6 O }� �' -a O a O C C CaLaL m ?Q ° O oO cE O s L O CA bio CA CA °C UNC = •—C a O a +' O ) O EO4 N'> )�su U °Caa+ c c a)+C °°n°-0EE a a) E m M oaz2Ta� n LaN) E a) C a) a) f6 +s a) 3 O (6 (6 aj s O an L L f6 N S O U U C Ln O a) O C I O s Q- > ,E 4- L a) L L tw a) L C +1 4. >` L io L m 0 ° o � 3 s> ao do u o M u aQ a>- Lo u 76 -a a aO+ C s (6 (6 C a) -0 (6 C � L (6 (6 - L C Cbio 4- to L a) a .0 a •a s d C `~ a) O (6 O 3 L ° C MC L L O U ° C L m O o 0 M a) a) COf6 .Ot—].a OC +' C LW W L S C— taw to �C Ca p O C O n O La(n6 s.4aa�)) .atLo)n N C L O CA -Oa) i 1 'a O 'aC U U a) +_ 0 .1 ° -0 M a) C CA C O > °L 4� O o a) a aCA ao m C o M a) o tw m(A a. a 4� 3 U a nn a) U O W U to -a L C 0 0 a) a) VI 0 M (6 > +� -a s ° CC.O a) qA — L � 4, N (6 N N a) O C CA C +' C tw E tw N >- a) � O- N C- s tw L tw CA C +� CC: M C CA ±' 'a M •L (6 a O ',n L Z L 4- (6 C a) i 'E u 'E 3 o u, •E 'c tw o a) o a) a a) u` -a a W C L 4 c s a •7 L •7 tw E E aXi '7 " .� E a +' � O c -0 c u +� a `� o O -c ° o° o o a o E o� -°a s o to D m t o o �� M�� .0 � C W a c� c nz a 'C: C a CA 4� N -0 C In'n C •E (6 tw i b—D CL �_ L +� O s C E s N>• O O O O -a > > > d a O J 4. J 4. 0 u a 0 U (D a to u O a nz O C O E O J s U O J Ol N c-I 3 a) a) C (6 d (6 a U C a) E s U f6 Q E 1 s � s H E tin s a) s Ln o � C +' o ° +� C: Q a) 1 U E 0 O u LO 0 .E U- O_ E s o aCi a � a�i n5 a) aX) o o a ° m—° tin -a > Ln Q �, C "ss s +' O a)> s C n C } C C o a) to +� C +' +' p a) 7 +� C C L o c o � a; a) L a) a CAA C O s E Q a) -a C p W O X ° (6 a) O C O U c +� a) -p .� a) a) L s O 4� = s a) > L Ol a) C C L f6 -0 a) L -0 -a a) 4- O Ln f6 O O O N Q) CA 4-+ a) O 0 O s C O O U L L Q L +, to f6 C:4- L O U > C c6 �, f6 f6 ° N E O W O rn E o f6 a) E a) +� CA o N a � 0 0 0 � O O'er O M a) X -a� s t6 Q- CL O •� Q+s- N N •C _a O •O W C u Q OL c�6 Q L CA 0 O Ln a) s O •L a) +' W C Q -a `rO C O 'a Qo4'C a) Oa) a) 6 L OO 'aV)) 4,CU E O p O U s- U C O CCA E s O QCA U O 4� s7LaNL-+) O O Cs �OOO O C 1 aO E U C Q > N N U O• s On P U N• a) � LnEs + O 3 'E N0 L a UC O +6 C +1U 0 E +' cc+Q7 O a) Cc`^O_ N n5 aa) J Q c6 CL Q- E L 'E `� o co O L -p E O L U O L D (6 C h0 U a) qA a) M X O a) > O a) > N U L .. L ° > 4� L U O U CA C '^ O O a) f6 C tL6 — N s O C +, C s •O 4-+x '0 4-+ f6 L 4-+ O f6 C: uL W'a a) h0 C: f6 to O L Q Q O C 'n '7 p O Q- O S a) Ln Ln L 0 'C 4.1 E m u s U s U s° a a) L X nz O a) s 3 t6 C F C O a) a, s 0 > +' Un 4� Ln L m 3 � o E O +, 'a L 4, +� p c U qA > O 'O U O C � 4�4' a) a) C O L CC: -4� o +� C 7 •E 4� s (�6 U a••' p ° L C s OL O C O a) a) 4' +' (6 a) 'a -p O bD C: Ln ' 0 LO O O a) t6 C +� + E U> o N Q L C O t6 C C Q VC CO O •� 'a_ 'a_ .L U p 0 C C >, c6 +' f6 �n a) O s O Q > a) s > 'n > E a) o O N °C: 'L C 3 " a) -0 j t •E (6 a`) 4.1 U c6 'a O O ° 0 C O a 'n +a) c m°. 'n 30 a a) 0 L a c Ln le +, m C U E C W a) E E — U 3 N Q c6 +� s U c6 L a) p C> C a �n C a) N ao +� t)D+� O 7 C +� 4- O 'in � s vOi 0 CA M as.., > O a) s c0) s -a a) O O s a) aC+ f6 a) O a) a) a) a) a) +1 a) O U 7 a) •E a) C L a) C s N s s O s s s 7 C N CA W O Vf qA to Vf qA (6 (6 ,V N H H z H H H m_ 2 L am+_ Q) _ c E c c6 H O m f6 d 'a a) CA •u U p—np a) u •Q C O f6C O� O W O L N4' > Q C W 0- to L 4� 0. c>O W m to 0. C W -C CL C L U .0 EW co (Y) u, U +, C 0 0 m 0 N > 0 +, O d L N -a u C to N O to C', •V " O > N N sC0 m O c6 p > " d C 41 � o 0 3 m o � � o ° U bb �n O O o N ° °' 0 Ln O 0 h0 U C: 'C Q `- -a C Q •L O N s +, L N L U N O O Q >- C f6 L O C C N C O 0 C O 'O 0 O C Q N -a +1 7 CA -a O (6 > +O +� > U +' to -a O N c (6 3 a� o � O Q O U O Q Ln m " +� > s a Q- ° E °' E ° +� C 0 � +� c� o o 0 o Q) s �aai s ° c 'L _� bD a) N � a) -a a aj E a E ° s CC: U m N 3 m� O L LL f6 O O C s 4- N O U C m •U C > >` O N — L C 'a Ln N L s +•� N VI iO L 4• (6 L i-•� — +•� (6 N (6 N U L U E VI f6 > E 7 ° E C a) 'a E N }; > L o N C o C U O N O-a C N Q Q to Q aj U E 'x > a� to Q ° to E s U to +� +' L E N — O N U •L 4— O L O O +� E f6 O Q qA O qA C N U N O L N Q > 4' — vi -a C S C m j Q M 7 •U tw Q' 41 M N �n U 'a L O E `~ o O L `n N f6 C '� O O +' f6 > N O S O N c0.� a� E U ° C O O f6 > E >> N O M �n N O O - O L N C C (6 4� 00 6 U O U N m N C S 3 vOi a N N U W +' to 3 N +' — U +, W O s C U m L L _ s a� N N : U •L L N C M U O 4, C -a C VI N C N s N VI N VI ° E ,n f6 N N -a S N+ -a + O L N +' N —4 N +' +, N ho C +' LQ m L N Ln +, N O U- 'a r H Ln Q O Q � d s E 0C: ho 0 CL o f6 C -O E L Q O N N LL O O L L L N C> f6 LL tw C O L O U L C CL O Q > f6 H _ __ > _ N 4- 4- N f6 O f6 O ._ _ _ ? > Q-a m H to 3 3 H L o w CL U -a N N C 0 rn (Y) O c O E O J s U O J Ol N c-I 3 A) a� c a 76 a U c7 G N a-+ C N E s U f6 Q Lu yz_ H - m3 a mU - G W d' Z M _ W - - Na = aNi �� W Z LL N LT OOLOW - Ym JOO000•■Ogl� z_wawa=�,�e��aa�.,=H�_daa«��a��a� �r / J y m � Z� i PP I I O N 2 aPu.�tll o� -2 I -O peoa Puowo� 's" _ 3 400 �frby , I � 0 £SV C m O w� os ua pzt I > Jaa I � x _ m N D m N M O N J � � N p o - O n o O - 7 +914 I a O J n m T A a E� Nji v & li J m III {6'ze O � I Nn I DA b11z J a a M - III I C4 @ m C J N c I _ o_Og o a o +9'Lb y J - - - I rc m A r E III I - a o m _ o a J o m J a / Lo G of O yE2 II« I U r- N - O m c5 D II w H +I a Norma O d q _ 922 0 ai3$�v. Q � a E V \ Jan m m c y ma A 90 0 m y _ ag-Ea � H o - n From: V- MAC To: OneStoo; Common Clerk Subject: Fw: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 13, 2022 10:04:19 AM [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Sent from Outlook From: V- MAC Sent: November 25, 2021 11:18 AM To: Onestop@saintjohn.ca <Onestop @saintjohn.ca>; CommonClerk@saintjohn.ca <CommonClerk@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Hello I am writing to you to voice my concerns about the potential rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I was born and raised in Saint John but have not been living in the city for approx. 15 years. Recently we decided to down size and ease into a simple retired life and decided what better place than Saint John, our original home town. A year and a half later we moved into our brand-new house that we spent countless hours designing and planning. Part of this planning included researching the 19-acre piece of property that is now for sale at 1429 Loch Lomond Road that runs adjacent to our street. At this time, I also researched the empty parcel of land on the Lakewood Heights side of the lake for future development. It eased my mind to find out all available empty parcels of land in close proximity were zoned for residential use. As I sit here typing this, I keep questioning myself. Did I make a huge mistake moving back to Saint John? I think it is great that people want to come and invest money in our city but this is not the property for an apartment complex, way too many negatives to list most of them I am sure you are familiar with as you live in the area. We pay very high taxes in this neighborhood with a substantial increase as of late. I also know that every single household in this area is against this rezoning. I can only speak for myself that if this rezoning is approved and this project moves forward, I will regrettably be moving from Saint John once and for all. Thank you for your time. Vince MacLennan 60 Old Lake Trail Saint John N.B `• 9 isaa1111 hippyguy69@live.com 506-977-2070 Sent from Outloo From: Ayles. R. (Kevin) To: OneStoo Subject: Objection to Rezoning PID 00312900 Date: January 13, 2022 11:19:59 AM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello, This is to inform you that as a resident of Old lake trail I am strongly opposed to the rezoning and approval for this application and any changes to this project. As a resident here in this subdivision for 16 years we have seen stable single family growth into a well desired area of the city to raise a family or retire. During that time we have also seen increased volumes of traffic on Loch Lomond road by growth and has led to increased traffic delays and accidents. There has been no city investment in the infrastructure to help alleviate the problem or help reduce traffic levels on Loch Lomond road to offset the new growth. This development will greatly increase traffic in an already congested part of East Saint John causing even more delays and increased accidents. We built in this subdivision because of layout and community feel. With these large apartment buildings so close to our sub division and Bonnacord , it will stand out and not fit into the existing flow of the neighbourhood. I ask you to strongly take these points and share them with everyone with a stake hold in this decision. Saint John is the largest city in Canada area wise and there is certainly a better suited place for this planned development. Any changes proposed form the developer will not make any significant changes to the concerns I have addressed in this letter. I urge you to take everything into consideration from the existing residents and make a proper decision. Regards Kevin Ayles 32 Old Lake Trail Saint John N.B E2J 5E1 506-343-3448 kevin.ayies(&akzonobel.com From: David Fischer To: OneStoo Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application - 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) Date: January 14, 2022 6:06:45 AM Attachments: 1429 Lochlmond - I am Opposed Info.docx External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello: Haven't received notification (I'm within 100 meters of the property) of their upcoming presentation at PAC. Haven't seen the agenda yet either. So I want to participate in the PAC and voice my objection to the proposed changes. Please find attached a letter outing my concerns. Thanks David Fischer Ganong Road Saint John NB `• '811 1429 Loch Lomond Info — Opposition to Development This "development" in this Residential Area is NOT appropriate for a number of reasons. 1) The area is PROPERLY designated R1/R2 under the original plan 2) This is also supported by P1anSJ (we spent how any THOUSANDS of dollars on the "plan" only to allow SPOT Zoning AGAIN. This has not worked well in the past 3) People/Property owners in the area built or bought their "forever/retirement homes" based on the approved plans in place. a. Why would you allow a "medium/high density" complex to be "inserted" into a residential area? 4) The "new" developer has a total of ABOUT 15 Acres in total. Their "plan" is to get approval for about 1/3 (5 or so) acres for Medium/HIGH density but not developing the rest? a. Sure — I "believe that" develop 33% of your property and not do the same for the remaining 2/3rds of the property.. I think NOT 5) In is very clear that they are attempting to "gradually" move this into a "apartment sub- division" with 30 or more buildings with 300 — 500 UNITS overall based on current plans. 6) Statistics show that "medium/high" apartment developments increase a number of unacceptable changes to the area such as: a. Increased crime/petty crime and violent crimes in developments of this size. Add this the OVERALL Magnitude should the additional 2/3rs of the property developed in a similar manner b. Increased traffic, noise pollution air pollution c. MAJOR decrease in property values within a 2 KM radius d. Traffic congestion e. Increased Policing Costs 7) In this particular situation, they want to build their complex adjacent to a daycare center. - Not appropriate for countless reasons. 8) Many of "us" in the area have spent a LOT of dollars to keep/upgrade our properties over the years for our "forever/retirement homes" we are Maintaining and Improving then so we can ENJOY my homes... so I would be really ***off with this sort of development being allowed knowing that it WILL destroy my MAJOR property improvement investment. Fl5f:3 From Real-estate Board Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 WALKABILITY 1.8 Poor For the majority of locations here, other transportation modes are needed to reach day-to-day needs. Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 Lifestyle of Neighbourhood (scale rated 1— 10 — 1 being LOW/POOR) Daycare 10 Quiet 9 Car Friendly 8 High Schools 5 Transit Friendly 4 Elementary Schools 4 Shopping 4 Pedestrian friendly 3 Restaurants 3 Parks 2 Vibrancy 1 Nightlife 1 Grocery 0 Walkability 1.8 Basically the Local Real Estate Board shows that the area is only SLIGHTLY viable if you have a car... the only real positive number is the day care one... quiet is OVERATED given the impact of noise from Loch Lomond Road... and the significant increase if this development goes ahead. Car "friendly" — not a reasonable number given the DIFFICULTY in access/egress of Loch Lomond at MOST times.. never mind AM & PM "higher volumes" From there down the list... everything is below 5... which is not a good thing. M4� Apartment Complex Issues (in General) Increased Crime o Something with 5 or more buildings raises crime rates within 2000 meters of the "project" (statistics widely available on the internet to support this FACT) o Statistics show a significant increase in Break-ins, Drugs, Petty crimes, and Assaults (of all types — physical, sexual, and attempted assaults) o Significate increase in Policing Costs and call outs to the area Decreased Area Property Values o Simply put, any properties within 2000 Meters of the development of this size/nature will decrease property values anywhere from 10 — 30% Increased Pollution (Noise, air, Garbage and wild critters o Large garbage bins (typically ay apartment complexes) tend to draw the UNWANTED type of wild animals — typically RATS, MICE. Racoons etc. Environmental Issues for this development 0 15 Acres of Asphalt & Concrete ■ Decreases natural runoff ■ Decreased natural habitat for birds and such. With single type family home development — the change would be gradual, trees/shrubs/hedges would develop, and most would remain equally balanced. o MUST have environment impact study done Increased traffic from mid -high density apartments to enter Loch Lomond Road o Loch Lomond Road has high levels of traffic now — especially at peak times — access & egress from Loch Lomond Road CAN and IS very difficult on a good day without adding 100's more cars from one access point (605 daily according to "their study" — just a note — their study was based on 1 DAY of "video data" — were schools open — did the pandemic reduce "normal" traffic by people working at home or isolating? o A PROPER traffic study needs to be conducted to assess the real impact. ■ I was certified a number of years ago in traffic study collection and analysis of traffic patterns. I worked for a number of years in Workplace Health and Safety for Canada Post and we were required to do traffic studies and implement changes to our Rural Delivery Services over a number of years. It can be a lengthy process doing an analysis on CURRENT traffic situations.. this one would also need accurate data to make accurate "estimates" of the overall impact. - Large Construction project — o Large numbers of equipment & construction noise — will continue for years - Only developing 1/3 (approx.) of the land — I don't think this is being totally honest - the remaining 2/3rds will follow suit - They stated" — the other 2/3rds is "barely walkable" so no plans to develop it o Bon Accord/Old Lake Trail/Ganong areas were the same type of land. Heavy equipment made a "level playing field" to build on. Did not stop these ars from being developed into SINGLE/DUPLEX homes (mainly single). They were not "walkable" before they were leveled and backfilled as needed. AGAIN — for Single/Duplex (Rl/R2) zoning. 1429 Loch Lomond is zoned the same (Rl/R2) which is appropriate for the area ifl*�] So, at the end of the day... this "proposed" development is NOT appropriate in ANY way or form for this area. The area is PROPERLY ZONED to fit in with the surrounding areas and should NOT be changed. David Fischer Ganong Road Saint John NB M951 Opposition of Rezoning and Proposed Development 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Jan. 18, 2022 1 am submitting this letter as my opposition to the rezoning and proposed development currently under review for the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. Like myself, many of the residence in the area of the Bon Accord Dr. Subdivision, Old Lake Trail, Lakefield Ct., Norman Dr. and Ganong Rd. are against the proposed rezoning and do not want an apartment building complex in our neighbourhood. There are many qualitative reasons that this proposal should not be allowed: • Excessive traffic in an area of Loch Lomond Rd. that already struggles with a very high traffic volume. I am sure that when the developer did their traffic study, they followed whatever criteria was required at the time. However, we are in the midst of a pandemic, a vast majority of people who would normally be on Loch Lomond Rd. are currently working from home. This includes people from the Rothesay and Quispamsis areas who take the arterial and come through Loch Lomond Rd. to avoid traffic on the high way. I would have to suggest that the traffic study is inaccurate and that there is an underestimation of the full volume of traffic in a non -pandemic situation. • Excessive storm water runoff toward Loch Lomond Rd. from the massive parking and road areas being introduced. Once the required storm drains ice over, all of the runoff will be directed to Loch Lomond Rd. with a high probability of ice sheets developing on Loch Lomond Rd. in that area. • Excess garbage and large scale dumpsters that will be out front and visible for all to see. Garbage will inevitably end up on the ground around the dumpsters as they become full. • Excess garbage will attract rodents and wildlife, causing infestation problems. • Where will all of the snow removal go. The weather we have had the past few weeks is an example of our typical winter weather. There is no area available to plow snow, other than to have it trucked out or to plow all of the snow/ salt and sand up into the northern portion of the development which is the area of lake run off . I assume this would be an environmental issue and concern. • The proposed rezoning and development does not fit within the current Plan SJ and City of Saint John By -Law requirements in accordance with the following policies: Policy LU-4, Policy LU-86, Policy LU-87, Policy LU-88, which all state that any significant development and redevelopment ensures desirable and positive contributions to the neighbourhood. Developments are to be in keeping with the existing Stable Residential neighbourhood character, and at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context. (R2). The proposed development is none of these things. • There are two other factors not being considered into this by city staff. The predominant construction of the area is owned homes not rental units. As stated in the previous staff recommendations "a key goal of the Municipal Plan .......and form of ownership", this proposed development is not owned but rented, making it unsuitable based on the cities own words. The affordable housing mentioned by the developer is also not a requirement being imposed by the city. The developer could easily not follow through with this, should the development be allowed. Therefore; it would not be prudent for PAC to consider this when deciding on whether or not to allow this development. Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident — Old Lake Trail) Page 1 of 2 152 Opposition of Rezoning and Proposed Development 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Jan. 18, 2022 • Finally, the greatest issue is the development density, There are a proposed 82 Units which is significantly higher than the surrounding neighbourhoods. The apartment buildings are at a scale and size so disproportionately large compared to the adjacent neighbourhood context it is absurd to think that the development would even be considered for this location. Should the city allow such a development to be introduced, the quality that makes this location desirable for the existing residence will no longer exist. The current residence will not have beautiful views of green, but of the wall of an apartment building and asphalt parking lots. The city will be allowing the developers to put their financial wants and benefits above the well-being and rights of the existing residence. During a previous PAC meeting regarding this proposed development, another development was brought forth that had just recently been approved by PAC as a comparison property. The developer and a PAC member mentioned a property at 573 Woodward Ave in Mlllidgeville. The 2 developments are nothing alike. The Millidgeville development sits on a much larger piece of property, allowing for a proposal not requiring any variances. The development is bordered on one side by another property already zoned RM with (3) existing 17-24 units apartment buildings. Half of the proposed development property is already situated on property currently zoned (RM). The back of the property is bordered by a large wood area. None of these situations exist at the Loch Lomond Rd. Property. The following statements also negate the usage of the Millidgville property as a comparison due to a conflict of interest/ bias nature. The main fact that I would like brought forward, is that Peter Pappas, President of NJP Developments Inc.) is the Developer of 573 Woodward Ave., a member of PAC and voting on the 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. proposal. The appropriateness of his voting ability and comments on this matter are in question. There is a conflict of interest/ bias, as other PAC members, as well as, himself are drawing comparisons of the 2 developments. I do not feel it is appropriate to mention this property in upcoming meetings by anyone as the conflict of interest/ bias still exists. Peter Pappas should also be asked to recuse himself from any future discussions or votes of the proposed development of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. based on this bias. "A potential conflict of interest exists if the private interests of the person, might interfere with the public interests the person is required to serve in the exercise of the person's authority and duties in the person's office or position of employment. " Bias occurs where a person has an actual interest in one result or favours one party over another (actual bias), or objectively might appear to favour one result or party over another (apparent bias) Thank you. Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident — Old Lake Trail) Page 2 of 2 155 From: Smith Familv To: One$top; Reade, Mark Subject: Fwd: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 14, 2022 11:22:54 AM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Dear Mr. Reade, I've had the opportunity to look at the new proposal for this property. It does nothing to address my original concerns that I've already outlined (original e-mail below) . In fact, since writing before, I've been made aware that we are indeed likely to have significant changes to our bus route. Also, recently I was stuck behind a vehicle that was turning into the Apartments at Eugene's Way (between On the Vine and the Irving on Loch Lomond). This was at just after 8:00 AM on a weekday and the car was turning left into the lane. It took about 2 minutes for the car to be able to turn, finally when the traffic light turned red somebody made a break in traffic for them. It's not the first time that I had to wait, but this time I was thinking of the new proposed development. Without a dedicated left -turn lane that has the potential for further impact on traffic. I listened intently to the meeting that was held virtually about this and I have to say that what keeps coming to mind is how the developer appears on paper to want to work with nearby residents. However, there are signs that they are actually more concerned about their own bottom line. For example, comments made about how traffic concerns are not their problem, but the City's. They also alluded to there not being other properties available when in fact there are and they just don't want to be responsible for the infrastructure needed. Comments were made as to the uninhabitable condition of the property that goes up the hill, I'm sure to appease fears of overdevelopment. However, as a resident of Bon Accord Drive, I'm quite certain this road was pretty much exactly the same once upon a time. The takeaway for this is; as many council members have already mentioned, there are too many "allowances" that need to be made. It really should bring pause to this and an understanding that it is not the right location. Saint John needs rental properties built where there is good existing walkability, public transit options and little impact on traffic. Also, why choose a location with such a significant negative impact on nearby residents when other properities are available where this sort of development would be welcomed? New apartment buildings should bring value to the surrounding properties, not steal it away. Thank you. Crystal Smith FU:T21! 156 Bon Accord Drive Saint John NB E2J 4K5 506-801-2011 tcsmithhome@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Smith Family <tcsmithhome@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:00 AM Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road To: <OneStop@saintjohn.ca>, <Mark.Reade@saintjohn.ca> Good Morning Mr. Reade, Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my views on the proposed redevelopment of the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I've had the opportunity to review the proposal for the development. First, I would like to say that I am very much in favour of affordable housing in Saint John. It is sorely needed. Secondly, I understand in the Real Estate world, nothing is certain. My view on this though is that it seems so unnecessary to tear down forests, destroy habitats and backyards, add to the traffic, noise and air pollution of the neighbourhood. Plunging our neighbourhood into chaos and congestion seems so counter -productive. There are properties in Saint John that are already vacant and wide-open, just sitting and waiting for this kind of redevelopment. Even if I were not personally invested in the neighbouhood, I would be able to see that it doesn't appear to make sense to anybody except the investors who are looking to make a quick buck on out -of -province cheap land. Yes, the apartments are needed - but wouldn't they be better suited in an area that is walkable and near better public transit? We pay almost $4,000 a year in property tax and cannot get sidewalks that are clear enough to make it to the bus stop most winter days, let alone getting groceries or walking to work. So that means that whoever moves into the apartments will be dependent on having at least one vehicle. That does not seem to be very good for those who are in need of affordable housing. Especially as the existing bus service is in danger of being phased out. If the goal is to provide affordable housing, making people rely on vehicles is not a good decision. On a personal note, this will cause my property value to plummet. I've thought long and hard about whether that clouded my judgement which is why I haven't responded earlier. Yes, it is frustrating for us. We moved here and bought our home within city limits despite warnings from friends that our taxes would be sky-high (which is true!) as we thought we were making a sound financial investment (which may be less true!). However, as personally devastating as it is for us, I can see a much bigger picture. This area has trees and wildlife which will be decimated. The traffic is already awful at rush hour and the public transit situation is terrible. When you look at how disruptive it is to redevelop this area when there are already vacant parcels of land just sitting and waiting it's very frustrating. If every last plot of land were already developed here and this was the only option then I would be okay with taking that financial hit for the greater good. I would be more than okay with it because it would mean our city was making the best use of resources. However, there are better options that already exist. There are options which are better for the new tenants, better for the existing neighbourhoods - heck most options would make the neighbourhoods even better as the already cleared vacant land would be put to good use! Thank you for reading. I do hope you will look at all aspects of this new development as you make your decisions. Crystal Smith Bon Accord Drive iUIV From: Harass To: OneStoo Subject: Redone 1429 Lochlomond rd Date: January 14, 2022 11:28:01 AM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Sent from my Galaxy Tab® E Hello, I am writing to voice again, my opposition to rezoning 1429 Lochlomond rd. We as a residential community do not want apartment buildings of any size, height, shape built in our neighbourhood. Only housing allowed, would be single family homes. In my previous letter I outlined several concerns including increased traffic flow, noise, rodents from dumpsters, environmental concerns from runoff at Blackall lake, out of province building owners, absent landlords. PAC, please REJECT this rezoning! Jim & Lynn Grass 27 Ganong rd Saint John 506-647-8385 M911A From: Tom Smith To: One to Subject: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 14, 2022 12:01:21 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Good Morning, I am writing once again to voice my concern regarding the rezoning and future development at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. I should note that after having attended the earlier PAC meeting and reviewing the new proposal all of my previous concerns outlined in the attached email still stand. Furthermore, after having listened to the developers during the PAC meeting, I am even more convinced that this is not the right fit for our neighborhood as these are not the right neighbors and partners we want. In addition to the points below, I wanted to highlight a few additional concerns on this project related to the lack of trust I have in the developers and the erosion of faith in the value of zoning due to the precedents being set by the city. Regarding the lack of trust I have with the developers, it was very clear during the PAC meeting that they are significantly more interested in their bottom line than being contributing members of our community. The first suspicion arose when they described their hunt for properties in the area and lamented about how expensive it would have been for them to run utilities to another property down Loch Lomond, however they found this gem at 1429 Loch Lomond which would increase their profitability as they could use all the infrastructure that was installed based on the existing zoning. Later, in describing the impact they would have on traffic they blatantly stated that this was a city issue, and not theirs. In listening to them, it was clear that they were only interested in what mattered to their investments and that they don't care at all about the impacts they will have on our neighborhood. Another point I found while reviewing their latest plan is that they appear to be including well under the required number of bicycle parking spaces called out in our bylaws (I should note that this is not just a minor issue for me as I am a huge proponent of walkability and biking infrastructure) , and if they are able to turn a blind eye to this even while trying to sell this project to us, what other bylaws are they skirting now or will skirt after their plan has been approved. The final point I want to make is on the erosion of faith in the value of zoning in our city. During the previous PAC meeting a comment was made that because the massive development was allowed in Milledgeville, then this one should be as well as there was no real difference in the two projects. I have a major issue with this concept. Just because a project was approved in the past, this has no bearing on future projects. If this project is allowed to move forward simply because something similar was approved in Milledgeville, then where does this stop? Why bother zoning anything anymore? I trust that the committee will make the right decision on this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Thomas Smith 156 Bon Accord Dr Saint John, NB E2J 4K5 On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 8:32 AM Tom Smith <tsmith.nokia@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mark Reade, I am writing to express my concern regarding the possible rezoning and redevelopment of the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John. The artist's rendering with two city buses passing the property is misleading. The city bus service in this area is not sufficient to support a housing development such as what is proposed. If you refer to the recent Stantec report, there are probable plans to dispense with the 33 Champlain Express bus, and leave the Airport Express as an on -call option only. This leaves no steady bus service in the area in the future. I tried unsuccessfully for almost 2 years to have the crosswalk at Loch Lomond and Bon Accord changed to a flashing light crosswalk. I personally was involved in an accident at that crosswalk while I was crossing as a pedestrian. A car was struck from behind as it stopped for me to cross. The accident was serious, there was extensive damage to one of the vehicles. I can no longer bear to cross at that crosswalk and it affected my life greatly as I needed to change bus stops and add a lot more time to my commute at that time. I was told that the traffic flow was sufficient for a flashing light, but that it was not in the City budget. If you add even more residents to this area, the danger goes up exponentially. Traffic is already heavy in this area and the traffic from construction and then from the additional vehicles from the residents will make it near impossible for residents on Bon Accord Drive to enter or exit. The real solution would be yet another traffic light. If the city could not afford a flashing light for a crosswalk, I'm certain it will not step forward to improve the intersection. This will add a great deal of frustration for residents of Bon Accord Drive, and could likely result in more accidents at that intersection. Please take these concerns into consideration as you make your decisions. There are vacant properties nearby (Heatherway and Mountain View Drive for example) that are better located and near recently -developed infrastructure that is better suited for this new high density housing. This new development should be in an area that has better walkability and less impact on nearby residents and traffic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Crystal and Thomas Smith 156 Bon Accord Dr Saint John, NB E2J 4K5 i;1V From: Stanislav Klenin To: OneStoo Cc: Common Clerk Subject: Updated Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) Date: January 14, 2022 1:53:26 PM [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** Dear City Clerk, As a property owner in the neighborhood, I am writing to express my objections to the updated rezoning application at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I am aware that the developers who requested this rezoning have changed their proposal twice (first after open house meeting and then after Planning Advisory Committee meeting), and I appreciate them listening to feedback. However, the changes in their proposal are only superficial. The proposal is still for construction of several apartment buildings in an area originally designated Two -Unit Dwelling. My concerns, therefore, remain mostly unchanged: - Adverse effects on the environment. The area in question is a green space with parts of it covered with woods. This space will likely be damaged, and the woods may be lost when development continues further. - Blocking lake drainage. There is a stream running out of Blackall Lake. A large construction project like this is likely to overlook it and cause flooding. - Increased traffic. Even with reduced number of apartments in the new proposal, we can expect the number of cars in the area to at least double once all new tenants move in. This would be way too much for this area, and can affect adjacent neighborhoods along Loch Lomond Road. - Inconsistent city planning. There are areas intended for multi -unit apartment buildings, while this area is not. It is surrounded with other R2 parcels too, so an apartment block in the middle of two -unit residential area would stick out like a sore thumb. If the applicants intended to develop this land further as it is now, with single family houses and two -unit dwellings, I would definitely support this initiative. Our neighborhood needs to grow organically, keeping its distinct character (wherein lies its charm). But turning it into apartment blocks would pretty much ruin it. Best regards, Stanislav Klenin 24 Old Lake Trail, Saint John NB Stanislay. klening@ gmail.com Ft Ift�� Nay SUPPORT PETITION #6W TO: Saint John City Council-rLT*t_ (dF IN SUPPORT OF: Stopping the re -zoning at 1429 Loch Lomond Road and t0q the development of 8, 17 unit apartment buildings, 8 parking lots, 8+ garbage dumpsters being built in our back yards with 4-8 years of nonstop construction. SUMMARY: More traffic in this highly sought after neighborhood, some will lose their privacy, some will lose their view of the city, and there will be 136 more families in 4.5 acres. The residential character of this beautiful neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences will be utterly destroyed.nl4ZT- OfWJ6,5C-- fteW 146W 47- 016?W ffiwt' biD jai The Undersigned show support for the opposition of Re -Zoning — September 23, 2021 ttolllbi5 PRINT NANEF f SiGN!Arof�!L e 4ej/� 101�s n I, phooe Or 8 d dress +-at 0-- ! WaI I Cowl I. I ;'- takt_ P-1 Ltd t oto 12_,�C-/-- 6 -V-7,-�_ CORNY1 N AMA - i aGfv1TURL gA � P� .�ri�L4n T. � CCU I7ACT- Miro -mat hon e c r address z- 3 t9 Z52 -37, ass / - /f P�p c h a rr1 c� e e� h 1;—eJI, 211 zl- L4-ICE Fi b , ccru�T )tom — -- � di Co 7- %Gj 3474Ll 4 C PPP NI- NAI�AE— :3- 1GNliruA6; 0 N I —A C-r SID(0——zc I�K V�Ji i6S�-� r' 6 ,% { eel �0/- �M i b1c',KA So 6 - I 5,0 (o q&-i 0 fs� �� � LAG- r-1 L�� C�tc-►�2 1 0-7 r)"t- -- C-,�na�� s f r I _ ... 7G r — i .+..tsi�q/ J�✓ ILA ■ j 165 0 M urr-)o Ell11 CN re.om r2 r?ONtrIC9.- sew 93, � l f p �.dne nr aLi dIli "o -e li It 01,1b L&K& TiPri L f 41 IN A3 �i t 7-� u } d� KIryS C. 1 DC'fkc�l' c N C v� - T- +F v r Ho' 5Ae� . c z AL ITT I Aw iy XF - re.) q r Darla - f do flouc(n ' '1,:}[. Co fv) 169 0 SUPPORT PETITION FROM REZONING — Sept. 27, 2021 � /r l� FI - l ' PRINT NAME SIGNITURE CONTACT INFO(Email) NFO Email or or hone if you don't a 0,, fzz 0e, 04 ac e-v rrA 23c, 33 1 Af S .- yr 1 gk)eq Ly.J"Ztl�-ct(l (li' V,l s 1 e ! G JkA !�D/j R-Cewl b : L ` +I 1Q,rS ID E ►�" tZ r' vi &Jdl -7 Kob-e-,4 Fa J SUPPORT PETITION FRO10 civic 14bblec-ss-- 1666b SIGNITURE v ��• �l`t'�" i !'t f ��",, � 1A��r ���9T`�y�,►C.� ` d.l�J�l��jlt[q . �(i/i� 4/ { � ■4�' >4a V�� t;��� i►Clf�i� c kcl a - % 1 [ c 1. _ '�`�- 31 0to/ La kxWI� N F-VC4x� t i� mvA eig w1mad. Cps., r %9 &'1 ko. _ n TGu FPA Pf&p C4-7ri. r P- lot, ss Nod, O-Q mqtt Arl --br- k/a C6 --"t4'Le ac,.jY r- I Pla A&j Wa v A� k s -3 9-q acto rc/ r- rt 6 3 /Vtv-ww -Crl 0 I f -Lt Wi -fob 6u J -oil AID V �Lq -;3LC2;L- / X-q VU4� km 169 I •,I o.n��w,. F,i.1. R,,,"I" � Ir,l. i1+� „'16E.,'.CINiI-P,I ;, .., E�.�rR�. 1. ... I � �� � - d I. ll; �, • � i I...I"1.,�r�'i'1 Ph'� � e!' !11 �� 1,. .� ""' O rL ice/ it 'r ca- �lt &C4 i; , —1 -L-4 6al deevv-d ids ff aamoyl� LL12.61 OZ-5 s n lki 67 �kUWI_A 17_bpC/t/& `� 1�� From: Jeff Freeze To: OneStoo Subject: Proposed rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond road Date: January 14, 2022 4:04:11 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** To Whom it may concern As a resident of Lakefield Court, we are very concerned with the prospect of apartment complexes build in our backyard. 20 years ago we bought the land and built our family home. We raised our family here and decided that it was time to downsize but did not want to leave this neighborhood, so we bought across the street. This speaks volumes to how wonderful this neighborhood is. Then this developer came along and wants to build apartments literally in our backyard. This will change the dynamic of this neighbourhood. When we initially bought our land and then when we bought our house, it was our understanding that the land was zoned residential. Never did we dream that we would have apartment buildings back there. People for the most part do not look after an apartment like they would their own home. Another concern would be the amount of traffic that would be added to the already busy Loch Lomond road. My husband and I both still work and it is crazy now trying to get out on to Loch Lomond, especially early in the morning, I can't imagine the volume of traffic that this complex would add to the already busy traffic situation. Please consider the people who have been paying taxes to the city for years for their dream homes, retirement homes or whatever the case may be when making your decision on this rezoning. Respectfully submitted Joanne and Jeff Freeze 12 Lakefield Court iU111.7 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Date: November 12, 2021 8:48:18 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Brenda McKinnon <opalcorolla@gmail.com> Sent: November 11, 2021 9:37 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Sent from Mail for Windows I am writing regarding the letter I received November 2, 2021 regarding rezoning, subdivision, and variance application for 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900). My concern is the increase in the amount of traffic that Loch Lomond Rd will see. As it is now, during peak times (weekday mornings between 7:30 and 8:30) the traffic is constant which makes it very difficult to get off my street (Bon Accord) and head West. It's even more difficult for those who live on the South side of Loch Lomond as the have to cut across traffic to head West into town. The same issue occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 going East. Another issue is the bus stop on the South side of Loch Lomond at the foot of Bon Accord. There isn't a sidewalk on that side of the road so walking back to the cross walk with the flashing yellow lights is difficult. The cross walk at the stop is ignored by most drivers making it trying to cross Loch Lomond to get to the sidewalk at the foot of Bon Accord. If additional traffic is added then I would like to see a flashing yellow light system like the one by the Irving station just past the Mitsubishi dealership and the one by Tim Hortons on Loch Lomond. I'm not sure how the additional traffic iiv*i] during peak hours can be resolved. Kind regards, Brenda McKinnon 56 Bon Accord Dr 1,23 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin Cc: Burgess, Aimee; OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning Application 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Date: November 8, 2021 8:39:34 AM Response for PAC Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor — City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula. hawkins @ saintj ohn. ca -----Original Message ----- From: Gwenn Bartlett <gwennsie@hotmail.com> Sent: November 6, 2021 9:04 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning Application 1429 Loch Lomond Rd [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** We are against the rezoning from R2 to RM & RL. This would create over 100 apartments causing traffic congestion, potential flooding, environmental, noise, dust, construction debris & safety concerns. Construction couldgo on for years. We have lived on Bon Accord Drive since 1993 and have paid approximately $100,000 in property taxes. We enjoy the peace and quiet & beauty of the area with the lake & trees, so much so that we decided to build at 223 Bon Accord Drive in 2008. We pay the property taxes in the city because of the almost country style living with the amenities of the city. This area should remain residential (R2). This development is also outside the P1anSJ strategic growth area which the city put in place in 2011. We do not want to consider moving outside the city to keep our peaceful & tranquil way of life. Chris & Gwenn Bartlett 223 Bon Accord Drive Sent from my iPhone OW From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: November 12, 2021 8:51:15 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Tom Smith <tsmith.nokia@gmail.com> Sent: November 12, 2021 8:32 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Dear Mark Reade, I am writing to express my concern regarding the possible rezoning and redevelopment of the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John. The artist's rendering with two city buses passing the property is misleading. The city bus service in this area is not sufficient to support a housing development such as what is proposed. If you refer to the recent Stantec report, there are probable plans to dispense with the 33 Champlain Express bus, and leave the Airport Express as an on -call option only. This leaves no steady bus service in the area in the future. I tried unsuccessfully for almost 2 years to have the crosswalk at Loch Lomond and Bon Accord changed to a flashing light crosswalk. I personally was involved in an accident at that crosswalk while I was crossing as a pedestrian. A car was struck from behind as it stopped for me to cross. The accident was serious, there was extensive damage to one of the vehicles. I can no longer bear to cross at that crosswalk and it affected my life greatly as I needed to change bus stops and add a lot more time to my commute at that time. I was told that the traffic flow was sufficient for a flashing light, but that it was not in the City budget. If you add even more residents to this area, the W0 danger goes up exponentially. Traffic is already heavy in this area and the traffic from construction and then from the additional vehicles from the residents will make it near impossible for residents on Bon Accord Drive to enter or exit. The real solution would be yet another traffic light. If the city could not afford a flashing light for a crosswalk, I'm certain it will not step forward to improve the intersection. This will add a great deal of frustration for residents of Bon Accord Drive, and could likely result in more accidents at that intersection. Please take these concerns into consideration as you make your decisions. There are vacant properties nearby (Heatherway and Mountain View Drive for example) that are better located and near recently -developed infrastructure that is better suited for this new high density housing. This new development should be in an area that has better walkability and less impact on nearby residents and traffic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Crystal and Thomas Smith 156 Bon Accord Dr Saint John, NB E2J41<5 1,29 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: November 15, 2021 11:18:34 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Smith Family <tcsmithhome@gmail.com> Sent: November 15, 2021 11:01 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Good Morning Mr. Reade, Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my views on the proposed redevelopment of the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I've had the opportunity to review the proposal for the development. First, I would like to say that I am very much in favour of affordable housing in Saint John. It is sorely needed. Secondly, I understand in the Real Estate world, nothing is certain. My view on this though is that it seems so unnecessary to tear down forests, destroy habitats and backyards, add to the traffic, noise and air pollution of the neighbourhood. Plunging our neighbourhood into chaos and congestion seems so counter -productive. There are properties in Saint John that are already vacant and wide-open, just sitting and waiting for this kind of redevelopment. Even if I were not personally invested in the neighbouhood, I would be able to see that it doesn't appear to make sense to anybody except the investors who are looking to make a quick buck on out -of -province cheap land. Yes, the apartments are needed - but wouldn't they be better suited in an area that is walkable and near better public transit? We pay almost $4,000 a year in property tax and cannot get sidewalks that are clear enough to make it to the bus stop most winter days, let alone getting groceries or walking to work. So that means that whoever moves into ikpll the apartments will be dependent on having at least one vehicle. That does not seem to be very good for those who are in need of affordable housing. Especially as the existing bus service is in danger of being phased out. If the goal is to provide affordable housing, making people rely on vehicles is not a good decision. On a personal note, this will cause my property value to plummet. I've thought long and hard about whether that clouded myjudgement which is why I haven't responded earlier. Yes, it is frustrating for us. We moved here and bought our home within city limits despite warnings from friends that our taxes would be sky-high (which is true!) as we thought we were making a sound financial investment (which may be less true!). However, as personally devastating as it is for us, I can see a much bigger picture. This area has trees and wildlife which will be decimated. The traffic is already awful at rush hour and the public transit situation is terrible. When you look at how disruptive it is to redevelop this area when there are already vacant parcels of land just sitting and waiting it's very frustrating. If every last plot of land were already developed here and this was the only option then I would be okay with taking that financial hit for the greater good. I would be more than okay with it because it would mean our city was making the best use of resources. However, there are better options that already exist. There are options which are better for the new tenants, better for the existing neighbourhoods - heck most options would make the neighbourhoods even better as the already cleared vacant land would be put to good use! Thank you for reading. I do hope you will look at all aspects of this new development as you make your decisions. Crystal Smith Bon Accord Drive iIVV From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Apllication Date: November 15, 2021 3:56:13 PM Attachments: image001.g_na PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Christina <cokeeffe@nb.sympatico.ca> Sent: November 15, 2021 3:56 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Cc: Stewart, Greg <greg.stewart@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Apllication [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To Whom It May Concern, I am against the proposal being put forth for rezoning of the area located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I bought my parcel of land in 2021 and built my house in this "residential" area. At the time, I was shown a further development plan on the property next door (1429 Loch Lomond Road). I went ahead with my purchase and construction with these zoning regulations in place. Not only are you looking at rezoning this area, to make it happen you also have to approve numerous variances to make it work. Included also "the subdivision by-law requires 10%of the proposed subdivision to be vested to the City as Land for Public Purposes." This plan is so tight for space along with the variances applied for, there isn't sufficient land for Public Purposes, therefore, the staff is recommending for money —in- lieu of. The report suggests that there are similar buildings within close vicinity , however where do you see 10 buildings in this size of land space? 11 MJ In June 2011 the Committee considered an application to subdivide the subject site to 76 serviced lots. Considering the staff recommendations to approve the proposal, the Committee recommended denial to Common Council. Common Council agreed with the Committee and denied the application. I am hopeful that this application receives the same result. This is a residential area and we as land owners ,within the surrounding area, bought or built with the current existing zoning in place. Will the city put our investments aside to accommodate a development within the heart of our neighborhood. I certainly hope not. Will the proposed land use be desirable and contribute positively to the neighborhood. I think not. The report mentions the developer has addressed buffering with a large setback on the eastern property line. While that may be so on most of that property line, I reside at the end of the culesac 20-22 Lakefield Cou rt. In my case, a parking lot is butting up to my property line. In summary, my backyard will contain a large parking lot and a 3 story building. Far from the my expectations of what "residential" home would be beside me. Also note, no such buffering on Bon Accord side. Upon reviewing page 238 of your report, (presentation by resident Trudy Hanley) it is a hard for me to find the words to describe the disappointment if this development is approved. The size and statue of this design within this residential neighborhood is overwhelming. While I can repeat many issues addressed from other land owners in this area I have summarized "some" of the objections in my response. My final comment. "I Very Strongly Oppose This Application" Christina O'Keeffe 20-22 Lakefield Court 506-693-0790 From: Reade, Mark To: Burgess, Aimee Cc: Kirchner, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Re: 1429 Loch Lomond Road - Opposed to Plan - Want to Participate Date: November 15, 2021 1:15:35 PM Aimee, can you circulate this to PAC? I don't recall seeing it through the onestop Thanks Mark From: David Fischer <froad 101@gmail.com> Sent: November 12, 2021 1:35 PM To: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Re to Participate 1429 Loch Lomond Road - Opposed to Plan - Want [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintJohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello Mark: I am OPPOSED to this development- never received notification (letter) and my property is within the 100M distance (I believe it to be in the high 90M range based on a to scale map on Google) I wish to participate in BOTH the PAC and Common Council meetings to voice my concerns. Please advise as to how I can do this (in person or virtual ?) Thanks David Fischer 31 Ganong Road Saint John NB E2J 4L8 FhK From: Reade, Mark To: Burgess, Aimee; Kirchner, Jennifer Subject: FW: Additional Concerns About proposal for 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: November 15, 2021 1:18:26 PM Attachments: Other Info in Package (PAC) - Nov 16 2021.docx 1429 Lochlmond IBFO 2.docx Aimee, another letter that I don't recall seeing in the ones forwarded from onestop. Can you forward to PAC if you haven't already? Thanks Mark From: David Fischer <froad101@gmail.com> Sent: November 14, 2021 11:14 PM To: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Additional Concerns About proposal for 1429 Loch Lomond Road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hi Mark: I have attached a couple more documents with concerns about the proposed development of 1429 Loch Lomond Road. 1) A SUMMARY of the "engagement" for all the agenda items for this PAC Meeting a. It clearly shows the EXCLUSION of summary (for 1429 Loch Lomond Road) about letters/emails submitted. i. There are NO notations about the letters/emails or the petitions submitted in opposition to the development 2) An overview of the "liveability" of the area from the Real Estate Board Although a "traffic study" was conducted, it appears to lack context. I'm on Ganong road... in the Ganong/Folkins subdivisions. it*7 �] Traffic flow from the single/duplex homes in the area with ABOUT 60 homes has a traffic flow that is larger than the "anticipated" traffic flow from 105 UNITS. Somehow ... the math does not add up. The Proposed development (1/3 of the land "package" ) even using "your numbers" shows 605 vehicles/traffic per day. We both know the remaining 2/3rds will probably be developed in the same manner... so we are now approaching 2000 vehicle in/out per day IF the entire development moves ahead. NOT a reasonable number for a "R1/R2" area for 1 single access egress point. Original approvals over the years have ALWAYS been in the R1 or R2 context and that was the original concept for Plan SJ. I know there are 2 apartment buildings adjacent and BOTH are small 6 unit buildings that have been there for ABOUT 25 years. People who bought or built in the area were always told that the area would remain "residential" meaning single/duplex homes. Many of us have invested a lot of time & dollars because of this "plan" and by adding medium/HIGH density "multi-family/apartments" as we well know will diminish property values and increase crime rates (statistically within 1000 meters) Just so you ae aware, My property is within the 100M distance (according to maps from google & the city drawn to scale) and I did NOT receive notification. I want to participate in BOTH the PAC & Common Council meetings on this matter. Please advise How I can do this. Thank you David Fischer 31 Ganong Road Saint John NB MIR] Other Info in Package (PAC) Comparing summaries of all the requests — plus traffic projection for 1429 Loch Lomond on the last page * * Note — ALL Summaries are not created equal. ALL except 1429 Loch Lomond Road make MENTION//Summarize any letters/emails in regards to the proposal. 1429 had MANY letters, petitions and such... NOT mentioned in the high level summary in any way. Location: 325 Main Street K-14 Engagement Letters sent to all property owners within 100 metres of the subject property on November 3, 2021 As of November 12, 2021, no letters have been received from the public, 6 f6!4v—)J— Engagement Letters sent to all property owners within 100 metres of the subject property on November 2, 2021 As of November 12, 2021, one email has been received from the public. Public Notice was posted on the City's website on November 4, 2021 Engagement • Proponent has discussed proposal with residents of 451 II►'lillidge Ave. Not able to successfully contact 471 Millidge Ave. • Letters sent to all property owners within 100 metres of the subject property on November 3, 2021 As of November 12, 2021, no letters have been received from the public. • Public Notice was posted on the City's website on November 4, 2021. Engagement Letters sent to all property owners within 100 metres of the subject property on November 3, 2021 0 letters was received from the public. Public Notice was placed on the City's website on November 4, 2021. Location: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Notes on "traffic" from the report Servicing and Traffic A preliminary review of servicing and infrastructure modelling has been completed by Infrastructure Development and Saint John Water and has not yielded any concerns with respect to water or sewer capacity. A consultant engaged by the applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Statementl for the proposed development. Key findings of the Traffic Impact Statement are summarized below: • It is expected that the proposed development will generate 40 vehicle trips during the AM Peak hour (10 entering/30 exiting), 48 vehicle trips during the PM Peak hour (29 entering/19 exiting), and a total of 608 trips daily. Ganong Road — which services single family homes (and 4 duplexes) , appears to have as this sort of traffic... the "Apartment Proposal" with 105 units will probably have more vehicles (resident vehicles) than the 105 — add in delivery/service vehicles and visitors... the 608 trips per day seems like a LOW estimate. This 605 number is only for "phase 1" — and it's for 1/3 of the total property — the remaining 2/3rds (which will probably be developed in a similar manner) would bring vehicles in/out just based on their current "projection" to closer to 2000 vehicles per day... it lei 1429 Loch Lomond Info From Real-estate Board Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 WALKABILITY 1.8 Poor For the majority of locations here, other transportation modes are needed to reach day-to-day needs. Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 Lifestyle of Neighbourhood (scale rated 1-10 —1 being LOW/POOR) Daycare 10 Quiet 9 Car Friendly 8 High Schools 5 Transit Friendly 4 Elementary Schools 4 Shopping 4 Pedestrian friendly 3 Restaurants 3 Parks 2 Vibrancy 1 Nightlife 1 Grocery 0 Walkability 1.8 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Concerns about Proposed Re -zoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road - Saint John - AGAINST the Proposal Date: November 12, 2021 8:48:39 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: David Fischer <froad101@gmail.com> Sent: November 11, 2021 10:22 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Cc: City of Saint John Mayor's Office <mayor@saintjohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John <john.mackenzie@saintjohn.ca>; Lowe, Gerry <gerry.lowe@saintjohn.ca>; Harris, Brent <brent.harris@saintjohn.ca>; Norton, Greg <greg.norton@saintjohn.ca>; Hickey, David <david. hickey@saintjohn.ca>; Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan@saintjohn.ca>; Killen, Joanna <joanna.killen@saintjohn.ca>; Ogden, Barry <barry.ogden@saintjohn.ca>; Stewart, Greg <greg.stewart@saintjohn.ca>; Radwan, Paula <paula.radwan@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Concerns about Proposed Re -zoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road - Saint John - AGAINST the Proposal [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintJohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Concerns about Proposed Re -zoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road - Saint John Here is a PARTIAL list of reasons as to why am OPPOSED to the Re -Zoning Application: Apartment Complex Issues - Increased Crime o Something with 5 or more buildings raises crime rates within 1000 meters of the "project" (statistics widely available on the internet to support this FACT) - Decreased Area Property Values 0 Simply put, any properties within 1000 Meters of the development of this size/nature will decrease property values anywhere from 10 - 30% - Increased Pollution (Noise, air, Garbage and wild critters 0 Large garbage bins (typically ay apartment complexes) tend to draw the UNWANTED type of wild animals - typically RATS, MICE. Racoons etc. Environmental Issues 0 15 Acres of Asphalt & Concrete § Decreases natural runoff 0 MUST have environment impact study done - Increased traffic from mid -high density apartments to enter Loch Lomond Road Loch Lomond Road is high level traffic - especially at peak times - access & egress from Loch Lomond Road CAN and IS very difficult on a good day without adding 100's more cars from one access point - Large Construction project - 0 Large numbers of equipment & construction noise - will continue for years - Only developing 1/3 (approx.) of the land - I don't think this is being totally honest - the remaining 2/3rds will follow suit We live in a well -cared for and relatively quiet and stable area of the city. Bring this LARGE/Oversized High Density apartments to the area is NOT acceptable. Many of us have invested in numerous home improvements because of this "stable" area - the overall Plan SJ addresses many things, including STABLE areas and suggests what future development could/should be. This planned property development is well outside of the PLAN SJ and better locations for this development are available and better suited to transportation and walkability and that is where they should go. Thanks for your time FVThl David Fischer Ganong Road 193 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Objection to Loch Lomond Apartment Complexes Date: November 12, 2021 8:46:51 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Elizabeth Johnson <lizjohnson86@hotmail.com> Sent: November 10, 2021 5:08 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Objection to Loch Lomond Apartment Complexes [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to suamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To whom it may concern, I am emailing to voice my concerns over the proposal of the apartment complexes on Loch Lomond. I currently live on MacNaughton Drive and purchased my home 6 years ago because it was in a friendly detached housing neighbourhood. I intended to buy a home in a quiet area with less traffic. I did not want to buy in a location filled with Apartment buildings because of the increased Traffic and people/noise it would create. I also did not want to live in an area that was going to be under construction for years. I highly oppose of this proposal of apartment buildings and stand by my decision. This is not something I want in my area and will not want to live through the process of these being estabilished. Please kindly take my thoughts and concerns into consideration and do not proceed with approval. Elizabeth Johnson iV11 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning PID00312900 Date: November 12, 2021 8:50:45 AM Attachments: rezoning letter.docx PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: IiXm._xD <eliliam2010@gmail.com> Sent: November 12, 2021 7:48 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning PID00312900 [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Please find attached my letter with my comments opposing this rezoning. Regards Elisha Weaver iVR1 Dear Planning Advisory Committee, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application for 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900). My home is located on the bottom portion of Bon Accord drive and my property backs onto the land proposed for rezoning. Although I am not against residential home development, I am against the proposed medium density, multi unit development in my backyard. I purchased my property due to the wooded area behind it and the privacy that it provided. I currently can sit on my back deck and enjoy a quiet forested landscape while watching the deer, cardinals, and bald eagle population thrive. This proposed development will destroy this habitat as well as the peacefulness of this neighborhood. Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing impact to local wildlife habitat and should be investigated by the appropriate agency prior to approving rezoning. Another major concern is that the property value of our homes will definitely be affected by this development. Property values are likely to go down in the area if more multi -family apartments are built. These developments will also cause more noise from the potential additional 153 vehicles and residents, not to mention the daily noise from the 4+ years of construction. Also of concern is the amount of dumpsters that is going to be needed to house all of the garbage from the proposed amount of buildings. The potential odor from these dumpsters and the attraction of unwanted rodents such as rats and raccoons could very well cause an infestation that could spread into the neighboring areas. Lastly, the local neighborhood traffic will surge during morning and evening rush hours, causing traffic issues during critical times for the existing neighborhoods. Heavy traffic is already common during peak times on Loch Lomond road. This will only make matters worse for residents already having difficulty trying to commute back and forth from work. In closing, I feel I will no longer have the peace and tranquility I currently cherish should this rezoning be approved and this development move forward. The thought of losing this will impact my mental health and wellbeing. I do not see where this developer has even tried to propose adding a green buffer zone on each side of the development to at least try to help alleviate the noise and to provide more privacy. I cannot imagine any of my neighbors being in favor of trading this green space for a concrete jungle. From recent meetings and discussions with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend a meeting or write letters and emails. I strongly urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning. Best regards, Elisha Weaver 98 Bon Accord Dr log From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) stop rezoning Date: November 10, 2021 8:47:45 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: frank kyle <FKYLE2012@hotmail.com> Sent: November 9, 2021 7:09 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) stop rezoning [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to pamsample@saintJohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Dear Mr. Mark Reade, We are writing this letter to let you know my wife and I are TOTALLY AGAINST REZONING from residential to apartment buildings on 1429 Loch Lomond Road. It doesn't matter the size of the buildings; we want it stopped. We built our home here because it was a beautiful stable residential area with no rental of apartments. Everyone here is a homeowner who takes care of their property. This is a restrictive covenant subdivision. In your Plan SJ Municipal Plan, see Policy LU-88. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood and is compatible with surrounding land uses. We don't want to be looking out our living room window and see all buildings in front of us, dumpsters, garbage flying around, rodents in the area, will there be rats? The value of our homes will diminish. There will be a lot more people in our neighborhood who are not homeowners. Will crime increase? Please stop the bulldozing of this land which will destroy all the shrubby around for all the multiple red Cardinals that live in the area we see every day. If houses are built it gives the birds a chance to relocate. Are these birds not protected in Canada? iV. -11 Should I mention the highly busy traffic on Loch Lomond Road. Most families have 2 vehicles, so if there are 105 units with all their cars trying to get out into the already extremely busy Loch Lomond Road. Thank you for your consideration to NOT REZONE the property to medium density buildings from individual residential dwellings. Sincerely, Frank and Shirley Kyle 7 Lakefield Court IiiVIt] From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application: 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Date: November 12, 2021 2:07:05 PM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Bartlett -Donaldson, J. (ASD-S) <Jacqueline.Bartlett-Donaldson@nbed. nb.ca> Sent: November 12, 2021 1:42 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application: 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Dear Mark Reade & The Planning Advisory Committee, Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Thank you for your letter explaining the above -mentioned application. We are residents of Bon Accord Dr. and are writing to express our opposition to this rezoning application for the construction of a multiple unit residential development. We are opposed to this development due, in part, to the fact that the surrounding neighbourhoods are considered stable residential areas. According to the Saint John Municipal Plan, stable residential lands are generally built -out and are not anticipated to receive major change over the planning period. Stable residential lands do have the potential to accommodate additional development, but at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context. As this particular building plan does not meet those criteria, this rezoning application is now before you. The Municipal Plan states that rezoning would be permitted where the application could indicate that the proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood. With respect to this application, we would argue that this is not the case. Ten buildings squeezed onto a 4.5-acre space with parking lots, dumpsters and very little buffer space between the lots and the existing owner -occupied residential homes iVIN will not enhance the character of the existing neighbourhood. In fact, it may result in many homeowners leaving these neighbourhoods, potentially going outside the city to get back the quality of life that we currently have now. The potential landowner with this development is from out of province and will not live here. Please take into consideration local residents who have lived within city limits and paid city property taxes for many years. Our quality of life will be severely impacted if this development is approved. For many years, noise pollution will be a daily occurrence, as the land is cleared, and buildings put up. Air quality will be affected with exhaust fumes from heavy machinery. Traffic will be impacted negatively, and safety concerns will arise. With the density of this proposed development, there will be many more vehicles exiting onto Loch Lomond Rd during high traffic times, creating more congestion and the potential for serious accidents to occur. We understand the need for additional housing in the city; however, this particular proposal is not conducive to this particular area. Multi -unit apartment buildings within owner - occupied, single family residential neighbourhoods are not the solution. We urge you to reject this rezoning/variance application. Please take the existing residents' quality of life and the integrity of this well -established neighbourhood into consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Jacqueline Bartlett -Donaldson & Scott Donaldson iRN From: OneStop To: Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) Date: November 12, 2021 8:49:54 AM Attachments: scan 20211110221517.pdf Thought this should be sent to you Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Sent: November 12, 2021 5:36 AM To: Planning Admin <planningadmin@saintjohn.ca>; OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) From: Janice Goodine <ianicegoodineC@gmail.com.> Sent: November 10, 2021 6:12 PM To: Reade, Mark <mark.readena saintiohn.ca>; Common Clerk <commonclerkna saintiohn.ca> Subject: Re: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Please see attached updated petition sheet now showing 85 names of people AGAINST THE REZONING of 1429 Loch Lomond Road from Stable Residential houses to apartment buildings. On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:04 PM Janice Goodine <ianicegoodineC@gmail.com.> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Janice Goodine <ianicegoodinePRmail.com> iR1., Date: Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:55 PM Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) To: <mark.readena saintiohn.ca> Preview attachment scan_ 20211110134427.pdf e®, scan_ 20211110134427.pdf 3.6 M B Dear Mr. Mark Reade, My husband Barry and I live at 16 Lakefield Court. We moved here in 2015 from a beautiful property in New Maryland which was a stable residential area of restrictive covenants to our home here in Saint John, East, not Rothesay, not Quispamsis but Saint John. This is also a beautiful stable residential area where all the home owners look after their property because this is a restrictive covenant subdivision and they take pride in their property. This is an area of owner occupied houses. Rezoning_ f�partment buildings will not contribute positively to our neighbourhood and are not compatible with surrounding land uses as stated in your "Plan SJ Municipal Plan", Schedule B. See page 43 - Stable Areas. Saint John Municipal Plan: See page 52, see Policy LU-4, c,e and f. c. Enhances the community and the quality of life offered to residents of the City; e. Does not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and neighbourhoods; f. 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: See page 86, 3.5.4 Stable Residential, These lands include a number of existing neighbourhoods in the City which are generally built -out and are not anticipated to receive major change over the planning period. These neighbourhoods are within the Primary Development Area, are generally on municipal services, and have the potential to accommodate additional development, at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context. See page 87, Policy LU-87, Intend that the areas designated Stable Residential will evolve over time from a land use and built -form perspective but that new and redeveloped land uses are to reinforce the predominant community character and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. Policy LU-88, Ensure that significant new development and redevelopment in areas designated stable residential shall generally only be permitted through a rezoning process where compliance is demonstrated with the following requirements: a. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood; b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses; d. Site design features that address such matters as safe access, buffering and landscaping, site grading and stormwater management are incorporated; e. A high quality exterior building design is provided that is consistent with the Urban Design Principles in the Municipal Plan; f. The proposal is on a property identified as a Corridor on the City Structure map (Schedule A) or does not detract from the City's intention to direct the majority of new residential development to the Primary Centres, Local Centres, and Intensification Areas. See Page 88, 5.1 Neighbourhoods and Housing Goals 6: Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. Think about this, 10 buildings, 10 dumpsters and parking lots on a 4.5 acre area, 105 residences with the possibility of 2 vehicles each all trying to exit out one drive, during high traffic times would create havoc and impact traffic negatively_ Emergency Safety, Would this be a safety issue for emergency vehicles that would need to enter into the property? P141 This would negatively affect our air quality with exhaust fumes going into our air exchange and through our house as these buildings will be right beside us. We would not be able to open our windows in the mornings or at night. We bought this house for the big picture windows throughout. We would have to have all our window curtains closed on all our big picture windows in our living room and bedrooms for privacy. Our living room is in the backside of the house. Would you want this in your dream home you purchased? These potential landowners are from out of province and don't live here. The city council stopped a local builder that lives here in Saint John from building an owner occupied side by side duplex in the area. But, it seems the city is willing to consider stacked buildings with dumpsters that will accommodate all the 10 buildings on 4.5 acres. This is less than half an acre per building and parking lots. Where will all the garbage be stored? There will be garbage flying through the neighborhood and in our backyard from construction materials and garbage. There will be an increase of animals in the garbage. Will there be an abundance of rats in this area because of all the dumpsters? Would you want this in your backyard? Probably not. So please stop this rezoning for bull dozing for apartment buildings. We don't want 4 to 8 years of Noise Pollution, continuous construction in our quiet, beautiful neighborhood, from tractors, dump trucks, banging and then the emptying of the dumpsters in the night. We don't want people from the stacked buildings looking directly into our big bedroom and living room windows from their balconies. Would you? We moved here knowing that one day houses will be built behind us but not apartment buildings. There is land that is suitable across from the Mitsubishi Car Dealer on Loch Lomond Road. Clean up that mess! They could also buy the land across from the Irving refinery that is for sale and suitable with other apartment buildings already there. They claim it costs too much. Well, in my opinion, if anyone could afford to build 10 apartment buildings and all the amenities, they can afford to pay more for suitable land. Let the local builder build residential houses. Support our people here in Saint John, NB. At least the noise will be minimal from that and the reassurance of PU owner occupied residential houses that will be of high quality exterior and looked after. One more thing, the Environmental Impact on the Red Cardinals._ They nest here in this area and we see 5 to 6 birds multiple times a day. There are multiple berry bushes and shrubbery on this land that they feed off. In the winter they look for bird feeders. If the land is bulldozed what will happen to these birds? If houses are slowly built, it at least gives the birds a chance to relocate. I know the Cardinals are a protected bird in Canada under the Migratory Birds convention Act, 1994, are they not? We are totally against rezoning from residential to apartment buildings on 1429 Loch Lomond Road. It doesn't matter the size of the buildings. They are not owner occupied. I am also attaching a support petition sheet that has been signed by neighbours in the area that are against this development. This will utterly destroy our neighbourhood and quality of life as we now know it here in Saint John. These are our retirement homes. The names you see in the petition should have received a letter from you, as we did. They all live around this parcel of land. We also sent a letter to the Mayor and the Common Council of our thoughts and disapproval. I will copy you on this as well. This is our retirement home here in Saint John, not Rothesay, not Quispamsis but Saint John. My husband and I invite you to please come to our yard and have a look. We are always home. You can also call us at 506 696 8001. Would you want this in your backyard? Sincerely and Respectfully, Janice Goodine-Shannon and Barry Shannon 16 Lakefield Court Saint John PURR From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee; Reade. Mark Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) Date: November 10, 2021 2:01:15 PM Attachments: scan 20211110134427.pdf PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 oaula.hawkins&saintiohn.ca From: Janice Goodine <janicegoodine@gmail.com> Sent: November 10, 2021 1:49 PM To: marklreade@saintjohn.ca; OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Dear Mr. Mark Reade, My husband Barry and I live at 16 Lakefield Court. We moved here in 2015 from a beautiful property in New Maryland which was a stable residential area of restrictive covenants to our home here in Saint John, East, not Rothesay, not Quispamsis but Saint John. This is also a beautiful stable residential area where all the home owners look after their property because this is a restrictive covenant subdivision and they take pride in their property. This is an area of owner occupied houses. Rezoning for apartment buildings will not contribute positively to our neighbourhood and are not compatible with surrounding land uses as stated in your "Plan SJ Municipal Plan", Schedule B. See page 43 - Stable Areas. Saint John Municipal Plan: PT:ZI See page 52, see Policy LU-4, c,e and f. c. Enhances the community and the quality of life offered to residents of the City; e. Does not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and neighbourhoods; f. 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: See page 86, 3.5.4 Stable Residential, These lands include a number of existing neighbourhoods in the City which are generally built -out and are not anticipated to receive major change over the planning period. These neighbourhoods are within the Primary Development Area, are generally on municipal services, and have the potential to accommodate additional development, at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context. See page 87, Policy LU-87, Intend that the areas designated Stable Residential will evolve over time from a land use and built -form perspective but that new and redeveloped land uses are to reinforce the predominant community character and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. Policy LU-88, Ensure that significant new development and redevelopment in areas designated stable residential shall generally only be permitted through a rezoning process where compliance is demonstrated with the following requirements: a. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood; b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses; d. Site design features that address such matters as safe access, buffering and landscaping, site grading and stormwater management are incorporated; e. A high quality exterior building design is provided that is consistent with the Urban Design Principles in the Municipal Plan; f. The proposal is on a property identified as a Corridor on the City Structure map (Schedule A) or does not detract from the City's intention to direct the majority of new residential development to the Primary Centres, Local Centres, and Intensification Areas. See Page 88, 5.1 Neighbourhoods and Housing Goals 6: Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. Think about this, 10 buildings, 10 dumpsters and parking lots on a 4.5 acre area, 105 residences with the possibility of 2 vehicles each all trying to exit out one drive, during high traffic times would create havoc and impact traffic negatively_ Emergency Safety, Would this be a safety issue for emergency vehicles that would need to enter into the property? This would negatively affect our air quality with exhaust fumes going into our air exchange and through our house as these buildings will be right beside us. We would not be able to open our windows in the mornings or at night. We bought this house for the big picture windows throughout. We would have to have all our window curtains closed on all our big picture windows in our living room and bedrooms for privacy. Our living room is in the backside of the house. Would you want this in your dream home you purchased? These potential landowners are from out of province and don't live here. The city council stopped a local builder that lives here in Saint John from building an owner occupied side by side duplex in the area. But, it seems the city is willing to consider stacked buildings with dumpsters that will accommodate all the 10 buildings on 4.5 acres. This is less than half an acre per building and parking lots. Where will all the garbage be stored? There will be garbage flying through the neighborhood and in our backyard from construction materials and garbage. There will be an increase of animals in the garbage. Will there be an abundance of rats in this area because of all the dumpsters? Would you want this in your backyard? Probably not. So please stop this rezoning for bull dozing for apartment buildings. We don't want 4 to 8 years of Noise Pollution, continuous construction in our quiet, beautiful neighborhood, from tractors, dump trucks, banging and then the emptying of the dumpsters in the night. We don't want people from the stacked buildings looking directly into our big bedroom and living room windows from their balconies. Would you? We moved here knowing that one day houses will be built behind us but not apartment buildings. There is land that is suitable across from the Mitsubishi Car Dealer on Loch Lomond Road. Clean up that mess! They could also buy the land across from the Irving refinery that is for sale and suitable with other apartment buildings already there. They claim it costs too much. Well, in my opinion, if anyone could afford to build 10 apartment buildings and all the amenities, they can afford to pay more for suitable land. Let the local builder build residential houses. Support our people here in Saint John, NB. At least the noise will be minimal from that and the reassurance of owner occupied residential houses that will be of high quality exterior and looked after. One more thing, the Environmental Impact on the Red Cardinals._ They nest here in this area and we see 5 to 6 birds multiple times a day. There are multiple berry bushes and shrubbery on this land that they feed off. In the winter they look for bird feeders. If the land is bulldozed what will happen to these birds? If houses are slowly built, it at least gives the birds a chance to relocate. I know the Cardinals are a protected bird in Canada under the Migratory Birds convention Act, 1994F are they not? We are totally against rezoning from residential to apartment buildings on 1429 Loch Lomond Road. It doesn't matter the size of the buildings. They are not owner occupied. I am also attaching a support petition sheet that has been signed by neighbours in the area that are against this development. This will utterly destroy our neighbourhood and quality of life as we now know it here in Saint John. These are our retirement homes. The names you see in the petition should have received a letter from you, as we did. They all live around this parcel of land. We also sent a letter to the Mayor and the Common Council of our thoughts and disapproval. I will copy you on this as well. This is our retirement home here in Saint John, not Rothesay, not Quispamsis but P141J Saint John. My husband and I invite you to please come to our yard and have a look. We are always home. You can also call us at 506 696 8001. Would you want this in your backyard? Sincerely and Respectfully, Janice Goodine-Shannon and Barry Shannon 16 Lakefield Court Saint John PUN From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 0031290) Date: November 10, 2021 11:15:47 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Angela Ingersoll <kainger@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: November 10, 2021 11:14 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 0031290) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To whom it may concern, We are writing to let you know that we strongly oppose the construction of a multiple unit residential development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. We live in the Bon Accord subdivision and getting out on to Loch Lomond road is crazy at times, especially turning left. These apartments would increase traffic even more and it will become a nightmare. Traffic lights will be needed for several subdivisions to enable access to Loch Lomond road during busy times. We pay over $4,000/yr in property taxes and feel that this development will affect the value of our home. Cramming so many units into the area will not be attractive and the city should be looking to keep tax paying property owners in the area. A development of this nature will drive many home owners out of the area. We are DEFINITLY NOT IN FAVOR of this development. Kevin & Angela Ingersoll From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Objection to Rezoning PID 00312900 Date: November 15, 2021 8:42:46 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsO-saintjohn.ca From: Ayles, R. (Kevin) <Kevin.Ayles@akzonobel.com> Sent: November 12, 20214:23 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Objection to Rezoning PID 00312900 [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to sbamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * This is to inform you that as a resident of Old lake trail I am strongly opposed to the rezoning and approval for this application and project. As a resident here in this subdivision for 16 years we have seen stable single family growth into a well desired area of the city to raise a family or retire. During that time we have also seen increased volumes of traffic on Loch Lomond road by growth and has led to increased traffic delays and accidents. There has been no city investment in the infrastructure to help alleviate the problem or help reduce traffic levels on Loch Lomond road to offset the new growth. This development will greatly increase traffic in an already congested part of East Saint John causing even more delays and increased accidents. We built in this subdivision because of layout and community feel. With these large apartment buildings so close to our sub division and Bonnacord , it will stand out and not fit into the existing flow of the neighbourhood. I ask you to strongly take these points and share them with everyone with a stake hold in this decision. Saint John is the largest city in Canada area wise and there is certainly a better suited place for this planned development. Regards P 171,i:17 Kevin Ayles 32 Old Lake Trail Saint John N.B E2J 5E1 506-343-3448 kevin.ayies(&akzonobel.com 26q From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Questions sur Demande de modification du zonage 1429 rue Loch Lomond (NID00312900) Date: November 12, 2021 3:34:40 PM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: laurent.delavenne@club-internet.fr <laurent.delavenne@club-internet.fr> Sent: November 12, 2021 3:15 PM To: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca>; OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Questions sur Demande de modification du zonage 1429 rue Loch Lomond (NID00312900) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to pamsample@saintJohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Bonjour, Nous sommes Laurent de Laverne et Alexandra Louazel proprietaires au 184 Bon Accord Drive Saint John. Suite a la reception du projet de demande de modification du zonage 1429 rue Loch Lomond (NID00312900), nous avons plusieurs questions a soumettre : - A quoi correspond la delimitation en couleur rouge sur le document "AirPhoto" ? Est-ce la zone potentiellement constructible ? Est-ce que toute cette zone en rouge est deja vendue? - Quelle est exactement la limite de la zone de travaux prevus par la construction de ces 10 batiments ? - Quelle sera la duree des travaux ? - Y-a-t-il un autre projet de constructions sur le meme territoire dans les annees a venir ? Merci beaucoup pour vos reponses et explications qui nous permettront de determiner un avis positif ou negatif. Nous souhaiterons assister a la reunion organiser par le comite mardi 16 novembre, merci par avance de nous transferer toutes les informations. Cordialement Laurent de Laverne et Alexandra Louazel P1,1►I From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning of 1429 loch Lomond Rd Date: November 15, 2021 2:40:49 PM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: lindsay wayne <lindsay_chick69@hotmail.com> Sent: November 15, 2021 2:39 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning of 1429 loch Lomond Rd [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to ,�Danisample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello I am sending this email to advise that we are not favor of changing the zoning for this area 1429 loch Lomond Rd from R2 (Two unit dwelling) to RM (Mid rise residential or RL (Low rise residential). My name is Lindsay Wayne and live at 200 Bon Accord Drive My brother lives at 191 Bon Accord Drive his name is Matt Wayne There is a PlanSJ that was produced that didn't project any rezoning changes for our area. Please choose an area in your planSJ that is already zoned for RM or RL developement. Sincerely Matt Wayne Lindsay Wayne P0111 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: PAC repsonse Onestoo Planning Admin; Reade. Mark; Burgess, Aimee OneStoo FW: Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond rd PID 00312900 November 8, 2021 9:39:51 AM Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Mike Boudreau <madmikel@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: November 8, 2021 9:37 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond rd PID 00312900 [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample(c-Dsaintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Attention Mark Reade: Just want to express opinion on the re -zoning of the property at 1429 Loch Lomond rd. I do not want a string of apartments building in my back yard-- At the present this is zone for residential, I build my house (14 years ago) based on present zoning. Therefore I am strongly opposed to this application. I know the city is hungry for the revenue-- but this is too costly for existing resident. However,l am not opposed to developing this area for residential housing. It seems to me that the City of Saint John has plenty of land , without cramming it in a residential area,to accommodate this kind of development. PS: Keep adding traffic on Loch Lomond road we better plan on twining the road and adding many traffic lights. Just my 2 cents worth Thanks and please do the right thing. Best Regards Mike Boudreau 206 Bon Accord Dr. Saint John N.B. E2J 4K5 274 506-636-1684 madmike1 Pnbnet. nb. ca Sent from eM Client I www.emclient.com 275 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) Date: November 12, 2021 8:46:27 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Paul <Paulshon@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: November 10, 20214:39 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello, I am writing to formally express my support for this development. One of the major mandates of PlanSJ is to promote greater population density by leveraging existing land that is not being utilized to its full potential. This proposal is doingjust that, taking unused land close to amenities, and transforming it into 10 major tax -generating buildings. With a current housing shortage, these apartments will provide much needed accommodations for many people as well as growing our tax base. My only reservation in supporting this proposal is that no ingress/egress be permitted on Norman Drive. Maintaining Loch Lomond Road as the only entrance/exit to the proposed block of buildings will preserve the quality of life for the residents of Ganong, Norman, and Old Lake Trail. This is a concern that many residents of these streets either have or will put forward. I am aware of the reaction by some of my neighbours. I read their arguments and found many of them unsubstantiated. I prefer growth to stagnation, and this proposal is certainly a step in the growth direction. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Pill Sincerely, Paul Shonaman 44 Old Lake Trail From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: PAC response Onestoo Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee OneStoo FW: Rezoning at 1429 Loch Lomond Road ( PID 00312900 ) November 15, 2021 3:53:27 PM Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Paul Buckley <paulbuckley@rogers.com> Sent: November 15, 2021 3:51 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning at 1429 Loch Lomond Road ( PID 00312900 ) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to pamsample@saintJohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To Whom It May Concern; As long time home owners on Bon Accord Drive, we have some concerns about this development. Traffic on Loch Lomond Road has been observed as increasing over the last many years and at peak periods it has become especially challenging to access Loch Lomond Road from Bon Accord Drive. Line of site when turning from Bon Accord is limited as it is located on a corner. The lot looking east from foot of Bon Accord is also a snow collection area which makes visibility at the foot of Bon Accord Drive even more limited in winter. Also, the speed at which traffic flows on Loch Lomond at this point seems to be excessive which makes it even more of an issue. With the development proposed, this can only get worse. There needs to be some way to control the access at this intersection. 14■%•] We would oppose this development unless there is a traffic solution. Thank you for your consideration. Paul and Susan Buckley 73 Bon Accord Drive PH1 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) Date: November 12, 2021 8:48:02 AM Attachments: scan 20211110134427.pdf PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Janice Goodine <janicegoodine@gmail.com> Sent: November 11, 2021 9:28 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Fwd: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Good morning PAC, I had forwarded this very important letter to Mark Reide and got an automatic reply that he is away from his office until Monday. This letter along with many others being sent to him will not be seen until Monday. So I am sending you a copy of what I have sent to him. Will you please have a look and reconsider the proposal for rezoning to apartment buildings from Stable Residential houses. We are very concerned and sick with worry. We moved here in 2015 to Saint John, not Rothsay, not Quispamsis, but Saint John because of this beautiful stable residential area of restrictive covenant. This is our retirement home. We also moved here because there were no apartment buildings and now they want to put buildings and parking lots in our immediate back yard. Would you want apartment buildings behind your beautiful house, how would you feel? We invite you all to come to our property and have a look at what is proposed to go in our backyard and see for yourself. Would you want this built in your neighborhood behind your area of restrictive covenants? We live at 16 Lakefield Court and would love to see and talk with you. Please see letter sent to Mark, below and also the Petition sheet. We had more people call to have P1Z:7 their name added. We now have 85 people on the sheet who live along Old Lake Trail, Norman Drive, Ganong Street and Bon Accord who do not want this type of development. It was zoned for single family residential dwellings. Sincerely and respectfully Janice & Barry Shannon ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Janice Goodine <ianicegoodineC@gmail.com.> Date: Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:55 PM Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning (PID 00312900) To: <mark.readena saintiohn.ca> Preview attachment scan_ 20211110134427.pdf Al scan_ 20211110134427.pdf 3.6 M B Dear Mr. Mark Reade, My husband Barry and I live at 16 Lakefield Court. We moved here in 2015 from a beautiful property in New Maryland which was a stable residential area of restrictive covenants to our home here in Saint John, East, not Rothesay, not Quispamsis but Saint John. This is also a beautiful stable residential area where all the home owners look after their property because this is a restrictive covenant subdivision and they take pride in their property. This is an area of owner occupied houses. Rezoning for apartment buildings will not contribute positively to our neighbourhood and are not compatible with surrounding land uses as stated in your "Plan SJ Municipal Plan", Schedule B. See page 43 - Stable Areas. Saint John Municipal Plan: See page 52, see Policy LU-4, c,e and f. c. Enhances the community and the quality of life offered to residents of the City; e. Does not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and neighbourhoods; f. Is an appropriate use within the land use designation being sought for the Pi tl property, and the proposal is consistent with the specific policies regulating development in the designation: See page 86, 3.5.4 Stable Residential, These lands include a number of existing neighbourhoods in the City which are generally built -out and are not anticipated to receive major change over the planning period. These neighbourhoods are within the Primary Development Area, are generally on municipal services, and have the potential to accommodate additional development, at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context. See page 87, Policy LU-87, Intend that the areas designated Stable Residential will evolve over time from a land use and built -form perspective but that new and redeveloped land uses are to reinforce the predominant community character and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. Policy LU-88, Ensure that significant new development and redevelopment in areas designated stable residential shall generally only be permitted through a rezoning process where compliance is demonstrated with the following requirements: a. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood; b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses; d. Site design features that address such matters as safe access, buffering and landscaping, site grading and stormwater management are incorporated; e. A high quality exterior building design is provided that is consistent with the Urban Design Principles in the Municipal Plan; f. The proposal is on a property identified as a Corridor on the City Structure map (Schedule A) or does not detract from the City's intention to direct the majority of new residential development to the Primary Centres, Local Centres, and Intensification Areas. See Page 88, 5.1 Neighbourhoods and Housing Goals 6: Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. Pi N Think about this, 10 buildings, 10 dumpsters and parking lots on a 4.5 acre area, 105 residences with the possibility of 2 vehicles each all trying to exit out one drive, during high traffic times would create havoc and impact traffic negatively_ Emergency Safety, Would this be a safety issue for emergency vehicles that would need to enter into the property? This would negatively affect our air quality with exhaust fumes going into our air exchange and through our house as these buildings will be right beside us. We would not be able to open our windows in the mornings or at night. We bought this house for the big picture windows throughout. We would have to have all our window curtains closed on all our big picture windows in our living room and bedrooms for privacy. Our living room is in the backside of the house. Would you want this in your dream home you purchased? These potential landowners are from out of province and don't live here. The city council stopped a local builder that lives here in Saint John from building an owner occupied side by side duplex in the area. But, it seems the city is willing to consider stacked buildings with dumpsters that will accommodate all the 10 buildings on 4.5 acres. This is less than half an acre per building and parking lots. Where will all the garbage be stored? There will be garbage flying through the neighborhood and in our backyard from construction materials and garbage. There will be an increase of animals in the garbage. Will there be an abundance of rats in this area because of all the dumpsters? Would you want this in your backyard? Probably not. So please stop this rezoning for bull dozing for apartment buildings. We don't want 4 to 8 years of Noise Pollution, continuous construction in our quiet, beautiful neighborhood, from tractors, dump trucks, banging and then the emptying of the dumpsters in the night. We don't want people from the stacked buildings looking directly into our big bedroom and living room windows from their balconies. Would you? We moved here knowing that one day houses will be built behind us but not apartment buildings. There is land that is suitable across from the Mitsubishi Car Dealer on Loch Lomond Road. Clean up that mess! They could also buy the land across from the Irving refinery that is for sale and suitable with other apartment buildings already there. P T.I They claim it costs too much. Well, in my opinion, if anyone could afford to build 10 apartment buildings and all the amenities, they can afford to pay more for suitable land. Let the local builder build residential houses. Support our people here in Saint John, NB. At least the noise will be minimal from that and the reassurance of owner occupied residential houses that will be of high quality exterior and looked after. One more thing, the Environmental Impact on the Red Cardinals._ They nest here in this area and we see 5 to 6 birds multiple times a day. There are multiple berry bushes and shrubbery on this land that they feed off. In the winter they look for bird feeders. If the land is bulldozed what will happen to these birds? If houses are slowly built, it at least gives the birds a chance to relocate. I know the Cardinals are a protected bird in Canada under the Migratory Birds convention Act, 1994,. are they not? We are totally against rezoning from residential to apartment buildings on 1429 Loch Lomond Road. It doesn't matter the size of the buildings. They are not owner occupied. I am also attaching a support petition sheet that has been signed by neighbours in the area that are against this development. This will utterly destroy our neighbourhood and quality of life as we now know it here in Saint John. These are our retirement homes. The names you see in the petition should have received a letter from you, as we did. They all live around this parcel of land. We also sent a letter to the Mayor and the Common Council of our thoughts and disapproval. I will copy you on this as well. This is our retirement home here in Saint John, not Rothesay, not Quispamsis but Saint John. My husband and I invite you to please come to our yard and have a look. We are always home. You can also call us at 506 696 8001. Would you want this in your backyard? Sincerely and Respectfully, Janice Goodine-Shannon and Barry Shannon W12:I 16 Lakefield Court Saint John pi Z_bl From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PI D 00312900) Date: November 9, 2021 4:14:31 PM Comments for PAC Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor — City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula. hawkins @ saintj ohn. ca -----Original Message ----- From: Stanislav Klenin <stanislay.klenin@gmail.com> Sent: November 9, 2021 4:05 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** Dear City Clerk, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed rezoning, since I am a property owner in the adjacent area. Please consider the following objections to this rezoning: - Environmental concerns: erecting multiple apartment buildings will likely damage green space in the neighboring territory. More so once the new owners decide to continue development further north of this parcel, which is currently covered in woods. - Blocking lake drainage: construction works will need to happen close to the stream running out of Blackall Lake. This may cause flooding which can affect both Loch Lomond Road and properties close to the lake. - Increased traffic congestion: especially true during construction phase when heavy machinery needs to access the area. And even when it's done, new buildings are likely to add several dozens of new cars to a space not originally designed to support that many vehicles. This will put quite a heavy strain on traffic conditions on Loch Lomond Road and surrounding streets. It may seem that my position, expressed in this letter, opposes any residential development - however, this is not the case. I am all for expanding our neighborhood further into this space, but it needs to preserve its unique character - and not turn into something else entirely. Keeping it Two -Unit Residential alleviates the concerns mentioned above: detached houses and duplexes imply more green space around them (which may leave some of the woods intact) and have more manageable impact on vehicle traffic, construction itself is not as complex and has less adverse effects on the environment, and, equally important even though harder to quantify, our neighborhood would not lose its charm. Developers proposing rezoning claim they would not turn any profit if they buy this land to construct single-family or two -unit houses. Yet several such houses have been built in surrounding areas in recent years, including two being finished on Old Lake Trail at the time of writing (and these are not waterfront properties either). So the P�%t11 possibility is there: where there is a will, there is a way, as the saying goes. In conclusion, I'd like to point out that one of the features distinguishing good city planning from bad is consistency. Repurposing a parcel in the middle of Two -Unit Residential area into apartment buildings feels inconsistent at least, like scratching out several pages of the book and rewriting it with something of a different genre or style. While it may yield some short-term benefits for the city, would that be a good decision in the long run? I am convinced it would not. Best regards, Stanislav Klenin 24 Old Lake Trail, Saint John NB Stanislay. klening @ gmail. co m WIN From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Proposed rezoning and variance application for 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: November 10, 2021 11:43:20 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Sue <Sueshon@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: November 10, 2021 11:51 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Proposed rezoning and variance application for 1429 Loch Lomond Road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to sbamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To Whom it may Concern, I have lived on Old Lake Trail since 2009. This is a quiet subdivision where owners pay high property taxes to live. I oppose the rezoning and variance application. This proposal will adversely affect the property value of the homes here and will add an additional burden to the traffic on Loch Lomond Road. If eight variances have to be changed to allow this unwanted project, this is not the area to build these units. Yours truly, Susan Shonaman 44 Old Lake Trail Mot 3 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Presentation Against Proposed Development at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. - PAC Meeting Tuesday Nov 16 Date: November 12, 2021 10:31 :24 AM Attachments: TH - Presentation Against Dev at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd.pdf PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Trudy Hanley <hanley0001@gmail.com> Sent: November 12, 2021 9:38 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Presentation Against Proposed Development at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. - PAC Meeting Tuesday Nov 16 [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Attached please find my Letter/ Presentation against the proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. for the PAC meeting on Tuesday Nov. 16. 1 also plan on speaking during the virtual PAC meeting. Regards Trudy Hanley P�'&bI Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley The property at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. is being brought before PAC for the purpose of rezoning from an R2 to an RL and RM. I would like to start by clarifying the issue. Currently the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. is zoned (R2) Two Unit Residential — accommodating basically one -unit and two -unit dwellings. The rezoning of the property to (RL) and (RM) would allow the developers to build townhouses, apartments, and/or condominiums. Zone Symbol Urban Centre Residential RC High -Rise Residential RH Mid -Rise Residential RIND Lour -Rise Residential RL Two -Unit Residential R2 One -Unit Residential R1 Clip from City of Saint John — Zoning Bylaw 2014: Part 2: Zones and Administration Page 14 The statements and information provided in the following is broken down into 3 PARTS. Each part discussing different aspects and reasons against the development being brought before PAC, against the current proposed development of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. I will show that not only is it incomprehensible that this type of development would be encouraged or allowed on this property, but that it goes against the cities own PLAN Si, Bylaws and public representation on the city website of how the city's intent of neighbourhood planning and growth development is being promoted. The proposed development is to put multiple, multi -unit apartment buildings on a piece of property that is situated between two (R2) single family residential neighbourhoods. This proposed development is unwanted by the residence in the surrounding areas. PART 1: Developers' "Open House" I first found out about this development in late September, by a concerned neighbour handing out letters regarding an "Open House" Information Session. I attended this session, on Sept. 23, 2021, presented by the developers, who were completely unprepared for the number of concerned residence who showed up for the meeting. During the meeting, the developers made many statements with respect to why they had chosen this piece of property for development. They had looked at many pieces of property for sale, and based on various property conditions and locations they settled on 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. They stated that other properties were "too expensive", making them financially unfeasible, or "the land was not suitable for the development". Handouts were provided, which included an image of the development with respect to the surrounding buildings and neighbourhoods. A statement Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 1 of 12 P :T•7 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley was also made that an adjacent property already had 2 apartment buildings, so they did not see an issue with their proposal, and that this development "was to provide for our families financial future ". I would like to put forward that the statements made and information presented at the above mentioned meeting by the developers was misleading and incorrect. There are suitable and financially feasible properties for sale. I have done my own research and have found pieces of property available that should completely suit their needs. The images provided in the handouts showed the adjacent apartment buildings relatively the same size as the proposed buildings, when in fact the 3 storey proposed buildings are 4-5 times larger. They visually showed the adjacent houses oversized as well, so that the new proposed buildings would not look so overwhelmingly out of place. Base on first impressions, the information provided and how it was presented, it is very difficult to believe that any future information provided by the developers would be presented accurately in any way. The other facts associated with this new development proposal are as follows; the density of the development is overwhelming compared to the surrounding neighbourhoods. The development is essentially buildings and asphalt, there is not green space to speak of. If there are families here, which I expect there will be, where will kids go to be out doors, there is no space available. There are traffic concerns, garbage bins with animal infestation and excess storm water runoff. There is currently a property available in the Micheal Crescent area up behind the old St. Joachims Church. The property is suitable for development, 2 roads into the property (concern of Emergency Services). It is adjacent to other similarly zoned properties, with apartment buildings. The property is large enough to suit the number of buildings requested, even the original proposal of (8) 3- storey, 17 unit buildings, as well as, future expansion. The property cost $500,000.00 (Owner willing to reduce). Developments of this nature are no small undertaking and financial resources must be extensive to even consider this type of project. The argument of properties being too expensive seems to be more of an excuse to rule out other suitable properties for a property in a more desirable location and a property with minimal preparation cost. I wanted to present the fact that there are properties suitable for a development of this kind in a more appropriate setting. The images to follow, of Lakefield Ct., Old LakeTrial/ Norman Dr. and Bon Accord, show how this proposed development is crammed in between 2 neighbourhoods and is greatly disproportionate to the surrounding homes. The images of the Micheal Crescent Area show how this development fits within the already designated neighbouring properties. There is more green space, areas for development of outdoor space for kids and families to enjoy. The development here has the potential for views of the bay or forested areas. There are areas of greater buffering space for visual separation from the existing neighbourhoods. I have prepared images of the proposed development to show the actual context of the proposed location and how unsuitable it is against the backdrop of the existing neighbourhoods. Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 2 of 12 236 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley Image 1— Aerial View of Lakefield Court �s 919 Z Image 2 — Aerial View of Lakefield Court, Norman Rd., Old Lake Trail and Bon Accord Dr. .MNF-'"! Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 3 of 12 232 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley I have also prepared images of a property in the Micheal Crescent area showing it to be a more suitable location and should suit the needs of the proposed development. These images show a distinctive contrast to the suitability of each property. This property has the potential for a variety of building designs, green space, walking trails, panoramic views of the bay or forested areas, Image 1— Aerial View of Main Entrance off Micheal Crescent Area Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 4 of 12 233 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley Image 2 — Aerial View of Main Entrance off Micheal Crescent Area 1 Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 5 of 12 234 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley Behind Micheal Crescent Area F Image 5 — Aerial View of Development from Above in Micheal Crescent Area Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 6 of 12 205 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley PART 2: Plan SJ and City of Saint John Bylaws I would also like to bring to PAC's attention, the city's own statements regarding Plan SJ, City Bylaws and public website representation. The following statements and information go hand and hand with the development proposal and how it is unsuitable for this particular property at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Starting with Plan SJ, the city has set forth a long term plan for growth and development. The following statements show this proposed development goes against the intent of Plan SJ. C.� City of Saint John — Municipal Plan 2014 Stable Areas: include existing healthy, primarily low -density residential areas not identified as Intensification Areas or Employment Area expected to experience major development, although they will evolve incrementally and organically and in keeping with the existing neighbourhood character in order to accommodate appropriate infill development to support complete communities. Policy LU-4 c. Enhances the community and the quality of life offered to residents of the City; e. Does not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent lands and neighbourhoods; Stable Residential These lands include a number of existing neighbourhoods in the City which are generally built -out and are not anticipated to receive major change over the planning period. These neighbourhoods are within the Primary Development Area, are generally on municipal services, and have the potential to accommodate additional development, at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context. Policy LU-87 Intend that the areas designated Stable Residential will evolve over time from a land use and built - form perspective but that new and redeveloped land uses are to reinforce the predominant community character and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. Policv LU-88 Ensure the significant development and redevelopment in areas designated Stable Residential shall generally be permitted only through a rezoning process where compliance is demonstrated with the following requirements: a. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood; b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses; d. Site design features that address such matters as safe access, buffering and landscaping, site grading and stormwater management are incorporated; Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 7 of 12 206 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley 5.1 Neighbourhoods & Housing Goals 6 Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. PART 3: City Website Public Representation The city is promoting itself as a city looking to the future. Development, growth and prosperity for business and residence a like. This is a very appropriate statement for any city. A phrase I heard for first time during a council meeting describes the cities outlook for the future perfectly. "Chasing the Money" was brought forth during the city's Common Council Meeting of Oct 18, 2021. The statement follows a premise that the city is all about "Growth and Prosperity" for business and residence alike. About Saint John - Statement from website Energy and momentum for the future In Saint John, an optimism for the future is underscored by a well-educated population, a transition to knowledge -based economy, and an uptown environment that inspires creativity- Saint John is well-aositioned for arowth and continued arosaerity for residents and future business arosaects. Prosperity for Residence. Full Definition of Prosperity - by Merriam -Webster Dictionary : the condition of being successful or thriving; especially: economic well-being Image — Old Lake Trail from the Neighbourhood of Forest Hills/ Lakewood ` 4W j 4t 4 Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 8 of 12 207 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley The city is also presenting itself as neighbourhoods being predominantly single family residential. Visit the city website and under "Neighbourhoods" you will find a photo gallery of various neighbourhoods around the city. These images are presented in such a way that they seemingly depict the very best of what the city has to offer. You can view all of the photos for all of the city wide neighbourhoods and they all have the same thing in common, you will not find photos showing groups of apartment buildings. The city knows that these types of developments do not draw people into the city. Most people looking for a place to live want to see quiet streets, children playing, green and manicured properties. Old Lake Trial is used as the primary image of a Neighbourhood for all of Forest Hills and Lakewood Areas. This is actually a unique street and development unlike most of the areas on the East side. This image is being used to promote a quality of living in this area. Placing a large group of apartment buildings at the foot of this development will destroy the unique quality that brought so many of the existing residence to settle here and build their dream homes. See APPENDIX "A" CONCLUSION: The proposal to rezone a portion of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. from R2 to RM goes against all of the information provided in this presentation and must not be allowed to happen. Development for the sake of development is not the right mind set nor is it the appropriate philosophy to have. The developers had made a comment during the "Open House" back in September "the development was to provide for our families financial future". The people that actually live here have the right to provide for their own families futures. According to the cities own philosophy the residence have the right to "continued prosperity and economic well-being." "Chasing the Money" in this case, allowing for a development that will inherently inhibit prosperity and economic growth for the surrounding residence and their properties, taking away any success for economic well-being for their families and retirement future is completely unacceptable. It is the residence responsibility to ensure financial stability for their own families and properties There are properties available that are better suited for this proposed development, however the financial gain on behalf of the developers is not quite as lucrative. These alternate properties could easily provide for future expansion, additional incentives for renters and green space for family friendly living. If the developers truly wanted to have an apartment complex that was inviting and of interest to a variety of renters then a larger property with more development potential is what they should be looking at. I would not consider myself a good neighbour nor city resident if I did not view my concerns and disproval of this proposed development. Myself and my neighbours are not against this property being developed some day, we all expect it to happen. Development within the current zoning is not an unreasonable request or expectation. A development that is in keeping with the existing neighbourhoods, at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context and designated Stable Residential reinforces the predominant community character, making it a more positive contribution to the adjacent neighbourhoods. Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 9 of 12 203 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley APPRNDIX A East Saint John AN Sir." ` I lt�. '' . AA . JN6 . F ililY '! Forest Hills/ Lakewood Photo Album South Bay Photo Album Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 10 of 12 K61,I Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley North End Photo Album EM o Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 11 of 12 f Zf•1 Against Proposed Development - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - PAC Meeting Nov. 16, 2021; 6:00 pm Presented by Trudy Hanley West Side Photo Album M Mlllidgeville/ Anchorage Photo ALburr Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident - Old Lake Trail) Page 12 of 12 �Z5? From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Proposed Rezoning 576-578 Fundy Drive Date: November 15, 2021 3:44:29 PM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: C&T Ward <tward95@gmail.com> Sent: November 15, 2021 3:30 PM To: O'Hearn, Mark <mark.ohearn@saintjohn.ca>; OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Proposed Rezoning 576-578 Fundy Drive [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello, I'm sending this email in response to a letter I received regarding a proposed rezoning of 576-578 Fundy Drive, from a one -unit residential (R1) to a Low -Rise Residential (RL). I am opposed to rezoning the property at 576-578 Fundy Drive from a One -Unit Residential (R1) to a Low -Rise Residential (RL). I have found and have read the Zoning By -Law document for Saint John. I feel that rezoning this property to an RL would provide an opportunity for the current and or next owner, to build something with more units then it currently has now. I have resided at 570 Fundy Drive since 2006. Over that time span, the experience of living adjacent to the current four -unit property of 576-578 Fundy Drive has been generally a negative experience due to the fact that it is a four -unit rental property. Over the years, there have been many different tenants renting at 576-578 Fundy Drive and it wasn't always pleasant living next door, especially having a young family. Lots of different people coming and going and at times throughout the night, loud disturbances, more traffic, more cars parked on the street, which is not ideal having 2 school zones in the area. The one positive thing I can say about the current property at 576-578 Fundy Drive is, although it's a four -unit rental property, it still looks much like a standard home. The last thing this neighborhood needs is a new rental building, with more units, and the possibility of it looking like an apartment building. I have seen other neighborhoods (Milledgeville for example), where apartment buildings have somewhat taken over, and this I feel, tends to devalue a neighborhood. �ZK Although I have only lived at 570 Fundy Drive since 2006, 1 do know that the property at 576-578 Fundy Drive has been a four -unit rental property since at least 1989 (32+ years) and so I have a few questions. What is the sudden reason for the rezoning request after 32+ years of operating a four - unit rental property in an R1 zone? What is the result if the rezoning request is not approved? Is it legal to operate a four - unit rental property in an R1 zone? Also, please provide details on how to attend the virtual meeting being held on November 16th at 6:00pm. Regards, Trevor Ward f 0"-] From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Application for Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) Date: November 12, 2021 8:48:56 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: ZELDA MELANSON <zmelano047@rogers.com> Sent: November 11, 2021 1:15 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Application for Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * COMMENTS According to Plan SJ this area and the subdivisions bordering it are classified as Stable Residential, which requires new developments be compatible with existing ones. The high density of this proposal makes one visualize lots of asphalt covered parking lots, multiple dumpsters and a real dearth of green space. Again, not compatible with what exists in a stable residential neighborhood. As residents in a subdivision directly bordering the proposed development we share the opinion of the majority of other homeowners that this proposed development is not suitable or compatible with the surrounding area for the following reasons. GOOD FAITH The property in question sits between two lovely subdivisions, Bonaccord and Ganong/Lakefield Court/Old Lake Trail. It is zoned R2. With this understanding (R2) current residents ,who are all home owners, invested heavily in their properties in good faith. This fact gave them peace of mind before making the decision to invest their hard earned dollars in this area of East Saint John. It's worth noting that new home construction continues to date. �ZEI QUALITY OF LIFE This proposal will have a negative effect on all neighbouring property owners quality of life. It means loss of enjoyment of their properties through crowding, loss privacy, excess noise and traffic, exhaust fumes and lights shining in windows from vehicles coming and going at all hours. We live in a neighborhood governed by covenants, covenants which establish high standards for our properties. The addition of multiple unit apartment buildings in our area will erode these standards. TIMELINE What is the estimated completion date for this project? This depends on a whole lot of factors and is a question that really can't be answered. Are the developers planning on financing each construction based on the ones just completed? It would almost be better to have the 105 units in one larger building (like others that are popping up in Saint John) because an end would be in sight for completion. Don't get us wrong though. We are opposed to the rezoning and ANY type of apartment buildings on this site. PROPERTY VALUES Homeowners in the area have all seen increases in their property assessments this year. If this development goes ahead our property values and resale values will plummet. Would this mean less tax revenue for the city from our homes but increased revenue from the new buildings? Is this way of thinking a case of being penny wise and pound foolish? TRAFFIC Loch Lomond Road has to be one of the busiest (and longest ) streets in the city. It's probably safe to assume there will be at least one vehicle per unit. That's one hundred cars trying to exit onto and off of Lomond Road via a private right of way at peak traffic times. Try and visualize that. VARIANCE REQUESTING LOTS NOT ABUTTING A PUBLIC STREET If a private right of way is permitted rather than a public street what about curbs, sidewalks, storm water drains, street lighting etc? Other developers have invested in street infrastructure which, upon completion, is taken over by the city and maintained to a high standard. Why make an exception? NOTE It is our understanding that there are something like nine natural springs on the entire parcel of land. These springs feed Blackall Lake. That's a lot of water, once disrupted by bulldozing for more buildings, that will have to go somewhere. Keep in mind that provincial environmental regulations regarding alteration of water course and wetlands need to be complied with. Regards, Zelda and Kevin McCarthy Sent from Rogers Yahoo Mail on Android From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Date: November 16, 2021 8:37:54 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Mary Jo Murphy <mjmurphymacintyre@gmail.com> Sent: November 15, 2021 9:38 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Cc: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Rd [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To Whom It May Concern: My name is Mary Jo Murphy. I live at 15 Lakefield Court. I bought my home 12 years ago in this neighbourhood because it is a beautiful area with very well maintained properties. I believe that if the property between Bon Accord Dr. and Old Lake Trail / Lakefield Court is rezoned it will dramatically reduce the property values in these neighbourhoods. The area in question has been zoned R2 for a reason. This area is ideal for 1 and 2 family residential homes. It is not ideal for multi -story apartment buildings. Given the fact that there are several other parcels of land for sale nearby that are already zoned appropriately, one would wonder if the reason the developers want this particular property is because of the beautiful neighbourhoods which surround it. Ironically, to rezone this property and allow numerous multi -story apartment buildings would ultimately lower the property values of the surrounding area. A quick search on Realtor.ca clearly shows that there are several other large areas that would be �ZVA much better suited for this development. • Ellerdale St. This parcel of land is already zoned for multi -unit, high rise residential. https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/23086276/-ellerdale-street-saint-iohn • Hickey Rd. This land is also in an area with other apartment buildings. https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/23077811/-hickey-road-saint-iohn • Another parcel of land was recently for sale on Loch Lomond Rd. that butted up against Nason Rd in Silver Falls Park. This area also has numerous, multi -level apartment buildings. I oppose the rezoning of the land located at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. It should be left as R2 residential in keeping with the neighbourhoods which surround it. Sincerely Mary Jo Murphy 15 Lakefield Court 506.645.0621 Sent from my iPhone Q. •J oio c c a: E oA 0 D oco o c - OL Q N N 0 am E a L u O C a+ + j p W O Q to i C +' U a) (6 C N m Qte vI a) Q O 41 Op u Q Q >p L L a) CL - O Q O C O 7 O > u 4' u Q -r- M .� t tO C N -0 4- 4- a) L C ate-+ hp O p a) _0 p a) C 7 � 4-0 -0 M Y t � 0 r6 O E O 4-C C L m O 4-L O ate' hA a� L O > p M � +, 'ro = co 4- m 3 t u E - L m D a) hA ate-+ > O O O C p U E t w E L a� � Ln c o w 3 w m � .- 5 w c M p Q O Q C u E �' � m m c a M a) O N_ O 4-+� O (6 � � Q Q E � -0 U O ; D o -0 Q '= (n U >j L a) M a) C -0 U -6 O > O p Q 4- 0 O OC Y D CO O O a) � 6 Q E -0 -r C a) t p -0 12 ?� t p C -0 vi t 0 3 a) T -o _r C a� 4- c E � a o ° M c a o N L L w mw 4- L o Q -0 C w a) 4- p ?� O 'L C— c L L O D -0 E w a O a; a t 4 o t-0 CL > w -0 t a� M m c w c c p a) 'p c E 0-0 m O t c o '7A RBI • , 1 ` .�z' ��' tit � � ...:•'' � , \ � � s � yl •`•� 4 Qr sr k � m t 41 O ?�4.1to t41 o Y, L C N (6 L ._ -0 a-+ N � `� O N N C -1-+ Q 2 4a a toCA C: 0 u a E �' � o •F .2 o � � a� L +, +� r� i (6 OA •� O L (6 C c ate+ C L c� C to t O -.is WN LL 0°� t a > o O o O 0 O L ° L ° +-j o �E ° " a C M -0 a L 04- to ro 4- E*' ai Y C a-+ > Z U VI a-+ N (0 (6 a-0 L (6 L L Q •> C to t (n o Ln a E-0 a a+ C .N o oo ToA Ta . to N +' � N qA N o r6 dA 0> a i (>6 >, (>6 U (>6 +' C dA C 4.1 OC C (>6 C a� (6 t to L t t Mo a tail � t N 7A t w t -0 C to Q V 7 C Ov (6 qA -or-(>6 4O -or-7 oC _ � > m '� Q i 'm .-I N (n ui E O U E (-j V) L O U E W Q From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Lochlomond rd rezoning Date: November 26, 2021 8:59:09 AM PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor — City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula. hawkins @ saintj ohn. ca -----Original Message ----- From: jlgrass <jlgrass@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: November 25, 2021 3:06 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Lochlomond rd rezoning [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** Sent from my Galaxy Tab® Hello I am writing you to voice our concern of the rezoning of 1429 Lochlomond rd. We are not in favor of the apartment buildings being built in our neighbourhood. This plan does not fit into this area of private homes and was recently rejected by the PAC. Traffic is already very congested at peak times, causing safety concerns for all residents along Lochlomond rd. Very concerned over addition of garbage bins, which would lead to rodents. Environment concerns with brook runoff from Blackall lake, runoff will be affected by New development. Please REJECT this proposed plan, that will be putting money in an out of province owners pocket! Jim & Lynn Grass 27 Ganong rd Saint John E2j 418 2!66 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Objection to Rezoning PID 00312900 Date: November 26, 2021 9:31:35 AM PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsO—saintjohn.ca From: Ayles, R. (Kevin) <Kevin.Ayles@akzonobel.com> Sent: November 25, 2021 5:56 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Objection to Rezoning PID 00312900 [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintiohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * This is to inform you that as a resident of Old lake trail I am strongly opposed to the rezoning and approval for this application and project. As a resident here in this subdivision for 16 years we have seen stable single family growth into a well desired area of the city to raise a family or retire. During that time we have also seen increased volumes of traffic on Loch Lomond road by growth and has led to increased traffic delays and accidents. There has been no city investment in the infrastructure to help alleviate the problem or help reduce traffic levels on Loch Lomond road to offset the new growth. This development will greatly increase traffic in an already congested part of East Saint John causing even more delays and increased accidents. We built in this subdivision because of layout and community feel. With these large apartment buildings so close to our sub division and Bonnacord , it will stand out and not fit into the existing flow of the neighbourhood. I ask you to strongly take these points and share them with everyone with a stake hold in this decision. Saint John is the largest city in Canada area wise and there is certainly a better suited place for this planned development. Regards Kevin Ayles 32 Old Lake Trail Saint John N.B E2J 5E1 506-343-3448 kevin.ayies(&akzonobel.com K,fs3 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Loch Lomond Road Development Date: November 25, 2021 9:00:56 AM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Paul Alexander <paulalexanderl9@yahoo.com> Sent: November 24, 2021 10:52 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Loch Lomond Road Development [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello, I live at 15 Roatan Way in Saint John. My family and I oppose the land development (apartment buildings) on Loch Lomond road due to noise and traffic concerns. Thank you, Paul Alexander and Raygene Adams Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 254 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road - In OPPOSITION Date: November 26, 2021 9:31:57 AM Attachments: 1429 Lochlmond - I am Oposed Info.docx PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: David Fischer <froad 101@gmail.com> Sent: November 25, 20214:18 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca> Cc: City of Saint John Mayor's Office <mayor@saintjohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John <john.mackenzie@saintjohn.ca>; Harris, Brent <brent.harris@saintjohn.ca>; Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan@saintjohn.ca>; Killen, Joanna <joanna.killen@saintjohn.ca>; Norton, Greg <greg.norton@saintjohn.ca>; Ogden, Barry <barry.ogden@saintjohn.ca>; Hickey, David <david. hickey@saintjohn.ca>; Lowe, Gerry <gerry.lowe@saintjohn.ca>; Radwan, Paula <paula.radwan@saintjohn.ca>; Stewart, Greg <greg.stewart@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road - In OPPOSITION [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello: I am in opposition to the planned re -zoning and potential development to 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I wish to participate in the Common Council Meeting on the 29th. Please send me an invite. I have attached a document outlining SOME of my concerns for inclusion into the"package" P!P1U I would also like to point out the "the City" has put forth that ALL property Owners within 100 Meters of the development have been advised in writing. My property is 96 - 99 meters from it and I DID NOT receive ANY "city notification. Please feel free to contact me should you require ANY clarification on my position. Thank you David Fischer Ganong Road Saint John NB3 P!A$11 1429 Loch Lomond Info — Opposition to Development This "development" in this Residential Area is NOT appropriate for a number of reasons. 1) The area is PROPERLY designated R1/R2 under the original plan 2) This is also supported by P1anSJ (we spent how any THOUSANDS of dollars on the "plan" only to allow SPOT Zoning AGAIN. This has not worked well in the past 3) People/Property owners in the area built or bought their "forever/retirement homes" based on the approved plans in place. a. Why would you allow a "medium/high density" complex to be "inserted" into a residential area? 4) The "new" developer has a total of ABOUT 15 Acres in total. Their "plan" is to get approval for about 1/3 (5 or so) acres for Medium/HIGH density but not developing the rest? a. Sure — I "believe that" develop 33% of your property and not do the same for the remaining 2/3rds of the property.. I think NOT 5) In is very clear that they are attempting to "gradually" move this into a "apartment sub- division" with 30 or more buildings with 300 — 500 UNITS overall based on current plans. 6) Statistics show that "medium/high" apartment developments increase a number of unacceptable changes to the area such as: a. Increased crime/petty crime and violent crimes in developments of this size. Add this the OVERALL Magnitude should the additional 2/3rs of the property developed in a similar manner b. Increased traffic, noise pollution air pollution c. MAJOR decrease in property values within a 2 KM radius d. Traffic congestion e. Increased Policing Costs 7) In this particular situation, they want to build their complex adjacent to a daycare center. - Not appropriate for countless reasons. 8) Many of "us" in the area have spent a LOT of dollars to keep/upgrade our properties over the years for our "forever/retirement homes" we are Maintaining and Improving then so we can ENJOY my homes... so I would be really ***off with this sort of development being allowed knowing that it WILL destroy my MAJOR property improvement investment. P'!AVA From Real-estate Board Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 WALKABILITY 1.8 Poor For the majority of locations here, other transportation modes are needed to reach day-to-day needs. Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 Lifestyle of Neighbourhood (scale rated 1— 10 — 1 being LOW/POOR) Daycare 10 Quiet 9 Car Friendly 8 High Schools 5 Transit Friendly 4 Elementary Schools 4 Shopping 4 Pedestrian friendly 3 Restaurants 3 Parks 2 Vibrancy 1 Nightlife 1 Grocery 0 Walkability 1.8 Basically the Local Real Estate Board shows that the area is only SLIGHTLY viable if you have a car... the only real positive number is the day care one... quiet is OVERATED given the impact of noise from Loch Lomond Road... and the significant increase if this development goes ahead. Car "friendly" — not a reasonable number given the DIFFICULTY in access/egress of Loch Lomond at MOST times.. never mind AM & PM "higher volumes" From there down the list... everything is below 5... which is not a good thing. f!P*3 Apartment Complex Issues (in General) Increased Crime o Something with 5 or more buildings raises crime rates within 2000 meters of the "project" (statistics widely available on the internet to support this FACT) o Statistics show a significant increase in Break-ins, Drugs, Petty crimes, and Assaults (of all types — physical, sexual, and attempted assaults) o Significate increase in Policing Costs and call outs to the area Decreased Area Property Values o Simply put, any properties within 2000 Meters of the development of this size/nature will decrease property values anywhere from 10 — 30% Increased Pollution (Noise, air, Garbage and wild critters o Large garbage bins (typically ay apartment complexes) tend to draw the UNWANTED type of wild animals — typically RATS, MICE. Racoons etc. Environmental Issues for this development o 15 Acres of Asphalt & Concrete ■ Decreases natural runoff ■ Decreased natural habitat for birds and such. With single type family home development — the change would be gradual, trees/shrubs/hedges would develop, and most would remain equally balanced. o MUST have environment impact study done Increased traffic from mid -high density apartments to enter Loch Lomond Road o Loch Lomond Road has high levels of traffic now — especially at peak times — access & egress from Loch Lomond Road CAN and IS very difficult on a good day without adding 100's more cars from one access point (605 daily according to "their study" — just a note — their study was based on 1 DAY of "video data" — were schools open — did the pandemic reduce "normal" traffic by people working at home or isolating? o A PROPER traffic study needs to be conducted to assess the real impact. ■ 1 was certified a number of years ago in traffic study collection and analysis of traffic patterns. I worked for a number of years in Workplace Health and Safety for Canada Post and we were required to do traffic studies and implement changes to our Rural Delivery Services over a number of years. It can be a lengthy process doing an analysis on CURRENT traffic situations.. this one would also need accurate data to make accurate "estimates" of the overall impact. Large Construction project — o Large numbers of equipment & construction noise — will continue for years Only developing 1/3 (approx.) of the land — I don't think this is being totally honest - the remaining 2/3rds will follow suit They stated" — the other 2/3rds is "barely walkable" so no plans to develop it o Bon Accord/Old Lake Trail/Ganong areas were the same type of land. Heavy equipment made a "level playing field" to build on. Did not stop these ars from being developed into SINGLE/DUPLEX homes (mainly single). They were not "walkable" before they were leveled and backfilled as needed. AGAIN — for Single/Duplex (Rl/R2) zoning. 1429 Loch Lomond is zoned the same (Rl/R2) which is appropriate for the area P!AtI So, at the end of the day... this "proposed" development is NOT appropriate in ANY way or form. Please find attached a copy of a "message" I sent to the "developer" prior to their "unsafe open meeting" — I would NOT attend due to our current "Covid 19" situation If you have any questions... please feel free to contact me. David Fischer Ganong Road Saint John NB f ZIIT.7 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) stop rezoning Date: November 25, 2021 9:01:32 AM PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: frank kyle <fkyle2012@hotmail.com> Sent: November 24, 2021 6:52 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Fw: 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) stop rezoning [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to ,�Danisample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * From: frank kyle Sent: November 9, 2021 6:09 PM To: onestopna saintiohn.ca <onestop na saintiohn.ca>; mark.readena saintiohn.ca <mark.readena saintiohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) stop rezoning Dear Common Council, We are writing this letter to let you know my wife and I are TOTALLY AGAINST REZONING from residential to apartment buildings on 1429 Loch Lomond Road. It doesn't matter the size of the buildings; we want it stopped. We built our home here because it was a beautiful stable residential area with no rental of apartments. Everyone here is a homeowner who takes care of their property. This is a restrictive covenant subdivision. In your Plan SJ Municipal Plan, see Policy LU-88. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood and is compatible with surrounding land uses. We don't want to be looking out our living room window and see all buildings in front of us, dumpsters, garbage flying around, rodents in the area, will there be rats? We live in a very windy part of the city and we get high winds off the bay. The value of our homes will diminish. There will be a lot more people in our neighborhood who are not homeowners. Will crime increase? Please stop the bulldozing of this land which will destroy all the shrubby around for all the multiple red Cardinals that live in the area we see every day. If houses are built it gives the birds a chance to relocate. Are these birds not protected in Canada? Should I mention the highly busy traffic on Loch Lomond Road. Most families have 2 vehicles, so if there are 105 units with all their cars trying to get out into the already extremely busy Loch Lomond Road. Thank you for your consideration to NOT REZONE the property to medium density buildings from individual residential dwellings. Sincerely, Frank and Shirley Kyle 7 Lakefield Court �ZIIW From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Rezoning in Loch Lomond Date: November 19, 2021 4:12:23 PM PAC response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsO-saintjohn.ca From: Joemai Hamili <jshamili@ymail.com> Sent: November 19, 20214:08 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Cc: Joyce Hamili <joyceann_relox@yahoo.com>; Aigo Ilimah <jshamili@ymail.com> Subject: Rezoning in Loch Lomond [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to suamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello, We received this letter re this re -zoning in our area. As a resident and lived here in 144 Bon Accord Dr we're not favor on this new development. We're against it and hope this can be rejected. Our small community here in Bon Accord Dr is very quite and lively. We don't want this to change because of this new development in our area. In terms of this Forest that their planning to excavate for this new Apartment is not a good move. A lot of animal like deer squirrel etc are living in that forest. Overall, please stop this new development and leave this forest free. �ZIIRI Hope this letter can reach out to the Developer. Thank you, Joe and Joyce Hamili �ZIIM From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Revised Petition Sheet on its way shortly Date: November 25, 2021 10:09:49 AM Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Janice Goodine <janicegoodine@gmail.com> Sent: November 25, 2021 9:15 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Revised Petition Sheet on its way shortly [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to ,�Danisample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Good morning, I will be sending in a revised copy of the Petition Sheet. I will send in one more page to be added to the Petition this morning. Had some people contact me this morning and want to be added. Thank you Janice Goodine-Shannon �Z-Y From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Talk for Councilors Meeting Nov 29th, 2021 Date: November 25, 2021 9:07:38 AM Attachments: Petiton Sheet 1429 Loch Lomond Road Rezoning.pdf Janice Good ine-Shannon, Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road. Presentation to Common Council Nov 29, 2021.docx PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Janice Goodine <janicegoodine@gmail.com> Sent: November 24, 2021 5:32 PM To: Comonclerk@saintjohn.ca; OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Talk for Councilors Meeting Nov 29th, 2021 External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@saintJohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hi Jon, As promised, here is a copy of my talk to put in the package for the Councilors meeting on the 29th. I highlighted the topics, but sent along the whole speech. I am also attaching the Petition Sheet with all the names and new ones included. There is a total of 93. Please add me as a speaker and also my husband Barry Shannon, in case I run out of time. Thank you Jon so much for all your help. It has been a pleasure talking with you, and all your help has been very much appreciated. Please see attached. Respectfully, Janice Goodine-Shannon & Barry Shannon I Z-10 I Saint John Common Council Meeting Nov 29t", 2021 Introduction: Good evening Mayor Reardon and Common Council. Thank you for having us to speak in this meeting. I am Janice Goodine-Shannon, and this is my husband Barry Shannon. We moved here in 2015 to East Saint John, not Rothesay and not Quispamsis, but Saint John. This is a desirable place to retire in. We live at 16 Lakefield Court and this rezoning affects the quality of our lives substantially. We are here tonight because we oppose the decision to rezone the said property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. Petition: Ninety-three, (93) property owners signed a petition that live around the said parcel of land and are against the rezoning for apartment buildings, including 2 residence with houses on Loch Lomond Road, across from 1429 Loch Lomond. I am sure there are multiple letters sent into Council against this rezoning. Comparing to other property: What I understood after talking with Mark Reade, he is focusing on this rezoning by comparing the new building at O'Leary Retirement Place, on Loch Lomond Road by the Tim Hortons to the proposed site in question. This is not comparable as O'Leary place is for seniors and is around commercial buildings and not in a subdivision. They also have a garden area for the seniors, lots of green space. This parcel of land in question on Loch Lomond Road is surrounded by mostly single-family owned dwellings. To put big buildings in this area, is like finding a worm in your nice red apple. It will be ugly. As it was said in the PAC meeting, this is not good growth, its bad growth in the city. Is Saint John this desperate? Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, Nov. 29, 2021 269 2 At the PAC meeting Envision Saint John was asked if they read all the letters opposing this rezoning for big buildings and he said no. Do I need to say anymore! How does the proposed density of building forms fit within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood? Also, the apartment buildings off Bon Accord have been mentioned. It appears the apartment buildings off Bon Accord have been there for years and property owners built around these buildings. They also have lots of spacing and a wooded area behind them. They are also set away from the single-family dwellings on Bon Accord Drive. PAC meeting, Nov 16, 2021: Mr. Gerry Lowe said, Quote, "The more I look at it, it's' like it was brought in with a helicopter dropped off in the middle of single houses on both sides of the street". Unquote. They do not fit in. This will have a negative impact to the adjacent lands and neighbourhoods. This is a beautiful stable residential area where all the homeowners look after their property. This is an owner -occupied restrictive covenant subdivision, and people take pride in their property. Rezoning for apartment buildings will not contribute positively to our neighbourhood and are not compatible with surrounding land as stated SJ Municipal Plan", See Schedule B, page 43 - Stable Areas. In the SJ Municipal Plan, see page 88, 5.1 it says Neighbourhoods and Housing Goals. 6: Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. Bedroom Communities: The SJ Municipal Plan? I think the city council may need to revisit it and protect some areas. Let's keep some bedroom communities in Saint John desirable and beautiful. Areas like ours makes people want to move here and build their Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, Nov. 29, 2021 268 3 retirement home. If apartments can pop up anywhere, people will not want to take a chance and build here. We would have not bought here if we thought there would be a chance of big buildings behind us, houses yes, but not apartment buildings. Spit Fire Drawings: In the mass drawings done by Spit Fires of the property, there is deception of building size and they make the houses look as big as the buildings in question. In the revised mass model, it hardly shows any houses along the property especially along Bon Accord. Our house and the other houses along Lakefield Court backing the property are one level houses with a walk out basement. The developers are trying to compare our houses to a 2-story apartment building. Developers: The developers said in the open house to everyone who attended, that building smaller buildings were not economically feasible. How is it feasible now, they started with 8, 3 story, 17-unit buildings, total 136 units and converted to 5 of them to, 2 story, 4-unit, total 105 units, apartments as stated at the PAC meeting. They are calling them 2 story stacked garden homes. These are not garden homes; they are 2 story apartment buildings. Again, how is it feasible now to go from 136 units to 105 units and with the possibility of 87 units. Why not put retirement houses with gardens? Garbage Concerns: We were also told by the developers at the open house, that garbage dumpsters would be in a closed area in one place. Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, Nov. 29, 2021 269 4 This is a very windy part of the city with high winds coming off the bay. There will be garbage flying around in this area and an increase of rodents. Yes, rats. Question is, why does the diagram show dumpsters all over the property? They also show trees as a buffer, there are no trees behind our row of houses. Trees take 20 years to grow. This is not well received by everyone that is impacted and is many of us. Noise concerns: What about the noise pollution? We will hear heavy-duty construction noise, from early morning until dusk, for 4 to 8 years. The parking lots will be lite up with bright lights in our bedrooms at night. People locking vehicles with horns blowing day and night. People moving in and out. Barry and I are both retired and spend most our days at home. This affects our quality life at home as we know it. With this density in our neighborhood, will our house insurance go up? Yes, it will. Will there be more emergency vehicles there? Will there be an increase of crime in the area? These are all legit questions. Again, what about the SJ Municipal Plan? Our quality of life as we know it will diminish with the environmental impact in our home with vehicle exhaust coming into our air exchange or bedroom windows as the line of idling cars waiting to exit out of the said property in the mornings. Also, the exhaust fumes from all the heavy equipment during the 4 to 8 years of construction. How does this enhance the community and quality of life? Environmental Impact: Will there an environmental impact study done? This parcel of land consists of shale rock, standing pools of water for periods of time, saturated areas, springs and watercourse. This watercourse consists of cat tails, ferns and moss growing. Will there be more flooding on Loch Lomond Rd during heavy rain events during the winter? Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, Nov. 29, 2021 2:10 5 Snow removal, storm drains: The proposed developers are making this is a private driveway and not city - maintained street, where are they going to put the snow, sand and salt from the parking lots with all those cars? Will they be pushing it into the western and northern edge of the watercourse off Blackall Lake? Will they be pushing it on the privately owned land? Of course, they will need storm drains to tap into Loch Lomond Road to prevent flooding. Will they maintain their storm drains in the fall and winter to make sure their clear on their privately owned driveway and not city maintained? These are questions to consider. Traffic impact study: A traffic impact study was done Tuesday Oct 19t" from 7am and 7pm. 13,700 vehicles were recorded passing by. This is NOT a realistic study considering we are in a pandemic and many people working from home on this date. Since then, schools have reopened and every morning the traffic is backed up to a stop or a slow crawl going down the East lane towards the city. Most people have not gone back to work yet. Wait until the snow flies! What about the heavy-duty traffic from all the trucks going in and out of their driveway during construction? Turning lane: Will there be a need for a continuation of turning lanes past to Bon Accord to 1429 Loch Lomond road with the increased density? This is a safety issue, ask any fireman, ambulance driver or police what its like to get through high traffic times. Is the city going to pay to rectify this traffic congestion nightmare? I thought I heard the developers state in the PAC meeting, if I'm not wrong, that this was not their problem and was the city's problem. Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, Nov. 29, 2021 2:13 0 Heavy Construction dirt and dust: With this big development there will be construction dirt on our house. We have lots of big windows including our 4 sky lights. Are the developers going to come good and pay for our house and window cleaning for the next 4 to 8 years. I doubt it. Gem in the City: This is a highly sought after hidden Gem in the city. The beauty and tranquility everyone is looking for, is here. This is what we are trying to protect. Where else in East SJ would you find an area of restrictive covenants like this, Old Lake Trail area, Lakefield Court and Bon Accord. This proposal of big buildings will have a significantly impact on the public realm here and will not contribute positively to the neighbourhood. This does not fit in. This will degrade our properties and quality of life and do not compliment our properties. Quality of life: We bought our house 6 years ago in good faith knowing that one day single family, owned dwellings would be built here and now were being faced with this. There is already a negative impact of what were going through right now. Our quality of life has already started to change. We don't want to but will we have to move? Is the city so short on land they must destroy this area? Please, listen to the people in the area who are speaking out and who's quality of live are being affected. There are a lot of retired Saint Johners here and are against this proposal of this development. The developers don't live here in the province. Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, Nov. 29, 2021 2:12 7 Why not support our own local developers that want to build houses. We know of one developer that wants to put houses for seniors on this property and a garden area. Ending notes: On July 7t", 2011, It was proposed to put a duplex in the area at the north end of Old Lake Trail. The PAC squashed the idea and said no to it. Why would they accept the rezoning for bigger buildings now? But on November 16t" meeting the PAC also rejected the proposal of the rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, for big buildings. There are no other buildings east of Bon Accord. Will our property values go down? Yes, Will our property taxes go down? We do not want this land rezoned from owner occupied, single family residential houses. Please stop this development of big buildings in our beautiful neighborhood and way of life. No one wants worms in their apples. Thank you again for listening to all of us Saint Johners that have spoken out against this rezoning and everyone that has signed the petition sheets. Thank you & have a good evening Janice & Barry Shannon Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, Nov. 29, 2021 2:13 From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Talk for Councilors Meeting Nov 29th, 2021 Date: November 25, 2021 10:10:27 AM PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Janice Goodine <janicegoodine@gmail.com> Sent: November 25, 2021 9:13 AM To: Comonclerk@saintjohn.ca; OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Re: Talk for Councilors Meeting Nov 29th, 2021 [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Good morning, I have a revised copy of the Petition sheet to come in this morning. I have had more people contact me this morning who want to be added to the list. I will send in soon. Thank you Janice On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:32 PM Janice Goodine <ianicegoodineC@gmail.com.> wrote: Hi Jon, As promised, here is a copy of my talk to put in the package for the Councilors meeting on the 29th. I highlighted the topics, but sent along the whole speech. I am also attaching the Petition Sheet with all the names and new ones included. There is a total of 93. Please add me as a speaker and also my husband Barry Shannon, in case I run out of time. Thank you Jon so much for all your help. It has been a pleasure talking with you, and all your help has been very much appreciated. Please see attached. Respectfully, Janice Goodine-Shannon & Barry Shannon MIEN From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: Application for Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID00312900) Date: November 26, 2021 9:31:19 AM PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkinsa—saintjohn.ca From: Pam Hollis <grpadeda@nb.sympatico.ca> Sent: November 25, 2021 11:13 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Application for Rezoning,Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PI D00312900) [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To the Planning Advisory Committee This e-mail is in regard to the 1429 Loch Lomond Road property proposal for the rezoning to be changed from R2 to RM which would allow for the construction of multiple apartment buildings in an area of land already designated according to PlanSJ as a Stable Residential area for construction of single & double family dwellings. I currently reside in this neighbourhood at 28 Ganong Road & have lived here for the past 28 years. I have enjoyed the suburban yet close to uptown Saint John location. My husband & I raised our family & have seen the neighbourhood development grow from the 8 single family homes into what it currently is today. I'm very familiar with the parcel of land up for rezoning having walked through it many times with our children & on walks with our family dog. I cannot imagine 10 three story apartment buildings or even another proposal of 9 three story apartments with 4 stacked four unit Garden Homes constructed in that location! It would be very congested & visually most unappealing! I am strongly in opposition of this rezoning/variance to this parcel of property for the same concerns that are already outlined in previous letters sent in from other neighbourhood residents. M ;1`1 1. TRAFFIC - As a former Registered Nurse, when I was working I would have to try to ease into (and through) the long line of cars travelling in the early mornings, these many more proposed apartment units will increase that already heavy traffic flow. 2. NOISE POLLUTION - Construction of this apartment complex will take years to complete. And everyday noise that will go hand in hand with congested apartment living. 3. GARBAGE DISPOSAL - Bins that will attract rodents that could possibly result in a over run situation similar to what I believe Quispamsis is currently dealing with. 4. QUALITY OF LIFE - Many of us built/moved into homes in this neighbourhood with the knowledge that it was a Stable Residential area and not one that would possibly be up for changing to have an Apartment Complex built right next door in our backyards. People like to know they can choose to live in a low density residential area and the city too has a responsibility to also protect those tax paying homeowners. A city has designated areas for all types of living & buildings to be constructed. People moving into this City of Saint John would want to know where to make their decisions depending on what quality of life they choose. Please respect the decision we have made on ours. I urge you to please oppose this application for rezoning/variance. Sincerely, Pam Hollis 28 Ganong Road Saint John,N.B. 506-696-1304 groadeda(@nb.sympatico.ca 0*11rij From: OneStop To: Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee Cc: OneStop Subject: FW: 576-578 Fundy Dr Date: November 17, 2021 8:37:51 AM PAC response (this came in our email at 4:46pm last night) Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: Tom Ketchum <tom ketchum@hotmail.com> Sent: November 16, 20214:46 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: 576-578 Fundy Dr [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to ,�Danisample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello, I am sending this email to express my concerns regarding proposed re -zoning of 576-578 fundy drive. I am against any re -zoning of what are intended to be single family dwelling on fundy drive. I believe it will effect market value of my home and other homes in the area. This also opens up more opportunities for potential growth of said property, which I am against. Tom Ketchum 278 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Onestoo Planning Admin; Burgess, Aimee OneStoo FW: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road November 25, 2021 10:53:24 AM PAC / Council response Paula Hawkins One Stop Development Shop Customer Service Centre Ground Floor— City Hall (506) 658-2911 paula.hawkins0saintjohn.ca From: V- MAC <hippyguy69@LIVE.COM> Sent: November 25, 2021 10:49 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca>; Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to sbamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Hello I am writing to you to voice my concerns about the potential rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I was born and raised in Saint John but have not been living in the city for approx. 15 years. Recently we decided to down size and ease into a simple retired life and decided what better place than Saint John, our original home town. A year and a half later we moved into our brand-new house that we spent countless hours designing and planning. Part of this planning included researching the 19-acre piece of property that is now for sale at 1429 Loch Lomond Road that runs adjacent to our street. At this time, I also researched the empty parcel of land on the Lakewood Heights side of the lake for future development. It eased my mind to find out all available empty parcels of land in close proximity were zoned for residential use. As I sit here typing this, I keep questioning myself. Did I make a huge mistake moving back to Saint John? I think it is great that people want to come and invest money in our city but this is not the property for an apartment complex, way too many negatives to list most of them I am sure you are familiar with as you live in the area. We pay very high taxes in this neighborhood with a substantial increase as of late. I also know that every single household in this area is against this rezoning. I can only speak for myself that if this rezoning is approved and this project moves forward, I will regrettably be moving from Saint John once 0*11!7 and for all. Thank you for your time. Vince MacLennan 60 Old Lake Trail Saint John N.B E2J-OJ5 hippvguv69PIive.com 506-977-2070 Sent from Outlook From: Seamus Hanley To: OneStoo Cc: Reade, Mark Subject: Rezoning of 1420 Lochlomond Rd Date: January 16, 2022 8:09:54 PM External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** PAC members: I'm writing to object to the proposed re -zoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. I believe the density is far too high for this predominantly single family / duplex community. About 10 years ago we decided to build our home on Old Lake Trail. There were covenants put in place to ensure that only single-family homes could be built on our street (with an allowance for a granny suit.) The homes had to be a minimum of 1200 square feet. These building lots sold for a premium because people knew that if they built in this area, other houses that were to follow would need to meet a certain standard. This insured that their investment in their homes would be protected because the other houses on the street that were to follow would also need to adhere to these guidelines when being built. This gave people confidence that they could spend that extra money on a lot and the house because it would be a safe long-term investment due to the protective covenants in place. This process worked, and now that it's completed, the street is pictured on the city's website as a representative neighborhood for the Forest Hills and Lakewood areas. For this proposed development to be constructed, the zoning will need to be increased by 2 levels, from R2 to RL and then again up to RM, medium size residential to accommodate the two 3 story 30-unit buildings. In addition to the 2 levels of zoning increase, this proposal will also require 5 additional variances to deviate from Zoning by-law standards as well as 2 more variances to deviate from the Sub -Division By laws. Section 5.1 of plan SJ states that it "Supports stable residential neighborhoods and ensures that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighborhoods" W-15l Squeezing this apartment complex between two single-family neighborhoods is not going to maintain and enhance the character of the neighborhoods. Even if the density is reduced from 105 to 82 units. The developer has mentioned that one of the reasons for building this development is to have a legacy for their families. The houses in these neighborhoods are our investments and although not the same magnitude, will in many cases be our legacy to our own families as well. I also question why the development needs to be such a high density to be economically viable. While an increase in density is much more profitable, I'm sure the development could still be lucrative while building in a manner that is more consistent with the existing zoning and by laws. Based on nearby construction activity 1 don't believe this will be the only opportunity for the land in question to be developed. In the past 2 years we have seen the construction of 9 new single-family houses on Old Lake Trail, with another one under way. This has pretty much used up every available building lot on this street. With the continuing strong demand for housing, it's very likely that in the not too distant future, this lot in question will be developed in a way that is more consistent with the current zoning and in keeping in character with the surrounding finished neighborhoods. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely, Seamus Hanley. P1.1% From: leviburtt To: OneStoo Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) Date: January 15, 2022 8:30:17 PM [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** Hi, I am NOT in support in the rezoning of this area. If the city wishes to increase the amount of housing, that is fine, but this is not the place to do it. Loch Lomond was not designed to handle the amount of traffic it already experiences. Past Bon Accord drive there are no turning lanes which creates line-ups during the typical commute times. The location where the turn -in would be is on a reduced visibility turn and lays low. This would be a hazard and create more traffic jams on a road that should already have a minimum of 3 lanes. Large developments such as the proposed would be a burden - a real net negative to the area. The applicants should be asked how many times they have driven on that road on their way to and from work. If the applicants are from out of province, I can assure you they only have their own self interests in mind. I really hope the planning and advisory committee makes the right call. Please take and value the opinions of all of the residents of the area. WIN Beth & Don Roy 3 Roatan Way Saint John N.B. E2J O139 506.633.5970 Jan 15,2022 b ethroyiam @ gmail. com Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Rd In regard to the rezoning: My husband and I have lived on Roatan Way for 14 years. We have seen continual construction over the years of high end homes. The average property taxes range from $5000.00 to $10,00.00 per household. The proposal being presented would completely change the landscape of the area This project or another project, could go directly behind us, if the zoning gets changed. The strip of land running from Loch Lomond Road, back, could come out on Roatan and perhaps around the lake if zoning gets changed. One of my other major concerns is the traffic on Loch Lomond Rd. When we leave our home we go down Ganong Rd and turn onto Loch Lomond. The traffic on Loch Lomond is tremendous. Thousands of vehicles travel the road daily. We have a stop sign at the end of Ganong but no stop lights or signs until we reach Hickey Rd. In the morning it can take up to 15 minutes to get out if turning left towards the airport. Additional traffic coming from this new units will increase more backup. School buses travel Loch Lomond Rd road, increasing traffic flow. The REZ is located about lkm down from us and many people travel by car or walk. The additional traffic will certainly affect it. Please consider my comments and thank you for the opportunity to express them. My husband and I are strongly opposed to this rezoning. Sincerely yours Don & Beth Roy Pi t,11 From: Gwenn Bartlett To: OneStoo Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PI D 00312900) Date: January 15, 2022 9:46:41 AM [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** Planning Advisory Committee: Please accept this letter as an opposition to the above application. We have lived in this area since 1993, having chosen the neighbourhood for its unique rural -like setting. This neighbourhood, consisting of Bon Accord and Ganong subdivisions, has a unique advantage of being in proximity to the city's amenities while maintaining a quiet and peaceful environment in which to live. This neighbourhood rivals many in the suburbs that potential homeowners seek. If we as a city hope to keep existing and potential tax paying homeowners, it is neighbourhoods like this that will keep and attract those homeowners. If the integrity of such neighbourhoods is compromised, fewer choices will result in homeowners choosing to move outside the city. We are greatly concerned about the environmental cost to wildlife around this area. Loss of trees and vegetation will impact the stability of the earth. The already busy traffic on Loch Lomond Rd will become even more congested. Please consider carefully what will be lost if you grant this application. This development does not belong in a single household area. Multi units are needed. But there are far better areas for them than to compromise the neighbourhood that already exists. The city has a responsibility to existing tax paying homeowners to ensure that what they signed up to pay for will continue to serve in their best interest. Thank you for your consideration. Christopher and Gwenn Bartlett. 223 Bon Accord Drive Sent from my Whone W-111 From: Christina To: OneStoo Subject: Rezoning application for 1429 Loch Lomond Road. Date: January 17, 2022 3:26:56 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * To whom it may concern, While I see the developers have submitted an updated plan for this site, I am still against this rezoning. This plan continues to not blend in with current surroundings and still requires variances along with rezoning. As noted in the previous PAC meeting it was mentioned that there seems to be sufficient other locations that are already zoned for this type of project. Why are they so determined to build in this area when there are already areas zoned to accommodate this plan? The developers continue to make changes but it keeps coming down to this is a residential area and honestly, anything that they propose does not fit in this area. The residents in this area bought or built in the area because it is a desirable residential area. I had a conversation with a developer who inquired about buying this property to develop it for residential use at the same time that these developers outbid them. Clearly based on the feedback that you are receiving from the area residents, we would much rather support a residential development . My request would be to keep this parcel of land as residential and allow a developer to develop as such instead of changing the original plan that attracted all of us home owners to this location. I am against this rezoning application again.. Christina O'Keeffe 20 Lakefield Court WIN From: DEBBIE MCGRATH To: OneStop Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 16, 2022 3:51:22 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** I am sending this letter on behalf of myself and my husband, Dan McGrath. Twenty-two years ago, we built a home at 55 Norman Drive. We absolutely loved the neighbourhood and as it developed, we were blessed with great neighbours as well. Twelve years ago, we decided to build again but did not want to leave this area so we built a home at 55 Old Lake Trail, adjacent to our previous home. During this time, the City zoned the neighbouring property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road as R2, One and two family homes which is perfect for this location. We would never have re -built here if the zoning had been for a multiple unit residential development. While our current home was being built, we moved into a development very similar to what is being proposed for 1429 Loch Lomond Road. We experienced people moving out and abandoning their pets resulting in large groups of feral cats running around the adjacent neighbourhoods. Garbage was strewn all around the garbage dumpsters which attracted rodents and other animals. This is not what we would want to live with again. The traffic on Loch Lomond Road is so heavy now that it is very difficult to get out. How are approximately 80 more vehicles supposed to get out? I realize that the City needs more housing but this multi unit development is not the right fit for this parcel of land. I hope you will take our concerns into consideration and decide against this proposal. Thanking you in advance, Debbie & Dan McGrath 8 Old Lake Trail Saint John, NB E2J5E1 PIMA From: Janice Goodine To: OneStop Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 14, 2022 4:40:45 PM Attachments: opposition of Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Letter to PAC January 18th, 2022, Janice Goodine- Shannon.docx Petition pages 1-6 1429 Loch Lomond Rezoning.i)df Petition pages 7-8 1429 Loch Lomond Rezoning.pdf Petition pace 9, 114 total names, 1429 Loch Lomond Rezoning 2022.pdf External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Good Afternoon, Here is a copy of my letter to present to the Planning Advisory Committee. I have also included the support Petition against this rezoning. As I would like to speak, Mark Reade has sent me an invite to the meeting. Thank you Sincerely Janice Goodine-Shannon W-11.13 I Saint John Planning Advisory Committee, January 18th, 2022 Introduction: Good evening everyone, thank you for allowing us to speak at this meeting. My name is Janice Goodine-Shannon, and this is my husband Barry Shannon. When reading about Tourism Saint John, it said to "visit Saint Awesome and how awesome it would be to visit here". Envision Saint John, said "when you live here you soon realize SJ is Canadas most connected community and an undiscovered gem in Atlantic Canada". So, we moved here in 2015 to East Saint John, not Rothesay and not Quispamsis where the taxes are lower, but Saint John. This is a desirable place to retire in. We knew the taxes were much higher, but we still moved here on the outskirts of the inner city far from all the big buildings. Looking at this new proposed rezoning for development, we are starting to regret moving to Saint John. We live at 16 Lakefield Court and these buildings will be directly in our back yard, about 26 meters from our back door. There is no tree line behind us and trees take up to 25 years to grow. This rezoning for apartment buildings affects the quality of our lives substantially. We have a house full of big picture windows and we want to be able to keep our curtains open and look outside. That was one reason we bought this house. With a row of multiple units encroaching on our privacy by looking down in our bedrooms, our decks and living room, we will have no privacy at all. Our quality of life is threatened by this rezoning. We are already suffering a negative impact because of these meetings. Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 18th, 2022 N:1%7 2 Petition: There are 114 landowners who are in opposition against rezoning this property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road through acknowledgement of the Support Petition Sheets. People do not want apartment buildings, parking lots with big lights and garbage dumpsters in our back yards. This will ruin the quality and tranquility of our retirement community. Comparing to other property: When talking with Mark Reade, from what I understood was, he is focusing on this rezoning by comparing the new building at O'Leary Retirement Place, on Loch Lomond Road by the Tim Hortons to the proposed site in question. This is not comparable as O'Leary place is around commercial buildings and not in a subdivision of houses. This is a place for seniors and has a garden area with lots of green space. Also, the apartment buildings off Bon Accord have been mentioned. From what I understood it appears the apartment buildings off Bon Accord have been there for many years and property owners built around these buildings. They also have lots of spacing and a wooded area behind them. These buildings are tucked away from the houses on Bon Accord Drive. This parcel of land on Loch Lomond Road is surrounded by mostly houses. To put apartment buildings in this area, is like finding a worm in your nice juicy red apple you are about to eat. It is ugly and unwanted. As it was said in the PAC meeting, this is not good growth, its bad growth in the city. Is Saint John this desperate? In the SJ Municipal Plan, see page 88, 5.1 Neighbourhoods and Housing Goals. Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 P4%I97 3 6: Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. Do I need to say anymore? How does the proposed density of buildings, fit within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood? PAC meeting, Nov 16, 2021: Mr. Gerry Lowe said, Quote, "The more I look at it, it's like it was brought in with a helicopter dropped off in the middle of single houses on both sides of the street". Unquote. They do not fit in. This will have a negative impact to the adjacent lands and neighbourhoods. In this beautiful stable residential area of restricted covenants of homeowners who take pride and look after their property. Rezoning for apartment buildings will not contribute positively to the neighbourhood and are not compatible with surrounding land as stated SJ Municipal Plan", See Schedule B, page 43 - Stable Areas. The PAC, November 16t" meeting had rejected the proposal of the rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road. Also, that there are no other apartment buildings east of Bon Accord. At the PAC meeting Jeff Cyr of Envision Saint John was asked if he read all the letters opposing this rezoning, the answer was no. Why is Envision SJ is not listening to the people that live here. Bedroom Communities: I think the city council needs to revisit the SJ Municipal Plan and protect some stable residential areas. Let's keep some bedroom communities in Saint John desirable and beautiful. Areas like ours makes people want to move here and build their retirement houses. When we bought here it was zoned for houses, not apartment buildings. Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 P4%S 4 Spit Fire Drawings: In the drawings done by Joe Pelletier of Spit Fires, there is deception of building size and they make our house look as big as the buildings in question. In the new drawings from Spit Fire, it doesn't show any houses along the property. I wonder why? Our house and other houses along Lakefield Court backing the property are one level houses with a walk out basement. The developers are trying to compare our houses to a 2-story apartment building. Also, the land appears flat in the drawing, but it slopes up the hill. Garbage Concerns: We have seen, firsthand how garbage dumpsters work at apartment buildings. When they get full, bags of garbage are set beside the dumpster. Because we get high winds off the bay here, there will be garbage flying around in this area and an increase of animals and rodents. Noise concerns: What about the noise pollution? There will be heavy-duty construction noise, from early morning until night, nonstop for 4 to 8 years. The parking lots will be lite up with bright lights shining in our bedrooms all night long. People locking vehicles with horns blowing day and night. Barry and I are both retired and spend most of our days at home. We love our home and made it, so we have all the enjoyments of life here. These buildings will affect our quality life at home as we know it. With this density in our neighborhood, will our house insurance go up? Yes, it will. Will there be more emergency vehicles in and out of there? Will there be an increase of crime in the area? These are all legit questions. Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 5 Our quality of life as we know it will diminish with the environmental impact in our home with vehicle exhaust coming into our air exchange and bedroom windows as the line of idling cars waiting to exit out of the said property in the mornings. Also, the exhaust fumes from all the heavy equipment during the 4 to 8 years of construction. How does this enhance our quality of life? Environmental Impact and Snow Removal: This parcel of land consists of shale rock, standing pools of water, saturated areas, springs and watercourse. This watercourse consists of cat tails, ferns and moss growing. With one big parking lot, where are they going to push the snow with salt, engine fluids and possibly, gas leaks from vehicles? Will they be pushing it near or into the northern edge of the watercourse off Blackall Lake? Will this seep into the ground and eventually go into the waterway? How will they stop this? Has there been an environmental impact study done? Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was done Tuesday Oct 19t" from 7am and 7pm. 13,700 vehicles were recorded passing by. This is not a realistic study considering we are in a pandemic and many people were working from home on this date. Before the pandemic and on a normal weekday morning, the traffic is backed up to a stop or a slow crawl going west towards the city. Supper time traffic is very heavy as well heading east. What about the heavy-duty vehicles going in and out of the parking lot during construction? This will add to more congestion on Loch Lomond Road. Safe Turning lane: For safety there needs to be a turning lane east of Bon Accord to 1429 Loch Lomond road with the increased density of traffic. This is a safety issue, ask any fireman, ambulance driver or police what its like to get through high traffic times in an emergency. Is the city going to pay to rectify this traffic congestion and Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 P40.191 0 safety issue? I thought I heard the developers state in the PAC meeting, "that this was not their problem and was the city's problem" correct me if I'm wrong. Heavy Construction dirt and dust: With this big development, there will be continuous construction dust and dirt on our house. We also, have 6 big picture windows including our 4 sky lights. Will they agree to clean our house and windows twice a year for the next 4 to 8 years? I believe this is not an unrealistic request to ask. I'm sure others the live here feel the same. Building Foundations on Existing Houses: Will they come good for any damage done to existing houses and foundations caused from their heavy construction? Will they pay for any damages incurred? Quality of Life, Gem in the City: This is a highly sought after hidden Gem in the city. This proposal of big buildings will have a significant impact on the public realm here and will not contribute positively to the neighbourhood. This will degrade our properties, degrade our quality of life. How do you see this complimenting our neighbourhood? Closing notes: Is the city so short on land you are willing to let people who don't live in the province destroy this area? Please, listen to the voting people who are speaking out and opposing this rezoning that live in the area. Its our quality of life that is being affected. There are a lot of retired Saint Johner's living here. This is bad development planning as verified by a few of the PAC councillors in last meeting. Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 NOM,11 7 I wish to say thank you to the Planning Advisory Committee for listening. Also, thank you to all our community who, lives here, and have spoken out against this rezoning. One last thing. Would you want this in your back yard? Thank you & good evening Janice & Barry Shannon 16 Lakefield Court Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 18t", 2022 P"01 I Saint John Planning Advisory Committee, January 18t", 2022 Introduction: Good evening Planning Advisory Council. Thank you for having us to speak at this meeting. My name is Janice Goodine-Shannon, and this is my husband Barry Shannon. We moved here in 2015 to East Saint John, not Rothesay and not Quispamsis where the taxes are lower, but Saint John. This was a desirable place to retire in, so we moved here even though the taxes were much higher. We now regret it looking at this development proposal. We live at 16 Lakefield Court and these buildings will be directly in our back yard and there is no tree line behind us. This rezoning for apartment buildings affects the quality of our lives substantially. All these apartment buildings, with all these tenants will be looking directly down into our bedroom and living room windows. We have a house of big picture windows and we want to be able to open them and still have our privacy. With 24 units of windows all looking down in our bedroom, at our decks and home we will have no privacy at all. We are here tonight because we oppose the decision to rezone the said property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road and stop the apartment buildings. Petition: We have 114 landowners who are in opposition to stop the rezoning of this property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road through acknowledgement of the Support Petition Sheets, including 2 residence who live on Loch Lomond Road, across from property in question. We do not want apartment buildings, parking lots with big lights and garbage dumpsters in our back yards. This will ruin the quality and tranquility of our retirement community. Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 P4%1.1 2 Comparing to other property: What I understood after talking with Mark Reade, he is focusing on this rezoning by comparing the new building at O'Leary Retirement Place, on Loch Lomond Road by the Tim Hortons to the proposed site in question. This is not comparable as O'Leary place is for seniors and is around commercial buildings and not in a subdivision. They also have a garden area for the seniors, lots of green space. This parcel of land in question on Loch Lomond Road is surrounded by mostly single-family owned dwellings. To put apartment buildings in this area, is like finding a worm in your nice juicy red apple you are about to eat. It is ugly and unwanted. As it was said in the PAC meeting, this is not good growth, its bad growth in the city. Is Saint John this desperate? At the PAC meeting Envision Saint John was asked if they read all the letters opposing this rezoning for big buildings and he said no. Do I need to say anymore! How does the proposed density of building forms fit within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood? Also, the apartment buildings off Bon Accord have been mentioned. It appears the apartment buildings off Bon Accord have been there for years and property owners built around these buildings. They also have lots of spacing and a wooded area behind them. They are also set away from the single-family dwellings on Bon Accord Drive. PAC meeting, Nov 16, 2021: Mr. Gerry Lowe said, Quote, "The more I look at it, it's' like it was brought in with a helicopter dropped off in the middle of single houses on both sides of the street". Unquote. They do not fit in. This will have a negative impact to the adjacent lands and neighbourhoods. This is a beautiful stable residential area where all the homeowners look after their property. This is an owner -occupied restrictive covenant subdivision, and people take pride in their property. Rezoning for apartment buildings will not contribute positively to our neighbourhood and Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 P4%tl 3 are not compatible with surrounding land as stated Si Municipal Plan", See Schedule B, page 43 - Stable Areas. In the SJ Municipal Plan, see page 88, 5.1 it says Neighbourhoods and Housing Goals. 6: Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. Bedroom Communities: The SJ Municipal Plan? I think the city council needs to revisit it and protect some areas. Let's keep some bedroom communities in Saint John desirable and beautiful. Areas like ours makes people want to move here and build their retirement homes. If apartments can pop up anywhere, people will not want to take a chance and build here. We would have not bought here if we thought there would be a chance of rental buildings behind us, houses yes, but not apartment buildings. Spit Fire Drawings: In the mass drawings done by Spit Fires of the property, there is deception of building size and they make the houses look as big as the buildings in question. In the revised mass model, it hardly shows any houses along the property especially along Bon Accord. Our house and the other houses along Lakefield Court backing the property are one level houses with a walk out basement. The developers are trying to compare our houses to a 2-story apartment building. Developers: The developers said in the open house to everyone who attended, that building smaller buildings were not economically feasible. So now they are building multiple row apartment buildings and two large 30 unit buildings. Why not put retirement houses with gardens? Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 P4%1-11 4 Garbage Concerns: We were also told by the developers at the open house, that garbage dumpsters would be in a closed area in one place. This is a very windy part of the city with high winds coming off the bay. There will be garbage flying around in this area and an increase of rodents. On garbage day if you look at the row houses across the street across from the fire station on Loch Lomond Road, you will see a big mess of garbage every time from the rodents, birds and wind. Will this will be our neighborhood too? Noise concerns: What about the noise pollution? We will hear heavy-duty construction noise, from early morning until dusk, for 4 to 8 years. The parking lots will be lite up with bright lights in our bedrooms at night. People locking vehicles with horns blowing day and night. People moving in and out. Barry and I are both retired and spend most our days at home. This affects our quality life at home as we know it. With this density in our neighborhood, will our house insurance go up? Yes, it will. Will there be more emergency vehicles there? Will there be an increase of crime in the area? These are all legit questions. Again, what about the SJ Municipal Plan? Our quality of life as we know it will diminish with the environmental impact in our home with vehicle exhaust coming into our air exchange or bedroom windows as the line of idling cars waiting to exit out of the said property in the mornings. Also, the exhaust fumes from all the heavy equipment during the 4 to 8 years of construction. How does this enhance the community and quality of life? Environmental Impact: Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 18t", 2022 P"0 01 5 Has there been an environmental impact study done? This parcel of land consists of shale rock, standing pools of water for periods of time, saturated areas, springs and watercourse. This watercourse consists of cat tails, ferns and moss growing. Will there be more flooding on Loch Lomond Rd during heavy rain events during the winter? Snow removal, storm drains: The proposed developers are making this is a private driveway and not city - maintained street, where are they going to put the snow, sand and salt from the parking lots with all those cars? Will they be pushing it into the northern edge of the watercourse off Blackall Lake? Of course, they will need storm drains to tap into Loch Lomond Road to prevent flooding. Will they maintain their storm drains in the fall and winter to make sure their clear on their privately owned driveway and not city maintained? These are questions to consider. Traffic impact study: A traffic impact study was done Tuesday Oct 19t" from 7am and 7pm. 13,700 vehicles were recorded passing by. This is NOT a realistic study considering we are in a pandemic and many people working from home on this date. Since then, schools have reopened and every morning the traffic is backed up to a stop or a slow crawl going down the East lane towards the city. Most people have not gone back to work yet. Wait until the snow flies! What about the heavy-duty traffic from all the trucks going in and out of their driveway during construction? Turning lane: Will there be a need for a continuation of turning lanes past to Bon Accord to 1429 Loch Lomond road with the increased density? This is a safety issue, ask any fireman, ambulance driver or police what its like to get through high traffic times. Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 18t", 2022 [00] 0 Is the city going to pay to rectify this traffic congestion nightmare? I thought I heard the developers state in the PAC meeting, if I'm not wrong, that this was not their problem and was the city's problem. Heavy Construction dirt and dust: With a big development there will be continuous construction dirt on our house. We have lots of big windows including our 4 sky lights. Are the developers going to come good and pay for house and window cleaning for the next 4 to 8 years? Gem in the City: This is a highly sought after hidden Gem in the city. The beauty and tranquility everyone is looking for, is here. This is what we are trying to protect. Where else in East S1 would you find an area of restrictive covenants like this, Old Lake Trail area, Lakefield Court and Bon Accord. This proposal of big buildings will have a significantly impact on the public realm here and will not contribute positively to the neighbourhood. This new development does not fit in. This will degrade our properties and quality of life and does not compliment our properties. Quality of life: We bought our house 7 years ago in good faith knowing that one day single family, owned dwellings would be built here and now were being faced with this disaster. Our quality of life has already started to change. We are already suffering a negative impact of what were going through right now having to deal with these meetings. Is the city so short on land you are willing to let people who don't live in the province destroy this area? Please, listen to the voting people who live here in the area and who are speaking out. Its our quality of live that is being affected. There are a lot of retired Saint Johner's that live here and are against the proposal Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 181", 2022 [till 7 of this development of apartment buildings. This is bad development planning as verified by a few of the PAC councillors in last meeting. Ending notes: But on November 16t" meeting the PAC also rejected the proposal of the rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, for big buildings. There are no other buildings east of Bon Accord. Will our property values go down? Yes, Will our property taxes go down? We do not want this land rezoned from owner occupied, single family residential houses. Please stop this development of big buildings in our beautiful neighborhood and way of life. Thank you again for listening to our community who votes and lives here and that have spoken out against this rezoning. Thank you & have a good evening Janice & Barry Shannon Opposition Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Janice Goodine-Shannon, January 18t", 2022 1919% From: ZELDA MELANSON To: OneStop Subject: Fw: Application for Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) Date: January 16, 2022 3:50:56 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * With respect to the revised application by the developers, we want to state that the design changes to the proposal for development make absolutely no difference in our level of objection to it. We are firmly and adamantly opposed to the addition of apartment buildings to our neighborhood. We would like to see this property developed as R2 as it has already been zoned. This is a sought after area for potential homeowners as proven by the fact that during the last two years all but one or two building lots have had new homes constructed on them. Our previous concerns are attached and still stand. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Kind Regards, Kevin McCarthy and Zelda Melanson Sent from Rogers Yahoo Mail on Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "ZELDA MELANSON" <zmelano047@rogers.com> To: "onestop@saintjohn.ca" <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Sent: Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1.14 PM Subject: Application for Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) COMMENTS According to Plan SJ this area and the subdivisions bordering it are classified as Stable Residential, which requires new developments be compatible with existing ones. The high density of this proposal makes one visualize lots of asphalt covered parking lots, multiple dumpsters and a real dearth of green space. Again, not compatible with what exists in a stable residential neighborhood. As residents in a subdivision directly bordering the proposed development we share the opinion of the majority of other homeowners that this proposed development is not suitable or compatible with the surrounding area for the following reasons. 1919191 GOOD FAITH The property in question sits between two lovely subdivisions, Bonaccord and Ganong/Lakefield Court/Old Lake Trail. It is zoned R2. With this understanding (R2) current residents ,who are all home owners, invested heavily in their properties in good faith. This fact gave them peace of mind before making the decision to invest their hard earned dollars in this area of East Saint John. It's worth noting that new home construction continues to date. QUALITY OF LIFE This proposal will have a negative effect on all neighbouring property owners quality of life. It means loss of enjoyment of their properties through crowding, loss privacy, excess noise and traffic, exhaust fumes and lights shining in windows from vehicles coming and going at all hours. We live in a neighborhood governed by covenants, covenants which establish high standards for our properties. The addition of multiple unit apartment buildings in our area will erode these standards. TIMELINE What is the estimated completion date for this project? This depends on a whole lot of factors and is a question that really can't be answered. Are the developers planning on financing each construction based on the ones just completed? It would almost be better to have the 105 units in one larger building (like others that are popping up in Saint John) because an end would be in sight for completion. Don't get us wrong though. We are opposed to the rezoning and ANY type of apartment buildings on this site. PROPERTY VALUES Homeowners in the area have all seen increases in their property assessments this year. If this development goes ahead our property values and resale values will plummet. Would this mean less tax revenue for the city from our homes but increased revenue from the new buildings? Is this way of thinking a case of being penny wise and pound foolish? TRAFFIC Loch Lomond Road has to be one of the busiest (and longest) streets in the city. It's probably safe to assume there will be at least one vehicle per unit. That's one hundred cars trying to exit onto and off of Lomond Road via a private right of way at peak traffic times. Try and visualize that. VARIANCE REQUESTING LOTS NOT ABUTTING A PUBLIC STREET If a private right of way is permitted rather than a public street what about curbs, sidewalks, storm water drains, street lighting etc? Other developers have invested in street infrastructure which, upon completion, is taken over by the city and maintained to a high standard. Why make an exception? EcZiL! NOTE It is our understanding that there are something like nine natural springs on the entire parcel of land. These springs feed Blackall Lake. That's a lot of water, once disrupted by bulldozing for more buildings, that will have to go somewhere. Keep in mind that provincial environmental regulations regarding alteration of water course and wetlands need to be complied with. NOTE **************************** In fact last week a city grader was needed to remove a thick layer of ice which built up as you turned off the end of Norman Drive onto Old Lake Trail. With temperature fluctuations there was a constant flow of water onto the street from the property in question. The ice removal was necessary after regular snow removal was completed. Kudos to our City crews. ***************************** Regards, Zelda and Kevin McCarthy Sent from Rogers Yahoo Mail on Android 1919191 From: Michael Maoee To: OneStoo Subject: Proposed Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 15, 2022 11:00:31 AM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * We would like to file an objection to the proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road.. This development is much too dense for this lot and is sitting between 2 current subdivisions of self contained homes and does not fit the area. Extra traffic trying to enter an already over crowded Loch Lomond Road from 82 units. This land is currently zoned single family and should remain as such. Yours truly Michael and Carol Magee, 3 Old Lake Trail K191.1 From: Paul Buckley To: OneStoo Subject: Re: Rezoning at 1429 Loch Lomond Road ( PID 00312900 ) Date: January 15, 2022 10:11:54 AM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * We oppose version 3 of this development dated January 4, 2022 because it still does not include a traffic solution. Our concerns are detailed below. Paul and Susan Buckley 73 Bon Accord Drive From: Paul Buckley Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 3:50 PM To: OneStopPsaintjohn.ca Subject: Rezoning at 1429 Loch Lomond Road ( PID 00312900 ) To Whom It May Concern, As long time home owners on Bon Accord Drive, we have some concerns about this development. Traffic on Loch Lomond Road has been observed as increasing over the last many years and at peak periods it has become especially challenging to access Loch Lomond Road from Bon Accord Drive. Line of site when turning from Bon Accord is limited as it is located on a corner. The lot looking east from foot of Bon Accord is also a snow collection area which makes visibility at the foot of Bon Accord Drive even more limited in winter. Also, the speed at which traffic flows on Loch Lomond at this point seems to be excessive which makes it even more of an issue. With the development proposed, this can only get worse. There needs to be some way to control the access at this intersection. We would oppose this development unless there is a traffic solution. Thank you for your consideration. 1919YA Paul and Susan Buckley 73 Bon Accord Drive E OU] From: Pam Hollis To: OneStop Subject: Fwd: Application for Rezoning,Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID00312900) Date: January 15, 2022 11:47:39 AM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Resending this letter of opposition after reading and taking into consideration the new changes that the developers have made to be presented in the meeting of February 07,2022 at 6:30 pm Begin forwarded message: From: Pam Hollis <graadedaj2nb.sympatico.ca> Subject: Application for Rezoning,Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID00312900) Date: November 25, 2021 at 11:12.32 PM AST To: Onestop�a�john.ca To the Planning Advisory Committee This e-mail is in regard to the 1429 Loch Lomond Road property proposal for the rezoning to be changed from R2 to RM which would allow for the construction of multiple apartment buildings in an area of land already designated according to P1anSJ as a Stable Residential area for construction of single & double family dwellings. I currently reside in this neighbourhood at 28 Ganong Road & have lived here for the past 28 years. I have enjoyed the suburban yet close to uptown Saint John location. My husband & I raised our family & have seen the neighbourhood development grow from the 8 single family homes into what it currently is today. I'm very familiar with the parcel of land up for rezoning having walked through it many times with our children & on walks with our family dog. I cannot imagine 10 three story apartment buildings or even another proposal of 9 three story apartments with 4 stacked four unit Garden Homes constructed in that location! It would be very congested & visually most unappealing! I am strongly in opposition of this rezoning/variance to this parcel of property for the same concerns that are already outlined in previous letters sent in from other neighbourhood residents. 1. TRAFFIC - As a former Registered Nurse, when I was working I would have to try to ease into (and through) the long line of cars travelling in the early mornings, these many more proposed apartment units will increase that already heavy traffic flow. 2. NOISE POLLUTION - Construction of this apartment complex will take years to complete. And everyday noise that will go hand in hand with congested apartment living. EcZi16-1 3. GARBAGE DISPOSAL - Bins that will attract rodents that could possibly result in a over run situation similar to what I believe Quispamsis is currently dealing with. 4. QUALITY OF LIFE - Many of us built/moved into homes in this neighbourhood with the knowledge that it was a Stable Residential area and not one that would possibly be up for changing to have an Apartment Complex built right next door in our backyards. People like to know they can choose to live in a low density residential area and the city too has a responsibility to also protect those tax paying homeowners. A city has designated areas for all types of living & buildings to be constructed. People moving into this City of Saint John would want to know where to make their decisions depending on what quality of life they choose. Please respect the decision we have made on ours. I urge you to please oppose this application for rezoning/variance. Sincerely, Pam Hollis 28 Ganong Road Saint John,N.B. 506-696-1304 grpadeda@ nb.sympatico.ca 1911to] From: Rama Wetuschat To: OneStoo Cc: Radwan. Paula Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Date: January 15, 2022 10:00:48 AM External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Dear Planning Advisory Committee, We are emailing to voice our concerns over the proposal of the apartment complexes on 1429 Loch Lomond Road. We moved to Ganong Road in 2018 with the intent to live in a friendly small neighbourhood where people know each other and feel safe. This has become especially important for our mental health during times of Covid and Lockdowns. Building a huge apartment complex here will change the character of our neighbourhood drastically. A further concern we have is that the traffic on Loch Lomond Road is already heavy during peak times. Should this project get approved traffic will surge even more, causing traffic issues during critical times for the existing neighbourhoods. This will only make matters worse for residents already having difficulty trying to commute back and forth from work. In addition to concerns about increased traffic we also fear noise pollution due to increase traffic and construction and the environmental impact, this project might have on our Neighbourhood. We live in an area where deer, cardinals, and bald eagle populations can thrive. The proposed complex will have a highly negative impact on wildlife habitats as well as the peacefulness of this neighbourhood. Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing impact on local wildlife habitat and should be investigated by the appropriate agency before approving the rezoning. We are not against development however it should be conducted in a logical sense without having a negative impact on people already living in the community. We urge you to reject the proposal and protect our quality of Life! Thank you. Raja & Alan Pizzey 311 From: Bartlett -Donaldson, J. (ASD-S) To: OneStop Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application for 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Date: January 17, 2022 3:01:26 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * January 17, 2022 Dear Mark Reade & The Planning Advisory Committee, Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Thank you for your letter explaining the above -mentioned application. We are residents of Bon Accord Dr. and are writing to express our opposition to this rezoning application for the construction of a multiple unit residential development. The additional design changes of this proposal after the PAC meeting has reduced the number of buildings and the unit count; however, it remains a development that does not enhance the character of our mainly owner -occupied, single family neighbourhood. We ask that you consider the fact that according to the Saint John Municipal Plan, the surrounding neighbourhoods are considered stable residential areas. The Municipal Plan states that rezoning would be permitted where the application could indicate that the proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood. With respect to this application, we would argue that this is not the case. Neighbours to this development could understand and support additional housing that matches the surrounding area, but not seven large buildings on a 4.5 acre lot with parking lots and dumpsters. Existing homeowners' quality of life will be severely impacted if this development is approved. For many years, noise pollution will be a daily occurrence, as the land is cleared, and buildings put up. Air quality will be affected with exhaust fumes from heavy machinery. Traffic will be impacted negatively, and safety concerns will arise. Even with the density of this proposed development being reduced somewhat from 105 to 82 units, there will be many more vehicles exiting onto Loch Lomond Rd during high traffic times, creating more congestion and the potential for serious accidents to occur. We understand the need for additional housing in the city; however, this particular proposal is not conducive to this particular area. Multi -unit apartment buildings within owner - occupied, single family residential neighbourhoods are not the solution. We urge you to reject this rezoning/variance application. Please take the existing residents' quality of life and the integrity of this well -established neighbourhood into consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Jacqueline Bartlett -Donaldson & Scott Donaldson 195111161 From: Bartlett -Donaldson, J. (ASD-S) To: OneStop Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application for 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Date: January 17, 2022 1:08:35 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * January 17, 2022 Dear Mark Reade & The Planning Advisory Committee, Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Thank you for your letter explaining the above -mentioned application. We are residents of Bon Accord Dr. and are writing to express our opposition to this rezoning application for the construction of a multiple unit residential development. The additional design changes of this proposal after the PAC meeting has reduced the number of buildings and the unit count; however, it remains a development that does not enhance the character of our mainly owner -occupied, single family neighbourhood. We ask that you consider the fact that according to the Saint John Municipal Plan, the surrounding neighbourhoods are considered stable residential areas. The Municipal Plan states that rezoning would be permitted where the application could indicate that the proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood. With respect to this application, we would argue that this is not the case. Neighbours to this development could understand and support additional housing that matches the surrounding area, but not seven large buildings on a 4.5 acre lot with parking lots and dumpsters. Existing homeowners' quality of life will be severely impacted if this development is approved. For many years, noise pollution will be a daily occurrence, as the land is cleared, and buildings put up. Air quality will be affected with exhaust fumes from heavy machinery. Traffic will be impacted negatively, and safety concerns will arise. Even with the density of this proposed development being reduced somewhat from 105 to 82 units, there will be many more vehicles exiting onto Loch Lomond Rd during high traffic times, creating more congestion and the potential for serious accidents to occur. We understand the need for additional housing in the city; however, this particular proposal is not conducive to this particular area. Multi -unit apartment buildings within owner - occupied, single family residential neighbourhoods are not the solution. We urge you to reject this rezoning/variance application. Please take the existing residents' quality of life and the integrity of this well -established neighbourhood into consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Jacqueline Bartlett -Donaldson & Scott Donaldson 195191 From: Troy Hoar To: One$top Subject: Re- zoning Date: January 17, 2022 2:33:18 PM [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** My name is Troy Hoar and I live at 52 Old Lake Trail, Saint John NB E2J 5E1 Iam opposed to the possible zoning changes at 1429 lock lomond road I moved into this area because of the zoning that was in place I have seen the new changes they made and I personally don't see much of a change besides a few less apartments .I am sure that there are other areas in the city that would be a better fit for this type of density living not in between two subdivision?? As far as the plot of land that runs up over the hill that they said would never be developed because the brush was to thick and ground was to rocky that's a joke lots of apartments built on rocky ground in Saint John. Lots . If they want to build there that is great just with the original by laws . Sent from my Whone KNE1 From: Sueshon@)nbnet.nb.ca To: OneStop Subject: Rezoning at 1491 Loch Lomond Rd Date: January 17, 2022 1:56:32 PM [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** Good afternoon, I am writing today in opposition to this rezoning application. I have reviewed the changes that the developers have made and they still do not address the issues raised in their first proposal. We built our retirement home on Old Lake Trail 13 years ago. Ours is an upscale subdivision where the owners pay high taxes to live here. We could have built in the valley but we wanted to support our city. By allowing these apartments in our back yard, the value of our homes will be affected in a negative way, the burden of traffic on Loch Lomond will increase and our quiet beautiful neighbourhood will be forever changed. This is not the area to change from one and two family dwellings to apartment buildings. When we built our home on the lake in the middle of nature ...amongst mature trees, many species of birds, deer etc, we certainly had the expectation that one family homes and duplexes would be built around us but a huge apartment complex does not fit in with the city plan for our area and we strongly oppose this development. Sincerely, Susan Shonaman 44 Old Lake Trail Sent from my iPhone K11M From: Reade, Mark To: OneStoo Subject: FW: Letter of Support - 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 18, 2022 3:02:45 PM From: Katie McCumber<kmccumber@classicconstruction.ca> Sent: January 18, 2022 3:02 PM To: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Letter of Support - 1429 Loch Lomond Road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to sr)amsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Good Afternoon, Please let this letter service as a letter of support for the proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road as it meets housing needs and increases tax base. Brian Sterling President Classic Construction (2012) Ltd BS/km 1911.1 C6�ik (0 C6,2�z REAL ESTATE January 17, 2022 To Whom It May Concern: I believe the new multi family project being proposed on 1429 Loch Lomond is exactly what this area needs. I am a local realtor and property manager and I see the benefit of having more of these type of buildings as Saint John is in need of more new construction as the age and quality has been decreasing for quite some time. With the current influx of population, it's becoming increasingly harder to find quality units for rent that are suitable for a wide range of people. This project will help alleviate the pressures of low vacancy rates and offer a fantastic alternative to help showcase what this beautiful city has to offer. Sincerely yours, Dale Clarke ® COLDWELL BANKER 175J HAMPTON ROAD, QUISPAMSIS, NB (506) 650-2576 K1rA January 17, 2022 To: Mark Reade Re: Development at 1429 Loch Lomond I am writing this letter in support of the proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I believe that this will help to meet housing demand and increase the growth and development of the city of Saint John. Sincerely, Julia Forgrave 1911E-13 From: Reade, Mark To: OneStoo Cc: Kirchner, Jennifer Subject: FW: Development at 1429 Lochlomond road Date: January 18, 2022 1:05:52 PM From: Keith Nesbitt <keithnesbitt134@gmail.com> Sent: January 18, 2022 12:29 PM To: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Re: Development at 1429 Lochlomond road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to sbamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Any questions I can be contacted at (506) 609-0663 On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:28 PM Keith Nesbitt <keithnesbitt134Pgmail.com> wrote: I live at 1198 Lochlomond road and I support the development at 1429 Lochlomond road, I feel it would be great for the neighborhood From: Lynn Douglas To: OneStoo Subject: PAC committee rezoning Date: January 17, 2022 4:16:41 PM [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649- 6047.** I am writing to you asking for your support to vote NO to the rezoning of land at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd to allow for developing of apartment complexes rather than houses as it is zoned for now. I live on Bon Accord Drive and already cope with a very busy Loch Lomond Rd at key points in the day. As a citizen who built on Bon Accord drive for our quiet, peaceful city home while enjoying nature in the city. Our way of life and property values are at risk. The newly amended proposed apartments do not in any way compliment the neighborhood it would be next to. The added traffic to Lomond Lomond Rd remains a concern and it causes left hand turns for those driving from Saint John towards the apartment complex. How will the city handle this? I ask that you not support the out of province (absentee) landlords or anyone else who are defacing our beautiful landscape Not all land is meant for major development. No one purchases 15 acres to develop 4 acres Many areas in Saint John are beautiful and a source of great pride to the residents Please don't allow this beautiful peaceful area to become less. We supported you in our municipal election. Please show us you stand to support us Lynn Douglas Patrick Bonner Sent from my Whone 19YU From: Reade, Mark To: OneStoo Cc: Kirchner, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed Development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 18, 2022 11:24:27 AM Another letter From: qm@gmconstruction.ca <qm@gmconstruction.ca> Sent: January 18, 2022 11:15 AM To: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Proposed Development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to sbamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Mark, this email is to show my support for the above noted proposal. The proposed development will provide much needed housing, provide jobs and grow the tax base. Regards, Larry W. Dunlop, P.Eng. 321 From: Reade, Mark To: OneStoo Cc: Kirchner, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed Development 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Date: January 18, 2022 11:57:23 AM Another letter From: info@p2pauto.ca <info@p2pauto.ca> Sent: January 18, 2022 10:49 AM To: Reade, Mark <mark.reade@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Proposed Development 1429 Loch Lomond Rd [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to snamsample@sainfjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * I am writing this letter in support of the proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. I support this as it will increase our tax base in Saint John, which is very much needed. Thank You, Matthew 19YA From: Selena Fournier To: OneStoo Subject: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Date: January 17, 2022 10:36:04 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Dear P.A.C., We recently moved to Bon Accord, after waiting several months following the sale of our townhouse and after being out bid on a few houses. There aren't many houses built in the 1990s or later, on the East side, in a quiet residential neighbourhood, on city water. We want the property in question to remain zoned as RS-2, because that's the type of development the East side needs. We expect the committee will again holdout for a suitable application for the property, like the one that was approved in 2012. It would be nice to see neighbourhood connectivity like they have in Moncton. ie. Moncton's North end, where the neighbourhoods connect and have more than one main road to exit to. I see the city has the properties zoned for this, it would be nice to see it come to fruition someday. Another segregated neighbourhood off Loch Lomond Road is not what we need, as we can't all funnel out to one road forever, as it's unbearable at times as is on a regular day. Other concerns: • The affect on water pressure for nearby residents • Garbage dumpsters overflowing becoming magnets for rodents and birds. • Devaluing neighbouring properties pushing current residents to the suburbs when we should be trying to draw them in. Please add our names to the petition stopping the rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road. Regards, Selena Fournier Winn Andrew Winn 135 Bon Accord Drive 19Y491 From: William Mayer To: DneStoo Cc: Mayer, Luana (SD/DS) Subject: Rezoning Aplication 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) Date: January 18, 2022 10:08:27 AM External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Dear Planning Advisory Committee, We are property owners of 36 old lake trail, and we would like to state that we are against this application. Our concerns are related to changing the population density in our neighbourhood. Having to adjust our family routine to a more densely populated area was not in our plans when we decided to become owners and move to 36 old lake trail. We appreciate this opportunity to express our concerns since this might directly affect our lives in the future. Best Regards, William and Luana Mayer 000,01n, 1 Shop 3hiN'f' iOHtt OneStop@saintjohn.ca Phone:658-2911 Fox:632-6199 General Application Form GROWTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF SAINT JOHN LOCATION CIVIC ADDRESS 1429 Loch Lomond Road PID#: 00312900 HERITAGE AREA: Y / N INTENSIFICATION AREA: Y / N FLOOD RISK AREA: Y / N APPROVED GRADING PLAN: Y / N N D t"i APPLICATION#: F DATE RECEIVED: -- `^ RECEIVED BY: APPLICANT EMAI L PHONE z Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 2michaelgoldenberg@gmail.com O - MAI LI NG AD DRESS POSTAL CODE a 62 Bannatyne Drive Toronto, Ontario M21L2P1 CONTRACTOR EMAIL PHONE ° 416-903-4000 Z H MAI LI NG AD DRESS POSTAL CODE Z Q _ U J OWNER EMAIL PHONE a See authorization letter from current landowner MAI U NG ADDRESS POSTAL CODE PRESENT USE: Vacant PROPOSED USE: residential development BUILDING PLANNING INFRASTRUCTURE HERITAGE QINTERIOR RENOVATION NEW CONSTRUCTION VARIANCE STREET EXCAVATION HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT < Q EXTERIOR RENOVATION []ACCESSORYBLDG []PLANNING LETTER [:]DRIVEWAY CULVERT HERITAGE SIGN ADDITION OPOOL �PACAPPLICATION DRAINAGE �HERITAGEINFILL J Q DECK DEMOLITION 21COUNCILAPP WATER & SEWERAGE 1:1 HERITAGE DEMO Y Uj FICHANGE OF USE SIGN SUBDIVISION OTHER OTHER U DMINIMUMSTANDARDS OOTHER OTHER LL To rezone an approximate 1,92 hectare (4.7 acre) portion of the site fronting on Loch O Lomond Road from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Low -Rise Residential (RL) and Mid -Rise Z it Residential (RM) o U N W O ©1 consent to the City of Saint John sending to me commercial electronic messages, from time to time, regarding City initiatives and incentives. General Collection Statement This information is being collected in order for the City of Saint John to deliver an existing program / service; the collection is limited to that which is necessary to deliver the program / service. Unless required to do so by law, the City of Saint John will not share your personal information with any third party without your express consent. The legal authority for collecting this information is to be found in the Municipalities Act and the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For further information or questions regarding the collection of personal information, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer: I, the undersigned, hereby apply for the permit(s) or approval(s), indicated above for the work described on plans, submissions and forms herewith submitted. This application includes all relevant documentation necessary for the applied for permit(s) or approval(s). 1 agree to comply with the plans, specifications and further agree to comply with all relevant City By-laws and conditions imposed. Pak CA 14�0 ek City Hall Building pplicont Signa Ure 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L lE8 CornnionClerk rr saintjolm.ca 4A5 2(a_ zo 2 1 (506) 658-2862 Date TheckydShwJgw 0491 9J �U. Do'QuPdont Shop, . CIVIC ADDRESS TYPE OF APPLICATION ❑Land for Public Purposes Release Application Fee: $350 ❑ Section 59 Amendment Application Fee: $2,650 Council Application GROWTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF SAINT JOHN APPLICATION # FEE PAID Y N ❑ Non -Conforming Use Application Fee: $250 WZoning By-law Amendment Application Fee: $2,650 ❑ Satisfactory Servicing Application Fee: $350 ❑Zoning By-law Amendment with Municipal Plan Amendment Application Fee: $3,700 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION Where applicable, indicate the changes to existing Section 59 conditions, zoning, or Municipal Plan designation being requested. Attach site plans, building elevations, floor plans, and other documentation to fully describe the application. The submission of a preliminary proposal and a Pre -Application Meeting is encouraged prior to seeking approval. Please contact the One Stop Development Shop at (506) 658-2911 or OneStop@saintjohn.ca for further information. To rezone an approximate 1,92 hectare (4.7 acre) portion of the site fronting on Loch Lomond Road from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Low -Rise Residential (RL) and Mid -Rise Residential (RM) ENCUMBRANCES Describe any easements, restrictive covenants, and other encumbrances affecting the land. AUTHORIZATION As of the date of this application, I, the undersigned, am the registered owner of the land described in this application or the authorized agent thereof, and I have examined the contents of this application and hereby certify that the information submitted with the application is correct insofar as I have knowledge of these facts, and I hereby authorize the applicant to represent this matter and to provide additional information that will be necessary for this application. Register or Authorized Agent Additional Registered Owner aI, �21 Date — Date The information contained in this application and any documentation, including plans, drawings, reports, and studies, provided in support of this application will become part of the public record. Council Application Form 2021 06 01 19K.1 p Subdivision Application eaq'p utsShop GROWTH & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF SAINT JOHN CIVIC ADDRESS I APPLICATION # I FEE PAID I Y I N TYPE OF APPLICATION Instrument Document requiring Development Officer endorsement for registration Application Fee: $60 Type 1 Subdivision Lot boundary adjustment, consolidation, or new lot abutting an existing street Application Fee: $300 plus $60 per new lot Type 2 Subdivision Subdivision involving the construction or extension of a street Application Fee: $600 plus $120 per new lot DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION Attach the instrument or tentative subdivision plan, plus any additional documentation to fully describe the application. Tenative subdivision plans must adhere to the requirements of the Community Planning Act of New Brunswick. In the case of a Type 2 Subdivision, the submission of a preliminary proposal and a Pre -Application Meeting with City staff is encouraged prior to seeking approval. Please contact the One Stop Development Shop at (506) 658-2911 or OneStop@saintjohn.ca for further information. ENCUMBRANCES Describe any easements, restrictive covenants, and other encumbrances affecting the land. AUTHORIZATION As of the date of this application, I, the undersigned, am the registered owner of the land described in this application or the authorized agent thereof, and I have examined the contents of this application and hereby certify that the information submitted with the application is correct insofar as I have knowledge of these facts, and I hereby authorize the applicant to represent this matter and to provide any additional information that will be necessary for this application. Registered Owner or Authorized Agent Date Additional Registered Owner Date The information contained in this application and any documentation, including plans, drawings, reports, and studies, provided in support of this application will become part of the public record. Subdivision Application Form 2021 06 01 327 i C. fl BOV01 pr ent shop Variance kpplication GROWTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF SAINT JOHN CIVIC ADDRESS APPLICATION # I FEE PAID Y N TYPE OF APPLICATION Tier 1 & 2 Variance Variance considered by the Development Officer Application Fee: $200 for up to five variances plus $50 for each additional variance beyond five PAC Variance Variance considered by the Planning Advisory Committee Application Fee: $400 for up to five variances plus $100 for each additional variance beyond five DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION Attach site plans, building elevations, floor plans, and other documentation to fully describe the application. - Variance to permit parking within 3 meters of rear lot line for eastern multi -unit building fronting on Loch Lomond Road Variance to increase the maximum front yard setbacks from 9 metres to between approximately 9.4 metres and 10 metres :)r the proposed 17-unit buildings and from 9 metres to between approximately 16 metres and approximately 17.6 metres :)r the proposed 4-unit (quad) buildings Variance to reduce lot areas for four of the 17-unit buildings from 2510 square metres to between 2105 square metres and 454 square metres Variance to reduce the minimum side yard of three of the 17-unit buildings from 2.5 metres to 2 metres to accommodate ecks - Variance to permit parking in the required front yard of the proposed 4-unit buildings - Variance to increase the Is kin is located from a building entrance from 15 metres to approximately 20 metres for the western multi -unit building fronting on Loch Lom Variance to increase the access width from 30% of the lot frontage to approxlma a lots ccommodating the 4-unit (quad) buildings Variance from the standards of the Subdivision By-law to create lots which do not abut a Public Street. ENCUMBRANCES Describe any easements, restrictive covenants, and other encumbrances affecting the land. AUTHORIZATION As of the date of this application, I, the undersigned, am the registered owner of the land described in this application or the authorized agent thereof, and I have examined the contents of this application and hereby certify that the information submitted with the application is correct insofar as I have knowledge of these facts, and I hereby authorize the applicant to represent this matter and to provide any additional information that will be necessary for this application. egistered r Authorized Agent ALA(4 2-1, 2 n I Date Additional Registered Owner Date The information contained in this application and any documentation, including plans, drawings, reports, and studies, provided in support of this application will become part of the public record. Variance Application Form 2021 06 01 GL7i In +uUUkr6k kur allUI ca6kn kr reckn n kr 142� Lkch Lkmknd,Ze k er Ehe kllkO n h + cry and n krma6kn kr ykur ckn+ dera6kn. Paul Mari kn and M chael klden! e( are I cen+ed mkrg or e ! rk"er+ n Ehe Urk# nce k $ nzpr k. Paul ha+ ! een a Ur nc Ual ! rVer kr k#er 21 year+ and currently kL)eraZp+ a #ery +ucce++ ul ! rVera e. M chael al+k run+%e! 6&are &anada Inc;�,a rm Eba6ha+ helL)ed 6hku+and+ k UekUle D EbEhe r nance+ Paul and M chael ha#e kOned and de#elkOed #ar ku+ renSal UrkOer6e+ Ehrku hku6$ n63r k kr Ehe la+6 ' ( year,! u6ha#e recently+kld mk+6k 6hem. ) hey currently kOn 2 mul6*un 6! u Id n + n + and ha#e dec ded 6c kcu+ 6he r real a+&aZp endea#kur+ here Z 6h uSure Ulan+ k relkca6n 6k 6he Urk# nce. - e are re. ue+6n a med um den+ 6y reskn n al.Ork#al kn al.6rk/ ma6ely 4.0 k Ehe 1� .20 acre+ kn 6, + Uarcel. - e Okuld I "e de#elkU #e 11*un 6renSal ! u Id n + and 0. uad duOle/e+ kn 6he UrkUer6y rkn6n Lkch Lkmknd-�a+ 6h + ha+ ! een den6 ed a+ Ehe ! e+6u+e k 6h + land. ) he ! u Id n + 0 II nclude acce++ ! le un Z;+ a+ Dell a+ 1*2 and ' ! edrkkm un sand 0 II Urk# de clean—xel a! le hku+ n ER 6he re+ deng+ k 2a+63a n64chn. - e antic Ua6e ! u Id n kne ER Ok ! u Id n + Uer year deUend n kn Oha6 6he mar"e6O II ! ear. h + de#elkl.Jmen6O II ngkduce a . ual 6y kiJ6kn kr ren6er+ n 6he mar"e& Pk+ 6kned alkn a mAr 61hkrku h are 0 6h ea+y acce++ tic all 6he amen tie+ n Ehe area-xe+ deng+ 0 II eAy I e 0 6h n Ehe c 6y and z;+ +urrkund n Oar". , krder n Lkch Lkmknd-xe+ deng+ 0 II en-'cy ! e n 0 6h n Dal" n d +Sance k mall�da"e+ and Uu! I c gan+Ukrp6kn. 2n#+ kn 3a n64<hn ha+ helUed u+ tic ! eapr under+Sand 6he hku+ n need+ k 6he c 6y and 6he ncrea+ n demand kr Sh + SyUe k re+ dence. 6+ a re+u!&,Ze are #ery e/c Zpd Sk k er Sh + . ual 6y hku+ n 06kra�, Oh ch De ! el e#e 0 11 al+k al" n Dell 0 6h She &6y7 #+ kn kr" rkOSh. 8ur6hermkre�Ze eel6h + Ork-5-c6 + Dell al" ned 0 Sh She #+ kn k She &Sy7 mun c Ual Ulan and Shah Shere + a +gkn ! a+ + kr +ul U1'rSk Sh + reckn n al.lUI caSkn kn Sha6! a+ +. ) he Mun c Ual Plan +eS+ kur, n Pkl cy L9 *:;�,a +eSk cr Zpr a kr She a#aluaSkn k cl n n ! y1aO amendmenS+ 0 Sh n She +Sa! le re+ denSal de+" naSkn.) he kllkO n + a +ummary k hkO kur Urk-Ii-cSmeeS+ She+e cr Zpr a; a. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood; he UrkUk+ed re+ denSal ! u Id n + 0 II helUSk Urk# de much needed renSal hku+ n +uUUly kr She &Sy k 3a n64chn and O II ea+e lUre++ure kn a +Zpad ly decl n n renSal #acancy rase.) he UrkUk+ed de#elkOmen6 rknS+ kn Lkch Lkmknd <kad�,a ! u+y arZpr al rkad 0 Sh Uu! I c gan+ S+er# ce. #en She naSure k Lkch Lkmknd <kad and She e/ +Sn Ou! I c gan+ S+er# c�,Sh + + Se retire+enS+ a" rea6 kOU,qun6y krmuI6 *am lyd ells . b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses;; he UrkU<+ed de#elkUmen6 + a +er e+ k Shree +Skrey11*un 6muI6 * am ly dOell n + and 2 +Skry . uad+ UrkUk+ed alkn an arSer al rkad n a re+ denSal ne" h! kurhkkd. ) h + area cknSa n+ a m / k + n le am ly 19NO.1 re' den6ad,,�,mul6*am ly re+ den6a.1-�ckmmerc al a+Sa! I +hmeng+ and ckmmun 6y ac 16e+. - e eel 6he UrkUk+ed de#elkUmen6 8+ 6h + m / k land u+e+ and den+ 6e+ a66rkOr a6ely and ha#e nckrUkraZpd de+" n nZpr#en6kn+ 6c gan+ 6kn and! u er 6he de#elkUmen6 rkm ad-%cen6UrkL)er6e+.) h + nclude+ a 22 mege +e6! ac" kn Ehe ea+6+ de 6k Urk# de a ! u er ER Ehe + n le am Iy hkme+ kn La"e eld gkur& c. The development is in a location where all necessary water and wastewater services, parks and recreation services, schools, public transit and other community facilities and protective services can readily and adequately be provided; ) he UrkUk+ed de#elkLknen6 + IkcaZpd kn an artier al rkad U 6hUu! I c gan+ b+er# ce. Prk-5--c6+er# c n demand+ ha#e ! een Urk# ded Ehe &6y and ckncern+ ha#e nk6! een made a! ku6caUac 6y. ) he UrkUer6y + n clk+e Urk/ m 6y k 6,e L 6de < #er <e+er#k r Par" and + 0 6, n 6he ca6chmen6area k La"eOkkd =e" hg+ 3chkkl a+ Dell a+ 3 mknd+ h 3chkkl. $ #erall 6b + + 6e + Dell + gua6ed Z c Zp"e ad#an&a e k e/ +tin mun c Ual +er# cel-,�,amen 6e!-,�,ckmmun 6y ac 16eI_,�,and ckmmerc al reZpI n 2a+6 3a n64<hn. d. Site design features that address such matters as safe access, buffering and landscaping, site grading, and stormwater management are incorporated; he de#elkOmen6 Ulan UrkUk+e+ an acce++ k k Lkch Lkmknd <kad-Zh ch can mkre 6han ade. uaZply acckmmkda6e 6he ga c demand+ k 6he ckmOleZp ! u Id ku6k 6he + tie. he de+" n nckrUlra6e+ a h" h . ual 6y k land+caU ri and nckrUkra6e+ add 6knal ! u er ri kr 6he ad_%cen6UrkUer6e+ kn La"e eld 9kur&dku! le 6ha6Oh ch + re. u red ! y 6he &6y7 An ri , ylaO. 36e" rad n and +6crmOaZpr mans emen6Ulan+ 0 II ! e ckmUle6ed ! y Urk e++ knal en neer ri ckn+ul6ang+ n acckrdance 0 6h Ehe &6y7 de+" n cr Zpr a manual and any k6her mun c Ual en neer ri +Sandard+. e. A high -quality exterior building design is provided that is consistent with the urban design principles in the Municipal Plan; - h le arch Zpc6ural n +he+ are +6II ! e ri ckn+ dered� e + rp and ma++ ri k Ehe OrkUk+ed ! u Id ri + are + m lar tic multi * am ly Well ri + 0 6h n 6he" eneral # c n 6y. 8 nal chk ce+ kn cladd n.�,O ndkU+ and k6her arch 6ecgural element' 0 II ckmOlemen66he e/ +tin ne" h! kurhkkd. f. The proposal is on a property identified as a Corridor on the City Structure map (Schedule A) or does not detract from the City's intention to direct the majority of new residential development to the Primary Centres, Local Centres, and intensification areas. &urrendy_,�e Zp( eZpd nZpn+ ca6kn area+ 0 6h n Ehe Mun c Ual Plan are a/Uer enc ri +Ukn demand kr de#elk Omen& 8ur6hermkre�Z 6h Ehe recen6le#el+ k demand kr renS3I hku+ r%�,Ehe &6y + ac ri challeri e+ n mee6n Ehe hku+ ri +u66y need+ k 6he mar"eE, $ n 6h + ! a+l�,Oe eel 6h + de#elkOmen6 0 II he14 addre++ 6h + ckmmun 6y need-Z 6, m n mal mUac6kn 6he demand kr neD Well ri un �+ Sa( e6ed n6en+ ca6kn area+. - e al.lUrec a6e ykur ckn+ dera6kn k 6h + reckn ri re. ue+& 3 ncerelyM chael klden! e( and Paul Mari kn [tide] August 20, 2021 To Whom It May Concern: I, the owner/shareholder of 651413 NB Ltd., own 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint .John and give permission to Paul Mangion and Michael Goldenberg to submit applications for rezoning.. Sincerely, r` 331 �E 2 �P� U WN M. gfretl E2� w oE�c€a v 0 y" y' o UM / v w gg m oy 3 w oo \ oo0 3 v d / - (U O 0 Y O z� 0Old Soa y v v v tki a ' X O O Y v E E O g \ >- v .0 v to \y O ° E O E Y �° ° Sun v \ `j �..- \ � k. y �} ' 'i✓ � y a -6 v i v ro c � o o rc v -o o 0 v o f0 > 0' v'M -'o a E a u v 4-1 T ,/ �!� 0 r ,b WN 4` cm £.tea. �y""�' _ mLu Z i a mU - G W d' Z M W LLU N G d o cl Z LO W N - n OO W- Yti �0'*0o■Ogl� z�a� �r / J y m � Z� i PP I � I peoa aPU+LlIo, Puowol m�LL _ — I. �NeWaE OOUfi 11 rfz t N v`� - � N —Omm O e > J m g - N D>o Om 07 - U� T — a Ew I _ 11 \ o as om � -oo moan_ / zg as ;e Q U � o 9 a Q — c a � � q 0 m y _ H o - n Brunswick C A N A D A .ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO PRELIMINARY APPLICATION December 10, 2021 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 62 Bannatyne Drive Toronto, ON M2L 2P1 Dear Mr. Goldenberg & Mr. Mangion: Re: Proposal for affordable housing at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John Thank you for your proposed project application submitted on October 10, 2021, and the request for funding assistance for the creation of nine (9) affordable units, under the Federal/Provincial Affordable Rental Housing Initiative. You will be contacted as soon as a decision has been reached regarding allocation of units for the upcoming budget year, expected in Spring 2022. Sincerely, Litsa Petrakos Portfolio Management Officer (506) 658-5151 Social Development P.O. Box 5001 25 Beaverbrook Avenue Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4Y9 Phone:1-833-733-7835 Fax: (506) 658-5171 Deveioppement Social Case postale 5001 25, avenue Beaverbrook Saint John, Nouveau -Brunswick E21_ 4Y9 Phone:1-833-733-7835 Fax: (506) 658-5171 KtK I* Englobe October 29, 2021 Michael Goldenberg 62 Bannatyne Dr Toronto (ON) M21- 2P1 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement— 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development O/Ref.: 2111036 1 INTRODUCTION englobecorp.com A new residential development has been proposed on Loch Lomond Rd in the City of Saint John. The development will include ten buildings including five 3-storey 17-unit buildings and five 2-storey quad unit buildings, for a total of 105 dwelling units. Each building will have its own surface parking lot. A total of 158 parking spaces will be provided on the development site. The proposed development site plan, which is included in Appendix A, shows the locations of the ten buildings within the development property as well as the proposed configurations of the parking lots. The proposed development will be accessible via a private access road off Loch Lomond Road. As part of the development approval process, the City of Saint John requires that a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) be completed for this development. The primary area of focus is how the development will impact traffic operations along Loch Lomond Road. Englobe Corp. was retained by the developer to complete this TIS. The Study Area for the TIS is shown in Figure 1. T 506.693.5893 • F 506.693.3250 • jill.demerchant@englobecorp.com Englobe Corp. 1 Of 10 133 Prince William St., Suite 703 • SaintJohn 34(N B) • Canada L2L2B5 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 2 INFORMATION GATHERING 2.1 STREET AND INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS Loch Lomond Road is a collector road that is oriented in the east -west direction and has an AADT of approximately 13,700 vehicles/day within the study area. Loch Lomond Road features one lane in each direction with painted asphalt shoulders and has a speed limit of 60 km/h. The street features concrete sidewalk along the north side of the street. Bon Accord Drive is a local two-lane street that is oriented in the north -south direction and intersects with the north side of Loch Lomond Road west of the proposed development access. Bon Accord Drive provides access to approximately 130 homes and 5 apartment complexes. Bon Accord Drive features a concrete sidewalk along the west side of the street. A crosswalk is present across the west leg at the intersection of Bon Accord Drive and Loch Lomond Road. Ganong Road is a two-lane local street that is oriented in the north -south direction and intersects with the north side of Loch Lomond Road east of the proposed development access. Ganong Road provides access to a residential neighbourhood that is currently being developed to the north. Ganong Road features a concrete sidewalk along the east side of the street. 2.2 TRAFFIC DATA Traffic data were collected along Loch Lomond Road near the proposed development access on Tuesday, October 191h 2021. These traffic counts were completed over a 12-hour period between 7am and 7pm. The 2021 peak hour and estimated daily volumes are shown in Figure 2. The traffic count data are provided in Appendix B. Volumes Englobe Corp. 2 of 10 342 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 3 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip generation rates for the proposed development were estimated using the ITE TripGen Web -based App, which is based on the 101h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The development will consist of five 3-storey residential buildings with 17 dwelling units each (85 units total) and five 2-storey residential buildings with 4 units each (20 units total). ITE Land Use #220 (Multifamily Housing — Low Rise) was used to generate trips for the 2-storey residential buildings and ITE Land Use #221 (Multifamily Housing — Mid -Rise) was used to generate trips for the 3-storey residential buildings. The resulting vehicle trip generation is shown in Table 1. To remain conservative, it was assumed that all these trips would be made by motor vehicle. Table 1: Traffic Generation for the Proposed Development AM PEAK DEVELOPMENT HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ===M==ME, Multifamily Housing - Low -Rise (ITE 20 Dwelling 2 7 9 7 4 11 146 Lane Use #220) Units Multifamily Housing - Mid -Rise 85 Dwelling 8 23 31 22 15 37 462 (ITE Land Use #221) Units Total 10 30 40 29 19 48 608 The peak hour development traffic was assigned to Loch Lomond Road based on the existing traffic distributions in the area. The peak hour traffic volumes for the 2030 horizon year were estimated by applying an annual growth rate of 1.0 % to the 2021 background traffic volumes and adding the traffic generated by the development. 2030 was selected as the horizon year because this represents the 5-year horizon period beyond the anticipated full build -out of the development. The 2030 traffic volumes with the development in place are shown in Figure 3. Englobe Corp. 3 of 10 343 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Study Team completed an assessment of the traffic impacts that the development traffic is expected to have on the existing Loch Lomond Road traffic. 4.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The LOS analysis was completed using Synchro 10, which is a traffic analysis software that uses the Highway Capacity Manual and Intersection Capacity Utilization procedures. The analysis was completed for the future 2030 traffic conditions with the development in place at the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and the development access. The intersection performance was evaluated mainly in terms of the level of service (LOS), which is a common performance measure of an intersection. LOS is determined based on vehicle delay and is expressed on a scale of A through F, where LOS A represents very short delay (<10 seconds per vehicle) and LOS F represents very long delay (>50 seconds per vehicle at a stop controlled intersection and >80 seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection). A LOS D is often considered acceptable in urban locations; however, some communities will accept a LOS E. The LOS criteria for stop control intersections are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Stop Control Intersection Level of Service Criteria A Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop (Excellent) less than 10.0 B Higher delay; more vehicles stop (Very Good) between 10.0 and 15.0 Higher level of congestion; number of vehicles stopping is significant, although C between 15.0 and 25.0 many still pass through intersection without stopping (Good) 0 Congestion becomes noticeable; vehicles must sometimes wait through more between 25.0 and 35.0 than one red light; many vehicles stop (Satisfactory) E Vehicles must often wait through more than one red light; considered by between 35.0 and 50.0 many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay This level is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers; occurs when F arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection (Unacceptable) greater than 50.0 The LOS results for the 2030 traffic conditions indicated that the overall intersection would operate at a LOS A during both peak periods. All turning movements on Loch Lomond Road would also operate at a LOS A, while the turning movements exiting the development access would operate at a LOS C during both peak periods. The intersection would therefore operate efficiently and be well below capacity in the future 2030 horizon year with the new development in place. A summary of the LOS results is provided in Table 3. Detailed Synchro analysis outputs are included in Appendix C. Englobe Corp. 4 of 10 344 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development Table 3: 2030 Projected Conditions LOS Results October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 A A A A c AM Peak LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 Shared 20.2 0.6 [0.01] [0.01] [0.58] 10.581 [0.12] Loch Lomond Road @ <1 <1 <1 <1 3 Development Access A A A A c PM Peak LOS A 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 Shared 19.9 0.6 [0.02] [0.02] [0.30] 10.301 [0.08] <1 <1 <1 <1 2 4.2 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON LOCH LOMOND ROAD The development traffic volumes were compared to the existing traffic volumes on Loch Lomond Road to estimate the net increase in traffic that should be expected on the roadway as a result of the development. Table 4 shows the percentage increase of traffic for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and for an average weekday. The results indicate that the development will cause Loch Lomond Road traffic volumes to increase by approximately 4%. This is equivalent to roughly 4 years of background growth along a typical roadway. Table 4: Loch Lomond Road Traffic Volume Impacts AM Peak Hour 1,086 40 3.6% PM Peak Hour 1,336 48 3.5% Weekday 13,703 608 4.2% The Study Team reviewed ITE trip generation rates to estimate how many single-family detached houses would generate a similar number of trips to those that the proposed development is expected to generate. Based on Land Use #210 (Single -Family Detached Housing), the proposed 105 unit development is expected to generate a similar amount of traffic as approximately 55 single-family detached homes. Based on the above, the Study Team does not expect that the development will have significant impacts on the existing traffic operations of Loch Lomond Road. Englobe Corp. 5 of 10 345 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 5 SIGHT DISTANCE REVIEW Sight distance analyses were completed at the access intersection for turning vehicle conflicts and for potential crossing pedestrians using the guidelines set forth in the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC)'s "Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (2017)". To remain conservative, a design speed 10 km/h above the posted speed limit (60 km/h) was selected for Loch Lomond Road to better reflect current operating speeds. Therefore, a design speed of 70 km/h was selected for this analysis. Sight distances were measured during the site visit. The existing sight distance measurements and how they relate to the TAC requirements are discussed below. 5.1 TURNING VEHICLES The TAC Guide provides minimum intersection sight distances for various types of private and public accesses based on design speed for two-lane undivided roadways. The TAC Guide requires that 150m of intersection sight distance be provided for vehicles turning left and 130m of intersection sight distance for vehicles turning right onto a roadway. These sight distances are based on the premise that an approaching vehicle does not need to slow down to less than 70% of its operating speed to allow a vehicle to enter. These sight distances apply for a passenger car turning onto a two-lane highway with no median. The minimum required stoppingsight distance is 105m. For vehicles turning out of the development access, sight distances were measured from the center of the proposed access location at a typical driver's eye -height of 1.08m and an object height of 1.30m. The results are summarized in Table 5 and discussed as follows: At the proposed development access, the existing sight distance east of the driveway (required for a right turn maneuver) is measured at 345m, which exceeds the recommended minimum intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance. The sight distance west of the driveway (required for a left turn maneuver) is approximately 245m, which also exceeds the recommended minimum intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance. Table 5: Sight Distance Measurement Summary Sight Distance to the East 345m 130m 105m Yes Yes Sight Distance to the West 245m 150m 105m Yes Yes 5.2 CROSSING PEDESTRIANS For crossing pedestrians, decision sight distance was used. This represents the minimum distance required for a driver to see a pedestrian at the crosswalk, identify that the pedestrian is performing a crossing maneuver, and come to a complete stop prior to reaching the crosswalk. The TAC Guide requires that a minimum decision sight distance of 125m be provided on Loch Lomond Road for a 70 km/h design speed. For pedestrians crossing Loch Lomond Road, sight distances were measured assuming that the crosswalk would be installed on the west side of the proposed access. This location would provide more optimal sight lines based on the geometry of Loch Lomond Road. Sight distances were measured from the south side of the proposed crosswalk location because sight lines to/from pedestrians on this side of Loch Lomond Road Englobe Corp. 6 of 10 346 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 are more constrained than those on the north side. The results are summarized in Table 6 and discussed as follows: At the south side of the proposed crosswalk location, the existing sight distance for eastbound vehicles is measured at 88m and the existing sight distance for westbound vehicles is measured at 79m. Due to the horizontal curve of the roadway, neither stopping or decision sight distances are achieved in either direction. Both of these sight distance measurements were recorded to the south side of Loch Lomond Road at the proposed crosswalk location. Eastbound 88m 125m 105m No No Westbound 79m 125m 105m No No 6 CROSSWALK ASSESSMENT Following a review of existing sight distances on Loch Lomond Road at the proposed development access location it was determined that sight distances are limited in both directions on Loch Lomond Road due to the geometry of the roadway. The available sight distances do not meet the minimum stopping or decision sight distances recommended by TAC. It is therefore not recommended that a crosswalk be installed atthis location. Due to the lack of sidewalk on the south side of Loch Lomond Road it is unlikely that there will be significant demand for a crosswalk at the development access. The existing crosswalk at Bon Accord Drive should be sufficient in meeting any crossing demand that would be introduced by the development. 7 LEFT TURN LANE WARRANT The Ontario Geometric Design Guide uses a series of nomographs that are a function of the peak hour left turning volume, advancing volume, opposing volume, and design speed to determine if a left turn lane is warranted at an unsignalized intersection. The posted speed limit on Loch Lomond Road at the development access is 60 km/h, therefore 70 km/h was selected as the design speed. The results of the left turn warrant analysis are presented in Table 7 and Figure 4. Table 7 Guide Warrant Results AM Peak 264 934 3% No' PM Peak 1010 480 2% No' 'Not warranted because the left turn percentage is less than 5% of the advancing volumes Englobe Corp. 7 of 10 347 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Figure 4: Left Turn Lane Warrant Nomograph too eoc T0( x It, 60C I SOC z •0C N 6 DDC �O 2 OC IOC EFT TURN STORAGE LALA S TWO LANE HIGHWAYS UNSIGNALIZED 1 /o LEFT TURNS IN VA _ 5% I M2 STORAGE LENGTH DESIGN SPEED = 70 krn/h i NO LIFT TURN •• 1 LA I E REOViR � JI 1 • a ' t J A �'•. i too 2o0 300 400 Soo 600 700 11100 900 1000 1100 1,100 1300 1.00 ISM 1600 VA -ADVANCING VOLUME EVPN) AM Peak PM Peak TRAFFIC SIG NALS MAY BE WARRANTED IN RURAL �!�!� AREAS OR URBAN AREAS WITH RESTRICTED FLOW TRAFFIC SIGNALS MAY BE WARRANTED IN '•""' .FREE FLOW URBAN AREAS It is important to consider the following points when interpreting these results: 0 Both the left turn percentages are lower than 5%, which was the lowest left turn percentage available in a nomograph. As a result, this nomograph overestimates the need for a left turn lane during the AM Peak (3% left turns) and during the PM peak (2% left turns). ® There were no issues identified with the eastbound left turning movement at the intersection throughout the LOS analysis for the Loch Lomond Rd / Development Access intersection. Based on these factors, we would not recommend that a left turn lane be added on Loch Lomond Road at the development access. 8 ACCESS REVIEW The Study Team completed a review of the proposed development access road and its accessibility for emergency vehicles. Based on the development site plan, the proposed width of the access road is 6m. The TAC Design Guide recommends widths between 7.2 and 12.Om for multi -unit residential driveways. It is therefore recommended that the access road be widened to fit within this range. For large emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, the development site plan shows a designated turn around area at the north end of the access road. This area would provide a space for these vehicles to perform a three point turn so that they do not have to back out onto Loch Lomond Road. It is recommended that signs and pavement hatchings be installed to ensure that residents and their visitors do not park on or block access to this area. Englobe Corp. s of 10 348 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 9 PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ACCESS The Study Team completed a review of the existing pedestrian infrastructure on Loch Lomond Road as well as the proposed pedestrian infrastructure within the development site. Loch Lomond Road currently features concrete sidewalk along the north side of the street. The proposed development site plan shows sections of sidewalk in front of each building between the surface parking lots and the buildings. To improve pedestrian connectivity, it is recommended that a connection be added into the development site from Loch Lomond Road. This could be achieved by extending a sidewalk along the west side of the proposed development access road. In addition to a pedestrian connection onto Loch Lomond Road, there is an opportunity to introduce an active transportation connection between the development and Norman Drive. This could be achieved by extending a multi -use trail between the two northmost quad apartment buildings that are located on the northeast corner of the development property over to Norman Drive where there is already an existing dead-end road. The proposed development site is located between two transit stops on Loch Lomond Road. The transit stops are located approximately 110m to the east and 250m to the west of the development access. Due to the proximity of each, it is reasonable to believe that either stop may be used by transit riders travelling to and from the development. Although the east stop is closer to the development, most transit users will be travelling to and from the west and therefore some may choose to use the west stop near Bon Accord Drive. 10 CONCLUSIONS The key findings and recommendations of this Traffic Impact Statement are summarized as follows: 1. The proposed development, which would be located on the north side of Loch Lomond Road between Bon Accord Drive and Ganong Road, includes ten buildings with a total of 105 dwelling units and a surface parking lot with 158 spaces. The development will be accessible via one private access road off Loch Lomond Road. 2. It is expected that the proposed development will generate 40 vehicle trips during the AM Peak hour (10 entering/30 exiting), 48 vehicle trips during the PM Peak hour (29 entering/19 exiting), and a total of 608 trips daily. 3. The LOS results for the 2030 horizon period with the development in place indicate that the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and the development access will operate efficiently and be well below capacity with the development in place. 4. The development is expected to increase traffic volumes on Loch Lomond Road by 4%, which is equivalent to approximately 4 years of background growth. The Study Team does not expect significant impacts to traffic operations Loch Lomond Road as a result of the development. 5. A sight distance review was completed for vehicles exiting the proposed development access. It was determined that the existing sight distances of 345m to the east and 245m to the west meet the minimum intersection and stopping sight distances recommended by TAC. 6. A sight distance review was completed for a potential crosswalk on Loch Lomond Road at the development access. It was determined that the existing sight distances of 88m from the east and 79m from the west do not meet the minimum decision or stopping sight distances recommended by TAC. Englobe Corp. 9 of 10 349 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 7. Based on the sight distance results, a crosswalk is not recommended across Loch Lomond Road at the development access. The existing crosswalk at Bon Accord Drive should be sufficient in meeting any additional crossing demand from the development. 8. A left turn lane warrant was completed for vehicles turning left into the development from Loch Lomond Road. The analysis concluded that a left turn lane would not be warranted at the intersection because the left turning volumes during the AM and PM peak hours would not be high enough. 9. Based on a review of the proposed access road, it was determined that the proposed width of Sm does not meet the TAC recommended width range between 7.2m and 12.Om for a two-way multi- unit residential development. It is recommended that the width of the access road be widened to fit within this range. 10. Based on the proposed site plan, the development will include a turn around area for large emergency vehicles. This area will be located at the north end of the access road. It is recommended that signage and pavement markings be installed to prevent vehicles from parking on or blocking the area. 11. Based on a review of the existing and proposed pedestrian infrastructure, it is recommended that a pedestrian connection be included between the development and Loch Lomond Road. This could be achieved by adding a sidewalk along the access road into the development site. It was also noted that a multi -use trail could be added on the northeast corner of the development property to provide an Active Transportation connection between Norman Drive and the development. 12. A review of the existing transit stops near the proposed development site concluded that transit users will have the option between two transit stops that are located in proximity to the development site. We trust the enclosed is to your satisfaction. If, however, additional information should be required, please communicate with the undersigned. Yours very truly, Jill Demerchant, P.Eng., M.Eng. Transportation Engineer J:\2021\2111036 1429 Loch Lomond Rd TIS\Admin\Reports\1429 Loch Lomond Rd Traffic Impact Statement.docx Englobe Corp. 10 of 10 350 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Appendix A: Site Plan Englobe Corp. 351 \, 0. a� \ / �x z g a w Ho cr eE = a EID Eaz L Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Appendix 6: Traffic Data Englobe Corp. 353 Traffic Count Summary AM and PM Peak Hours 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Oct 19 2021 AM Peak Hour 07:15 - 08:15 1 H H m Peds ° N Loch Lomond Rd 0 «i i 4 Loch Lomond Rd L 0 852 � 852 852 1,086 0 1 r 0 1,086 234 234 � 234 0 Z h t 0 PHF= 0.95 Peds �L 0 0 0 n N H H O PM Peak Hour 16:30 -17:30 MIMI Traffic Count Summary AADT 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Total Intersection AADT 13700 Oct 19 2021 Estimated AADT K��91 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development Appendix C: Synchro Output October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Englobe Corp. 356 Loch Lomond Rd TIS 1: Loch Lomond Rd & Development 2030 AM Peak 10-29-2021 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 256 932 2 6 24 Future Volume (Veh/h) 8 256 932 2 6 24 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 269 981 2 6 25 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 983 1267 982 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 983 1267 982 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 97 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 699 183 301 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 277 983 31 Volume Left 8 0 6 Volume Right 0 2 25 cSH 699 1700 268 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.58 0.12 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 3.1 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 20.2 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 20.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 B&S Loch Lomond Rd TIS 1: Loch Lomond Rd & Development 2030 PM Peak 10-29-2021 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 990 471 9 6 13 Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 990 471 9 6 13 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 1042 496 9 6 14 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 505 1584 500 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 505 1584 500 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 95 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1055 116 568 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1063 505 20 Volume Left 21 0 6 Volume Right 0 9 14 cSH 1055 1700 262 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.30 0.08 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.0 2.0 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 19.9 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 19.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 B&I-11 �E 2 �P� U WN M. gfretl E2� w oE�c€a v 0 y" y' o UM / v w gg m oy 3 w oo \ oo0 3 v d / - (U O 0 Y O z� 0Old Soa y v v v tki a ' X O O Y v E E O g \ >- v .0 v to \y O ° E O E Y �° ° Sun v \ `j �..- \ � k. y �} ' 'i✓ � y a -6 v i v ro c � o o rc v -o o 0 v o f0 > 0' v'M -'o a E a u v 4-1 T ,/ �!� 0 r ,b WN 4` cm £.tea. �y""�' _ mLu Z i a mU - G W d' Z M W LLU N G d o cl Z LO W N - n OO W- Yti �0'*0o■Ogl� z�a� �r / J y m � Z� i PP I � I peoa aPU+LlIo, Puowol m�LL _ — I. �NeWaE OOUfi 11 rfz t N v`� - � N —Omm O e > J m g - N D>o Om 07 - U� T — a Ew I _ 11 \ o as om � -oo moan_ / zg as ;e Q U � o 9 a Q — c a � � q 0 m y _ H o - n Brunswick C A N A D A .ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO PRELIMINARY APPLICATION December 10, 2021 Michael Goldenberg & Paul Mangion 62 Bannatyne Drive Toronto, ON M2L 2P1 Dear Mr. Goldenberg & Mr. Mangion: Re: Proposal for affordable housing at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John Thank you for your proposed project application submitted on October 10, 2021, and the request for funding assistance for the creation of nine (9) affordable units, under the Federal/Provincial Affordable Rental Housing Initiative. You will be contacted as soon as a decision has been reached regarding allocation of units for the upcoming budget year, expected in Spring 2022. Sincerely, Litsa Petrakos Portfolio Management Officer (506) 658-5151 Social Development P.O. Box 5001 25 Beaverbrook Avenue Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4Y9 Phone:1-833-733-7835 Fax: (506) 658-5171 Deveioppement Social Case postale 5001 25, avenue Beaverbrook Saint John, Nouveau -Brunswick E21_ 4Y9 Phone:1-833-733-7835 Fax: (506) 658-5171 19%Y/ I* Englobe October 29, 2021 Michael Goldenberg 62 Bannatyne Dr Toronto (ON) M21- 2P1 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement— 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development O/Ref.: 2111036 1 INTRODUCTION englobecorp.com A new residential development has been proposed on Loch Lomond Rd in the City of Saint John. The development will include ten buildings including five 3-storey 17-unit buildings and five 2-storey quad unit buildings, for a total of 105 dwelling units. Each building will have its own surface parking lot. A total of 158 parking spaces will be provided on the development site. The proposed development site plan, which is included in Appendix A, shows the locations of the ten buildings within the development property as well as the proposed configurations of the parking lots. The proposed development will be accessible via a private access road off Loch Lomond Road. As part of the development approval process, the City of Saint John requires that a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) be completed for this development. The primary area of focus is how the development will impact traffic operations along Loch Lomond Road. Englobe Corp. was retained by the developer to complete this TIS. The Study Area for the TIS is shown in Figure 1. T 506.693.5893 • F 506.693.3250 • jill.demerchant@englobecorp.com Englobe Corp. 1 Of 10 133 Prince William St., suite 703 • samtJo3hnn (NB) • Canada F2L2B5 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 2 INFORMATION GATHERING 2.1 STREET AND INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS Loch Lomond Road is a collector road that is oriented in the east -west direction and has an AADT of approximately 13,700 vehicles/day within the study area. Loch Lomond Road features one lane in each direction with painted asphalt shoulders and has a speed limit of 60 km/h. The street features concrete sidewalk along the north side of the street. Bon Accord Drive is a local two-lane street that is oriented in the north -south direction and intersects with the north side of Loch Lomond Road west of the proposed development access. Bon Accord Drive provides access to approximately 130 homes and 5 apartment complexes. Bon Accord Drive features a concrete sidewalk along the west side of the street. A crosswalk is present across the west leg at the intersection of Bon Accord Drive and Loch Lomond Road. Ganong Road is a two-lane local street that is oriented in the north -south direction and intersects with the north side of Loch Lomond Road east of the proposed development access. Ganong Road provides access to a residential neighbourhood that is currently being developed to the north. Ganong Road features a concrete sidewalk along the east side of the street. 2.2 TRAFFIC DATA Traffic data were collected along Loch Lomond Road near the proposed development access on Tuesday, October 191h 2021. These traffic counts were completed over a 12-hour period between 7am and 7pm. The 2021 peak hour and estimated daily volumes are shown in Figure 2. The traffic count data are provided in Appendix B. Volumes Englobe Corp. 2 of 10 369 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 3 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip generation rates for the proposed development were estimated using the ITE TripGen Web -based App, which is based on the 101h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The development will consist of five 3-storey residential buildings with 17 dwelling units each (85 units total) and five 2-storey residential buildings with 4 units each (20 units total). ITE Land Use #220 (Multifamily Housing — Low Rise) was used to generate trips for the 2-storey residential buildings and ITE Land Use #221 (Multifamily Housing — Mid -Rise) was used to generate trips for the 3-storey residential buildings. The resulting vehicle trip generation is shown in Table 1. To remain conservative, it was assumed that all these trips would be made by motor vehicle. Table 1: Traffic Generation for the Proposed Development AM PEAK DEVELOPMENT HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ===M==ME, Multifamily Housing - Low -Rise (ITE 20 Dwelling 2 7 9 7 4 11 146 Lane Use #220) Units Multifamily Housing - Mid -Rise 85 Dwelling 8 23 31 22 15 37 462 (ITE Land Use #221) Units Total 10 30 40 29 19 48 608 The peak hour development traffic was assigned to Loch Lomond Road based on the existing traffic distributions in the area. The peak hour traffic volumes for the 2030 horizon year were estimated by applying an annual growth rate of 1.0 % to the 2021 background traffic volumes and adding the traffic generated by the development. 2030 was selected as the horizon year because this represents the 5-year horizon period beyond the anticipated full build -out of the development. The 2030 traffic volumes with the development in place are shown in Figure 3. Englobe Corp. 3 of 10 370 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Study Team completed an assessment of the traffic impacts that the development traffic is expected to have on the existing Loch Lomond Road traffic. 4.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The LOS analysis was completed using Synchro 10, which is a traffic analysis software that uses the Highway Capacity Manual and Intersection Capacity Utilization procedures. The analysis was completed for the future 2030 traffic conditions with the development in place at the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and the development access. The intersection performance was evaluated mainly in terms of the level of service (LOS), which is a common performance measure of an intersection. LOS is determined based on vehicle delay and is expressed on a scale of A through F, where LOS A represents very short delay (<10 seconds per vehicle) and LOS F represents very long delay (>50 seconds per vehicle at a stop controlled intersection and >80 seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection). A LOS D is often considered acceptable in urban locations; however, some communities will accept a LOS E. The LOS criteria for stop control intersections are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Stop Control Intersection Level of Service Criteria A Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop (Excellent) less than 10.0 B Higher delay; more vehicles stop (Very Good) between 10.0 and 15.0 Higher level of congestion; number of vehicles stopping is significant, although C between 15.0 and 25.0 many still pass through intersection without stopping (Good) 0 Congestion becomes noticeable; vehicles must sometimes wait through more between 25.0 and 35.0 than one red light; many vehicles stop (Satisfactory) E Vehicles must often wait through more than one red light; considered by between 35.0 and 50.0 many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay This level is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers; occurs when F arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection (Unacceptable) greater than 50.0 The LOS results for the 2030 traffic conditions indicated that the overall intersection would operate at a LOS A during both peak periods. All turning movements on Loch Lomond Road would also operate at a LOS A, while the turning movements exiting the development access would operate at a LOS C during both peak periods. The intersection would therefore operate efficiently and be well below capacity in the future 2030 horizon year with the new development in place. A summary of the LOS results is provided in Table 3. Detailed Synchro analysis outputs are included in Appendix C. Englobe Corp. 4 of 10 371 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development Table 3: 2030 Projected Conditions LOS Results October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 A A A A c AM Peak LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 Shared 20.2 0.6 [0.01] [0.01] [0.58] 10.581 [0.12] Loch Lomond Road @ <1 <1 <1 <1 3 Development Access A A A A c PM Peak LOS A 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 Shared 19.9 0.6 [0.02] [0.02] [0.30] 10.301 [0.08] <1 <1 <1 <1 2 4.2 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON LOCH LOMOND ROAD The development traffic volumes were compared to the existing traffic volumes on Loch Lomond Road to estimate the net increase in traffic that should be expected on the roadway as a result of the development. Table 4 shows the percentage increase of traffic for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and for an average weekday. The results indicate that the development will cause Loch Lomond Road traffic volumes to increase by approximately 4%. This is equivalent to roughly 4 years of background growth along a typical roadway. Table 4: Loch Lomond Road Traffic Volume Impacts AM Peak Hour 1,086 40 3.6% PM Peak Hour 1,336 48 3.5% Weekday 13,703 608 4.2% The Study Team reviewed ITE trip generation rates to estimate how many single-family detached houses would generate a similar number of trips to those that the proposed development is expected to generate. Based on Land Use #210 (Single -Family Detached Housing), the proposed 105 unit development is expected to generate a similar amount of traffic as approximately 55 single-family detached homes. Based on the above, the Study Team does not expect that the development will have significant impacts on the existing traffic operations of Loch Lomond Road. Englobe Corp. 5 of 10 372 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 5 SIGHT DISTANCE REVIEW Sight distance analyses were completed at the access intersection for turning vehicle conflicts and for potential crossing pedestrians using the guidelines set forth in the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC)'s "Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (2017)". To remain conservative, a design speed 10 km/h above the posted speed limit (60 km/h) was selected for Loch Lomond Road to better reflect current operating speeds. Therefore, a design speed of 70 km/h was selected for this analysis. Sight distances were measured during the site visit. The existing sight distance measurements and how they relate to the TAC requirements are discussed below. 5.1 TURNING VEHICLES The TAC Guide provides minimum intersection sight distances for various types of private and public accesses based on design speed for two-lane undivided roadways. The TAC Guide requires that 150m of intersection sight distance be provided for vehicles turning left and 130m of intersection sight distance for vehicles turning right onto a roadway. These sight distances are based on the premise that an approaching vehicle does not need to slow down to less than 70% of its operating speed to allow a vehicle to enter. These sight distances apply for a passenger car turning onto a two-lane highway with no median. The minimum required stoppingsight distance is 105m. For vehicles turning out of the development access, sight distances were measured from the center of the proposed access location at a typical driver's eye -height of 1.08m and an object height of 1.30m. The results are summarized in Table 5 and discussed as follows: At the proposed development access, the existing sight distance east of the driveway (required for a right turn maneuver) is measured at 345m, which exceeds the recommended minimum intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance. The sight distance west of the driveway (required for a left turn maneuver) is approximately 245m, which also exceeds the recommended minimum intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance. Table 5: Sight Distance Measurement Summary Sight Distance to the East 345m 130m 105m Yes Yes Sight Distance to the West 245m 150m 105m Yes Yes 5.2 CROSSING PEDESTRIANS For crossing pedestrians, decision sight distance was used. This represents the minimum distance required for a driver to see a pedestrian at the crosswalk, identify that the pedestrian is performing a crossing maneuver, and come to a complete stop prior to reaching the crosswalk. The TAC Guide requires that a minimum decision sight distance of 125m be provided on Loch Lomond Road for a 70 km/h design speed. For pedestrians crossing Loch Lomond Road, sight distances were measured assuming that the crosswalk would be installed on the west side of the proposed access. This location would provide more optimal sight lines based on the geometry of Loch Lomond Road. Sight distances were measured from the south side of the proposed crosswalk location because sight lines to/from pedestrians on this side of Loch Lomond Road Englobe Corp. 6 of 10 373 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 are more constrained than those on the north side. The results are summarized in Table 6 and discussed as follows: At the south side of the proposed crosswalk location, the existing sight distance for eastbound vehicles is measured at 88m and the existing sight distance for westbound vehicles is measured at 79m. Due to the horizontal curve of the roadway, neither stopping or decision sight distances are achieved in either direction. Both of these sight distance measurements were recorded to the south side of Loch Lomond Road at the proposed crosswalk location. Eastbound 88m 125m 105m No No Westbound 79m 125m 105m No No 6 CROSSWALK ASSESSMENT Following a review of existing sight distances on Loch Lomond Road at the proposed development access location it was determined that sight distances are limited in both directions on Loch Lomond Road due to the geometry of the roadway. The available sight distances do not meet the minimum stopping or decision sight distances recommended by TAC. It is therefore not recommended that a crosswalk be installed atthis location. Due to the lack of sidewalk on the south side of Loch Lomond Road it is unlikely that there will be significant demand for a crosswalk at the development access. The existing crosswalk at Bon Accord Drive should be sufficient in meeting any crossing demand that would be introduced by the development. 7 LEFT TURN LANE WARRANT The Ontario Geometric Design Guide uses a series of nomographs that are a function of the peak hour left turning volume, advancing volume, opposing volume, and design speed to determine if a left turn lane is warranted at an unsignalized intersection. The posted speed limit on Loch Lomond Road at the development access is 60 km/h, therefore 70 km/h was selected as the design speed. The results of the left turn warrant analysis are presented in Table 7 and Figure 4. Table 7 Guide Warrant Results AM Peak 264 934 3% No' PM Peak 1010 480 2% No' 'Not warranted because the left turn percentage is less than 5% of the advancing volumes Englobe Corp. 7 of 10 374 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Figure 4: Left Turn Lane Warrant Nomograph too eoc T0( x It, 60C I SOC z •0C N 6 DDC �O 2 OC IOC EFT TURN STORAGE LALA S TWO LANE HIGHWAYS UNSIGNALIZED 1 /o LEFT TURNS IN VA _ 5% I M2 STORAGE LENGTH DESIGN SPEED = 70 krn/h i NO LIFT TURN •• 1 LA I E REOViR � JI 1 • a ' t J A �'•. i too 2o0 300 400 Soo 600 700 11100 900 1000 1100 1,100 1300 1.00 ISM 1600 VA -ADVANCING VOLUME EVPN) AM Peak PM Peak TRAFFIC SIG NALS MAY BE WARRANTED IN RURAL �!�!� AREAS OR URBAN AREAS WITH RESTRICTED FLOW TRAFFIC SIGNALS MAY BE WARRANTED IN '•""' .FREE FLOW URBAN AREAS It is important to consider the following points when interpreting these results: 0 Both the left turn percentages are lower than 5%, which was the lowest left turn percentage available in a nomograph. As a result, this nomograph overestimates the need for a left turn lane during the AM Peak (3% left turns) and during the PM peak (2% left turns). ® There were no issues identified with the eastbound left turning movement at the intersection throughout the LOS analysis for the Loch Lomond Rd / Development Access intersection. Based on these factors, we would not recommend that a left turn lane be added on Loch Lomond Road at the development access. 8 ACCESS REVIEW The Study Team completed a review of the proposed development access road and its accessibility for emergency vehicles. Based on the development site plan, the proposed width of the access road is 6m. The TAC Design Guide recommends widths between 7.2 and 12.Om for multi -unit residential driveways. It is therefore recommended that the access road be widened to fit within this range. For large emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, the development site plan shows a designated turn around area at the north end of the access road. This area would provide a space for these vehicles to perform a three point turn so that they do not have to back out onto Loch Lomond Road. It is recommended that signs and pavement hatchings be installed to ensure that residents and their visitors do not park on or block access to this area. Englobe Corp. s of 10 375 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 9 PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ACCESS The Study Team completed a review of the existing pedestrian infrastructure on Loch Lomond Road as well as the proposed pedestrian infrastructure within the development site. Loch Lomond Road currently features concrete sidewalk along the north side of the street. The proposed development site plan shows sections of sidewalk in front of each building between the surface parking lots and the buildings. To improve pedestrian connectivity, it is recommended that a connection be added into the development site from Loch Lomond Road. This could be achieved by extending a sidewalk along the west side of the proposed development access road. In addition to a pedestrian connection onto Loch Lomond Road, there is an opportunity to introduce an active transportation connection between the development and Norman Drive. This could be achieved by extending a multi -use trail between the two northmost quad apartment buildings that are located on the northeast corner of the development property over to Norman Drive where there is already an existing dead-end road. The proposed development site is located between two transit stops on Loch Lomond Road. The transit stops are located approximately 110m to the east and 250m to the west of the development access. Due to the proximity of each, it is reasonable to believe that either stop may be used by transit riders travelling to and from the development. Although the east stop is closer to the development, most transit users will be travelling to and from the west and therefore some may choose to use the west stop near Bon Accord Drive. 10 CONCLUSIONS The key findings and recommendations of this Traffic Impact Statement are summarized as follows: 1. The proposed development, which would be located on the north side of Loch Lomond Road between Bon Accord Drive and Ganong Road, includes ten buildings with a total of 105 dwelling units and a surface parking lot with 158 spaces. The development will be accessible via one private access road off Loch Lomond Road. 2. It is expected that the proposed development will generate 40 vehicle trips during the AM Peak hour (10 entering/30 exiting), 48 vehicle trips during the PM Peak hour (29 entering/19 exiting), and a total of 608 trips daily. 3. The LOS results for the 2030 horizon period with the development in place indicate that the intersection of Loch Lomond Road and the development access will operate efficiently and be well below capacity with the development in place. 4. The development is expected to increase traffic volumes on Loch Lomond Road by 4%, which is equivalent to approximately 4 years of background growth. The Study Team does not expect significant impacts to traffic operations Loch Lomond Road as a result of the development. 5. A sight distance review was completed for vehicles exiting the proposed development access. It was determined that the existing sight distances of 345m to the east and 245m to the west meet the minimum intersection and stopping sight distances recommended by TAC. 6. A sight distance review was completed for a potential crosswalk on Loch Lomond Road at the development access. It was determined that the existing sight distances of 88m from the east and 79m from the west do not meet the minimum decision or stopping sight distances recommended by TAC. Englobe Corp. 9 of 10 376 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 7. Based on the sight distance results, a crosswalk is not recommended across Loch Lomond Road at the development access. The existing crosswalk at Bon Accord Drive should be sufficient in meeting any additional crossing demand from the development. 8. A left turn lane warrant was completed for vehicles turning left into the development from Loch Lomond Road. The analysis concluded that a left turn lane would not be warranted at the intersection because the left turning volumes during the AM and PM peak hours would not be high enough. 9. Based on a review of the proposed access road, it was determined that the proposed width of Sm does not meet the TAC recommended width range between 7.2m and 12.Om for a two-way multi- unit residential development. It is recommended that the width of the access road be widened to fit within this range. 10. Based on the proposed site plan, the development will include a turn around area for large emergency vehicles. This area will be located at the north end of the access road. It is recommended that signage and pavement markings be installed to prevent vehicles from parking on or blocking the area. 11. Based on a review of the existing and proposed pedestrian infrastructure, it is recommended that a pedestrian connection be included between the development and Loch Lomond Road. This could be achieved by adding a sidewalk along the access road into the development site. It was also noted that a multi -use trail could be added on the northeast corner of the development property to provide an Active Transportation connection between Norman Drive and the development. 12. A review of the existing transit stops near the proposed development site concluded that transit users will have the option between two transit stops that are located in proximity to the development site. We trust the enclosed is to your satisfaction. If, however, additional information should be required, please communicate with the undersigned. Yours very truly, Jill Demerchant, P.Eng., M.Eng. Transportation Engineer J:\2021\2111036 1429 Loch Lomond Rd TIS\Admin\Reports\1429 Loch Lomond Rd Traffic Impact Statement.docx Englobe Corp. 10 of 10 377 Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Appendix A: Site Plan Englobe Corp. 378 \, 0. a� \ / �x z g a w Ho cr eE = a EID Eaz L Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Appendix 6: Traffic Data Englobe Corp. 380 Traffic Count Summary AM and PM Peak Hours 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Oct 19 2021 AM Peak Hour 07:15 - 08:15 1 H H m Peds ° N Loch Lomond Rd 0 «i i 4 Loch Lomond Rd L 0 852 � 852 852 1,086 0 1 r 0 1,086 234 234 � 234 0 Z h t 0 PHF= 0.95 Peds �L 0 0 0 n N H H O PM Peak Hour 16:30 -17:30 Traffic Count Summary AADT 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Total Intersection AADT 13700 Oct 19 2021 Estimated AADT K1:% Subject: Traffic Impact Statement — 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Residential Development Appendix C: Synchro Output October 29, 2021 Ref.: 2111036 Englobe Corp. 383 Loch Lomond Rd TIS 1: Loch Lomond Rd & Development 2030 AM Peak 10-29-2021 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 256 932 2 6 24 Future Volume (Veh/h) 8 256 932 2 6 24 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 269 981 2 6 25 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 983 1267 982 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 983 1267 982 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 97 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 699 183 301 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 277 983 31 Volume Left 8 0 6 Volume Right 0 2 25 cSH 699 1700 268 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.58 0.12 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 3.1 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 20.2 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 20.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Ec�:il Loch Lomond Rd TIS 1: Loch Lomond Rd & Development 2030 PM Peak 10-29-2021 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 990 471 9 6 13 Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 990 471 9 6 13 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 1042 496 9 6 14 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 505 1584 500 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 505 1584 500 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 95 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1055 116 568 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1063 505 20 Volume Left 21 0 6 Volume Right 0 9 14 cSH 1055 1700 262 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.30 0.08 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.5 0.0 2.0 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 19.9 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 19.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 191:19 Topic of submission ReZoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Purpose for submission (what is the ask of council): I am asking the Common Council to oppose the Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Executive summary Hi, my name is Andy Folkins and I reside at 72 Old Lake Trail. First, Regards to rezone this residential area to allow multi unit buildings goes against what we who live here were sold on. To allow these large units (looks like a Army Huts) takes away from a very unique part of the city, Where else can one live with a lake part of their property. In the last 3 1/2 years Seven new homes have been built on Old lake Trail, these are not cheap homes. To have the proposed buildings developed with definitely change the landscape. With the proposed lots as well as Mosiac Drive two streets over there is potential for 150 plus homes that can be built, Can we not work with local developers to develop these lots without changing the plan. Lastly I would like to mention the Traffic Impact Assessment dated October 19,2021 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. To me this does not do justice, This was done during Covid times, people working from home, laid off, restaurant half staff, school buses not regular etc; If you took this assessment on Crown Street, Rothesay Ave and Thorne Ave you would CERTAINLY get a different count versus pre covid. I have lived in this are for 43 years and I have dealt in heavy traffic. I am not against development but I feel very deeply this type of housing will be very negative for the other undeveloped areas as previous mentioned. I ask all councilors and our Mayor to really look at this and with a clear conscience say they could live with this in their backyard. Please oppose the rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road. Thank You Andy Folkins 191:i.1 REZONING 1429 LOCH LOMOND ROAD � Pf D 00312900 LU JAN � � W2 ( r. j Planning Advisory Committee C/O City of Saint John, Growth & Community Services All Councillors; In reference to the above rezoning meeting, i am 100% AGAINST it, My i iame is Andy Folkins; I live at 77 t)Id Lake Trail adjacent to the proposed rezoning lot Seven years ago I went before council to build a garden home at the above address. At that time I was unaware of a zoning bylaw, I was turned down and ended up building what the zone would allow. quite a difference from what I wanted and what these people want. Property Value, Major Concern. We have many beautiful homes on Old Lake Trail overlooking Qlackail Fake. Most families built here for that reason. Strictly residential zoning. Realtors have stated that our homes will decrease in value if the above rezoning goes thru. 3. Existing schools in the area 3 of them, are at or near full capacity. The province has no immediate plans to build or add to the existing ones. In 2017 Council approved 100 plus lots at Mosaic Heights, approx. 3/10ths of a kilometer pass 1429 Loch Lomond Rd, Can Loch Lomond Rd handle 200-300 more vehicles? You are so close to the Hickey Rd intersection as well as McAllister Drive. I know we need more housing, but in due respect there are better options for large buildings of this nature. At the informal meeting with the developers and City staff it was stated at that time both parties were overwhelmed by the large turnout of residents. Also stated by the developers maybe 20 minutes into the discussions that they could make changes, well the only change I see on the new brochures, they went from 8 buildings to 10? Is this to say "we can negotiate" down, Not happy with this ploy. Also one of the developer's answered a question about low income housing as part of the package (government funding) he said 10 % the other said 10-15%, we need straight honest facts. I am asking all of you please do not allow this to happen in a extraordinary city setting, Thank You Andy_Folkir4, 14a I Topic of submission Stop Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Purpose for submission (what is the ask of council): STOP APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEING BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF A SUBDIVISION OF HOUSES. Executive summary February 2, 2022 Barry Shannon Lakefield Court, Saint John RE: Stop Rezoning at 1429 Loch Lomond Road Honorable Mayor Reardon and Common Council: Rezoning for apartment buildings will not contribute positively to our neighbourhood and are not compatible with surrounding land as stated Saint John Municipal Plan", See Schedule B, page 43 - Stable Areas. In the SJ Municipal Plan, see page 88, 5.1 it says Neighbourhoods and Housing Goals. 6: Support stable residential neighbourhoods and ensure that new development and redevelopment maintains and enhances the character of these existing neighbourhoods. Is our neighbourhood part of this Stable Plan? Is it right to put apartment buildings in the middle of a subdivision of houses? Is the city so short on land you're willing to let people who don't live in the province destroy this area? Please, listen to all the people who live here that are speaking out. Its our quality of live that is being affected. This is bad development planning. These parking lots with dumpsters and flying garbage in this windy area of the city, parking lot lights from buildings, years of continuous loud construction noise and dirt, this all interferes with our quality of life as we know it. Stop apartment buildings being built in our back yard. Please! Sincerely, Barry Shannon Lakefield Court, Saint John it1:1:3 1429 Loch Lomond Info — Opposition to Development This "development" in this Residential Area is NOT appropriate for a number of reasons. 1) The area is PROPERLY designated R1/R2 under the original plan 2) This is also supported by P1anSJ (we spent how any THOUSANDS of dollars on the "plan" only to allow SPOT Zoning AGAIN. This has not worked well in the past 3) People/Property owners in the area built or bought their "forever/retirement homes" based on the approved plans in place. a. Why would you allow a "medium/high density" complex to be "inserted" into a residential area? 4) The "new" developer has a total of ABOUT 15 Acres in total. Their "plan" is to get approval for about 1/3 (5 or so) acres for Medium/HIGH density but not developing the rest? a. Sure — I "believe that" develop 33% of your property and not do the same for the remaining 2/3rds of the property.. I think NOT 5) In is very clear that they are attempting to "gradually" move this into a "apartment sub- division" with 30 or more buildings with 300 — 500 UNITS overall based on current plans. 6) Statistics show that "medium/high" apartment developments increase a number of unacceptable changes to the area such as: a. Increased crime/petty crime and violent crimes in developments of this size. Add this the OVERALL Magnitude should the additional 2/3rs of the property developed in a similar manner b. Increased traffic, noise pollution air pollution c. MAJOR decrease in property values within a 2 KM radius d. Traffic congestion e. Increased Policing Costs 7) In this particular situation, they want to build their complex adjacent to a daycare center. - Not appropriate for countless reasons. 8) Many of "us" in the area have spent a LOT of dollars to keep/upgrade our properties over the years for our "forever/retirement homes" we are Maintaining and Improving then so we can ENJOY my homes... so I would be really ***off with this sort of development being allowed knowing that it WILL destroy my MAJOR property improvement investment. 1c1:10.1 From Real-estate Board Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 WALKABIL,ITY 1.8 Poor For the majority of locations here, other transportation modes are needed to reach day-to-day needs. Location of 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 1Z8 Lifestyle of Neighbourhood (scale rated 1-10 —1 being LOW/POOR) Daycare 10 Quiet 9 Car Friendly 8 High Schools 5 Transit Friendly 4 Elementary Schools 4 Shopping 4 Pedestrian friendly 3 Restaurants 3 Parks 2 Vibrancy 1 Nightlife 1 Grocery 0 Walkability 1.8 Basically the Local Real Estate Board shows that the area is only SLIGHTLY viable if you have a car... the only real positive number is the day care one... quiet is OVERATED given the impact of noise from Loch Lomond Road... and the significant increase if this development goes ahead. Car "friendly" — not a reasonable number given the DIFFICULTY in access/egress of Loch Lomond at MOST times.. never mind AM & PM "higher volumes" From there down the list... everything is below 5... which is not a good thing. 06I97 Apartment Complex Issues (in General) - Increased Crime o Something with 5 or more buildings raises crime rates within 2000 meters of the "project" (statistics widely available on the internet to support this FACT) o Statistics show a significant increase in Break-ins, Drugs, Petty crimes, and Assaults (of all types — physical, sexual, and attempted assaults) o Significate increase in Policing Costs and call outs to the area Decreased Area Property Values o Simply put, any properties within 2000 Meters of the development of this size/nature will decrease property values anywhere from 10 — 30% Increased Pollution (Noise, air, Garbage and wild critters o Large garbage bins (typically ay apartment complexes) tend to draw the UNWANTED type of wild animals — typically RATS, MICE. Racoons etc. Environmental Issues for this development o 15 Acres of Asphalt & Concrete ■ Decreases natural runoff ■ Decreased natural habitat for birds and such. With single type family home development — the change would be gradual, trees/shrubs/hedges would develop, and most would remain equally balanced. o MUST have environment impact study done Increased traffic from mid -high density apartments to enter Loch Lomond Road o Loch Lomond Road has high levels of traffic now — especially at peak times — access & egress from Loch Lomond Road CAN and IS very difficult on a good day without adding 100's more cars from one access point (605 daily according to "their study" — just a note — their study was based on 1 DAY of "video data" — were schools open — did the pandemic reduce "normal" traffic by people working at home or isolating? o A PROPER traffic study needs to be conducted to assess the real impact. ■ I was certified a number of years ago in traffic study collection and analysis of traffic patterns. I worked for a number of years in Workplace Health and Safety for Canada Post and we were required to do traffic studies and implement changes to our Rural Delivery Services over a number of years. It can be a lengthy process doing an analysis on CURRENT traffic situations.. this one would also need accurate data to make accurate "estimates" of the overall impact. - Large Construction project — o Large numbers of equipment & construction noise — will continue for years - Only developing 1/3 (approx.) of the land — I don't think this is being totally honest - the remaining 2/3rds will follow suit - They stated" — the other 2/3rds is "barely walkable" so no plans to develop it o Bon Accord/Old Lake Trail/Ganong areas were the same type of land. Heavy equipment made a "level playing field" to build on. Did not stop these ars from being developed into SINGLE/DUPLEX homes (mainly single). They were not "walkable" before they were leveled and backfilled as needed. AGAIN — for Single/Duplex (Rl/R2) zoning. 1429 Loch Lomond is zoned the same (Rl/R2) which is appropriate for the area So, at the end of the day... this "proposed" development is NOT appropriate in ANY way or form for this area. The area is PROPERLY ZONED to fit in with the surrounding areas and should NOT be changed. David Fischer Ganong Road Saint John NB 06%, -------- Original message -------- From: jlgrass <ilgrass@nbnet.nb.ca> Date: 2022-01-14 11:27 AM (GMT-04:00) To: onestop@saintiohn.ca Subject: Redone 1429 Lochlomond rd Sent from my Galaxy Tab' E Hello, I am writing to voice again, my opposition to rezoning 1429 Lochlomond rd. We as a residential community do not want apartment buildings of any size, height, shape built in our neighbourhood. Only housing allowed, would be single family homes. In my previous letter I outlined several concerns including increased traffic flow, noise, rodents from dumpsters, environmental concerns from runoff at Blackall lake, out of province building owners, absent landlords. PAC, please REJECT this rezoning! Jim & Lynn Grass 27 Ganong rd Saint John 506-647-8385 Topic of submission Stop Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road for apartment buildings. Purpose for submission (what is the ask of council): Stop apartment buildings Executive summary February 2, 2022 Janice Goodine-Shannon Lakefield Court, E. Saint John RE: Stop Rezoning at 1429 Loch Lomond Road Honorable Mayor Reardon and Common Council: I am writing this letter once again in opposition of rezoning the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road from residential houses to apartment buildings. I have a Petition Sheet of 114 landowners who are in opposition to stop the rezoning of this property at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. We do not want apartment buildings, parking lots and garbage dumpsters in our back yards. This will ruin the retirement community that we have created through our yards and houses. This is a restrictive covenanted stable residential area of people who work hard in keeping their properties beautiful, clean and who takes pride. To drop a row of apartment buildings smack in the middle of a subdivision of residential houses does not fit. This is a negative impact to the adjacent lands, neighbourhoods and quality of life we have created with our houses and private yards. This is a negative development to our neighbourhood. Please, listen to the people who live here and stop apartment buildings being built here. Sincerely, Janice Goodine Shannon Lakefield Court East Saint John B&Z"I From: Patricia McGuire <patricia.epicure@gmail.com> Sent: January 24, 2022 2:40 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning 1429 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 00312900) Good afternoon, I am writing to advise that I do not agree with the rezoning in its entirety. I would be ok with building down by the bottom close to the road up in line with Norman Drive, if I can see by the map you have provided. I am not ok with it coming up further. This totally changes the area from residential to commercial. I live at the top of Bon Accord subdivision and I feel that this rezoning/project in its entirety would not be a good fit for all us private homeowners in this subdivision. I have no problem with apartment buildings down around the Loch Lomond Road area but to put all those apartment buildings coming way up to behind our subdivision is awful. This is a beautiful private home residency. Quiet and no problems in the area. I am fine with apartment buildings going up to the beginning of the lake so before the hill. There are million dollar homes in the Ganong subdivision and very nice homes in Bon Accord. This project is totally unreasonable and will change the area completely. There are numerous more suitable areas along the Loch Lomond Rd area for something of this nature. How do I join the meeting for February 7, 2022? Please ensure I have details. I am against this. Patricia McGuire OR From: Stanislav Klenin <stanislay.klenin@gmail.com> Sent: January 14, 2022 1:53 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintiohn.ca> Cc: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Updated Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00312900) [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintiohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Dear City Clerk, As a property owner in the neighborhood, I am writing to express my objections to the updated rezoning application at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I am aware that the developers who requested this rezoning have changed their proposal twice (first after open house meeting and then after Planning Advisory Committee meeting), and I appreciate them listening to feedback. However, the changes in their proposal are only superficial. The proposal is still for construction of several apartment buildings in an area originally designated Two -Unit Dwelling. My concerns, therefore, remain mostly unchanged: - Adverse effects on the environment. The area in question is a green space with parts of it covered with woods. This space will likely be damaged, and the woods may be lost when development continues further. - Blocking lake drainage. There is a stream running out of Blackall Lake. A large construction project like this is likely to overlook it and cause flooding. - Increased traffic. Even with reduced number of apartments in the new proposal, we can expect the number of cars in the area to at least double once all new tenants move in. This would be way too much for this area, and can affect adjacent neighborhoods along Loch Lomond Road. - Inconsistent city planning. There are areas intended for multi -unit apartment buildings, while this area is not. It is surrounded with other R2 parcels too, so an apartment block in the middle of two -unit residential area would stick out like a sore thumb. If the applicants intended to develop this land further as it is now, with single family houses and two - unit dwellings, I would definitely support this initiative. Our neighborhood needs to grow organically, keeping its distinct character (wherein lies its charm). But turning it into apartment blocks would pretty much ruin it. Best regards, Stanislav Klenin 24 Old Lake Trail, Saint John NB stanislay.klening@gmail.com From: V- MAC Sent: November 25, 2021 11:18 AM To: Onestop@saintiohn.ca <Onestop@saintiohn.ca>; CommonClerk@saintiohn.ca <CommonClerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Hello I am writing to you to voice my concerns about the potential rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I was born and raised in Saint John but have not been living in the city for approx. 15 years. Recently we decided to down size and ease into a simple retired life and decided what better place than Saint John, our original home town. A year and a half later we moved into our brand-new house that we spent countless hours designing and planning. Part of this planning included researching the 19-acre piece of property that is now for sale at 1429 Loch Lomond Road that runs adjacent to our street. At this time, I also researched the empty parcel of land on the Lakewood Heights side of the lake for future development. It eased my mind to find out all available empty parcels of land in close proximity were zoned for residential use. As I sit here typing this, I keep questioning myself. Did I make a huge mistake moving back to Saint John? I think it is great that people want to come and invest money in our city but this is not the property for an apartment complex, way too many negatives to list most of them I am sure you are familiar with as you live in the area. We pay very high taxes in this neighborhood with a substantial increase as of late. I also know that every single household in this area is against this rezoning. I can only speak for myself that if this rezoning is approved and this project moves forward, I will regrettably be moving from Saint John once and for all. Thank you for your time. Vince MacLennan 60 Old Lake Trail Saint John N.B E2J-0J5 hippyguy69@live.com 506-977-2070 ON About your Submission Topic of submission Rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Road Purpose for submission (what is the ask of council): STOP REZONING FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS Executive summary Feb 2, 2022 Frank Kyle Lakefield Court Saint John, NB E2.1 5133 Dear Mayor and City Council, This parcel of land in question on 1429 Loch Lomond Road is surrounded by mostly single-family owned dwellings. To put university looking dorms in our subdivision is not good growth, its bad growth. Please listen to the people and stop the development of apartment buildings. Sincerely, Frank Kyle 061-11 Topic of submission 1429 Loch Lomond Road, Rezoning Purpose for submission (what is the ask of council): Stop rezoning of land Executive summary February 2, 2022 Shirley Kyle Lakefield Court Saint John, NB E2J 5133 Dear Mayor and Common Council, 1429 Loch Lomond Road is surrounded by mostly single-family owned dwellings. DO NOT ALLOW university looking dorms in our subdivision. This is bad growth in this area. Would you want this plunked in the middle of your subdivision? The crime rate will go up here, there will be more garbage flying through the neighbourhood, the value of our homes will go down and bright lights from the parking lots. Please listen to the people and stop the development of apartment buildings, stop the rezoning. Sincerely, Shirley Kyle 0616.1 Opposition of Rezoning and Proposed Development 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - Council Meeting Feb. 7, 2022 I am submitting this letter in opposition to the rezoning and proposed development currently under consideration for the property at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. Like myself, many of the residence in the area of the Bon Accord Dr. Subdivision, Old Lake Trail, Lakefield Ct., Norman Dr. and Ganong Rd. are against the proposed rezoning and do not want such a large scale development in our neighbourhood. There are numerous reasons that this proposal should not be allowed: • Excessive traffic in an area of Loch Lomond Rd. that already struggles with a very high traffic volume. We are in the midst of a pandemic, a vast majority of people who would normally be on Loch Lomond Rd. are currently working from home. I would have to suggest that the traffic study previously done is inaccurate and that there is an underestimation of the full volume of traffic in a non -pandemic situation. • Excessive storm water runoff toward Loch Lomond Rd. from the massive parking and road areas being introduced. Once the required storm drains ice over, all of the runoff will be directed to Loch Lomond Rd. with a high probability of ice sheets developing on Loch Lomond Rd. in that area. • Where will all of the snow removal go. The weather we have had the past few weeks is an example of our typical winter weather. There is no area available to plow snow, other than to have it trucked out or to plow all of the snow/ salt and sand up into the northern portion of the development which is the area of lake run off . I assume this would be an environmental issue and concern. • 1 would also like to mention Emergency Vehicle access and Garbage truck access. Where and how? • Excess garbage and large scale dumpsters that will be out front and visible for all to see. Garbage will inevitably end up on the ground around the dumpsters as they become full. • Excess outdoor garbage will attract rodents and wildlife, causing infestation problems Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident — Old Lake Trail) Page 1 of 2 400 Opposition of Rezoning and Proposed Development 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. City of Saint John - Council Meeting Feb. 7, 2022 • The main concern I have which will be demonstrated during a presentation to Council is based on the Municipal Plan and its By -Law and Land Use Policies. The proposed rezoning and development does not fit within the current Plan SJ and City of Saint John By -Law requirements in accordance with the following policies: Policy LU-4, Policy LU-86, Policy LU-87, Policy LU-88, which all state that any significant development and redevelopment ensures desirable and positive contributions to the neighbourhood. Developments are to be in keeping with the existing Stable Residential neighbourhood character, and at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context. (R2). The proposed development is none of these things. The City Staff Report and recommendations are based on in -appropriate and non - applicable references. The proposed rezoning and development are non -compliant with the existing Land Use Classification. I am at a loss as to how this development could possibly be approved. I am very familiar with the Municipal Plan and applicable By -Law and Land Use Policies. There is nothing that I have read or could find that would permit such a development while maintaining compliance. Should the city allow such a development to be introduced, the quality that makes this location desirable for the existing residence and any new comers will no longer exist. The city will be allowing the out of province developers to put their financial wants and benefits above the well- being and rights of the existing residence. The multiple letters, concerns and a petition signed by at least 109 voting residence submitted, opposing this rezoning, along with the multiple variances and "allowances" that need to be made to suit the development, and the incompatibility to the current Stable Residential Classification and non-compliance to the various Land Use Policies and By -Law should be an indication of how obviously unsuitable this proposed development is. Thank you. Presentation against the proposed development and rezoning of 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. By: Trudy Hanley (Resident — Old Lake Trail) Page 2 of 2 401 om om c6 U N � C00--% LL E — L1 J o � U - a) 4-j N _IZ- ON 0 v --,.z a1 O _ O ._ O 0 o ca E E a) -0 0 4- O CJ o 0 v Z3 O V O, J an v i N E b -0t1A — _0 C: 0 O 3 O cm� O a-j N .� c6 � a1 a� N N v O Q O L a � o a c6 v aJ E � 0- 0 U � � U a) -0 f6 _0 a) � •- Ln Ln N > O Ln O E O O L Q N O Q C: Ln p Ln O -1 oLo ca -0 a✓ a) U -0 > ?f. t]A f6 E L O °Q Ln E tn o� i O O O O 4-1Ln 4- tQ tj N tn a a a � U •� � a O m , i a j •� N � O N 3 � s � •o a✓ o � a✓ o a✓ � N O v a., Ln s m O N I.L Q L 00 w w v O CL Lm 0 N - L ++ cn N O � U O > Q U cB ate+ v CL O L O cB =3 cB J c 9i CLQ N _ L L O L fB E a••' a, d > Q N O Q 'U X + � cB N U CL ate+ x O Q •L +w N a' N C: O Q C Q iB L O E -Fo4A O 0 i .— i=3 (B Vi N L L -0 N L N a d a w 3 0 00 t N O a- -a*, E. ,} Q •N a + o as °, �' > OOoc o a) � +, N � o o v, O •N a� a� ao o awn N N *' 'U *= o ao O � a :Ea� O a +5 � ao Ln a) Ln M o -0 CL cC t O 'a O N CL tL0 CL t3 co '� U O H Z cn J I ca O N cB (A 30 0O O > O_ _O O � � t � dA � O i � U N � O *' 3 O � � N +, Q) U U � � U Q � o V � O o a N N LL +�+ E •C CL 3 o � o . CL �••� ai E ° L +� W C C N � N N N � _ Of C N N N C C M ❑ cu o x N J J J � m Q U E 7 m a E a CD (U : m a m O m U)CL 2 J W 4W m N 0 N L U N Q m *k , N Ln J N 0 A N l0 N ` E C N O N N m co Of 0' L Q Of Of clam iff 3 >, lz = (N d m 0 �+ LL I L L OC:L N E z(U N O U � O � L L O O Y � � 1 0 z3 fU I a) N N WN *' O a� E O a•— �n O W O Zm .O >O N CA a 0 +'tto E O i O �. Q +, i Q +� mow\ p 4A o Q 0 - Q u O v' N 4l N> 4- -0 • L N N p CuD >• s fC Z O � 4l �= 1 ++ u O I� _� O O -a bo N cn V (AU i E U fC E CL fC .V 0 O c� 3 > a U O `� ° 0 0 4- N ,o ++ O o o f p +� 0 4-0 o _ � is �o J *� 41 N > �° J *= oC 00 00 • N O Q O + ca O p � c� .� o c a t N _0 H O UO `O � O O i "Q) to X r_ .-O ���a 3 - (10 O Q '� E ,_ � O O n •N a)uQ Q E E O 4-0 Q Q O O p > � O i on J �, N � N N > > ate+ .� > U L X > D .� L +O.a a) c Gl 4 J Q O O J cB Q •?� O • G1 +�' OO O o 4i OCL > Q t •o0 � > �LL + CLQ _ 0 t t cc is s a� CL O a� M auo M txo H 0 M O H O t t r .0 � V • ) � V i E Q O N� Ii ^0 CL CLIi V/ U cB ++ N Q Q E v1 = 0 O U -0 N N i = O Q p y a cB 0 0 O O L oc Nfa L N O N O ++ OtM 00 .y = U O X fB N O + O p = N= � cn N N Q �O L 0 Q E OU U cB 0 O y cafB ,� E > L Q +J E :E N L O •� N L L C1A 0 O N N Q a E L O O E Q L Q ON � O N E N N O N n Q X U E 0 L L N � � •� '� L O L O N L O 0 E Q Q E _ AC O O fB O O L fB N O � O N Ln M of i X O LE O� Q a� a- a- O L fB O i-- Q O — 2 E i-- U i + pp pp Q 4 OE N� N N N Vf a'd H E H H • • • L� (N >- >. c6 a) +- i i N S— a + o � � a) � N_ > O cn X 0 > a) C f6 a-+ s O O U C O 4 i O ++ cn L OU 'N L > N (6 Q Q N 0 00 — O S cnfu 0 _0 s U C i o O o-0 o E f6 aN+ E a) O C O@ O L cn -Se V to N N Q O N +' U fu I.i (n L 4-j +- r-! 4- O •� s ca — L 7 O _ X +�+ i EL > f6 S E a) L +�+ N r! N a) —0 i CL U N a) 4— O -0 � x E O f6 � c0 � ++ UA s -0 }' O 4 O c s L E O O L tw cy a) UA a) C S 7 S U •X Q � f6 ate--+ tw c 3 a) tw E .S a) a) aN+ � C � E 3 O O > J O a) f _0 _0 a) U C � � U (uI E7 6m XE M R:TJ r-I N `��� �- 1•t it � fi:• � Y Y +I . 114�%sr t\i.��'.ir�r��'4 �••i i `Yr` .. "•�,' •!I �� ,x a 4- _ L - 4- � a) 8X L +�+ 0 N � C s 30 1 " +, O i E 4 ° L° •� +' o�s•0 -o N Q ass _ � 3 aa)i c o o ai ° a)s m 3 Sao .a y a) O s �, o +� O +� > a) 4-; O +, °' c 3 O c 4- a s a 4� p, �, O a) y a) o c N O i, a) i a) i � a) U a••+ +s, N }' O a) a) .� � s a) a) Z Q a) a) v crs �- Q, c O 3 c Of PPPL i A 'T ALI, � I U ++ t1A Q N N c O a- a O c U .N cn N U E p O ° 4=1 WV m 4 ^' O W Q � cn Fo a �N a 0 ° O to O m Q U , E fB O U ^L a N I N ., • "V A C E O CL O iy L w p0 0 O Q OJ 04 � c a U > O 0 N N (n a O a m a 0 a U 0 00 w mw = _ cD y Y � U � C � C N i 0 J W L o a) Q L Q Q N O Q +, c Q) U �N fB i � cB .Q •E O 4 3 E > o >. 0 V 3 aA a 0- L O _ L Q O o c • — U }+ 4-0 N M a+ . i N W = � 4A � o _ m � N x c = Y C F_ 7 rn i zLo w i III I ma D r� J ® m _ ® m ® w m ID ® ® ® -EEu, ® ® ® 1 J C!7 ® m ® ® m m ?2I 9— - �I ® M ® El ® m ® ® m 10 m ® m EEL ® m ® m ® - m ID El ® ED ED r w ® ED El Q E"1 � � � i O 4- Mo 3 � � fB LM �o s Mo pz V L m a N cc a,o t •� N O m •Q f6 f6 Q N O Q N m N L w Q Q-0-0 N Q M Q mY +, N -0 Q O +' . n 0 + N, s O E i p- C o 0-0 • O f6 Z `gyp �-,, Z) 3 u O N of `~ UA Q -0�^ Q O a- + C V L Q .� N f6 MU N i 0 > W W +' S dA 0) -0 CL a+ Q) 0) N 'N Q) '� C 10 (6 m O Cl v uN i 0 U0 O L O v Q 3 c� 4- N O Q O 3 +' a-+ 0) O s ate+ U> X U a)n O � N 4-L Q O tio0) m —_ a.+ a ' Q > r f6 . Q O Q Q dA c6 aO+ O+T+ N a+ O i> fL6 F a'' m w a m 0) 0) M 0) 0) 2_0 m U " OL " - 0) 0 0) Q) o U O 0) (6 (l) aoNazo . . . . . m<m<4- . . . . - �-jV) . . 4 Q O X Q) Q O 4- 0 C O i C . N Q) Q O O s �— L r 0) > u S M a-+ W 0) m O t -0 �.0 •3 Q N a--+ L C � � U-0� Q N a) 3 L o ai a 4 of Y 0) L m - a) Q at f6 U U ma.+ a , N a O O X- c� O co N Q Q) Q _N M L C m - c.% -0 O — Q -0 C N N (6 Vf M O m N C u t c O of O N > — i +� N m — c Q) O > N � - > a - tw lH N •x Q i � O Q O Q L ::3 O U O N vi N 3 O +O N +� N 0 -c- � 0 0 c O i Q O .� O Q �bn N j O N O 0 U O •3 � Q O Q O O Q O cB L Q O Q) O O a,o � � U N N L O N �j L O � O � N �1 C O M N 'U +' Q � C1A O O O L J � CID - fB .0 IS 0_ = Q S= O N ::3 4� � 4' fB N O i O O N fB Q -_ Q 0 •� ° V �N0- L � O N ON N z O -- O O ° > L L X O O No07 Q Q U E c C UU l (n L O � an N N A i i-E J U fB S= 0 +; O CL N (1) f6 •— fC a--+ Q ++ 0 a U t U i +� � a O 4 •- N kn 0- aq rML CAC o � O _ CL a--+ a OI i _0- 0 QL O E L Q cr a U � •H i ca 3 4-1 Q w O O a � � 0 .= O a--+rm 4-1 �..r N = A \ C: .� V E " 0 El 2 _0 E O (n Q ++ O U • > 0 4 V E (f) C o O L •vf • � s .N L ate., N iB (� L cn + OU x X Q c 0 +' C: _ Q O N N 0 OE > E � O Q =3 �, U _O ) Q (U Q U Q)U E N N L Ln 0 i L Q M U O +O ate+ NCID �O N + cB Q O L X � bx �' Q E E O X 0 U t} a+ a+ O @) in Q of of L O C O 3 0 E U O O N m O L U Ln m a� O E p Q O O :E U a •' Vf N 0. .� GJ 0 a� L (U L Q � TO Q) E Q) co O 0 i Q O cUn 'Er E E U fC E w O O cB U t O N 3 O � ++ O O +� ++ Q O tu 0 U �•� =3� O V O N L = � � Q a + ate., W Q 0 > N Q Q N N U E v0i N •fC 0 Ln U W� t •i a p M 0) L a U U O` ate+ Q U (� y of N ate+ 0 a + U c of fB U J M j N c O Q =3 O cn N N `� O U •Q O U— N � O m W W �_ ON L O •> > L fB Q p O U O � p O � N U CAA 07 (n L Q Q -0 > O E N p O > = > � L CL L m O 4- 0-Q M N O y Q a+ ate+ _O > 0 fB N ate+ N N -0fB 0 CL O Q > > > +' U- fB a + U E Q U W-0 4J N p i OU �E�i� 0 .Q 0 Q Q .bo A� W L A� W 3 3 t O L to L CL Y to c� Aa W L i From: Jamie Munroe <iamie.munroe@gmail.com> Sent: February 7, 2022 9:51 AM To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Concerns with proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road Hello, Please note the following concerns with the proposed apartment complex development on Loch Lomond Road in Saint John. 1. Traffic. This is a major concern, as traffic a peak times can already get congested easily. I've reviewed the traffic study provided, and I think it downplays the effects of adding an extra 20 seconds to existing wait times on Loch Lomond Road during peak times. Loch Lomond Road cannot be widened further beyond Bon Accord, so there is no provision for a left turn lane that would almost certainly be needed during afternoon and evening peak times. Multiple studies have shown that even a minor disruption can take hours to level out, so 20 seconds times 40 vehicles will almost certainly mean significant congestion. If I'm wrong and Loch Lomond Road could indeed be widened, I'd hope the work would be completed before construction begins. Also, the cost of modification should not fall on taxpayer, but in the developers creating the need. 2. Infrastructure. Adding 70-plus users to existing utility and telecommunication infrastructure can cause significant stress on existing equipment. While power and internet are not within the city's purview, they are considered essential services. Any threat to these services for existing customers must be reviewed, and assurances from the providers must be in writing before approval of this proposal. Unless the developer is willing to pay for upgrades to existing infrastructure to ensure stability for existing customers, I feel the development should not be allowed to proceed 3. Flooding. Water runoff causes major issues in different parts of the city and a major development at the foot of a hill with no alternate route for runoff will almost certainly lead to flooding within the new complex and neighbouring houses and businesses. In particular, I'd guess the Mitsubishi dealership and the existing small apartment nearby would be at risk. Until there is a plan in writing that not only outlines the environmental impact, but addresses the modifications required, this development should not be allowed to proceed. 4. Privacy. The proposal shows a sparse tree line between the parking lot and neighbouring houses. However, there is nothing in writing assuring the developers and future owners will maintain even this thin barrier. As mentioned above, the area is almost certain to have flooding issues, which create a less than favourable environment 11K91 for newly -planted trees and shrubs. Also, complexes like these tend to put dumpsters and trash receptacles at the back of parking lots, creating a haven for both wild and domestic animals. Without adequate fencing and spacing, these issues will spread to the outbuildings and basements of neighbouring properties. I would contend that a condition for the rezoning should be an agreement in perpetuity to add and maintain a satisfactorily dense privacy buffer for as long as the buildings exist. 5. With only one entry and exit point for upwards of 70 vehicles, how your study found no need for a traffic light or marked crosswalk is baffling 6. A second privacy issue arises with the height of the proposed buildings. Even mid -rise buildings have patios that overlook the neighbouring backyards with no control. While strictly speaking, this may not be a legal issue, it certainly leads to a feeling of invasion in a community where most people chose to build expecting at least some privacy. 7. Public Transit. SJ Transit has faced multiple cuts and routes and frequencies have been altered. With a complex this large, they would almost certainly need better transit routes and connections in order to attract tenants. In the past, apartments and rental units with poor public transit options have failed to attract and retain tenants, and I feel this would be no different. It is extremely disappointing and distressing that you would consider the notion of such an intrusive development in that particular area. That land should be used for single- family housing to more fit the profile of the area. I'm not opposed to new development and I see and acknowledge the need for more apartment complexes in the city. But in my opinion, this is the wrong property for such a large undertaking. From: Lisa McDermott <lisammcd68@vahoo.ca> Sent: February 4, 2022 4:52 PM To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Proposed multi -unit dwellings for 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. This letter is to further express my strong opposition to the development of multi -unit dwellings at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. In Saint John NB. I have taken the time to read over the impact of traffic on Loch Lomond Road and it's obvious that this elevation has never been based on any of the potential developers trying to turn onto Loch Lomond Road from Ganong Rd. during morning rush hour. The impact would be an issue for the east side community and wait times would extend. Other issues that also must be addressed are ground -level activity such as the increase of parking. How many parking spaces are allocated for each unit? Is there a proposed overflow parking area for any tenant visitors, family etc. If not, is there a plan to address this matter, otherwise where will these cars park? What about dumpsters and service areas? Where would they be located? I'm sure many of us in the Old Lake Trail would not take fondly to looking at these waste areas in our backyards. We all know these areas are not kept the most tidy and can propose a health threat as evident by looking at the ground around any dumpster in the city ie. garbage, syringes etc. The purposed plan does not include development behind Old Lake Trail but once zoning is in place a developer will utilize whatever space they are paying land taxes on to have a return on their investment. What about noise pollution? Not just the noise that comes with just the construction of these units but with the excess of people as they go about their daily lives. What about privacy? I noticed a row of trees planted on the new projected development plan. If you plant a row of 20'-30' trees at this height it may be adequate for 2 story units but anyone who looks out of their window at the top floor of a 3 storey unit will be looking into the adjacent neighbour yards. This too will have a direct impact on the privacy and visual quality of the community. Also is the amount of space for planting a row of trees going to be sufficient? Assuming there will be a canopy created by this row of trees the allowance must be considered so that it doesn't extend into adjacent yards. None likes the extra fall yard work from raking leaves or picking up branches from a windstorm when the tree was not planted by the homeowner. With the lack of privacy will home owners still be comfortable in their own backyard doing normal activities? Will the future buildings/ trees cast a shadow on these backyards of homeowners who previously enjoyed the sunlight? We pay dearly for our property taxes and expect to be able to enjoy our investment. Just an observation but we know that many multi -unit property owners allow their properties to deteriorate over the several years ( and they can remain in this condition for an extended period of time ) in order for the owners to get the most from their investment. How can such investors be held accountable especially if they live in another province? These units are not proposed for their backyards, they are proposed for ours. How can such a project prove anything but detrimental to our area. These units will only prove to standout as not fitting for this area and property values will reflect that as they begin to drop. Sincerely, Lisa McDermott 31 Old Lake Trail Saint John N.B. (506) 643-0771 CPA From: Paul Alexander <PAlexander@bavviewtrucks.com> Sent: February 7, 2022 9:26 AM To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road Development Hello, We live at 15 Roatan Way in East Saint John, in the adjoining subdivision to the proposed apartment development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. The traffic in this area is already overloaded and we feel it cannot handle the additional traffic load of 80+ families. We are also very concerned about the potential decrease in our property value. We are strongly opposed to this development. Thank you, Paul Alexander 15 Roatan Way Saint John, NB E2J-0 B9 506-639-7845 Paul Alexander Business Manager Bayview Trucks & Equipment Ltd 315 McAllister Drive Saint John, NB, E2J 2C6 Mobile: 506-238-3353 www.bavviewtrucks.com Cy491 From: Angela Ingersoll <kainger@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: February 5, 2022 4:08 PM To: City of Saint John Mayor's Office <mayor@saintiohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John <iohn.mackenzie@saintiohn.ca>; Lowe, Gerry <gerry.lowe@saintiohn.ca>; Harris, Brent <brent.harris@saintiohn.ca>; Norton, Greg <greg.norton@saintiohn.ca>; Hickey, David <david.hickev@saintiohn.ca>; Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan@saintiohn.ca>; Killen, Joanna <ioanna.killen@saintiohn.ca>; Ogden, Barry <barry.ogden@saintiohn.ca>; Stewart, Greg <greg.stewart@saintiohn.ca>; pauIa. brown @saintiohn.ca <paula.brown@saintiohn.ca> Subject: RE: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 0031290) [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintiohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** I am just writing to let you know that we still strongly oppose the rezoning and construction of the multiple unit residential development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. This should not be allowed in a single family neighborhood. This is going to cause traffic congestion to be even worse than what it is now as trying to get out on to Loch Lomond road is already very difficult as busy times of the day. We remain NOT IN FAVOR of this development! Kevin & Angela Ingersoll From: Angela Ingersoll <kainger@nbnet.nb.ca> Sent: November 10, 2021 11:14 AM To:'Onestop@saintjohn.ca' <Onestop@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning, Subdivision, and Variance Application 1429 Loch Lomond Road (PID 0031290) To whom it may concern, We are writing to let you know that we strongly oppose the construction of a multiple unit residential development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. We live in the Bon Accord subdivision and getting out on to Loch Lomond road is crazy at times, especially turning left. These apartments would increase traffic even more and it will become a nightmare. Traffic lights will be needed for several subdivisions to enable access to Loch Lomond road during busy times. We pay over $4,000/yr in property taxes and feel that this development will affect the value of our home. Cramming so many units into the area will not be attractive and the city should be looking to I:yzl keep tax paying property owners in the area. A development of this nature will drive many home owners out of the area. We are DEFINITLY NOT IN FAVOR of this development. Kevin & Angela Ingersoll Cy49 From: Jacqueline Bartlett <ibartlett9@hotmail.com> Sent: February 5, 2022 11:46 PM To: City of Saint John Mayor's Office <mayor@saintiohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John <iohn.mackenzie@saintiohn.ca>; Harris, Brent <brent.harris@saintiohn.ca>; Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan@saintiohn.ca>; Killen, Joanna <ioanna.killen@saintiohn.ca>; Norton, Greg <greg.norton@saintiohn.ca>; Ogden, Barry <barry.ogden@saintiohn.ca>; Hickey, David <david.hickey@saintiohn.ca>; Lowe, Gerry <gerry.lowe@saintiohn.ca>; Radwan, Paula <Paula.radwan@saintiohn.ca>; Stewart, Greg <greg.stewart@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning - 1429 Loch Lomond Rd Good evening, My husband and I are homeowners on Bon Accord Dr. and are writing to express our opposition to the rezoning application for the construction of a multiple unit residential development at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. This development is being proposed on a piece of land that is surrounded by neighbourhoods which are designated "stable residential areas" in the Saint John Municipal Plan. The Municipal Plan states that rezoning would be permitted where the application could indicate that the proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood. With respect to this application, we would argue that this is not the case. We could understand and support additional housing that matches the surrounding area, but not seven large buildings on a 4.5 acre lot with parking lots and dumpsters. This development proposal does not enhance the character of our mainly owner -occupied, single family neighbourhood. Existing homeowners' quality of life will be adversely impacted if this development is approved. For many years, noise pollution will be a daily occurrence, as the land is cleared, and buildings put up. Traffic will be impacted negatively, and safety concerns will arise. Even with the density of this proposed development being reduced somewhat from 105 to 82 units, there will be many more vehicles exiting onto Loch Lomond Rd during high traffic times, creating more congestion and the potential for serious accidents to occur. We understand the need for additional housing in the city; however, this particular proposal is not appropriate for this particular area. Multi -unit apartment buildings within owner -occupied, single family residential neighbourhoods are not the solution. We urge you to reject this rezoning/variance application. Please take the existing residents' quality of life and the integrity of this well -established neighbourhood into consideration. Thank you, Jacqueline Bartlett -Donaldson & Scott Donaldson CyZU From: Gwenn Bartlett <gwennsie@hotmail.com> Sent: February 4, 2022 9:07 PM To: City of Saint John Mayor's Office <mayor@saintiohn.ca> Cc: Lowe, Gerry <gerry.lowe@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Rezoning application 1429 Loch Lomond road. [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintiohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Dear Mayor Reardon and Councillors: There are many reasons for opposition to this proposed development given in letters previously sent and hopefully read by you so I'll focus on just one. It is this: "It does not fit" It does not fit because this neighbourhood is zoned residential one/two family. The home owners here chose to live here, pay taxes here because of that. It does not fit in with PLAN SJ. No more than the proposed development that was ultimately rejected by council in 2011. Please come to the neighbourhood and drive up Ganong to Old Lake Trail and try to imagine yours is one of a number of houses VERY close to the proposed development. The picture given by the builder does not show the existing homes and therefore unless you've been to the place you will not know what kind of impact it will have on existing homes. Please get the facts before you vote on this. A development such as this does not belong in a single family residential neighbourhood. Please consider the residents' concerns and encourage this builder to take his development to a more suitable area that surely exists in our city. Thank you. Sincerely, Gwenn Bartlett 223 Bon Accord Drive From: Andrea Maillet <sambo jangles@hotmail.com> Sent: February 6, 2022 1:24 PM To: City of Saint John Mayor's Office <mayor@saintiohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John <iohn.mackenzie@saintiohn.ca>; Harris, Brent <brent.harris@saintiohn.ca>; Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan@saintiohn.ca>; Killen, Joanna <ioanna.killen@saintiohn.ca>; Norton, Greg <greg.norton@saintiohn.ca>; Ogden, Barry <barry.ogden@saintiohn.ca>; Lowe, Gerry <gerry.lowe@saintiohn.ca>; Radwan, Paula <paula.radwan@saintiohn.ca>; Hickey, David <david.hickev@saintiohn.ca>; Stewart, Greg <greg.stewart@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road Mayor Reardon and Council, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. I believe that this development would create problems with increased traffic congestion on Loch Lomond Road, further delays to already slow snow plowing, increased fire load to an already understaffed and inadequately equipped fire department, lowered property values within the adjacent neighborhoods, infringement on neighboring properties privacy, and too much congestion within this residential area. There are other more appropriate areas for a development of this size. Please do not allow this proposed development to go forward. Thank you, Andrea Maillet 228 Bon Accord Drive CK:3 Proposed Zoning By-law Re: 1429 Loch Lomond Road 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 meeting to be held on Monday, February 7, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., by: Rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.92 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Low -Rise Residential (RL), and Mid -Rise Residential (RM) as illustrated below. Reason for Change: To construct a development consisting of multiple unit buildings. The public hearing may be held virtually, or in the Council Chamber, or in the Council Chamber with remote participation for applicants and the public. For details on how to participate in the public hearing, to inspect the amendment, or to register to participate, please contact the Office of the Common Clerk at CommonClerk@saintjohn.ca. Saint John Common Council meetings can be viewed online at https://www.youtube.com/user/saintjohnweb. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hall or via email at CommonClerk@saintjohn.ca. Cy4%7 If you require French services for a Common Council meeting, please contact the office of the Common Clerk. Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk (506) 658-2862 Projet de Modification de I'arrete de zonage Objet : 1429, rue Loch Lomond Avis public est par la presente donne que le Conseil municipal de la Ville de Saint John a ('intention d'envisager la modification de I'Arrete de zonage de la Ville de Saint John comme suit au cours de la reunion qu'il tiendra le lundi 7 fevrier 2022, a 18 h 30 : Rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1,92 hectares, situe au 1429, rue Loch Lomond, egalement identifie comme une partie du PID 00312900, de Zone residentielle bifamiliale (R2) a Zone residentiel — Immeubles d'habitation bas (RL) et Zone residentielle — Immeubles d'habitation de hauteur moyenne (RM), tel qu'illustre ci- dessous. per. Raison de la Modification : Construire un ensemble compose d'immeubles a logements multiples. La seance publique peut titre organisee de fagon virtuelle ou dans la salle du Conseil, ou dans la salle du Conseil avec une participation a distance pour les requerants et le public. Pour savoir comment participer a I'audition publique, inspecter la modification ou de vous inscrire pour participer, veuillez communiquer avec le bureau du greffier commun a I'adresse CommonClerk@saintjohn.ca. Les reunions du conseil communal de Saint John peuvent titre consultees en ligne a https://www.youtube.com/user/saintjohnweb. 1119191 Veuillez faire part de vos objections au projet de modification par ecrit au soussigne a I'hotel de ville ou par courriel a I'adresse CommonClerk@saintjohn.ca. Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal. Jonathan Taylor, Greffier communal (506) 658-2862 C1911 BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 111-X A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY- LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows: The Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John enacted on the fifteenth day of December, A.D. 2014, is amended by: Amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.97 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Mid - Rise Residential (RM). Amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 0.95 hectares, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID 00312900, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Low - Rise Residential (RL). - 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 X day of February, A.D. 2022 and signed by: Mayor/Maire ARRETE NO C.P. 111-X ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE DE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Lors d'une reunion du conseil communal, The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit : Uarrete sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, decrete le quinze (15) decembre 2014, est modifie par : La modification de I'annexe «A», Plan de zonage de la ville de Saint John, permettant de modifier la designation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 0,97 hectares, situe au 1429, rue Loch Lomond, egalement identifie de comme une partie du PID 00312900,de Zone residentielle bifamiliale (R2) a Zone residentielle — Immeubles d'habitation de hauteur moyenne (RM). 2. La modification de I'annexe «A», Plan de zonage de la ville de Saint John, permettant de modifier la designation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 0,95 hectares, situe au 1429, rue Loch Lomond, egalement identifie de comme une partie du PID 00312900,de Zone residentielle bifamiliale (R2) a Zone residentiel — Immeubles d'habitation bas (RL). - toutes les modifications sont 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 X fevrier 2022, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal First Reading - X Premiere lecture - X Second Reading - X Deuxieme lecture - X Third Reading - X Troisieme lecture - X 432 COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-34 Report Date February 1, 2022 Meeting Date February 7, 2022 Service Area Public Works & Transportation Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Feedback and Follow-up on Alternate Side Parking Program North, East, and West Sides AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Tim O'Reilly Michael Hugenholtz John Collin RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends Common Council authorize 1st and 2nd Readings of the Amendment to the Traffic By-law, By-law Number MV-10.1, in the form attached to M&C 2022-34. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community concerns with a semi-monthly alternate side parking program implemented in late 2019 on various streets, particular in the Old North End, Lower West, and parts of the East side have prompted staff to re-evaluate the program. This report presents the results of a community survey conducted through Shape Your City, Saint John's new online engagement platform, on this parking program and whether changes should be implemented. Based on results of the survey, there is no clear consensus on required changes to the program overall. However, there were several respondents that identified Tartan Street as being a good candidate to include as part of the program; should Common Council endorse 1s' and 2n6 Readings of the Traffic By -Law Amendment at this meeting and 3r6 Reading at a subsequent meeting in the Spring, staff would install on -street parking signage to reflect this feedback. This report also demonstrates the City's commitment to Continuous Improvement (CI). It is important the community be given the opportunity to provide feedback on policy decisions that impact them. The importance of this became clear when the 2019 change to the alternate side parking program was implemented. Using tools available, in this case the City's Shape Your City online engagement platform, the community has since been given the opportunity to provide feedback on this policy decision, another demonstration of the City commitment to Cl. Htic3 PREVIOUS RESOLUTION At least two concerns from the community have been referred to your City Manager since implementation of this new alternate side parking program. These community members, and all others, were given the opportunity to provide feedback via the Shope Your City project. REPORT Until the last major update of the City's Traffic By -Law in late 2019, an on -street Alternate Side Parking Program was in place for various streets in the Old North End, Lower West, and parts of the East side. From November 15 until April 30 of each year, parking on one side of the street alternated every overnight period from midnight until 8:00 AM on select streets in these areas of the City. A separate Alternate Side Parking Program in the South Central Peninsula (SCP) existed. In this area, on -street parking alternated semi-monthly, remaining in place 24 hours per day, each day of the year, except for six hours semi-monthly when "change -over" from one side of the street to the other occurs. As a result of some community feedback received by City staff over the years regarding difficulties with following the daily parking changes on streets outside the SCP, City staff recommended consolidating to a single alternate side parking program for the entire City, using the SCP model. This change was approved as part of the Traffic By -Law major update. On -street signage was subsequently changed in areas outside the SCP to reflect the change to one program. Community concern with changing to the SCP model in the other parts of the City have been received since the 2019 changes. Two letters have been officially submitted to Common Council, subsequently referred to the City Manager. These concerns have prompted a new review of the Alternate Side Parking Program, resulting in this report to Council. The negative feedback received soon after the changes to the program were made also left City staff questioning whether the change was truly a net benefit for the community. Continuous Improvement City staff have reviewed the previous process that resulted in the recommended changes to the by-law that caused the negative community feedback and recognize that there are opportunities for improvement. City staff typically provides a significant level of detail and perspective to Common Council when Traffic By -Law amendments are recommended. Because the last major update to the By -Law already included many changes required or recommended by the Provincial Registrar of Motor Vehicles, staff felt there was insufficient "capacity" in their report to elaborate on all the changes, including for the change to this alternate side parking program. An improvement would have been to deal with this change to the by-law in a separate report to Common Council. City staff are now acting on this process improvement. City staff receives a lot of community input on how traffic safety, flow, and management should change. These are typically on a case -by -case basis prompted by one or a few community members. Among this input has been feedback on concerns related to the previous daily alternate side parking program outside the SCP. City staff responded to this community feedback by recommending the change to the one program used in the SCP. However, City staff did not provide all members of the community that may be impacted by the change with the opportunity to voice their views ahead of recommending the changes to Common Council. Instead, it was assumed the limited feedback provided over the years was representative of the community. An improvement to the process is to provide any community member that may be impacted with the opportunity to provide their input. This report demonstrates action on this process improvement. The Pros and Cons of On -Street Parking Although anecdotal, City staff can say with confidence, based on over 10 years of community engagement experience on this topic, that no matter how on -street parking is managed in Saint John, support will vary but rarely sees an overwhelming consensus on the best way forward. This is simply due to the nature of the pros and cons of on - street parking, and how these may apply to different community members' circumstances. The Pros Convenient on -street parking is often supported by residents or business owners that rely on it. Some businesses have no off-street parking, and even when off-street parking is available, sometimes customer or delivery service parking on -street is more convenient. Likewise, some residential dwellings have no or an insufficient level of off- street parking for the number of vehicles owned by the resident. Even in some cases where adequate driveway length is provided off-street for all vehicles associated with a residential parking is available, on -street parking is sometimes more convenient; this is particularly the case at a multi -residential property with a single lane driveway where there is a concern a vehicle may block another from access. On -street parking in certain circumstances can also act as a traffic calming measure. Parked vehicles can act as "tunnelling" affect, providing motorists with perspective if they are driving too fast and acting to reduce the latter safety buffer otherwise available to a motorist that is speeding. The Cons On -street parking, however, can also cause negative impacts. Additional street width, including asphalt for the City to manage over its lifecycle, is sometimes needed to accommodate on -street parking while permitting space for other uses. Public services, particularly plowing, snow removal, and street sweeping efforts are hampered when cars are parked on the street. Either equipment must return when vehicles are no longer parked, creating inefficiencies, or the service is simply not delivered on that section of street at all leading to hard packed snow and icy street sections. Because the timing and progression of winter storms are unpredictable, even time -based parking restrictions can hamper service efficier43-rand outcomes. Where street width is limited, space to accommodate on -street parking can come at the expense of space for other uses such as provision of bike lanes. Evidence supports that on -street parking negatively impacts actual and perceived cyclist safety, particularly from the risk of doors of parked cars opening into the path of a cyclists. Parking in certain circumstances can create safety concerns for other motorists such as when parked vehicles impede access to driveways or block sight lines of on -coming traffic, particularly on knolls or curves of a street. Parking on sidewalks and near crosswalks impede pedestrian safety and prematurely deteriorates infrastructure. On -street parking can be a polarizing topic where no matter which decision is made in a particular case there will be some level of community dissatisfaction. Regulation and Best Practice Framework Authority to regulate and enforce parking regulations on City streets is ultimately derived from the Provincial Motor Vehicle Act (MVA). The MVA provides specific regulations, such as prohibiting parking on sidewalks or blocking driveways, or near fire hydrants, traffic signs, and crosswalks. The MVA delegates to a municipality the authority for further regulations on City streets through a by-law. City staff are not authorized to regulate parking at their own discretion. A by-law cannot duplicate a parking regulation in the MVA. Generally, the MVA requires signs to be installed to communicate parking regulations on a specific street before enforcement can occur with a few exceptions such as overnight parking restrictions for snow clearing purposes. The Provincial Registrar of Motor Vehicles must approve any parking regulations on the many provincial highways that run through Saint John. Besides the above -noted regulations, City staff refer to best practices of other municipalities and industry best practices such as those from the Transportation Association of Canada or the Institute of Transportation Engineers, for managing on - street parking. Suite of City Parking Regulations for Snow Clearing A number of parking regulations are in place and used to support snow clearing. These include the previously mentioned SCP alternate side parking program, the case -by -case SCP overnight parking bans, the case -by -case North -East-West (NEW) overnight parking bans, temporary signed parking bans on individual streets, and the alternative side parking program used in areas outside the SCP (latter being the subject of the current review). The last major review of the City's overall approach to regulate parking for snow clearing purposes was in 2015. The review was completed following "Snowmaggedon" of that year, where record snowfalls prompted the need for a State of Local Emergency to prohibit parking 24 hours per day for a full week in the SCP to allow permit a comprehensive snow removal program. The introduction of the called NEW -night parking bans was one of the major deliverables of this 2015 review. This called NEW ban replaced a previous regulation that prohibited parking every overnight on most City streets during the winter months outside the SCP. Community concerns with that previous nightly parking restriction and the numerous requests for individual street exemptions that required Council approval prompted the recommendation and approval to switch to the called ban. City staff notes that coordinated and optimized use of these various regulations can minimize community impacts while providing adequate service levels in variable winter conditions. As an example, in some cases called overnight parking bans, which can be quite disruptive to residents, can be avoided if snow storms occur immediately prior to the semi-monthly changeover periods. Efforts to clear one side of the streets immediately before the change -over, followed by the other side immediately after the change -over can sometimes deliver acceptable service standards, avoiding the need for the bans. Options Toward Optimizing Community Benefit As indicated, the community benefit received by the type of parking regulation in place can create varied benefits, depending on perspective. Therefore, in an effort to provide context for Common Council and for the community, City staff have detailed four options to consider relative to the current semi-monthly alternate side parking program outside the SCP. These options were provided as part of the Shope Your City survey, in addition to other options suggested: 1. Status Quo (Semi -Monthly Alternate Side Parking 24 Hours Per Day, All Year) This option would maintain the current alternate side parking program with consistent regulations both inside and outside the SCP. It would not address community concerns received about the current program. However, it maintains City-wide consistency and continues to resolve community concern with previous nightly alternate side parking program. This option would maintain access to one side of these streets 24 hours per day for effective snow clearing in the winter, street sweeping in the spring, and other roadway maintenance activities during the construction season. 2. Status Quo Except Manage Case -by -Case Concerns This option would maintain the current alternate side parking program (same as option 1) but allow individual concerns with the current program outside the SCP to be addressed with exceptions on a case -by -case basis. All the benefits of Option 1 would remain with exception of case -by -case solutions on specific streets. Provision of public services, such as snow clearing, may be impacted depending on the exceptions used. The other main drawbacks with this option are the City staff resources required for analysis and potential by-law and on -street signage changes needed, depending on the alternative, the difficulty of distinguishing which situations warrant an alternate solution, and the number of exempted cases that may be requested from the community. Exemptions that were permitted to be considered with the previous Overnight Winter Parking Restriction Program proved to be voluminous, leading in part to the cancellation of that program. Case -specific solutions would also often not address concerns raised from all stakeholders. The alternate side program regulations for streets within the SCP would remaii43-ichanged. 3. Status Quo Except Limit to December 1— May 31 This option maintains access to one side of the street for more effective snow clearing and spring street sweeping programs with lost effectiveness for construction season activities such as asphalt maintenance for streets outside the SCP. This option creates a "break" from the alternate side parking program for area residents. Implementation cost for this change would be considered manageable, involving an amendment to the City's Traffic By -Law, cost of approximately $1200.00 for changes to existing on -street signage, and staff time to visit each sign to make the on -street signage changes. It is possible that spring street sweeping will not be complete on all impacted streets before the May 31 date is reached, prompting the potential need for case -by -case parking restrictions. However, staff notes that extending the parking restrictions until end of May, as suggested, would provide a full month longer for street sweeping compared to the previous program that ended at the end of April. Staff also notes that a section of King Street East contains a similar Alternate Side Parking regulation for select months of the year, although, similar to Option 2, no further changes to the SCP program would be contemplated. 4. Revert to Previous Alternate Side Parking Program This option involves reverting back to the previous Overnight Daily Alternate Side Parking Program, November 15 —April 30, for select streets outside the SCP. This option would reintroduce the community concerns expressed about this program and it would prevent access to one side of the street for snow clearing and street sweeping activities during the day time and at any time after April 30, impacting construction season activities. Replacing all on -street signage would be needed at an approximate cost of $5700.00. The Public Engagement Plan — Putting Shape Your City to Work City staff believed the new "Shape Your City" online public engagement platform was an ideal medium to seek public input on the possible options to change (or maintain) the alternate side parking program in the various parts of the City outside the SCP. Residents and businesses in several neighbourhoods would be affected by any changes and, arguably, any roadway users and taxpayers (that ultimately fund provided City programs) would be affected. The new Shape Your City platform allowed this broad level of engagement while allowing contextual information, much of it in this report, to be provided. Results of the survey, and associated conclusions, are detailed further in this report and appended to this report. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report most closely aligns with Common Council's "Move" priority given the resulting impacts on movement and parking of vehicles in winter conditions. Ucf:3 SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The Service and Financial impacts of various options are detailed previously in this report. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Community feedback on whether the Alternate Side Parking Program should change or remain the same was obtained through the Shape Your City survey. A project on this online engagement platform called "Alternate Side Parking: North, East, and West Sides" was created. A survey was then issued to the community between 10 December 2021 and 17 January 2022. A total of 50 individuals responded to the survey. Details on the survey are attached to this report. The image to the right shows the distribution of respondents that preferred the various alternatives to the current Alternate Side Side Parking Program. The results demonstrate no consensus on the preferred approach. The option chosen most was "Other" at 31% (the blue area in adjacent image) and respondents that chose this option selected a variety of different ideas. This image and the full results of the survey �u3 are attached to this report. The current system of alternate side parking in these areas is consistent with that in place in other areas of the City, and affords works crews the opportunity to undertake important tasks from keeping the street free of snow and ice to allowing for street sweeping in the springtime. Since there is no clear consensus on better options staff are recommending sticking with the status quo. The survey also allowed respondents to identify other streets that they prefer become part of the Alternate Side Parking Program. Various streets were identified by a single respondent. However, four respondents suggested Tartan Street be added to the program, suggesting some consensus. City staff are recommending Tartan Street be added to this program that requires a change to the City's Traffic By -Law. Common Council's endorsement of the required change to the City's Traffic By -Law, first two readings of the change being recommended as part of this report, followed by staff's installation of on -street signage, would add Tartan Street to the program. Approval of Third reading would be sought in the Spring when the ground is no longer frozen to install the required poles for the parking signage. The General Counsel's Office drafted the attached Amendment to the Traffic By -Law. U08] ATTACHMENTS Amendment to the Traffic By-law, By-law Number MV-10.1 Shape Your City survey results 11EIK A BY-LAW TO AMEND A BY-LAW RESPECTING THE TRAFFIC ON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, BY-LAW NUMBER MV-10.1, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES RUES DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, ARRETE NUMERO MV-10.1, ET MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une reunion du conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit : A By-law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By-law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John, By-law Number MV-10.1" and amendments thereto, enacted on the 7m day of October, A.D. 2019, is hereby amended as follows: 1. Schedule "G" — Alternate Side Parking is amended by adding the following words under the following headings: Par les presentes, 1' arrete de The City of Saint John intitule « Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John, Arrete numero MV-10.1 » et modifications afferentes, decrete le 7e jour d'octobre 2019, est modifie comme suit: 1. L' annexe « G » — Stationnement en alternance est modifie par 1' adj onction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Street Limits Rue Limites sur toute sa longueur Tartan Street Entire length rue Tartan 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., 2022 signed by: EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau municipal sur le present arrete le 2022, avec les signatures suivantes : Mayor / Maire City Clerk / Greffier de la municipalite First Reading - Premiere lecture - Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture - Third Reading - Troisieme lecture - Survey SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 10 December 2021 - 17 January 2022 PROJECT NAME: Alternate Side Parking: North, East, West Sides .. BANG THE TABLE .ir engagementHO Survey : Survey Report for 10 December 2021 to 17 January 2022 Page 1 of 13 443 Survey : Survey Report for 10 December 2021 to 17 January 2022 01 How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? 40 20 33 Question options 40 1 am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking A 1 am a business owner on a street in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Other (enter response below) 40 Other (please specify) Optional question (50 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Q2 Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parki... 16 (32.0%) 34 (68.0%) Question options Yes No Optional question (50 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 2 of 13 444 Survey : Survey Report for 10 December 2021 to 17 January 2022 03 Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? 15 (3C 6 (12.2%) Question options Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all year) ® Keep as is but consider changes on a case -by -case basis 0 Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to April 30 0 Other (see question four) Optional question (49 response(s), f skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 3 of 13 445 Survey Responses 10 December 2021 - 30 January 2022 S u rvey Shape Your City Saint John Project: Alternate Side Parking: North, East, West Sides CONTRIBUTORS 50 50 0 Registered Unverified VISITORS 160 0 50 Anonymous Registered RESPONSES 50 0 0 Unverified Anonymous MR Respondent No: 1 Login: Admin Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 10, 2021 13:52:08 pm Last Seen: Dec 14, 2021 19:45:40 pm Other (enter response below) Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 447 Respondent No: 2 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 13, 2021 17:21:58 pm Last Seen: Jan 14, 2022 14:23:03 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Halifax, as an example, simply has one day of the week that a neighbourhood is not permitted to park on the street so that regular operations, like street sweeping and plowing, can occur regularly without interruption. This inconveniences less people regularly. But here's the trick: municipal operations are also lined up to serve each neighbourhood on that day. For example, the sign might say, "No Parking Thursday 12am-7am. Then, every Thursday between 12am and 7am, street sweeping and push -back plowing is scheduled and completed. If one week is missed, say, due to a storm, they come back 1 week later. It seems here that we alternate sides of the street but the other side of the street remains unplowed during the 2- week off -period and then a one day parking ban is still put in place for, say Douglas Avenue every single year. We're already doing the Halifax model, but at random and while still inconveniencing everybody anyway and limiting parking while we're at it. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered Respondent No: 3 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 14, 2021 05:36:55 am Last Seen: Dec 14, 2021 12:12:48 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered ..• Respondent No: 4 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 14, 2021 08:03:01 am Last Seen: Jan 24, 2022 18:38:09 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. The city of Saint John has over 160 requests for Traffic Calming. Parking can be useful tool to achieve this aim. Where appropriate, parallel parking can be transitioned to angle parking. This provides more parking while also providing a Traffic Calming solution. In this example, Ludlow Street, for example, an overly wide street for its purpose, could serve as the neighbourhood "snow ban lot". Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Upon further discussion and analysis, there may be an opportunity to leverage parking as a Traffic Calming Tool. 450 Respondent No: 5 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 14, 2021 13:49:26 pm Last Seen: Dec 14, 2021 20:25:08 pm Other (please specify) I am a resident in the Uptown area. Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Keep as is but consider changes on a case -by -case basis Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Have North, East, and West parking bans on the same night as the Uptown/South Central Peninsula. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Have snow ban parking lots of North, East, and West. 451 Respondent No: 6 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 14, 2021 19:02:24 pm Last Seen: Jan 30, 2022 12:44:58 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 452 Respondent No: 7 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 15, 2021 06:57:35 am Last Seen: Dec 15, 2021 13:38:15 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Keep as is but consider changes on a case -by -case basis Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? I would like the city to review on Street Parking on these streets in the north end. Belleview Ave, and Pokiok Road. These two roads I believe fall outside of the City's designated on street parking area in the north end. The homes on these streets are all mostly single or double family dwellings with ample private driveways yet nobody parks in them. These two way roads are very narrow compared to other streets in the city with on street parking, a lot of the time cars have to take turns using the open side of the road which results in lots of instances driving on the wrong side of the road, over hills and blind knolls. The un-managed on street parking that is happening on these two streets I imagine are also causing issues for city buses and snow plows as these two streets are also on the bus route. I have a number of times come face to face with the city bus on the same side of the road. When there is a lot of snow on the ground these streets become one lane cow paths for two way traffic. I would recommend Mr. O'Reilly take a drive along these two roads in the morning and after 5pm, when all the cars are parked, and see what it's like driving up these two roads from Bridge Street heading towards Milledge Avenue. 453 Respondent No: 8 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 15, 2021 12:20:53 pm Last Seen: Dec 15, 2021 19:11:41 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? I get having access to remove snow but I have seen it snow and the road not even plowed and empty. 454 Respondent No: 9 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 15, 2021 18:40:20 pm Last Seen: Dec 16, 2021 01:39:26 am I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 455 y. Respondent No: 10 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 23, 2021 11:30:22 am Last Seen: Dec 23, 2021 18:25:54 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Block parking; so all on street parking can be removed Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? All on street parking should be removed. If not possible the whole year, there definitely should be no on street parking from November 1 to May 1. y, Respondent No: 11 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 23, 2021 13:49:29 pm Last Seen: Dec 23, 2021 20:41:58 pm Other (please specify) We don't have it now but we need it desperately. We have requested it from the city. Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. No I think alternative is the way to go. Another way would be to park on one side only and not change the sides, easier for the homeowners. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Tartan Street from 301-331 & 201-215. We need parking spots and where you think the alternate side parking folks are afraid to park on the street for fear of ticket being issued. program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Please consider Tartan St, folks park on both sides of the street now and although it gives us more parking it is hard for the city to plough. We have made a request to Tim O'Reilly and have been advised it was accepted . We look forward to signage being changed to accommodate our homeowners .(townhouse owners) 457 y, Respondent No: 12 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 23, 2021 14:07:44 pm Last Seen: Dec 23, 2021 21:00:02 pm Other (please specify) Only impacted when Street clearing is after by non-compliance Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Consider angled parking on some larger streets like Douglas Avenue Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? We seem to have a lot of on street parking even though apartments have off street parking available. I know there are older converted homes which don't but if rental units don't have adequate parking, there should be some responsibility for them to address snow clearing on streets used by their tenants. 458 y, Respondent No: 13 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 23, 2021 17:32:36 pm Last Seen: Dec 24, 2021 00:30:18 am I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. All year but add other streets Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City 201-215 and 301-331 Tartan Street where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? 459 Respondent No: 14 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 23, 2021 19:39:26 pm Last Seen: Dec 24, 2021 02:37:40 am Other (please specify) I'm South Central Peninsula Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered I y, Respondent No: 15 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 24, 2021 05:27:44 am Last Seen: Dec 24, 2021 12:24:39 pm Other (please specify) Not affected Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Parking in the core is a mess also, it has long been an issue and where you think the alternate side parking people that continue to park and constantly move their car to avoid program should be used? Please tell us the tickets, there SHOULD BE NO free parking uptown, either you live street name, specific blocks and why the there and have a permit or you pay program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? No political will to fix this, residents are constantly forced to fend for themselves , illegal Parker's also get very nasty 461 y, Respondent No: 16 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Dec 30, 2021 15:02:24 pm Last Seen: Dec 30, 2021 21:49:34 pm Other (please specify) Dec 2 2016 - I sent an email to Tim O'Reilly requesting permission to change the parking times on Tartan St . The Tartan St Homeowners Association requested permission to change the parking times on one side of Tartan St. Our request was approved by Fredericton December 2021 and we look forward to having additional parking for our homeowners. Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Keep as is but consider changes on a case -by -case basis Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Tartan St North is looking for on street parking . We have discussed with Tim O'Reilly and Gerry Lowe House numbers 210- 215 and 301-331 Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Tartan St # 210-215 & # 301-331 where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Alternate street parking would help to alleviate problems on our street 462 Respondent No: 17 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 04, 2022 12:12:52 pm Last Seen: Jan 04, 2022 18:27:53 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Return to alternate side parking but consider Dec 1 - April 30 rather than Nov 15 - April 30. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answerer where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? This is in reference to parking on Gooderich St. between Seely and Wright St's. My strong recommendation is Option 4, to return to alternate side between Nov 15 (or Dec 1) and April 30. Allowing parking on both sides of Gooderich for the majority of the year is preferred as there are a number of multi unit residences in the area. This portion of Gooderich St. was also designed to allow for on street parking as it is about 3m wider than between Mt. Pleasant and Seely. The current situation has caused a significant increase in the speed of traffic as cars fly down the hill from Mt. Pleasant and step on the gas to run up the hill in the other direction. Parking on both sides encourages, and was effective at, traffic calming in this residential area. Also, temporary signage could be used for the few times a year that the streets are cleaned. For the winter months, alternate side parking seemed to work just as well, or better, than the current system. 463 Respondent No: 18 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 04, 2022 12:35:43 pm Last Seen: Jan 04, 2022 19:32:14 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. I moved to the city a year ago and the parking system is the worst That I've experienced. I have to have a vehicle for my chosen profession and the current system makes me want to move far away from Saint John. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? It's horrible. I want to live uptown but there's no parking and the alternate side parking that changes on the last day of the month and 15th of the month is horrible. i-d Respondent No: 19 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 04:51 :14 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 11:38:43 am I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer not answered regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Stop the alternate side parking because there's not enough parking space now for the number of vehicles that are on our roads. Also its not like the works that are cleaning up our streets get them all done anyways i only see a street cleaner on my street once a year maybe and as for snow clearing never ever happens we are lucky to see a plow. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Valley street where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Stop the alternate side parking because there's not enough parking space now for the number of vehicles that are on our roads. Also its not like the works that are cleaning up our streets get them all done anyways i only see a street cleaner on my street once a year maybe and as for snow clearing never ever happens we are lucky to see a plow. Respondent No: 20 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 05:56:42 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 12:54:23 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Allow parking on both sides. Do parking ban for clean up and snow storms Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? We don't have enough parking spaces on our street to accommodate all cars with only one side parking. We really do need both sides of the street. If you get home after 5pm your lucky to be able to park your vehicle. a•- y, Respondent No: 21 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 06:08:05 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 13:04:31 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Keep as is but consider changes on a case -by -case basis Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. we live on a dead end street, we never use to have to alternate sides until recent years. Please remove this!!! Our road is massively wide (spring street) we shouldn't be limited to one side of the road. There is not enough on street parking on our road and some residents need to park streets over Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Please remove alternate side parking from spring street, the street right beside ours (beside the chateau) you Can park on both sides. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Please! :) 467 Respondent No: 22 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 06:59:02 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 13:54:34 pm I am a business owner on a street in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. 22 Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Douglas Ave, majority have parking, they should be forced to use it where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? iI" y, Respondent No: 23 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 07:03:14 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 13:58:32 pm Other (please specify) I live on a Westside street with parking on one-sided that never alternates. I wish it did. Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. I think it should stay and be expanded across the city. There shouldn't be parking on both sides of streets and it should alternate. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Woodville Road - the parking is on the side with less room, blocks where you think the alternate side parking the view from seeing oncoming traffic. People still park on both program should be used? Please tell us the sides at times- making it a one -lane street. It is a bus route. street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? y, Respondent No: 24 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 07:13:46 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 14:08:52 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Keep as is but consider changes on a case -by -case basis Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Spring Street is wide enough to support parking on both sides and there are way too many people that live here to find parking. It's actually the one thing that causes conflict between residents the most. I have reverted to parking on the next street over to avoid the conflict and since you don't have to change sides on that Street for some reason. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? It's hard to get behind something that makes no sense. In the winter I get alternating parking for snow removal, but in the summer Spring Street has absolutely no apparent reason to not use both sides. It just causes fights and arguments amongst residents. 470 Respondent No: 25 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 07:42:26 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 14:40:52 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? The street that I live on is too short for the amount of cars that needs to be parked there. Alternate side parking is not ideal for the amount of residences on this street. 471 Respondent No: 26 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 07:53:41 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 14:49:46 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? I live on spring street and there isn't enough parking to do one side a month . I have a new baby and it's so hard to have to park at the end of the street and bring her up to my house . The parking here is crazy & for snow removal our street never gets plowed as we are a dead end street so I don't see how switching side to side is worth it . I would do maybe winter months but even that doesn't work . There has to be other ways to do parking on this street. 472 Respondent No: 27 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 08:12:43 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 15:10:28 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 473 Respondent No: 28 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 09:12:33 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 16:05:33 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Allow residents to park on odd numbered side all year long as this is the only side their is homes on and has never been an issue on Riverview Drive Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Riverview Drive West should no longer have alternative side parking as it only applies to half of the street according to the signs posted. Within the area it does apply there is only 4 residents park on the street in the street which don't follow the alternate parking rule so if anything makes it worse for city plows. 474 Respondent No: 29 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 09:39:05 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 16:35:26 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? I don't understand why there is alternate side parking on Topeka St (East) and not on the other streets in our area, specifically Edith. I also think that if it was Alternated on a monthly basis instead of Bi-Monthly it would be more convenient. 475 y, Respondent No: 30 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 10:30:45 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 17:23:48 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Other (please specify) My uncle owns a business on king street west and Iudlow and we can't park on the other side as it's a fire station on king street west and Iudlow we can't park there as the traffic from highway and Tim hortons drive thru it's not safe Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Having to move to other side on some street is crazy as you have limited parking on some of these street even without switching ever 15 days. Better to keep it to one side and mandate they move during storm clean up or towed at owners expense. Being ticketed for walking in for 10 mins to a business is getting out of hand. We need permanent parking in these area. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Olive street needs to be looked at they block the road by where where you think the alternate side parking olive street meets duke. Always a load of cars in the way. program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? What cause the most hassle is we don't know what days we are allowed. Respondent No: 31 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 11:02:02 am Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 17:56:49 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Park on both sides call more snow ban and get people to stop taking up two parking spots on my street spring st north Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Ticket people who take up two spots on spring street north and let us park on both sides of street and do more snow bans in winter time and no parking ban in spring time for clean ups 477 Respondent No: 32 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 12:20:21 pm Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 19:08:53 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Seely St .... in the winter especially there is only one 2 unit building where you think the alternate side parking and everyone does have a driveway. he street is difficult to use with program should be used? Please tell us the the snow and parking on both sides permitted street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Goodrich St. is on the city's "evacuation" route. One side parking is preferable, especially since it is also marked as a bike route... it is great now for bike, and pedestrian safety 478 y, Respondent No: 33 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 14:37:35 pm Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 21:32:06 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Let us park on both sides of the street and call more snow bans to clean the street. Because there is people that take 2 parking spots for 1 car and they won't move so you can get 2 cars there. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City On spring street we should be able to park on both sides of the where you think the alternate side parking street because there is to many people with cars and too many program should be used? Please tell us the people taking up 2 parking spots for 1 car and not moving up or street name, specific blocks and why the back to get other car there. program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? It's hard to find a parking spot because there is people taking up 2 parking spots for a car and there isn't enough parking on the street for everyone when people take up 2 spots for a car. That's why we should be able to park on both sides of the street so everyone can get parking spots. 479 Respondent No: 34 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 14:46:00 pm Last Seen: Jan 05, 2022 21:43:42 pm Other (please specify) Resident who wants on street parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Tartan Street. There is limited parking for residents or guests. The where you think the alternate side parking street is wide enough for emergency vehicles during daytime on program should be used? Please tell us the street parking, does not make sense that it is too small overnight. street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered a:1 Respondent No: 35 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 05, 2022 20:31 :35 pm Last Seen: Jan 06, 2022 03:30:36 am Other (please specify) I go to school uptown Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 481 y, Respondent No: 36 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 06, 2022 05:59:44 am Last Seen: Jan 06, 2022 12:58:30 pm Other (please specify) Have lived uptown and used it Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City All streets where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 482 Respondent No: 37 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 06, 2022 07:51 :41 am Last Seen: Jan 06, 2022 14:49:27 pm Other (please specify) Resident of the city, use street parking sometimes Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Make street parking on 1 side, create all 1-way streets. Easier to manage Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 483 Respondent No: 38 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 06, 2022 07:54:58 am Last Seen: Jan 06, 2022 14:54:08 pm Other (please specify) I work in the uptown area Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is (bi-monthly alternate side parking, 24 hours/day, all regarding the alternate side parking program in year) the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered i-d Respondent No: 39 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 06, 2022 08:32:33 am Last Seen: Jan 06, 2022 15:30:35 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered R y. Respondent No: 40 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 06, 2022 14:25:22 pm Last Seen: Jan 06, 2022 21:23:35 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? make more parking lots uptown to get rid of street parking I Respondent No: 41 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 08, 2022 13:21 :34 pm Last Seen: Jan 09, 2022 00:54:55 am I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Yes Other (see question four) Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Program should o ly run during winter months as needed. Most streets on west side are wide enough to have parking both sides plus two vehicles to pass. Case in point is most of St James west where I used to live. See also the letter send to council and city manager regarding this. The average vehicle is 6 feet wide, large trucks 8 to 9 feet wide. We do not need the alternate side parking on most streets of at least 30 feet wide or wider. This impacts not only convenience, but rental property. Lack of parking is an issue, especially whereas the city plan is to increase the urban density, this will only make things worse. It negatively impacts rental properties and the ability to rent out apartments to good tenants who generally can afford one or more vehicles. Who would want to live where they can't park their car? I couldn't even park my truck in front of my house on st James west when I lived there. Now on the corner of Guilford and Watson I can't park near my house on Guilford most times due to no space on the alloted side and have to park on Watson instead. At the very least this should be limited to November 15th to April 15th. Not may 31st. Not year round. It is a major reason why we consider moving out of the city. Lack of services due to cut backs and then to not be able to use a wide street for parking? Really? Anyways, hopefully it is changed soon. We're looking at our plans for 2 to 3 years out, maybe it will be changed before then and will lessen our list of reasons to move outside the city. It is impacting our plans to buy rental properties though! We have been looking and find many which Lack suitable parking and have little to no on street parking, that mean people won't want to stay because it's inconvenient and frustrating. Having received 3 tickets at our last house I can also say how pissed off it makes you when you find out your vehicle and your wife's vehicle are parked on the wrong side when there was no signage... changed the rules or bylaws for the parking without proper written notices to all the effected homes. Not cool. I was told by parking Commission staff that they considered a Facebook post sufficient public notice. Unbelievable. Written notice delivered to the door of every home is required. By law. That constitutes official notice of such a change. Had I more time I would have fought the tickets in court. Anyways if you'd like to discuss further I'm more than willing. Please consider me for any focus group you may wish to have with residents. Best regards. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Should go by width. And narrow streets should have one side where you think the alternate side parking parking. Anything wider than 32 feet should be both sides parking. program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Please contact me for further discussion if you like. I am on parental leave presently and can set aside time to provide input in the form of focuse groups, etc. 487 y, Respondent No: 42 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 12, 2022 13:19:19 pm Last Seen: Jan 12, 2022 20:15:50 pm Other (please specify) this dont affect me directly but as a Saiint John taxi driver i hear to many storys of people being towed that shoudnt have been Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Revert back to nightly alternate side parking from November 15 to regarding the alternate side parking program in April 30 the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered i - -17 Respondent No: 43 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 13, 2022 06:14:49 am Last Seen: Jan 13, 2022 13:13:40 pm Other (please specify) visiting Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered Respondent No: 44 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 13, 2022 06:31 :25 am Last Seen: Jan 13, 2022 13:27:39 pm Other (please specify) I am a resident on a street with no alternate side parking and wish it did! Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Add more streets/enforce it in all areas Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Lowell St. There are apartments and an automotive shop and also where you think the alternate side parking the Hilton Belyea Arena. Sometimes the street is impassible with program should be used? Please tell us the cars parked on both sides. People have resorted to parking on the street name, specific blocks and why the sidewalk. program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? I like the overall concept but some do find it challenging. In areas like mine where there is a large city owned parking lot out front of the Hilton Belyea that is never used, it would make sense to designate that a winter parking lot for the evenings, and limit on -street parking altogether. e Respondent No: 45 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 13, 2022 06:47:32 am Last Seen: Jan 13, 2022 13:44:08 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Keep as is but consider changes on a case -by -case basis Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Allow parking on both sides on certain streets, especially on those which are wider and have a larger residential population. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City not answered where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered 491 Respondent No: 46 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 13, 2022 16:03:35 pm Last Seen: Jan 13, 2022 22:59:46 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Alternate parking when there is snowfall Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? The street where I live, in lower west, has alternate parking all year round. We have next to no traffic, and we are the lowest priority street to be plowed. Another reason the city gave for us to have the alternate parking was incase there was to be street work done. There hasn't been any work done on our street in almost 30 years. There's no reason to have alternate parking on low traffic streets, but I'm willing to move my car when there is to be a snow fall. 492 Respondent No: 47 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 13, 2022 16:55:48 pm Last Seen: Jan 13, 2022 23:50:30 pm I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? I think the use of alternate site parking is great in the winter months for snow removal, however on the lower west side (where I reside) there is no benefit to this during the warmer months. The streets here are not a narrow or congested s they are in the south central peninsula. I feel as though we were "lumped" in with that area as we are the same ward. We may be the same ward but have a very different layout here. I hope you will considering changing this to a partial year thing as this would make much more sense for us. Glad to hear you are looking into this and asking for our imput! Thanks! 493 Respondent No: 48 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 13, 2022 17:54:23 pm Last Seen: Jan 14, 2022 00:53:04 am I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. not answered Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City where you think the alternate side parking program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? not answered OMI y, Respondent No: 49 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 13, 2022 19:51 :51 pm Last Seen: Jan 14, 2022 01:35:36 am I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in Yes the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Keep as is but limit the program to December 1 through May 31 regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. Allow parking on both sides of the street... Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Seeley Street. It's not wide enough to park on both sides and it's a where you think the alternate side parking nightmare to go down during prom season in June. program should be used? Please tell us the street name, specific blocks and why the program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? On Wright St. change parking to the other side of road. There are less driveways and no fire hydrants blocking parking spaces! There is rarely enough parking for those who live on the street. Many end up parking far from their homes or on Gooderich street ( where you can only park on one side of the street and many people on gooderich have multiple cars parked on the street already). Crime rates are up so it would be nice to actually SEE your car from your residence. OR y, Respondent No: 50 Login: Registered Q1. How are you impacted by the alternate side parking program in the North, East, or West Sides of Saint John? Responded At: Jan 17, 2022 18:48:12 pm Last Seen: Jan 18, 2022 01:31 :53 am I am a resident in the North, East or West side of the city that has alternate side parking Q2. Do you rely on on -street parking on a street in No the North, East, or West sides of Saint John that uses alternate side parking ? Q3. Which of the following options do you prefer Other (see question four) regarding the alternate side parking program in the North, East, and West sides of Saint John? Q4. Is there another option other than those in question three that you would like the City to consider? Please explain. This program should be city wide, every street where on street parking happens. Where I live, there are numerous vehicles parked on street. There are no parking signs on one side of the street so vehicles don't switch. This makes snow removal much harder as parking bans are not enforced on our street. Q5. Are there any additional streets in the City Woodville Road.Chapel St. Snow removal is almost impossible on where you think the alternate side parking these streets because of the on street parking. Buses barely have program should be used? Please tell us the room to move. Because plows cannot get close to the curbs, home street name, specific blocks and why the owners are shoveling an additional 5-6 feet of street in front program should be applied to that street. Q6. Do you have any other input on alternate side parking that you would like to share? Proper signage and better information sharing is key. Expanding this program should be a priority. This will lead to safer roads in the winter city wide. 2•: 497 A BY-LAW TO AMEND A BY-LAW RESPECTING THE TRAFFIC ON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, BY-LAW NUMBER MV-10.1, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES RUES DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, ARRETE NUMERO MV-10.1, ET MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une reunion du conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit : A By-law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By-law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John, By-law Number MV-10.1" and amendments thereto, enacted on the 7m day of October, A.D. 2019, is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 4.1 is repealed and replaced with the following: "4.1(1) It shall be lawful for any member of the SJPF to move or cause to be moved any vehicle found stopped or parked in violation of the provisions of this By-law on any street or provincial highway in the City. 4.1(2) It shall be lawful for a by-law enforcement officer to move or cause to be moved any vehicle found stopped or parked on any street or provincial highway in the City during a snow ban declared by the Commissioner pursuant to section 6 of this By- law. 4.1(3) A vehicle so moved under this By-law shall be stored in such places as the Chief of Police may direct and the registered owner of such vehicle at the time shall be liable for costs and charges for the towing and storage thereof. 4.1(4) There shall be no liability attached to a peace officer or by-law enforcement officer for any damages to a vehicle taken into their custody under this section." IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said Par les presentes, 1' arrete de The City of Saint John intitule « Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John, Arrete numero MV-10.1 » et modifications afferentes, decrete le 7 octobre 2019, est modifie comme suit: 1. L' article 4.1 est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit : o 4.1(1) Tout membre du SPSJ a le droit de remorquer ou de faire remorquer un vehicule arrete ou stationne en violation des dispositions du present arrete sur toute rue ou route provinciale situee dans la municipalite. 4.1(2) Un agent charge de 1'execution des arretes a le droit de remorquer ou de faire remorquer un vehicule arrete ou stationne sur toute rue ou route provinciale dans la municipalite lorsqu'une interdiction aux fins de deneigement a ete declaree par le commissaire en vertu de 1' article 6 du present arrete. 4.1(3) Un vehicule remorque en vertu du present arrete sera entrepose sur tels lieux que le precise le chef de police, et le proprietaire immatricule dudit vehicule au moment dudit remorquage est responsable des couts et des frais lies au remorquage et a 1' entreposage dudit vehicule. 4.1(4) L' agent de la paix ou 1' agent charge de 1' execution des arretes n' est pas tenu responsable d' aucun dommage que subit le vehicule dont it assume la garde en vertu de cet article. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau municipal sur le present arrete le C16.1:3 City to be affixed to this by-law the , A.D., 2022 signed by: First Reading Second Reading Third Reading day of 2022, avec les signatures suivantes Mayor / Maire City Clerk / Greffier de la municipalite - January 24, 2022 - January 24, 2022 Premiere lecture Deuxieme lecture Troisieme lecture - le 24 janvier 2022 - le 24 janvier 2022 "Mol%7 COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-29 Report Date January 31, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Public Works and Transportation Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: MoveSJ Roundabout and Road Safety Strategies AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Tim O'Reilly Michael Hugenholtz I John Collin RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends Common Council receive and file this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At Common Council's January 24, 2022 meeting, City staff presented the context and results of the first two endorsed phases of MoveSJ, the City's new Transportation Plan. This report presents two of the strategies contained in the third and final phase of MoveSJ that this Council will be asked to endorse at a subsequent meeting. The aspirational goal of MoveSJ is to: Provide each Saint John citizen the opportunity to use the mode of transportation of their choice and be safe while doing so. The Road Safety and Roundabout Strategies presented with this report align with this aspirational goal. The Road Safety Strategy provides a new system to enhance safety of all roadway users and the Roundabout Strategy provides recommended infrastructure that requires vehicles to slow down yet prevent excessive delays at intersections where there is a greater risk for all roadway users. Both strategies are intended to reduce the number and severity of collisions, ultimately improving the safety of roadway users of all transportation modes. Recommendations of both strategies are based on industry best practices, use of data to support decision making, and proven use in other jurisdictions. These strategies also address feedback received from various stakeholders within our community. N79I91 -2- PREVIOUS RESOLUTION Common Council received and filed a staff report at their January 24, 2022 meeting that reviewed MoveSJ context related to the first two phases of the project. REPORT Road Safety Strategy Current Status of Road Safetv Focus in Saint John The City has taken steps to improve road safety that can be incorporated into a more focused strategy. A few examples include: • Saint John Police Force's programs such as school zone, school bus, distracted driving, and crosswalk enforcement blitzes as well as educational partnerships with schools, • Traffic Calming Policy, • Safer School Zones Program, • Introduction of effective and cost effective Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crosswalk signals, • Prioritization of community traffic safety requests over others types (i.e. reducing travel time), • Expansion of Accessible Pedestrian Systems (APS) at crosswalks • Support of community initiatives such as the "West Side Walkway" Safe Routes to School Program, • Educational resources such as City "Traffic Tips" and a City -developed brochure meant for parents of school children focused on safe walking techniques, and • Incorporation of some data (speed and volume surveys, available traffic accident data) into solutions for specific traffic safety projects. Road Safety Challenge: Requests Beyond Resources Community requests are currently the primary source the City uses to identify traffic safety improvements such as addressing road safety, including speeding, pedestrian or cyclist safety, parking that interferes with safe traffic flow, etc. Although community input will remain an important factor, the current over- reliance on this source to guide decision -making presents challenges that are difficult to resolve in isolation. First, community requests often come from a single community source. Although these requests are genuinely presented to the city as a concern, the true risk to the community can be difficult to assess based on this one perspective. As an example, it is common, backed by collected data over the years, that some speeding occurs on most streets in the City. Select occurrences N7i1il -3- of speeding communicated by a member of the community does not necessarily reflect how much speeding occurs generally on that street and the associated risk presented to the community. Second, requests from the public for traffic safety improvements are greater than available resources to address, whether at an investigational or actionable stage. The following table summarizes requests for traffic improvements from 2015 through September 11, 2019, logged as entered work orders. Traffic calming requests average approximately 20 per year but approximately 60 were received in the first 6 months of 2021. Addressed community requests are noted as completed job orders in the table. This table does not include concerns logged to the Saint John Police Force. Although some of these requests are not safety -related, it remains clear that the City simply cannot address all citizen requests that are related to road safety. 2015-2019 1 L D:l Job orders Job orders Entered Completed Vehicle Traffic I 16 Bicycle Traffic 4 C Pedestrian Traffic 161 46 Traffic Calming Requests 93 7 Not Categorized 63 7 Totals 417 76 *through Sept. 1.1, 2C_9 Third, and somewhat related to the previous paragraph, the City needs to remain mindful of infrastructure lifecycle costs; in fact, our Asset Management Policy requires this focus. New traffic safety infrastructure, such as signage, crosswalk infrastructure, and traffic calming features, all need to be maintained after installed. We simply cannot install more of this infrastructure than financial capacity to properly maintain it. Added traffic infrastructure should be installed where risk to public safety is most improved. It is clear we need to continue to find improved ways to address road safety. A holistic approach through MoveSJ creates this opportunity to more effectively serve the public with limited resources. Starting with a Principle Similar to many organizations' overall principles of employee and customer safety, many road authorities, municipalities or otherwise, have adopted a global movement called Vision Zero. Simply put, anyone killed or seriously injured in a N7iya -4- motor vehicle accident is not an acceptable outcome to jurisdictions who embrace this vision. A strategy is then developed to pursue that outcome, incrementally with data and focus. Adoption of such a principle is a policy decision that the City can consider when approving the Road Safety Strategy. Safe Systems Approach Many Road Safety Strategies focus on four areas: 1. Safe Vehicles 2. Safe People 3. Safe Roads 4. Safe Speeds Municipalities typically focus on the 'People', 'Roads', and 'Speed' focus areas given limits of control and influence over vehicle design. Data, local knowledge, and best practices are then used to build the Road Safety Strategy around these focus areas. An Enhanced Focus on Partnerships One of the themes of the City's Road Safety Strategy is the notion of shared responsibility. City staff often refer to the 3 E's that, together, help improve road safety: Education: Our various road users (motorists, pedestrians, cyclists) knowing and using safe techniques and following the rules of the road will improve road safety. For example, more drivers who operate within speed limits or provide the 1 metre buffer from cyclists required in "Ellen's Law" will improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists on any City street. Enforcement: Our Saint John Police Force or other officers who are present to encourage compliance with rules of the road. Engineering: The City building and upgrading our transportation system with traffic signals, roadway design features, crosswalks, signage, etc. to manage traffic flow or encourage safe road user behaviours. It takes the stakeholders in all 3 E's to do their part and work together to improve road safety in our City. As an example, the City and the Saint John N79X3 -5- Police Force can and will continue to collaborate to educate roadway users and/or develop solutions where education alone will not suffice. In addition to strengthening current collaborations between the City's Traffic Engineering unit and Police Force, collaboration with other important stakeholders such as the School District and the vehicle insurance industry is intended to be established through a working group. Improved Data to Set Obiectives and Manage Risk As briefly mentioned previously in this report, some data is currently used to help improve safety of our roadways. As examples of how data currently available can help influence effective road safety enhancement investments, below are two heat maps of the City showing accident data involving deer and pedestrians. The heat map with the deer accident data, for instance, was used to determine where traffic warning signage should and was subsequently installed on -street as part of the City's broader Deer Nuisance Management Program. This data is currently derived from analyzing dispatch calls logged through the City's Public Safety Communications Centre and therefore its use is limited, at least in the context of a robust Road Safety Strategy. Accidents Involving Deer 2011 to 2018 f Accidents Involving Pedestrians Jan 2012 to Dec 2017 / Since 2017 the Saint John Police Force has been working collaboratively with the Province of New Brunswick to provide and convert data from the Force's collision reports to a format that can in turn be analyzed. Once a few (approximately 2-3) years of this formatted data becomes available for analyzing, the Road Safety Strategy will be refined to: • Create a status -quo baseline of collision history in order to set interval targets of improvement, • Identify any trends in themes to guide future enforcement or education efforts such as whether factors such as distracted driving or driving while intoxicated are contributing to accidents, and • Refining geographic heat maps such as the ones presented previously in this report to guide where engineered traffic safety solutions should be invested. N79L1 -6- The image to the right is from the City of Saskatoon's 2013 Strategic Traffic Safety Action Plan. It summarizes which factors were most frequent in collisions in that community over a 10-year period. As the City's Road Safety Strategy is refined with additional data such as what Saskatoon uses, limited resources can be more effectively targeted to education efforts and infrastructure that can better reduce community risk toward the Vision Zero target and/or other incremental objectives. TREND ANALYSIS The 13 potential emphasis areas with 20A or more of the total Collisions are: 1. Intersections (60%) S. older Drivers (10%) 2. Young Drivers (46%) 9. Road Condition (91) 3. Distracted Driving (29%) 10. Lane Departure 4. Rear End Collisions (27%) Collisions (6%) 5. Aggressive Driving (21%) 11. Horizontal Curses (5%) Speed Monitoring Partnership Saint John 6. Turning Movement 12Vulneia6le Road with Collisions(15%) Dsers.(4%) 7. Angle Collisions (12%) 13.Impaired Dnving (3%). Energy The City currently uses several technologies to gather traffic speed data to inform the need for Traffic Calming projects and enforcement efforts. Portable on -road devices are installed for specific investigations, however these devices are temporary, can only be deployed seasonally, and, although small, are not completely inconspicuous (i.e. motorists may adjust speeds if they are seen, which negatively influences collection of accurate, unbiased data). Speed feedback signs installed on streets near most elementary and middle schools collect speed data continuously, but the presence of the signs and feedback messaging would influence speeds (as they are meant to do). The Saint John Police Force monitor data as part of enforcement programs but again their presence is limited and conspicuous. The City recently partnered with Saint John Energy and Livable Cities, a division of LED Roadway Lighting Ltd. (who supply street lights for the City) on a six-month pilot project to collect data from technology installed on existing street light poles. Included in this pilot project was the installation of 10 speed monitoring devices. City staff provided input on the locations of these 10 devices based on trends of community concerns of speeding on particular City streets. The ten locations were Golden Grove Road, Ellerdale Street, Mount Pleasant Avenue East, University Avenue, Woodward Avenue, MacLaren Boulevard, Dever Road, Gault Road, and Heather Way. The adjacent map shows just one view of the six N7i19 -7- months of collected data during the pilot project, that shows graphically which of the 10 locations had the greatest speeding. The data collected for the Heather Way and University Avenue locations were used in recent active transportation assessment projects. Staff's intent is to lease this technology for 2022 with collection of 5 month of data at another 20 sites around the City. Technology, such as these speed monitoring devices spread out throughout the City, will compliment other trend data such as from traffic collision data to improve upon results and recommendations within the City's Road Safety Strategy over time. Draft 5-Year Plan The draft Road Safety strategy includes a suggested 5-year implementation plan for Saint John that would be considered in future Work Plans. This plan will remain in "draft" format for the next 1-2 years as more input and data are incorporated into it. However, City staff believes it is important for the Public Safety Committee, Common Council, and the community to become aware now of some tangible components that will likely be included within it. In addition to pursuing outcomes related to the three of four Safe Systems focus areas, the draft 5-year plan also focuses on Data Management and Leadership components. The below table is a brief synopsis of current and potential new components to be considered and refined as part of this 5-year plan, arranged in these 5 focus areas. More details are provided in the attached strategy: Focus Area Existing components New components Leadership Existing partnerships, approval of Vision adoption, current resource levels/ focus established multi- discipline committee, objectives, KPIs Data Site specific collision analysis, Enhanced collision data, Management analysis of PSCC calls, site specific review of collision and SJ Energy partnership re: speed analysis tools monitoring Safe People Traffic Tips, annual Expo, Safe More focused education Walking Brochure, Safe Routes to and enforcement School, Police Force Programs, Rail campaigns Safety Programs with Community Partners Safe Roads Crosswalk signal technologies Specific plans for streets with greater collisions, enhanced focus on vulnerable road users, curb radii and lane width reductions N79Z.1 -8- Safe Speeds Traffic Calming, Safer School Zones, Reduced speed limits, Lower School Zone Speed Limits speed feedback signs Roundabout Strategy The second of the two MoveSJ strategies presented in this report is a Roundabout Strategy. Over the last 10-15 years, during preliminary planning for several existing signalized intersection reconstruction projects, a modern roundabout was considered as a design option. Designs were considered for Simms Corner, Grandview/Bayside, Rothesay Avenue/Ashburn Lake, and Somerset/Churchill intersections. None of these initiatives resulted in constructed roundabouts. In some cases, the additional land needed for a roundabout was significant, the project was too costly to incorporate into the Capital program, or signals were deemed as the solution based on application of best practices at the time. The City of Saint John remains without any modern roundabouts and the many benefits they offer. Lack of progress on installing modern roundabouts have also created some community concern that the City is "anti -roundabout". Modern roundabouts present many benefits. Reduced speeds as well as fewer and angled conflict points reduce the frequency and severity of accidents compared to traditional intersections. They can improve safety for pedestrians by acting as a speed calming measure and reducing crosswalk distances. There are additional operational, economic, and environmental benefits over signalized intersections. These benefits are detailed in the attached draft strategy. MoveSJ has created the opportunity for the City to approach planning our transportation system in a progressive and improved way to better serve our citizens in many ways. A new approach to achieving the benefits from modern roundabouts has been proposed through MoveSJ via the attached strategy. Two of the more significant barriers that have prevented the City from installing any modern roundabouts are: 1. Most of the feasibility analysis has been completed over 10 years ago. Best practices for roundabout design have since been updated, and 2. The City only generally considered roundabouts for limited locations where the intersections were due for reconstruction. To overcome these previous barriers, an updated methodology was used as part of MoveSJ, including: 1. Actively scanning various intersections around the City and identifying those that may be good candidates for a modern roundabout, and N7ir/ -9- 2. Using current best practices to visit (or in some cases revisit) candidate roundabout sites. Six intersections were identified as ones that were most likely to be good roundabout candidate sites. These were: 1. Woodward Avenue/ Boars Head Road 2. Ashburn Road/ Rothesay Road 3. Manawagonish Road/ Gault Road 4. Simms Corner 5. Sandy Point Road/ Foster Thurston Road, and 6. Millidge Avenue/ Somerset Street. These candidate sites were chosen based generally on one or more of four factors: 1. Enhanced traffic control (i.e. traffic signals) were identified as a warranted improvement 2. The intersection is wide currently to accommodate the land needed for a roundabout 3. The intersection currently includes complicated features such as multiple conflict points 4. Traffic speeds were measured as being high where traffic calming may address the speeding. Only one of the six intersections, Woodward Avenue/ Boars Head Road, were discounted as not being a good candidate site after further review. Preliminary design details and drawings for the remaining five intersections were then undertaken. Details are provided in the attached Strategy. A prioritization exercise was then completed for all five intersections. A sixth location, Loch Lomond Road at the Airport Arterial, was added to the list of intersections that are recommended for a roundabout as part of consultations after creation of the draft strategy. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT MoveSJ's Road Safety Strategy and Roundabout Strategy would best align with Common Council's MOVE and PERFORM priorities as it focuses on improving safety for all modes of transportation and aims to do so in the most cost-effective way. N7i1:3 -10- SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The Road Safety Strategy is intended to target limited resources where they can best improve road safety for the community, regardless of the level of resources available. Modern roundabouts present several service improvement and operational saving opportunities over traffic signals or stop -controlled intersections. This infrastructure however will require upfront Capital investment. Several of these six candidate locations will need to be incorporated into already planned infrastructure renewal projects. The Provincial government may be a funding partner on the three projects involving Provincial Highways. In some cases, Growth or identification within the overall City Strategic Plan will prioritize certain projects. Due to the City's current financial constraints and large infrastructure deficit, it is unlikely that these projects will move ahead in the short term unless they line up with planned infrastructure renewal projects or other City initiatives. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Similar to the first two phases, public consultations were undertaken to seek input on the outcomes of MoveSJ Phase 3. Given the consultations were completed during COVID-19, interaction with the public was mainly completed virtually through an online survey. City staff however worked with the Saint John Library and various community centres to provide access to hardcopy information on MoveSJ and provide access to computers to reduce barriers to technology access for citizens. More detailed information on public consultations for MoveSJ Phase 3 will be provided at a later Council meeting. Details related to the Road Safety and Roundabout Strategies are presented in this report. The MoveSJ Phase 3 survey asked respondents for their views on the most pressing road safety issues in Saint John. Distracted driving and safety of cycling facilities were identified as top issues. Better roadway design was identified as a top approach to improving road safety, including considering the needs of all road users and narrowing roads to encourage slower travel speeds. Many respondents identified safety for vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, children, and cyclists as needing improvement in Saint John. The survey also asked respondents the locations in the City in the most need of improved road safety. Locations identified were: • Simms Corner • Haymarket Square; • Millidge Avenue at Somerset Street; • Bayside Drive; N7i10.1 -11- • Chesley Drive; • Loch Lomond Road; • Main Street; • Rothesay Avenue; • Westmorland; and, • University Avenue. The majority of respondents support the implementation of Roundabouts in Saint John and identified Simms Corner as the highest priority location. A sixth location, Loch Lomond Road at the Airport Arterial, was added to the list of intersections that are recommended for a roundabout as part of consultations. City staff reached out directly to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB). Roundabouts present safety improvements generally for pedestrians. However, this infrastructure at times needs particular design features for pedestrians with vision loss. The input provided by the CNIB is attached to this report. In summary, the CNIB does not advocate for the use of roundabouts, but if they are to be installed, stakeholders such as the CNIB should be engaged during design and specific design features included at crosswalks at a roundabout including tactile warning surfaces at access ramps, zebra marked crosswalks, Yield signs, and installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (side -mounted signalized) crosswalks with Accessible Pedestrian Systems (APS). ATTACHMENTS City Staff Presentation Input from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind MoveSJ Road Safety Strategy MoveSJ Roundabout Strategy N7d97 IN 0 N 4-J 0 bA O N C6 C6 � C6 O c6 DC • C6 � � N >- C: a--+ aJ > N E •V E� E O • • U w • E E E b ClA O C: U w • Co a.., E N � 0 E o O o O -, �0 O G N Q E "OL O E U — a� E E E aD O C: U w C6 O (a � � N N N O = U bD u _0 z ci 0 O � N L Q Q O � 4-J � U N � O O O cn O U � fa buo � 0 O bn �> c: O O �O E Yi V CU .0 Q} -in --1 CD C7 Ln F'� 1-1 CL rl cu Lu VI �a 1 Ln kA �cl a Z Ln N U O U O U � O +-+ U u Q U U ca i i DC DC . .l . CD Q- L u EM T T V / O n1 U i ca O O � Q � � O w r�A ` c� m ca C: O m N N O Q pC 0 cn cn cn cn � U i 2 J b N II _ fill 11 It R' -M§ v ;_ .$- _N Q • • • 0 • N N U a_+ O L � Q aN-+ N E O N � � � O � N � N � N 0 p O 0 0 O U ci N rq ca p O cn J N so co CD O N 7 0 N Cl) � O N N C! W 9:YYA��aSAMF e:saaseclse.r.'�. rr.Gm irk] i Pi.. LL C: I I.i) O •N •� � 0� a--i •� U U Ln — 0 to •O U o E LL 0 �OCO OU .E N Q 75; Q > ca ^ � 0 0 0 O00> � O-Om +, w ^ >` •� co � .C: }, C E O C: ca z°vim �o O 0O�Q > o o •i •N V) U N O N' • — — O oC ca N C: ca ca � }, C:z NQ U > O .v moon � N o U Q � O cn -0 Cf � —u �u ca Eo z�(,= ca O o X0�}, x o oz>� > �a >, _ •E ca O = o oc ? E _ >, M 0 c: o C: cn U > LL s N ct3 i aA O L Q Q� L L U N U ct3 N Q U � Q E cc U +j E 0) U i O O ca O +j cc U w N m O DC ct3 cn t�A .E cc U U EF c6 i +j N E O O Q O U L 0 O � O O v � � O � � N � O U O cn U � cn i0 C� Ln U N z • N LO Z U � U � O O O p ca ca � ca O O O v +-+ U U U co i s i • ate-+ L O i b-0 z • • • • s N � N N U v m Q +j -0 •N +., � U -0 O +j O � > •c� 0-O �, O _0 � C1A -0ca O +-+ O i � O � CI- 0 U � N vNi txo •C: � _0 +j O U N O •cn Q N U '> N CL D (n > U Q U 0O D (n O — > J m 0 m i N Q N Pim i L U N E E (n cm 4 ui PoR Pim d �--� U �..� �� N t�A �� Q � O � ca � � � � ca � O DC �A � � � � � .� � � ca � � H O � }, U Q � ca � � _ � � ~ O � C� � .0 � � O � � � � fa i � cn N � � O � � O v r z r o e y N U a--+ .E 0 U N p N CL . bn aA 0 Q >- CL N N a--+ E u }�i 0 a-J U U Q c O aN-+ CL N i O p[ 4-J V _ Ov m �--+ a)O a (� Q • - i •� E U > C: U 0 U U O � 1 � buo �..� O SV V / � • N .� E O m O O m N L� O ca L.L p O m Q N U O m E }' a� E N O U Ln O E N U O .E DC �ca N O E -o ca 07 � O O � X oc z NIZ N W d s RE: MoveSJ Feedback Roundabouts and more Terry Smith <TerrySmith@vlrehab.ca> ° Reply 4C7 ReplyAl F—cl To O O'Reilly, Tm Fri 2020-12-11 3:Y1 PM Cc Debbie Jeffery O You forwarded this message on 2020-12-309:00 AM. Roundabouts (January 2011).dnc 32 KB +Saved Hi Tim, Sorry about my late response, CNIB does not advocate or recommend the use of roundabouts and I have attached CNIB's position statement. I have read over the document and looked at the designs: what are the methods the City of Saint John are going to implement to make sure pedestrians, especially people who are blind or partially sighted are going to be able to use and crass safely and independently at the fallowing intersections below if they are to become roundabouts. 1)Simms Corner 2) Millidge Ave and Somerset 3) Sandy Paint Road and Foster Thurston I did not notice pedestrian crosswalks at the other 2 proposed intersections. Should a municipality construct a roundabout, CNIB strongly recommends the use of TWSI at all access ramps, zebra crosswalks, yield signs and the use of RRFB's with APS`s installed. CNIB would respectfully ask to he invited to look at the plans for these 3 intersections before construction begins to offer input for people who are blind or partially sighted. Roundabouts Roundabouts present significant safety challenges for blind and partially sighted pedestrians and are not recommended by CNIB. CNIB recommends that blind and sighted pedestrians cross streets at controlled intersections; traffic lights or stop signs because they are able to use the sound of traffic at these types of intersections to determine when it is safe to cross the street. When the traffic is moving in front of them on the perpendicular street they know it is not safe to cross. When the parallel traffic begins to move in the same direction they are walking, it is safe for them to begin to cross the street. When an intersection is changed to a roundabout, the ability for blind and partially sighted pedestrians to travel safely and independently is taken away. Blind and partially sighted pedestrians are not able to use the sound of traffic at roundabouts to determine when it is safe to cross. It is challenging if not impossible for a blind person to audibly detect a gap in traffic flowing through a roundabout. The sounds are confusing as traffic is constantly entering and exiting the roundabout, making it difficult to determine the appropriate time to cross, (plus there are often multiple lanes of traffic). (Sighted pedestrian rely on their vision to detect a gap in traffic to determine when it is safe to cross a roundabout. Plus they are able to make eye contact with the drivers.) Research studies on how to make roundabouts safe and accessible to blind and partially sighted pedestrians are testing treatments ranging from low-cost flashing beacons and audible sound strips, to raised crosswalks and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK signal). This research is ongoing and inconclusive. Until there is conclusive research that is proven to make roundabouts accessible for blind and partially sighted pedestrians, (the) CNIB does not recommend roundabouts due to the fact that they are unsafe for pedestrians who are blind and partially sighted. Links: Institute for Transportation Research & Education - North Carolina State University http ://itre. ncsu .ed u/ITRE/research/Pedestrian-Accessibility/index. html http ://www. ite.org/meetcon/2010TC/Session%2017%20Bastian%20Schroeder .pdf Pedestrian Access to Modern Roundabouts: Design and Operational Issues for Pedestrians who are Blind http://www.access-board.gov/research/roundabouts/buIletin.htm N'1c&'7 Second Draft Report Road Safety Strategy City of Saint John Transportation Sti Prepared for City of Saint John by IBI Group October 30, 2020 SAINT JOHN N1ci.1 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Table of Contents 1 Introduction...............................................................................................2 2 Existing Saint John Road Safety Context...............................................3 2.1 Existing City Policies and Practices .................................................. 3 2.2 Related Transportation Strategic Plan Documents ...........................6 2.3 Existing Road Safety Data................................................................9 3 Guiding Principles and Approach..........................................................11 3.1 The Context for a Strategic Road Safety Plan................................11 3.2 Vision Zero.....................................................................................13 3.3 Safe Systems Approach.................................................................13 3.4 Canada's Road Safety Strategy 2025.............................................15 4 Proposed Strategies...............................................................................17 4.1 Make Road Safety Part of the Organizational Culture ....................17 4.2 Focus on a Data -Driven Approach..................................................20 4.3 Build Safer Streets..........................................................................29 5 Implementation Plan...............................................................................32 October 30, 2020 537 i IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Introduction The City of Saint John is preparing a transportation strategic plan (MoveSJ) that is being completed in three phases (research, plan development, and plan finalization). MoveSJ aims to quantify existing conditions and recommend improvements to the transportation system over a 25 year horizon. The primary objectives of MoveSJ are to guide the growth of an integrated multi -modal transportation system, taking into account unique road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and truckers, among others. MoveSJ also strives to provide a safe, efficient, and accessible network for all who live and work in the City of Saint John. As part of the project's third phase, this report summarizes the Road Safety Strategy (RSS). The emphasis of this strategy is on providing overall best practices for improving the safety of all road users, as well as highlighting how safety can be interwoven with the other strategies and initiatives being put forward. Exhibit 1-1 provides further details regarding the MoveSJ project framework. Exhibit 1-1: MoveSJ Planning Process Zsearch ASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Plan Plan De�relnpmen# Finalization Background / Model Development I Mode Split Targets Community Engagement Goals Development Model Maintenance Assessment Neighbourhood and Structure Plan Guidelines Demand Model Development Pedestrian Strategy Transit Strategy Parking Strategy Goods Movement Strategy Community Engagement Roadway Classification System Cycling Strategy Comprehensive System Improvement Plan II_Road� Strate7y] Modern Roundabouts Community Consultation Council l Committee Council I Committee Council I Committee Presentation Presentation Presentations Continuous Community Outreach and Engagement October 30, 2020 538 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 2 Existing Saint John Road Safety Context The City of Saint John has a number of existing documents that guide the implementation of safety measures. It is important to know what strategies and initiatives currently exist, to understand how they overlap with the RSS, where the RSS can support other initiatives, and where there are gaps to be filled. These documents, as well as the manner in which data is currently collected, stored, and analyzed, are described in this section. 2.1 Existing City Policies and Practices Between 2010 and 2018, a number of strategic documents with safety -related policies, guidelines, and/or strategies, were published by the City of Saint John. PIanSJ — City of Saint John Municipal Plan The City's 2011 Municipal Plan (PIanSJ) places greater emphasis on improving active transportation, and the safety of vulnerable road'' users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. This shift in priorities is consistent with global trends throughout this time period, and reflects the public's desire to have modal choice, and to reduce their reliance on personal motor vehicles. ' Policies set out in the PIanSJ Municipal Plan that target road user safety include': Improve investments into multi -modal modes of transportation- qE A Consolidate accesses on arterial and collector streets (i.e. access management); • Encourage pedestrian connectivity and circulation, including providing pathway connections, to enhance the safety and convenience of pedestrians; • Improve pedestrian amenities, including effective winter maintenance, barrier free access, and visible and safe pedestrian crossings; • Improve signage and way finding for all road users; • Develop and maintain a fully connected network for non -motorized traffic throughout the City, using both on -street and off-street infrastructure, as appropriate; and 1 https://www.saintiohn.ca/site/media/SaintJohn/Munidpal%20PIan%20for%20web%202012-01-12.pdf October 30, 2020 539 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Improve active transportation (AT) routes and infrastructure on overpasses. The strategic documents also emphasize the importance of finding a balance between road users — to ensure that the safety and security of all road users is properly accommodated in road design, and that the transportation system remains balanced for a range of road users. City of Saint John Trails and Bikeways Strategic Plan Summary Document The Trails and Bikeways Strategic Plan is a comprehensive document from 2010 that outlines how to create a connected trail and bikeways network throughout the City of Saint John. The goal of the plan is "to promote a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by providing opportunities for active lifestyles and mobility options for all the City's residents'2. The study included route identification and assessment, bottlenecks and conflict area identification, network development and standards, and an implementation strategy. The study also provided direct input into the PlanSJ Municipal Plan, and a number of policies laid out in that document are reflective of the recommendations of the Trails and Bikeways Strategic Plan. Progress has been made on implementing some of the recommendations of the Trails and Bikeways Strategic Plan; however, specifics regarding updates and improvements to the network are covered by the Pedestrian Strategy and the Cycling Strategy, which are being completed as separate parts of the transportation strategic plan. 1W 'we City of Saint John Traffic Calming Policy The correlation between speed and safety is well known, and in 2012, the City of Saint John released a Traffic Calming Policy to target speed reductions on neighbourhood streets. The policy goal, as stated in the document, is "...to reduce vehicular traffic speed on City streets to within the posted speed limit and/or reduce vehicle traffic volume on a Local street to 1000 vehicles per day or less to improve community and road users' safety. "3 The document is a detailed action plan to re -design neighbourhood streets to encourage the desired driving behaviours, and to inspire increased active transportation. A full implementation process is detailed in the policy document, and illustrated in Exhibit 2-1. 2 https://www.saintiohn.ca/site/media/SaintJohn/Mav%2012%202010%20Final%20Report.pdf 3 https://www.saintoohn.ca/site/media/SaintJohn/Traffic Calming 2012.pdf October 30, 2020 540 4 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 2-1: Traffic Calming Plan Implementation Process (Source: City of Saint John Traffic Calming Policy) Imple. Follow Traffic Proactive Opportunity for Calming PTransportation Potential Traffic Planning Calming Plan .... Pian.....� Prioritize 101 Requested Plan 19 Neighbourhood Neighbourhood t] Performance of � I - Key components within the outlined implementation plan that are also included in the RSS are that the plan is data -driven (Step 5 requires measured evidence to justify pursuing action), engages the public and relevant stakeholders, such as emergency and transit services, and includes a process by which to update policy based on the measured performance of implemented strategies. While the Traffic Calming Policy is a comprehensive document that touches on all elements required to successfully reduce vehicular operating speed on local streets, the document does not address speeding concerns on arterial and collector roads. Typically, collisions that result in serious injury or death occur on roads with higher posted speed limits (e.g., collectors and arterials), and are less prevalent on local roadways, where speed limits (and operating speeds) are generally lower. This is not to say that traffic calming measures to reduce vehicular speeds on local roads are not impactful, but rather that a speed management policy that targets operating speeds on collector and arterial roadways should also be developed for maximum benefit. October 30, 2020 541 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks Canadian winters bring a unique set of challenges to road safety and transportation operations. Adequately preparing for winter road conditions can have a profound impact on road user safety, for both vehicle occupants and active transportation users. The Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks outlines a set of standards and best practices for maintaining safe road conditions for all users year round. 2.2 Related Transportation Strategic Plan Documents Road safety is not an isolated subject; it is part of a system that consists of vehicle and street design, government policy, and user behaviour. Therefore, improving road safety is also not an isolated strategy, but rather safety must be embedded in all aspects of city building. As outlined in the introduction, this Road Safety Strategy is only one component of a larger Transportation Strategic Plan. Other documents and strategies that have a significant safety component to them are outlined below. Pedestrian Strategy V%hh,, X Within the Transportation Strategic Plan is a Pedestrian Safety Strategy, which outlines design principles, key considerations, as well as common pedestrian collision types and potential contributing factors. The importance of vehicle speed for pedestrian safety is also emphasized — at higher operating speeds, drivers have narrower fields of view, slower reaction times, longer stopping distances, and there is a higher impact force on the pedestrian (i.e., higher risk of injury or death). For the development of the pedestrian strategy, the City provided available locational data, within the Southern Peninsula, of traffic incidents involving vulnerable road users (i.e., pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists). The data provided is presented in Exhibit 2-2. October 30, 2020 542 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 2-2: Southern Peninsula Pedestrian, Cyclist, and Motorcyclist Incidents 2012-2016 A J fi r Legentl Blcyce.Molercyale Pcoicena N 0 0.175 0�5 0]Mlles I I I Improving the pedestrian realm typically requires improving both actual and perceived pedestrian safety; if people don't feel safe on the streets, they won't walk on the streets. Additional safety related strategies contained in the Pedestrian Strategy include: • Integrate Complete Streets into City policy and all aspects of street planning, design, maintenance, and operations; • Adopt a school crossing guard warranting system; • Update the Traffic Calming Policy to include speed `cushions' (speed bumps that allow large emergency vehicles to pass over them at higher speeds); Update the pedestrian walking speed and clearance intervals at signalized intersections (typically, this implies a reduction in assumed walking speeds to reflect an aging population and those with mobility challenges); Update the Transportation Impact Study guidelines to require an analysis of sidewalk requirements and other pedestrian infrastructure a part of the submission package; October 30, 2020 543 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Update street design guidelines to include the following objectives: reduce traffic speeds, keep cities compact, create streets that are for people, not just cars, make public transportation safe, affordable, and convenient, and use data mapping and analysis techniques to identify problem spots and target design fixes; Create a pedestrian facilities maintenance strategy; and Develop a sidewalk infill strategy. Truck Route Strategy Trucks are critical for economic growth within a city. However, it is important to balance the needs of the goods movement industry, with those of other road users, in particular vulnerable road users. Recommendations in the truck route strategy with safety implications include: Manage large truck deliveries in South Central Peninsula (e.g., by adopting a policy that significantly reduces the number of loading zones that can accommodate larger trucks); Adequately sign designated truck routes based on signage warrants; and • Explore policies and legislation that would mandate that trucks use highways more for intra-city trips. Other Strategies In addition to the strategies described above, the MoveSJ project framework includes planned strategies related to roadway classification, comprehensive system improvements, cyclists, modern roundabouts, and community consultation, which will all have a direct or indirect impact on how road user safety is managed in City projects. Specifically, the implementation of cycling infrastructure, roundabouts as intersection control, and systemic improvements that reflect the current understanding safety performance, stand to have a direct, positive impact on road user safety. At the same time, community consultation and roadway classifications that reflect the needs of all road users can increase knowledge sharing and awareness of safety issues and concerns. The strategies discussed in this section were not available for review at the time of writing; however, they will be developed with explicit consideration for road user safety. October 30, 2020 544 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 2.3 Existing Road Safety Data As in most jurisdictions, the primary source of road safety data, in Saint John, is police collision reports. Under the existing system, when police respond to a collision, they complete a collision report form. The collision form used by the Saint John police is a standard form issued by the New Brunswick Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DTI), and it contains the base required fields for collision analysis, such as the location, date and time, collision configuration, actions and conditions of involved parties, light and weather conditions, and resulting injury code. All of this information can be used by road safety professionals to identify trends and diagnose contributing factors. Since 2017, the Saint John Police Force has been working with the Province to provide collision data in a manner that allows the Province to convert the data into a useable electronic format for analysis (before 2017, alternative, manual processes existed for data sharing and storage). When this Road Safety Strategy was initiated, there was not a sufficient amount of electronic collision data available to develop a truly "data -driven" RSS. Therefore, it is recommended that the City proceed instead with a systemic, "policy -driven" approach to improving traffic safety in the short term. This approach focuses first on updating standards, guidelines, and processes to better address road user safety in future work (e.g., trying to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past based on our current understanding of road user behaviours and the influences of infrastructure design and traffic controls). Then, as electronic data become more available, they can be used to refine and focus initiatives based on the stated goals and objectives, and identify locations with histories of relatively poor safety performance. Under the proposed approach, potential sites for improvement can still be identified based on geometric and operational characteristics (i.e., risk factors), as opposed to collision history. This is an effective approach to improving and standardizing safety throughout a road network. A drawback to a purely policy - based approach is that the specific locations with the greatest need for improvement might not be treated first. Comprehensive road safety data can complement the systemic approach by providing municipalities with the information required to prioritize improvement sites, and allocate resources to sites with the higher potential for improvement. The Saint John Police currently have the ability to use keywords searches to sort through police call logs and develop heat maps that illustrate where the specified type of collision is more prevalent. These heat maps can provide some initial input and direction on where to focus mitigation measures and direct resources. Exhibit 2-3 provides a sample heat map, showing the locations of collisions involving deer between the years 2013 and 2018. October 30, 2020 545 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 2-3: Heat Map of Collisions Involving Deer (2013-2018) Created 2018104116 by angelaatotten a&aingohn_ca 1 586-648-3295 Comprehensive, long-term road safety data is also necessary for agencies to understand and measure the impact of implemented measures. Resources are finite, and it is important to properly identify the measures with the most effective safety impacts in an unbiased manner. October 30, 2020 546 10 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 3 Guiding Principles and Approach The dominant thought that has taken the spotlight in the transportation industry is simple, yet profound. Death and Serious Injury are Unacceptable Outcomes of Mobility. The above statement paraphrases the Vision Zero philosophy that jurisdictions across the globe have been adopting over the past two decades. The subsections below outline several guidelines and approaches to road safety, including Vision Zero, which are currently used by other jurisdictions to guide their road user safety efforts. These guidelines and approaches have been incorporated into the Saint John Road Safety Strategy. 3.1 The Context for a Strategic Road Safety Plan A strategic road safety plan is usually the outcome of a larger integrated safety management process, and that process is, ideally, part of a complete Integrated Road Safety Management System. These concepts are defined in great detail in NCHRP Report 501 — Integrated Safety Management Process. U Leadership 1 Organizational Structure In brief, the integrated safety W LL.environment system is the 0management Mission &Vision in which the integrated 1 safety management process is created, supported, and allowed to evolve. The safety management Resources system is comprised of a legislative, funding, and organizational 0 Integrated Safety Management Process Tools framework, as shown in the figure to the right. A critical component is a Adapted from Figure 2-1. Components of the ISMSystem of NCMRP Report+501 consistent approach at the leadership level, with different agencies stakeholders working together, in a coordinated manner. The integrated safety management process is an iterative loop, consisting of the following six steps: Review highway traffic, geometric, and safety data; 2. Establish emphasis areas and safety goals; October 30, 2020 547 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 3. Develop objectives, treatment strategies, and preliminary action plans to address the emphasis areas; 4. Determine the appropriate combination of treatment strategies for the identified emphasis areas; 5. Develop detailed action plans; and 6. Implement the strategic road safety plan and evaluate performance. The products of the above six steps are illustrated in Exhibit 3-1. Exhibit 3-1: Steps within the ISM Process Overall Highwary Safety Vision i Emphasis Are ' Emphasis fa 1r •. -. Ir- - 1+-.r I.r ■ Stategy & + Strategy & • Strategy & ■ Strategy & Strategy & Preliminary Preliminary Prelimntary Preliminary Pretiminary Adore Ptan Actkm Plan Action Plan kl on Plan Action Plan + Pya; & + Strategy & ■ Strategy & strategy & Prejunirary Pretlfninary, Preliminary Preliminary Action Plan Acton Plan Action Plan Action Plan • strategy & Preliminary Action Plan 0 OPTIMIZATION 1 iSHSPlan PsIQt QNt,3:,tit;,:'.:, : f'Y,lfV • fl A i ed Acl on Ptan ■ iletaled AcKKrn Ptan + fivi ud Acton Plan + WaikedActlon Plan i ■ Strategy & a Strategy & Preliminary Pralirninary Action Plan Action Plan ■ P,esearO & ■ Strategy A Preliminary Prdiminary Action Flan Action Plan Adapted from Rg� 2.5. Ex pta of Overall Highway Sataty Minion of HCHAP Rtgp m,50Y The strategic road safety plan is the sum of the detailed action plans that are intended to address each of the identified emphasis areas (i.e., specific safety issues), and as such, the plan is typically revised on an annual basis through the integrated safety management process. The process includes measuring safety October 30, 2020 548 12 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John performance, analysing contributing factors, evaluating treatment options, creating an action plan, implementing the plan, and repeating the process. With time, the intent is that improvements in the safety performance of the road network will be achieved, and the emphasis areas will change to address the next most pressing safety issues. 3.2 Vision Zero Vision Zer04 is a global movement pursuing a transportation network with zero people killed or seriously injured, across all modes of transportation, as a result of motor -vehicle collisions. Originating in Sweden, in 1997, this vision has been embraced by municipalities across the globe. Within Canada, cities that have adopted a Vision Zero (or Towards Zero) approach include: Edmonton, AB; Vancouver, BC; Toronto, ON; and Ottawa, ON. A key element of Vision Zero is that it strives to change the perception that serious "accidents" are just one of the unavoidable costs of mobility. The movement is rooted in the simple fact that serious collisions — not accidents — are preventable, and that no loss of life, however small the number, is acceptable. This thinking requires a shift in the social climate, and the support of engineers, planners, politicians, and road users alike. The Vision Zero approach recognizes that humans are fallible, and that mistakes will be made. This approach disperses responsibility among system designers, policymakers, and road users, to ensure that those inevitable mistakes do not result in a serious injury or death. There are two main objectives: 1. Reduce the likelihood that collisions will occur; and Minimize the consequences and severity of the collisions that do 49, o occur. _41k Ilk 'q#A% 3.3 Safe Systems Approach The guiding principle of the Safe Systems approach is similar to that of Vision Zero; that people inevitably make mistakes, but it is not acceptable for those mistakes to result in serious injuries or the loss of life on our roads. The Safe Systems Approach takes on a holistic view of the road transportation system and the interactions between key inputs (i.e., looking beyond the driver). It is a framework of principles geared towards designing a more forgiving road transportation system. This is particularly important when designing a system that accommodates vulnerable road users (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists). 4 Some organizations have adopted the less ambitious "Towards Zero" terminology to describe their plans; however, the critical elements of those programs are consistent with programs that use the Vision Zero name. October 30, 2020 549 13 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John There are four defining principles within the Safe Systems approach. These principles challenge the way we think about road safety and encourage us to identify and address all of the contributing factors. The defining principles are as follows.. People make mistakes — collisions will occur; 2. People are vulnerable — there are limits to our ability to withstand trauma; 3. We need to share responsibility — everyone has a role to play in improving road safety; and 4. We need to strengthen all parts of the system — when fatalities and serious injuries occur, there is rarely a single cause. Exhibit 3-2 illustrates the Safe Systems Approach. At the centre, is the recognition that there is a limit to the amount of force a human body can withstand, and that protecting people should be paramount. The next four components are the key inputs that are recognized to have a significant impact on the likelihood and seriousness of a collision, and are the focus of many mitigation measures. These four inputs are: ANO Safe Roads — this input focuses on explicitly accounting for safety at the planning stage, and incorporating safety in the road design; 2. Safe Speeds — vehicle speeds have a direct correlation with sustained injury during a collision. This input focuses on reducing speeds from all aspects, including reduced speed limits and improved compliance; 3. Safe People — this input focuses on reducing unsafe behaviour, such as distracted driving and drinking and driving; and Safe Vehicles — this input focuses on improving the safety of vehicles, through both improved technology and improved regulations, and requires working with industry partners. 11 Road users are often the target of scrutiny for not following the rules of the road, and there has been a lot of attention on so called "victim blaming" in recent years. However, while drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians are a significant portion of the system, they are still only one part, and their actions are often motivated by failures or inequities in roadway design. The responsibility for road safety is shared by everyone, including policy makers, engineers, and educators, among others. Instead of questioning what the driver did wrong, the safe systems approach questions how the driver could have prevented the collision and how the road design could have prevented the collision. Countermeasures and strategies that use a combination of these factors will be critical in achieving the overall goal of reducing the number of fatal and injury collisions in Saint John. October 30, 2020 550 14 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 3-2: Safe Systems Approach INNOVATIOAt a,C � � o 0 A SAFE ROAD SYSTEM � = INCREASINGLY N FREE OF DEATH AND SERIOUS , INJURY 0� 1 %""ON ANO INFORµ"""t' Safe Systems Approach Canada's Read Safety Strategy 2025 3.4 Canada's Road Safety Strategy 2025 Canada's Road Safety Strategy 2025 is a document introduced in 2016, by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). This strategy provides road safety professionals, in both the public and private sectors, with principles, strategies, countermeasures, and best practices that are standardized across the country. It recognizes that the battle towards Vision Zero is a universal and collaborative one, and aims to provide a framework that governments can use to develop their own, tailored, road safety plans. October 30, 2020 551 15 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John The principles outlined in Canada's Road Safety Strategy are: • Adopt a Safe Systems Approach; • Have a 10-year strategy (historically governments have developed 5- year strategies); and Provide an inventory of best practices targeting key emphasis areas. A key component to recognize is the benefits of embracing a 10-year timeline. Users, and governments, tend to place significant emphasis on "Quick Win" projects, and expect immediate improvements. It is important to understand the reality that policy and design changes take time, and that collision data collection can take 3 years, or longer, following implementation. Other cities and countries that have adopted a Vision Zero approach did not experience meaningful change until after several years of sustained effort. Embracing a longer timeline for evaluating the effectiveness of implemented strategies sets the strategy up for success. However, it is important to monitor and evaluate strategies on a continuous basis, and to have a mid-term review of the overall plan. This will ensure that investments are being properly allocated. While a 10-year plan is encouraged as a long-term, vision -setting goal, breaking it down into shorter, two-year road safety action plans, can help kick-start the program and track progress in the short to medium term. This is especially important in the beginning when there is a critical need to create a baseline for measuring success, and to gain public support and momentum in the project. October 30, 2020 552 16 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 4 Proposed Strategies The proposed road safety strategy for the City of Saint John is outlined in Exhibit 4-1 and expanded on in the sections below. Exhibit 4-1: Outline of Proposed Strategies Make Road Safety Focus on a Data- Build Safer Part of the Driven Approach Streets Organizational Culture 4.1 Make Road Safety Part of the Organizational Culture Culture is, in essence, the beliefs and attitudes of a particular group of people. Around the world, cities and communities are experiencing a shift in their attitudes towards their streets, and are changing their culture to prioritize safety over speed and vehicle -moving capacity. To enact real change in Saint John, the City needs to embrace a Vision Zero, Towards Zero (or similar) philosophy, and set about implementing strategies that reflect the culture they want to live. Strategy 1: Commit to a Definitive Vision for Road User Safety As discussed in previous sections, Vision Zero is a movement to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Committing to Vision Zero, or a similar safety -first vision, sets an ambitious goal that reinforces that it is not enough to just reduce traffic fatalities. All fatalities are preventable, and it is simply our culture that has desensitized us to collision outcomes. Committing to Vision Zero sets a standard for what is acceptable, and also connects Saint John with the global movement towards this change. Committing to zero traffic fatalities or injuries is a long-term strategy. The experience of others who have joined the movement is that significant change may only be observed after years of sustained effort, and that strategies need to be evaluated, modified, and tailored to local conditions. Setting realistic, achievable short-term goals is equally as important as setting the overarching Vision Zero goal. For example, committing to making sure the number of KSI collisions does not increase. However, committing to the long-term goal is key to ensuring all other goals are working in parallel. Once the vision is established, a system needs to be put in place to make sure that all stakeholders understand their respective roles in achieving the goals and objectives that are set in pursuit of the vision. This step might also involve updating departmental performance measures to be better aligned with a safety - first vision. October 30, 2020 553 17 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Strategy 2: Embrace the Safe Systems Approach The Safe Systems Approach, described Exhibit 4-2: Safe Systems Approach above and illustrated in Exhibit 4-2, embodies the philosophy that people make mistakes, but those mistakes should not cost them their lives. When first developing a RSS, it is tempting to focus on physical changes — the coloured quadrants of the diagram. However, implementing those physical changes in isolation, or in the "less optimal' locations, is not an efficient use of resources. It can be more effective to begin with the outer ring, such as leadership, standards, data, research and evaluation, and legislation and policy. Leadership and coordination are two key areas that can drive positive change. X da Leadership is about setting the direction, and making sure the necessary resources, tools, and processes are in place to support the defined vision. A culture change must be cultivated, beginning at the highest level, and aligning all levels and all departments within the organization towards the vision. This will ensure consistent messaging and goal setting among all stakeholders. Other leadership elements include setting administrative priorities and supporting organizational readiness — before an organization can move towards a new vision, it must resolve competing issues and practices. Coordination, partnerships, and buy -in from stakeholders is also critical in a safe systems approach. Everybody must work towards improving safety as their primary goal. Progress comes more quickly when the effort is sustained on multiple fronts, and not delayed by stakeholders with a lack of knowledge or understanding of the new ideas. As well, partnerships and the sharing of resources can help make the defined vision a reality faster than going it alone. Establishing a working group with stakeholders from different departments (e.g., Engineering, Pedestrian and Traffic Management, Police, Emergency Services, etc.) should be considered, and Senior Leadership needs to set performance targets for each department that promote a common interest in improving road user safety and encourage cooperation. October 30, 2020 554 18 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Strategy 3: Educate and Engage Partners and the Public Education is one of the 3 E's of traffic safety, along with engineering and enforcement, all of which are key elements required in the creation of safe communities. The value of education, in comparison with the more tangible engineering and enforcement, is often overlooked. However, the path to road safety requires actions from all stakeholders and all road users, and educating and engaging them early on in the process will improve overall understanding of issues and allow for targeted investment. The City of Toronto's "The Art of Distraction" campaign is an excellent example of engaging the public, and bringing awareness and sensitivity to the very real consequences of traffic collisions. Toronto has also released a series of infographics outlining proper use of streets. It is a recognition that, people do not intentionally cause collisions. Sometimes they are distracted or inattentive, but other times they are simply unaware of (or have forgotten, or become complacent in) the proper use of the roadway. Education is an often - forgotten step in the introduction of new road user facilities and traffic controls designs that make perfect sense to transportation professionals can be totally unintuitive to members of the public, which can result in unintended safety consequences. Image Source: The City of Toronto's "The Art of Distraction" Campaign Given the range of weather experienced in Saint John, targeted educational material should be released at the beginning of transitional seasons to remind users of proper use of the road under different conditions (e.g., winter vs spring). As well, as infrastructure gets updated, it is important to ensure that the public is aware of the changes, the reasons for them, and how they can help/contribute to safer roads. Often, getting buy -in from stakeholders is about overcoming a lack of knowledge or understanding that may limit some stakeholders' ability to adopt new ideas. Such limitations could be due to a lack of resources and concerns of increased burden, or simply "fear of change." Therefore, hosting workshops (or lunchtime learning sessions) that encourage knowledge sharing between City departments, and with outside stakeholder agencies, can be an effective way to overcome resistance to change, and to provide opportunities to share resources and introduce new tools. October 30, 2020 555 19 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 4.2 Focus on a Data -Driven Approach A data -driven, decision -making approach is the most efficient way to invest in road safety improvements. More complete and reliable data allows for realistic goals to be set, better quality decisions to be made, and positive public support to be earned. Embedding quality data into the decision -making process ensures that strategies and countermeasures are evaluated in an equitable and justifiable manner, and improves the chances of getting the best return on investments. Strategy 4: Improve the quality and availability of relevant safety data The premise of creating a comprehensive data source from which to base decisions is a simple one that typically does not face opposition. Collecting quality data and creating said database is somewhat trickier. The City of Saint John already has a system in place by which to collect road safety data — police reports. The police reports contain most of the information required for a comprehensive collision analysis, such as the sequence of events, the time of incident, the severity of the outcomes, the road conditions, etc. As noted above, the Saint John Police Force is working with the Province to provide collision data in a manner that allows the Province to convert the data into a useable electronic format for analysis. A potential opportunity for data sharing is to create a data warehouse that is shared between the DTI and the City of Saint John (and Saint John Police, should they choose to participate). Such a data warehouse would allow City users to obtain the raw data they need for their daily operations, analysis, and investigations, and could be used as a medium by which to aid the Province in digitizing the police reports, should they require aid. The platform should also allow for sharing analysis done by either government body5. Depending on the level of flexibility and control the City desires, there are options to either purchase a commercially available off -the -shelf system, or work with another department to do the data analytics in-house. It is recommended to open discussions with neighbouring jurisdictions, such as the Cities of Moncton and Fredericton, to see if there are opportunities for collaboration. The province of Ontario currently employs a similar system, known as ARIS (Authorized Requester Information System). The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) is responsible for maintaining records related to traffic safety, including collision reports, and maintains a database of records. Municipalities can apply to become Authorised Requesters — a status which permits them to access and download records related to their jurisdiction. This allows the province to control the integrity of the data, and ensure privacy and proper use 5 It is our understanding that City of Saint John staff have recently engaged the Province in initial discussion related to collision data management and data sharing that will move this strategy forward. October 30, 2020 556 20 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John of the data, while also allowing municipalities to access the data they need, when then need it. Strategy 5: Establish a starting point Road safety strategies typically begin with a baseline of performance measures — an analysis of the previous 1-5 years through which hotspots and emphasis areas are identified and prioritized. Strategy 4 will create this baseline, but that doesn't mean that the City shouldn't begin investing in road safety improvements sooner — the starting point and direction will just need to be established through other means. The Municipal Plan is a good source for identifying priorities that reflect the current perceptions and understandings with respect to road safety. The Municipal Plan identifies a number of transportation and mobility goals and the City is working at systematically improving infrastructure to achieve these goals. The goal that is the focus of the overall Transportation Strategic Plan is: "Develop and maintain a balanced transportation system that meets the needs of all community members with a variety of options including active transportation opportunities such as cycling and walking, good public transit service to key destinations within the Primary Development Area, private automobiles, and taxis." Arm%, Strategies and countermeasures to improve a number of these identified goals are included within the overall Transportation Strategic Plan, including: • Pedestrian Strategy; Goods Movement Strategy; • Cycling Strategy; and Modern Roundabouts Strategy. October 30, 2020 557 21 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Within each of these strategies, community engagement is an excellent tool by which to identify and prioritize specific initiatives. Residents are the people who use the streets on a day-to-day basis, and who know the intimate details of their neighbourhoods. Road safety is in part about perceived safety, and user comfort, as well as actual safety performance. Residents bring this local knowledge that is often lacking from numerical data. This Road Safety Strategy is set to be shared with the community as part of planned community engagement on all of Move SJ Phase 3. The City could use the bottlenecks, obstacles, and other priorities identified as a starting point when determining where to focus initial efforts towards improving road safety. Example questions to ask could include: Rank the following issues based on your priority, with 1 as the highest priority: Safety: do you feel safe and comfortable when using the roadway, either walking or driving? Congestion: are you constantly in stop -and -go traffic, or taking longer than expected to arrive at your destination? • Parking: are you satisfied with when and where public parking is allowed, and whether parking is free or paid? • Active transportation: do you feel safe and comfortable on sidewalks and bike lanes, are they present where you need/want them? Pavement conditions: are the roads in good condition, or are there locations where ride comfort or drainage are problematic? Do you believe that collisions are an acceptable outcome and risk of using the roadway? From the list below, what do you think are the 3 most pressing road safety issues that need to be addressed in Saint John? • Speeding in residential areas • Speeding on major roads • Distracted driving • Impaired driving • Aggressive driving October 30, 2020 558 22 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John • Traffic volumes • Pedestrian safety • Cyclist safety • Collisions with wildlife • Weather -related collisions • Other (please elaborate) An interactive map is an excellent tool that allows residents to place a "pin" on a map and note specific locations and concerns. Example questions for which residents could select locations on a map include: Where would pedestrian safety most benefit from a new controlled crossing? Is there a location where speeding is prevalent? - Do you know of a location where there is a significant safety concern? Identify both the location and the concern. These questions can provide insights into where the community feels there are important safety concerns. For example, key bottlenecks, obstacles, and other priorities identified in previous strategies include: • Long walking distances associated with the physical size of the City; • Lack of available pedestrian crossing opportunities along key corridors (e.g., Rothesay Avenue, Bayside Drive, McAllister Drive, Main Street, and Fairville Boulevard); • Pedestrian and cycling facilities along Reversing Falls Bridge should " be physically separated from motorized traffic; A multi -use pathway should be installed on one side of the Courtenay Bay Causeway; • Reduce the number of lanes on the Main Street Viaduct from six to four, and install a multi -use trail; and • Many signalized intersections do not provide pedestrian crossings on all legs. Focusing improvements in these areas is a good way to garner public support and maintain momentum while continuing to gather data. Greater emphasis should be placed on identified issues that align with the Municipal Plan, as well as issues that provide safety benefit to vulnerable road users. As soon as data is available, it should be used to validate, quantify, and prioritize the identified problem areas, as well as add additional locations. October 30, 2020 559 23 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Strategy 6: Conduct a Preliminary Network Screening Study As soon as the data permits, the City should undertake a network screening study to conclusively identify locations for further investigation and potential treatment. The study will also provide data to either support or contradict the potential locations previously selected (i.e., in Strategy 5). The available data for the first network screening study will likely only consist of a few years of data. Initial Screening Therefore, it is suggested to conduct a two -stage network screening process, an initial screening, and Analyze all available data a secondary screening. The initial screening would consider all available' collision data, as opposed to focusing on a subset of the data, such as signalized intersections, or collisions that resulted in serious injury or fatality Secondary Screening only. The output of the initial screening will be a list Refine and prioritize the of locations with high concentrations of collisions, list of locations using but will likely be too big to be actionable. evaluation criteria The secondary screening further refines the list of locations. The criteria used to further refine the list should be reflective of the stated goals and objectives of the road safety plan. For example, if one of the goals is to reduce the number of pedestrian collisions in the City, then the number of pedestrian collisions should be one of the evaluation criteria. Other potential evaluation criteria include: ,f"% �W • Collision Severity Index; • Number of collisions involving vulnerable road users; • Absolute number of collisions; Collision rate; • Traffic volumes; and • Planned modifications. The result of the secondary screening is a prioritized list of the 10-20 collision - prone locations that will be the focus of safety improvements. Once the re - prioritized short-list of intersections is compiled, potential short and long term recommendations should be identified for each site. Comprehensive network screening studies should be completed on a regular base (e.g. every 5 years) to ensure that infrastructure investments are being allocated to locations with the highest potential for improvement. October 30, 2020 560 24 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Strategy 7: Prioritize Common Emphasis Areas Road safety strategies are typically organized by emphasis areas, each with their own set of strategies and countermeasures. As noted above, emphasis areas are often selected through a comprehensive data analysis, but they are also influenced by the agencies stated goals, objectives, and priorities. There are also a few emphasis areas that are common between agencies that have developed road safety strategies, and are, in part, a result of the road safety culture and roadway design standards that are similar among Canadian agencies. These common emphasis areas (listed below) are likely applicable to the City of Saint John, and are an excellent means of immediately taking action prioritizing resources. As data becomes available, these emphasis areas can be refined and expanded upon to better suit the local context. The City of Saint John Transportation Strategic Plan includes a number of distinct strategies that overlap and influence one another. Some of the independent strategies, such as the Pedestrian Strategy, would often be included as a recommendation within a Road Safety Strategy as they are a key vulnerable road user. The strategies proposed below are intended to complement and integrate with the strategies proposed in these parallel reports. The recommended emphasis areas, along with a brief description and list of potential countermeasures, is outlined below. Emphasis Area 1: Vulnerable Road Users Vulnerable road users include pedestrians, cyclists, school children, and older adults. While the total number of collisions involving vulnerable road users is typically relatively low, the consequences are severe with a high likelihood of the collision resulting in serious injury or death. Potential countermeasures are outlined below. Strategy I Description Install pedestrian crossings Install sidewalks Suggested locations are where there are long distances between controlled crossings. Pedestrian crossings should include the addition of pavement markings, zebra striping, and amber beacons. Prioritize areas that have no sidewalks, and areas that are `missing links' within the overall sidewalk network. It is recommended to coordinate with road reconstruction programs. October 30, 2020 561 25 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Strategy Reduce crossing distances Pavement marking improvements Description On local and collector roads, curb extensions can be installed to reduce crossing distances while also reducing driver operating speed and improving the visibility of pedestrians. On arterial roads, reduced curb radii can reduce crossing distances while also slowing down drivers making a right -turn. Improvements include re -painting stop bars and crosswalk markings that are worn and adding improvements, such as zebra stripping to crosswalks, to improve the visibility of pedestrians. Signalized intersections along arterials should be prioritized, but all crossings can benefit from enhanced pavement markings. "IL, Emphasis Area 2: Aggressive & Distracted Drivinq The line between aggressive driving and distracted driving is being blurred as many of the dangerous behaviours, including speeding, driving too fast for the current conditions, following too closely, and failing to yield the right-of-way, overlap. Potential countermeasures are outlined below. Strategy Education campaigns Description Selfish roadway culture is on the rise with drivers believing that they have the right, and not the privilege, to drive. Education campaigns to remind users of the dangers of the road, and what it means to be a `good driver' can be effective in realizing a culture change that can reduce unsafe behaviour. October 30, 2020 562 26 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Strategy Description Reduced curb radii Smaller curb radii encourage drivers to reduce the speed at which they take the corner, which improves driver reaction time and reduces the collision severity, in the event a collision occurs. Smaller curb radii also reduces pedestrian crossing distance, limiting the exposure of these vulnerable road users. Targeted enforcement Police enforcement will focus on aggressive and distracted driving. Proactive deployment of traffic calming measures Emphasis Area 3: Speeding The City's existing Traffic Calming Policy includes a number of strategies that target aggressive & distracted driving, such as speed humps, street narrowing, and raised crosswalk. Proactive deployment of these geometric changes can prompt drivers to pay closer attention to their task at hand while encouraging aggressive drivers to reduce their speeds. i Vehicle speed has a direct impact on the extent of injury, especially when vulnerable road users are involved. Higher speeds carry a higher risk of serious injury or fatality occurring by reducing a drivers' field of vision, reducing driver reaction time, increasing vehicle stopping distance, and increasing the amount of force inflicted on the vulnerable road user at impact. Reducing operating speeds is a strategy that could be included as part of the other emphasis areas (i.e., Vulnerable Road Users and Aggressive & Distracted Driving). However, speed reductions can have such a significant impact on the risk of serious injury or fatality that is included as its own emphasis area, with its own set of associated strategies. Potential countermeasures are outlined below. October 30, 2020 563 27 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John M Strategy Reduce speed limits Speed reader signs (radar speed displays) Description Reducing operating speeds (lower speed limits) allows for improved driver reaction time and larger stopping distances, reducing both the likelihood a collision will occur, as well as the severity if one does occur. Requires enforcement support. Trailers that display driver speeds in comparison with the posted speed can influence driver behaviour by making them aware of when, and by how much, they are exceeding the speed limit. Reduce lane widths There is a direct correlation between lane widths and vehicle speeds. Lane widths should be designed to encourage the desired operating speed. The City of Toronto has developed a Lane Widths Guideline (described further in this report), which recommends a width of 3.0- 3.3m for urban streets. Targeted enforcement Police enforcement will focus on locations with known excessive speeding. Additional strategies for addressing speeding -related fatalities are provided in NCHRP Report 500 Volume 23: A Guide for Reducing Speeding -Related Crashes. The document provides an overview of a multi -pronged approach that focuses on the 3 E's: engineering, education, and enforcement. The strategies recommended as part of the "Speeding" emphasis area are ones that other municipalities are adopting and can typically be implemented within a relatively short timeframe. It is recommended to consult the NCHRP Report for additional context, background information, and targeted strategies. Strategy 8: Measure Success Data are only useful if you listen to what they tell you. Realistic and attainable goals, and key performance indicators (KPIs), are vital in measuring the success of any plan. Goals should be carefully selected to ensure that they convey the intention of the strategy, and that they can be evaluated with the available data. For example, in the short-term, goals should be to reduce the number of serious collisions, or to begin a downward trend, as opposed to completely eliminating them. October 30, 2020 564 28 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John KPIs are variables that can translate goals into measurable metrics. They can quantify how well implemented strategies are working, and can be used to identify road safety trends. KPIs should be evaluated on a regular basis, and be communicated in a way that is easy for all to understand. Potential KPIs include: • Number of streets with reduced speed limits; • Number of kilometres of new sidewalks; • Number of kilometres of new cycling infrastructure; • Number of implemented zones (e.g. school safety zone or community safety zone); • Number of implemented geometric modifications; • Percent change in total number of injury or fatal collisions; • Speed limit compliance rates; • Pedestrian and cyclist volumes; • Distance between controlled pedestrian crossings, • Number of collisions with alcohol or drugs involved; • Social cost of collisions; and • Emergency response time Outcomes that one department may consider a success, another may consider to be a failure. For example, prohibiting a right turn on red improves intersection safety by eliminating the conflict between some movements, however it can also result in additional delays and queuing for right -turn and through movements. Leadership and coordination are required to set clear priorities for the organization, and to provide alignment across all departments to ensure the collective group is working towards a united goal of safety first. KPIs for departments that are affected by safety initiatives should be re-evaluated to better align with the overall safety objectives. 4.3 Build Safer Streets Waiting for collisions to occur before taking action is a costly approach, and does not account for the near misses, perceived safety, or underrepresentation in the data from people avoiding the area. Cities should be proactive in prioritizing road safety in policies and guidelines, and building safety best practices into street design. Safe modal choice leads to modal shift, which leads to improved public health and placemaking for residents, as well as safer roads. Strategy 9: Create and Update Design Guidelines to Prioritize Safety It is easier, and more cost effective, to incorporate safety into new projects rather than to mitigate the poor safety performance of flawed designs. This is October 30, 2020 565 29 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John especially true in dense urban centres, which are also where the highest concentration of vulnerable road users tend to be present. Many streets and sidewalks within the City of Saint John have reached the end of their structural life, and are in need of rehabilitation, or reconstruction. The City should update, create, or reference policies and guidelines that require all redesigns to prioritize road user safety, especially for vulnerable road users. Potential updates to design guidance are summarized in the table below, with additional details following. Exhibit 4-3: Potential Design Guideline Updates Street Design >> Defining street types - I >> City of Toronto establishes a hierarchy of Complete Streets use and ensure a balance Guidelines between users >> Municipal Plan Embed safety in a Policy TM-4 standardized & systemic'' manner 2 1 Transportation � >> Include assessing impacts to " >> City of Windsor Impact Study road safety as a requirement TIS Guidelines kh for development approval >> Municipal Plan Prioritize approvals for Policy TM-4 developments that improve road safety adii > Smaller curb radii requires >> City of Toronto 3 vehicles to slow down when Curb Radii turning the corner Guidelines Pedestrian crossing distances are reduced Pedestrian visibility is increased Design Guideline 1: Street Design Policy TM-4 in the Municipal Plan states that "a street hierarchy should be identified and designed to accommodate traffic within the development and provide connections to adjacent areas"6. The Municipal Plan also defines four street types, by which to classify all streets within the City: local streets, collector streets, arterial streets, and freeways. Defining street types is an excellent 6 MoveSJ Municipal Plan October 30, 2020 566 30 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John strategy for establishing a hierarchy of use, ensuring a balance between users, and embedding safety in a standardized and systemic manner. The City of Toronto's Complete Streets Guidelines provides a comprehensive overview of how to define street types, and use them to guide the development of a Complete Network. It is important to understand that not every street will, or should, serve all users. Rather, different streets should prioritize different uses, and be connected such that every user can navigate and use the transportation system to meet their needs and objectives (i.e., a Complete Network). The City of Saint John currently has a Traffic Calming Policy, which outlines an implementation plan by which vehicular speed can be reduced on local streets. This is an example of taking a street type (local streets), defining it to prioritize safety over operational speed, and providing guidance and direction on how to achieve this goal. Target objectives for the other corridor types should be identified, and similar implementation processes, and toolboxes of mitigation measures, should be developed for speed management on those corridors. It is important that the standards and guidelines developed are flexible, and that they allow for design deviations and innovations. Emphasis should be placed more on the desired outcomes, and less on the exact technical specifications. Design Guideline 2: Transportation Impact Study The City of Saint John requires developers to undertake a transportation impact study to assess the impacts that a proposed development will have on the surrounding transportation network. Currently, the impact to vehicular operations and capacity is a key determinant on whether a project gets approved, but improvements to vehicular operations typically come at the expense of road user safety. The City should update their guidelines to include assessing impacts to road safety as a requirement, and prioritize approvals for developments that improve road safety and encourage a modal shift (e.g., assessing multi -modal level of service). Policy TM-4 of the Municipal Plan contains a number of related objectives, and the Pedestrian Strategy contains a similar recommendation; and Design Guideline 3: Curb Radii Guidelines Smaller curb radii requires vehicles to slow down when turning the corner, reduces pedestrian crossing distances, and increases pedestrian visibility and storage area, all of which reduces the potential for, and resulting impact of, collisions. The City of Toronto developed a curb radii guideline in 2017 to provide guidance on determining the appropriate size of curb radii at intersection corners. The City of Saint John should consider creating an adapted version of their own, or using the City of Toronto's to improve road user safety at intersections. October 30, 2020 567 31 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 5 Implementation Plan This section takes the strategies proposed in Section 4 and outlines a proposed timeline for action. This implementation plan will setup the framework for the City to spearhead a culture change and install some quick win countermeasures that garner positive community support, while providing opportunities for data - driven refinement and re -prioritization as more information becomes available. Years 1 & 2 • Establish a road safety working group that includes committed and empowered representatives from various City departments, elected officials, law enforcement, public health, etc.; • Commit to a definitive vision, such as "To eliminate road fatalities and serious injuries in Saint John," "To reduce the rate of collisions that result in injury," or "To build a road safety culture that promotes safe streets and behaviours;" • Have senior leadership adopt the stated vision and set performance targets for each department that promote a common interest in improving road user safety and encourage cooperation; • Continue to work with the Police Force and the Province to develop a comprehensive collision dataset and data management and analysis tools; • Set specific near -term goals and objectives based on public feedback and council direction; and Establish key performance indicators by which to measure success in • a manner that aligns with the stated vision. Year 3&4 NN • Undertake a design standards review and update related policies and standards to ensure that substantive safety is reflected in the design direction provided by the City; Continue to educate the public about ongoing safety initiatives, including how to properly identify and use transportation facilities and traffic controls; and Select countermeasures from the identified emphasis areas and strategies to implement. Examples include: targeted enforcement of aggressive and distracted driving, install speed reader signs, install sidewalks, and improve pavement markings, implement leading pedestrian intervals, or conduct road safety audits. Use input from public engagement, City planning processes, capital projects lists, October 30, 2020 568 32 IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John and the existing Police database to identify preliminary locations for installation. Year 5 • Conduct a Network Screening Study; • Based on the Network Screening Study, create a list of 10-20 collision -prone locations that will be the focus of safety improvements; • Update and refine the stated objectives based on the network screening results; and • Refine and expand on the identified emphasis areas and countermeasures based on the network screening results. Air 'Ak A summary of the emphasis areas and associated countermeasures are presented in Exhibit 5-1, and the 5 year implementation plan is illustrated in Exhibit 5-2. - Exhibit 5-1: Emphasis Areas & Countermeasures Install pedestrian » Education crossings campaigns Install sidewalks » Reduced curb radii Reduce crossing » Targeted distances enforcement Make pavement » Proactive marking deployment of traffic improvements calming measures Reduce speed limits Speed reader signs Reduce lane widths Targeted enforcement October 30, 2020 569 33 J Establish a road safety working group J Commit to a definitive vision J Have senior leadership adopt the stated vision & set performance targets J Continue to build dataset J Set specific near -term goals & objectives J Establish key performance indicators J Undertake a design standards review J Update related policies & standards J Continue to educate the public J Select countermeasures to implement 1411 J Conduct a Network Screening Study J Create a short-list of prioritized locations based on the Network Screening Study J Update & refine the stated objectives J Refine & expand on the emphasis areas & countermeasures IBI GROUP SECOND DRAFT REPORT ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John The implementation plan illustrated above is a suggestion that allows for the momentum to be sustained, while allowing for required timelines for council approval and resource allocation. The plan should be considered a moving target that gets evaluated and updated as needed. Beyond Year 5, comprehensive network screening studies should be completed on a regular basis (e.g. every 5 years) to ensure that infrastructure investments are being allocated to locations with the highest potential for improvement, and that new technologies and countermeasures are incorporated as appropriate. It is important to bear in mind that the benefits of implemented strategies to improve road safety may not be reflected in the data for a number of years. Therefore, it is important to allow for a sufficient amount of time to pass before removing a countermeasure or moving on to a new emphasis area. Similarly, evaluating the effectiveness of implemented countermeasures and related policies is critical to developing a safe road system and sustaining progress towards the road safety vision. October 30, 2020 571 35 Final Report MoveSJ Roundabout Strategy City of Saint John Transportation Strategic Plan Prepared for City of Saint John by Crandall Engineering �r�a a� In association with IBI Group �..- July 16, 2020 SAINT JOHN N7�� MoveSJ Roundabout Strategy Final Report Prepared for: City of Saint John SAINT JOHN Prepared by: Jill DeMerchant, P.Eng. Adriana Teran, P. Eng. Peter Allaby, P.Eng. Vcrandall Crandall, a Division of Englobe Corp. 564 Prospect Street Fredericton, NB E3B 9M3 July 16, 2020 Project No. 1900497 �` 6654 Peter E. Allaby 61FICI CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Table of Contents 1 Introduction...............................................................................................3 1.1 Background.......................................................................................3 2 Benefits of Roundabouts..........................................................................3 2.1 General Benefits of Roundabouts.....................................................3 Safety............................................................................................... 3 Operation.......................................................................................... 5 Environment...................................................................................... 5 Economic.......................................................................................... 5 Active Transportation........................................................................ 5 Traffic Calming Circles Verse Roundabouts.....................................5 3 Candidate Locations for Roundabouts...................................................6 3.1 Overview........................................................................................... 6 3.2 General Roundabout Design Elements..........................................10 3.3 Operational Evaluation of Candidate Roundabouts ........................10 Rothesay Road (Route 100) at Ashburn Road...............................11 Sandy Point Road at Foster Thurston Drive...................................13 Manawagonish Road at Gault Road...............................................14 Millidge Avenue at Somerset Street................................................15 Simms Corner: Main Street West at Lancaster Avenue..................16 4 Implementation........................................................................................ 20 Appendix A Appendix B July 16, 2020 574 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Appendix C List of Exhibits Exhibit 2.1: Conflict Point Comparison between Roundabouts and Traditional Intersections............................................................... 4 Exhibit 3.1: Study Area Intersection Characteristics ................................... 7 Exhibit 3.2: Level of Service Criteria for Roundabouts .............................. 11 Exhibit 3.3: Rothesay Road/Ashburn Road Single Lane Roundabout ...... 13 Exhibit 3.4: Sandy Point Road/Foster Thurston Drive Single Lane Roundabout............................................................................... 14 Exhibit 3.5: Manawagonish Road/Gault Road Single Lane Roundabout.. 15 Exhibit 3.6: Millidge Ave/Somerset St Roundabout with Single Lane Exits........................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 3.7: Simms Corner Roundabout Multi -Lane Roundabout Concept 18 Exhibit 3.8: Terrain Report Roundabout Commentary on Simms Corner. 19 July 16, 2020 575 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 1 Introduction 1.1 Background A Roundabout Strategy was prepared as part of MoveSJ's Comprehensive System Improvement Plan and to take a more strategic and proactive approach to introducing roundabouts in the City. The Roundabout Strategy includes a review of the benefits of modern roundabouts, identification of candidate locations for roundabouts in Saint John, evaluation of roundabout feasibility at these candidate locations, and a recommended prioritization plan. Saint John currently has no modern roundabouts installed on its transportation network. On at least four occasions in the last decade (at Simms Corner, at Retail/Ashburn Lake/Rothesay Ave, at Somerset/Churchill, and at Red Head/Grandview) the City explored installing a roundabout when the project was being considered for reconstruction. In each case the roundabout option did not proceed for one reason or another. Roundabout design considerations have progressed in the last decade since most of these locations were last assessed. This Roundabout Strategy uses updated design guidelines and uses the approach of seeking out good candidates for modern roundabouts in a prioritized plan as opposed to only considering designs concepts ad hoc when an intersection is due for reconstruction. The intent of this strategy is to allow the City to start planning for installation of roundabouts to take advantage of their benefits to the community. 2 Benefits of Roundabouts 2.1 General Benefits of Roundabouts Roundabouts provide several benefits over conventional intersections. This type of intersection provides motorists with a safer environment, while also offering operational, environmental and economic benefits. The general benefits of roundabouts are outlined and discussed below. Safety Roundabouts offer a safer environment for motorists by reducing the frequency and severity of collisions. When compared to stop -controlled and signalized intersections, roundabouts have significantly fewer conflict points. This is because vehicles travel in the same direction, therefore eliminating right-angle and left -turn conflicts. As illustrated in Exhibit 2.1, single lane roundabouts have eight vehicle conflict points compared to the 32 vehicle conflict points of a typical 4-way intersection. July 16, 2020 576 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 2.1: Conflict Point Comparison between Roundabouts and Traditional Intersections Vahkie Conflict Paint Comparison • Divergi 4 Merging `_7 Crossing Sourrcn N(',HPP Report [72 Eyhor r Additionally, the geometric characteristics of roundabouts promote reduced operating speeds, regardless of time of day or level of congestion. Reductions in entering and circulating speeds allow for improved reaction times for users and lowers the frequency and severity of collisions. Lowered vehicle speed is also beneficial to other road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. Roundabouts also provide deflection for entering vehicles, which reduces the angle of impact during collisions. This results in significant reductions of serious right-angle and head-on collisions. Collision modification factors (CMFs) from the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual provide a measure of the safety effectiveness of a particular design treatment or element. The CMF's for converting to roundabouts from stop -controlled and signalized intersections are as follows: CMF for Converting Stop -Controlled to Single Lane Roundabout = 0.29 (71 % reduction) CMF for Converting Signalized to Roundabout = 0.52 (48% reduction). The above values indicate that single lane roundabouts provide superior safety performance compared to both stop controlled and signalized treatments, resulting in 48%-71 % fewer collisions on average. Additionally, there is a further reduction in the frequency of severe collisions given that roundabouts effectively eliminate head-on and right-angle crashes and reduce traffic speeds. July 16, 2020 577 4 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Operation The low operating speeds at roundabouts result in improved gap acceptance for drivers. This means that a driver entering a roundabout does not require as large of a gap in circulating traffic to enter because the circulating traffic is not moving as fast. Additionally, unlike other types of intersections, roundabouts do not require vehicles to stop unnecessarily when no other vehicles are present. When queues are present, the traffic within these queues typically continues to move, which is usually more bearable for drivers than a stopped queue. Environment Roundabouts reduce fuel consumption and emissions by reducing delays and idling times for vehicles. These intersections allow traffic to travel without having to come to unnecessary stops, thus reducing accelerations and decelerations that lead to higher fuel consumption. Additionally, roundabouts are more sustainable than traffic signals as they consume less energy and require minimal maintenance. Economic Although upfront costs of roundabouts can be greater than those of traditional intersections, this can be outweighed by long-term cost savings benefits. Roundabouts require minimal maintenance, reduce travel times and reduce collision frequencies and severities, all of which have associated economic and societal benefits. By reducing maintenance requirements, life -cycle costs associated with roundabouts are often less than those associated with conventional intersections. Active Transportation Modern roundabout infrastructure designs of vehicle lanes and pedestrian paths improve pedestrian safety when compared to standard intersection designs. Due to their large size they also provide the same if not more capacity for pedestrians than at a standard intersection. Roundabouts are designed to reduce vehicle -pedestrian conflicts and better restrict wrong -way movements by vehicles, a contributor to pedestrian -vehicle accidents. Generally, pedestrian movements are improved by lower vehicle speeds, shorter crossing distances, and greater visibility for both vehicles and pedestrians. Modern roundabouts have two approaches to cyclist movements, cyclists entering the roundabout like a vehicle, and cyclists exiting the roundabout to the cyclist or pedestrian realm to cross. Vehicles give way to the cyclists in either approach and improved visibility justifies this. Modern roundabouts heighten the attention of drivers who must stay even more vigilant to make a maneuver, to the benefit of cyclists and pedestrians. Traffic Calming Circles Verse Roundabouts Roundabouts are typically applied on collector and arterial streets to address traffic safety and capacity. Roundabouts normally have a diameter of 35m to July 16, 2020 578 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 60m. Traffic calming circles are used to reduce speeds and/or add aesthetics on local streets with low traffic volumes and lower speed limits, typically in residential settings. The intersection diameter varies between 15-30 m and may or may not include a raised curb. Saint John currently has one traffic calming circle with a raised curb at Cedar Wood Drive and Birchdale Crescent. The traffic circle was installed in 2019 to reduce speeds through the Stanley Gardens neighborhood. 3 Candidate Locations for Roundabouts 3.1 Overview Six candidate locations for a roundabout conversion were identified based on knowledge of the City's transportation network and discussions with City staff. For jurisdictions like Saint John that currently have no modern roundabouts, it is preferred to introduce single lane roundabouts for driver education and public acceptance prior to more complex multi -lane roundabouts. For this reason, emphasis was placed on identifying candidate locations where a single lane roundabout would provide adequate capacity and where minimal property impacts would be required. The six candidate intersections are listed as follows and shown in Exhibit 3.1: Ashburn Rd/Rothesay Rd; 2. Woodward Avenue/Boars Head Rd; 3. Manawagonish Rd/Gault Rd; 4. Main St West/Lancaster Ave (Simms Corner); 5. Sandy Point Rd/Foster Thurston Rd 6. Millidge Ave/Somerset St. The following activities were undertaken as part of the feasibility assessment of candidate locations: Background data were reviewed, including available traffic data, as provided in Appendix A; Potential roundabout options including various entry, exit, and circulating lane configurations were modelled using Junctions 9 software. The functional requirements needed to achieve an acceptable level of service for both the AM and PM peak periods were determined for each roundabout; Concept plan drawings were created for the candidate intersections to illustrate the geometric requirements that were identified for each roundabout; July 16, 2020 579 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John A microsimulation model was completed using Vissim 8 software to show how traffic would flow at complex roundabouts (where traffic volumes were available); and The methodology, analysis results, and recommendations of this traffic study were summarized in this report. Geometric and traffic control characteristics of the 6 candidate roundabout intersections are described in Exhibit 3.1. Exhibit 3.1: Study Area Intersection Characteristics �- .�Configuration Ashburn Road/Rothesay Road This is a 3-legged intersection with the stop -control on the minor street, Ashburn Road (eastbound = - approach). Rothesay Road has one lane in each direction on the northbound and southbound approaches. One shared left/right is provided on the eastbound approach on Ashburn Road. Bike lanes are located on either side of Rothesay Road and sharrows on Ashburn Road. These bike facilities are part of the Great TransCanada Trail. A private driveway is provided on the westbound approach. The speed limit on all approaches is 60 km/h. Woodward Avenue/Boars Head Road /Ragged Point Road This intersection consists of 4 legs and is all -way stop -controlled. Two legs have skewed approach angles. All approaches have one shared left/through/right lane. School zones are present on both Ragged Point Road and Woodward Avenue. — The speed limit on all approaches is 50 km/h. July 16, 2020 580 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Manawagonish Road/Gault Road/Ocean r� Westway/Route 7 Ramp 17 The intersection consists of 4 legs that are skewed at inconsistent angles and a centre island that functions as a quasi -traffic circle. This intersection - } contains entrances/exits from Route 7 ramps (north), Gault Road (east), Manawagonish Road '�►► (south), and Ocean Westway (west). Traffic control varies on each approach and some movements yield within the circle to approaching traffic. The _ speed limit on the Gault Road approaches is 50 r km/h while the speed limit on the Manawagonish Road, Ocean Westway and Route 7 Ramp approaches is 60 km/h. Main Street/ Lancaster Avenue/ Fairville Boulevard/ Bridge Road (Simms Corner) _ This is a 4-legged intersection with a unique geometric and traffic control configuration. A shared left/through lane and right turn lane are provided on ri Fairville Boulevard (northbound) which is stop- eft _r_— controlled and one-way only. A dedicated left turn lane and through lane are provided on Main Street `" W (eastbound) which are free flowing. Lancaster - " •' "' Avenue (westbound) has a stop -controlled through lane and a channelized right turn lane. Bridge Road (southbound) is free flowing with a left turn lane. Railroad tracks cross Main Street W and Fairville Boulevard near the intersection. The speed limit on all approaches is 50 km/h. This intersection serves a high volume of traffic including truck traffic. If the intersection were reconfigured and Fairville Boulevard made 2-way, there would be considerable shift in traffic patterns, particularly for southbound truck traffic destined for the highway. July 16, 2020 581 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John t Road/FosterThurston Drive 7is egged intersection with the stop -control on the minor street, Sandy Point Road (eastbound). Single lane approaches are provided in all directions. A driveway forms the westbound approach. The speed limit on the Foster Thurston Drive approaches is 60 km/h and the speed limit on the Sandy Point Road approach is 50 km/h. Given; , the intersection is on a curve, sight distance is z.- limited. The City has reviewed options to improveev�' this intersection in the past, including the possibility of a roundabout. Millidge Avenue/Somerset Street 0.:� - This intersection has 3 legs with stop control on Millidge Ave (northbound), the minor street approach. Single lane approaches are provided in all directions. Millidge Ave northbound provides one left turn lane and a channelized right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one shared through/right lane, and Somerset St (eastbound) approach provides one through lane, and a U-turn lane. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of Millidge Ave (southbound) and Somerset St as part of the Campus -Harbour Trail which connects the University/Hospital area with uptown Saint John. Millidge Ave (southbound) and Somerset St have posted speed limits of 60 km/h, while Millidge Ave northbound has a 50 km/h speed limit. Development opportunities are proposed around the intersection that will require connection to the ultimate design. After review of the 6 potential roundabout locations, 5 were identified as priority locations for further analysis. These 5 priority locations are: • Ashburn Road/Rothesay Road; • Manawagonish Road/Gault Road; • Sandy Point Road/Foster Thurston Road; • Main Street W/Lancaster Avenue (Simm's Corner); and • Millidge Avenue/Somerset Street. Boars Head Road/Woodward Avenue intersection has lower priority and no apparent operational issues. Boars Head Road at Woodward Avenue July 16, 2020 582 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John intersection may still benefit from a single lane roundabout to improve the approach alignments and safety conditions for pedestrians coming from the two schools. As a part of this Strategy Report, however, it was not carried forward for analysis. 3.2 General Roundabout Design Elements The Transportation Association of Canada JAC) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) roundabout guidelines and the UK Geometric Design Guide for Roundabouts were referenced for each roundabout design. The following is a list of general design elements that were applied for each roundabout: • Diameter — An inscribed circle diameter between 35 and 50 m was used for each roundabout. • Central Island — A raised central island with a 3 m wide mountable truck apron was used. • Curbing — Curbing was used on the approaches and for the circulatory roadway. • Splitter Islands — Splitter islands were used at each roundabout approach to delineate the paths of entering and exiting traffic. • Entry deflection — Entry speeds were reduced by providing entry deflection at all approaches, with the intent of minimizing the fastest path to less than 45 km/h at each approach. • The design vehicle is a WB-20 (tractor with a 53-foot tractor trailer). Site conditions that are typically considered favourable to the installation of a roundabout include: • Reasonably balanced traffic volumes on all approaches. In the case of multi -lane roundabouts, it is beneficial to have even traffic distribution amongst each lane; • Favourable approach grades and good sight distance; • Opportunities for gateway treatments to indicate a change in roadway environment (rural to suburban) or change in operating characteristics (change in speeds); • Adequate right-of-way; • Minimal impacts to driveways or land access. 3.3 Operational Evaluation of Candidate Roundabouts The candidate roundabouts were evaluated in terms of the site conditions, operational performance, and general assessment of impacts. Concept drawings were prepared for each intersection and are provided in Appendix B. July 16, 2020 583 10 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Various entry, exit, and circulating lane configurations were modelled using Junctions 9 software or Vissim 8 at each of the potential roundabout locations. The roundabout LOS was determined based on intersection delay criteria for roundabouts as listed in Exhibit 3.2. The objective of the modelling exercise was to determine the functional requirements for each roundabout in order to achieve an acceptable LOS during both the AM and PM peak periods. The LOS analyses were completed for the existing and 20% future traffic growth scenarios. Exhibit 3.2: Level of Service Criteria for Roundabouts • �- .- A Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop less than 10.0 (Excellent) B Higher delay; more vehicles stop between 10.0 and 15.0 (Very Good) Higher level of congestion; number of vehicles C stopping is significant, although many still pass between 15.0 and 25.0 through intersection without stopping (Good) Congestion becomes noticeable; vehicles must p sometimes wait through more than one red light; between 25.0 and 35.0 many vehicles stop (Satisfactory) Vehicles must often wait through more than one E red light; considered by many agencies to be between 35.0 and 50.0 the limit of acceptable delay This level is considered to be unacceptable to F most drivers; occurs when arrival flow rates greater than 50.0 exceed the capacity of the intersection (Unacceptable) Rothesay Road (Route 100) at Ashburn Road Rothesay Rd (Route 100) at Ashburn Rd is a 3-legged intersection with a stop - control on the minor street, Ashburn Rd. The intersection is on a flat grade with good sight distance toward the north. In the southbound direction, sight distance is slightly obscured by trees and other landscape elements. Utility poles are located along the east side of Rothesay Road that may require relocation. Bike lanes are located on either side of Rothesay Rd and Ashburn Rd provides shared bike lanes. This intersection and bike facilities are considered part of the Great TransCanada Trail. The bike facilities access to the roundabout will require consideration during the detailed design phase. Access driveways are located within 16m of the intersection on both roads. The eastbound approach July 16, 2020 584 11 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John currently experiences high delays during peak hours, particularly in the afternoon period after shifts at the hospital end. Rothesay Rd is a provincially designated roadway (Route 100) and further discussion with NBDTI would be required for future upgrades. The roundabout capacity analysis results for a 35 m diameter single -lane roundabout at this location (per concept drawing below and in Appendix B) are summarized as follows: Q (Veh) I Q95 (Veh) I Delay (s) I V/C I LOS I In` del I Int LOS I Q (Veh) Q95 (Veh) I Delay (s) I V/C I LOS Int r Del I Int LOS 2- Rothesay North 1 3.2 14.1 13.10 E!18� 77 B 0.3 1.1 3.86 0.2i A 3-Ashburn 0.3 1.2 5.71 22 A 10.50 B 1.9 3.5 9.43 0.66 A 7.43 A 4 - Rothesa►► South 0.2 0.5 3.60 A 1 0.9 1 2.0 1 6.35 0.49 A 2- Rothesay North I 1a.3 I 55:8 1 36.88 10.931 E 1 1 0.3 1.4 4.13 0.25 A 3-Ashburn 0.4 1.6 7.02 0.30 A 27.26 4.0 20.0 1 16.84 1 0.81 C 11.73 B 4 - Rothesay South 1 0.3 1 1.2 1 3.78 10.211 A 1 1.5 1 1.7 1 8.28 0.60 A In the AM Peak, the heaviest volume is recorded at the southbound through movement, and in the PM Peak, the heaviest volume is recorded at the eastbound right movement. The results indicate that with 20% future traffic growth the southbound approach (north leg) on Rothesay Rd would operate near capacity at a LOS E. Based on previous experience the results of Junctions 9 tend to be conservative and therefore the actual delay is expected to be lower than shown. A single lane roundabout is appropriate at this location. All capacity analysis reports can be found in Appendix C. Further refinements to determine bike facility access to the roundabout should be considered during detailed design. July 16, 2020 585 12 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 3.3: Rothesay Road/Ashburn Road Single Lane Roundabout Sandy Point Road at Foster Thurston Drive Sandy Point Road at Foster Thurston Drive is a 3-legged intersection with a stop -control on the Sandy Point Road eastbound approach. Foster Thurston Drive slopes towards the south and sight distance is obscured by adjacent slopes and tree lines. A utility pole is located in the northwest corner of the intersection. An unmarked access roadway intersects on the east side of the intersection and leads to trail parking. The roundabout capacity analysis results for a 35 m diameter single -lane roundabout at this location (per concept drawing below and in Appendix B) are summarized as follows: Q (Veh) Q95 (Veh) Delay (s) VJC LOS In{ }el Int LOS I Q (Veh) Q95 (Veh) delay (s) V/C LOS In{ )el Int LOS 2 - Foster Thurston 1 2.4 1 7.0 1 10.42 10.711 B 0.2 1.0 3.79 0.2.0 A 3 - Sandy Point West 0.2 0.5 5.72 0.13 A 9.11 A 1 0.0 1 0.5 1 3.39 1 0.05 A 6.08 A 4 - Sandy Point South 1 0.1 1 0.5 1 3.47 10.111 A 1 1.4 1 1.6 1 7.06 10.581 A 2 - Foster Thurston 1 5.2 1 27,1 1 19.88 10.851 C 1 0.3 1.4 4.02 0.24 A 3 - Sandy Point West 0.2 0.1, 6.95 0.18 A 16.63 it.1 0.5 3.50 10.061 A 1 8.07 A 4 - Sandy Point South 1 0.2 1 0.5 1 3.57 1 C. 141 A 2.2 1 5.8 9.79 10.691 A In the AM Peak, the heaviest volume is recorded at the southbound through movement, and in the PM Peak, the heaviest volume is recorded at the northbound through movement. The results indicate that with 20% future traffic growth all approaches would operate at LOS C or better during peak hours. Therefore, a single -lane roundabout is appropriate at this location. All capacity analysis reports can be found in Appendix C. July 16, 2020 586 13 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 3.4: Sandy Point Road/Foster Thurston Drive Single Lane Roundabout Manawagonish Road at Gault Road The Manawagonish Rd at Gault Rd intersection consists of 4 legs that are skewed at inconsistent angles and a center median that functions as a traffic circle. The intersection is raised on a slight grade but has good sight distance in each direction. Traffic circulates around the central island, but entering traffic control is not consistent. Some entries have stop control while other entries have priority where circulating traffic must yield. Utility poles are located on Ocean Westway, Manawagonish Rd, and within the center median that may require relocation. Development access to the south could be accommodated by a direct access into the south side of the roundabout or just to the east of the Manawagonish Rd splitter island. Additionally, the proximity of the intersection to the provincial highway and the Highway 7 Ramp approach places the intersection within NBDTI's Level 1 controlled access area. Further discussion with NBDTI would be required for future upgrades. The roundabout capacity analysis results for a 40 m diameter single -lane roundabout at this location (per concept drawing below and in Appendix B) are summarized as follows: July 16, 2020 587 14 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John AM Q (Veh) Q95 [Veh] delay [s] VIC LOS Ocean Int Del Westway Int LOS Q [Veh] @ Gault Road2019 PM Q95 [Veh] Delay [s] VIC LOS Int Del Int LOS 1 - Manawagonish Road 0.2 0.5 3.76 0.19 A 3.66 Westway O.S 0.1 A O.Y 0.3 @ Gault •o,r 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 F' 4.54 3.73 3.40 4.04 0.32 0.09 0.06 0.23 A A A A 4.19 A 2 - Gault Road 0.1 0.5 3.49 0.06 A 3 -Route 1 Ramps O.0 0.5 3.37 0.03 A 4 - Ocean Westway 0.2 0.5 3.66 0.15 A Ocean 1 - Manawagonish Road 0.3 1.3 3.96 0.22 A 3.83 0.6 0.1 A 0.1 0.4 2.7 0.5 0.5 1.5 5.12 3.96 3.51 4.40 0.39 0.11 0.07 0.28 A A A A 4.61 A 2 - Gault Road 0.1 0.5 3.60 0.07 A 3 -Route 1 Ramps 0.0 0.5 3.46 0.04 A 4- Ocean Westway 0.2 0.5 3.83 0.18 A Both peak hours show fairly balanced volumes on each approach at the intersection. The LOS results indicate that a single -lane roundabout is appropriate at this location. All capacity analysis reports can be found in Appendix C. Exhibit 3.5: Manawagonish Road/Gault Road Single Lane Roundabout Millidge Avenue at Somerset Street Millidge Ave at Somerset St is a 3-legged intersection with a stop -control on the Millidge Ave northbound approach. The intersection is on a slight grade with acceptable sight distance toward Somerset Street. Utility poles and barricades are located along the east side of Somerset Street that may require relocation. The Campus -Harbour Bike Trail route provides bike lanes on either side of Millidge Ave (southbound) and Somerset Street connecting the University/Hospital area with uptown Saint John. The bike facilities through the roundabout would require consideration during detailed design. Commercial and residential access driveways are located within 20m of the intersection on Millidge Ave and Somerset St. There are three residential driveways with access July 16, 2020 588 15 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John directly into circulatory roadway of the roundabout. Future developments are also proposed at the intersection which would require some consideration. A roundabout at this intersection would address the awkward layout of the existing intersection and roadway approaches. Currently, motorists coming from the south on Millidge Ave (northbound approach) turn east onto Somerset St at a sharp angle making it difficult to see oncoming cyclists in the bike lane. Motorists can also head north onto Millidge Ave and do so by crossing southbound traffic and pausing in the center median before merging into Millidge Ave northbound traffic. Motorists on Somerset Street wanting to turn left onto Millidge Ave southbound, must make a "left" and perform a U-turn towards Millidge Ave. The current configuration is also a challenge for pedestrians and lacks any defined crossing areas. Historically, capacity at the intersection has not been an issue and traffic has been observed to run smoothly however, a roundabout would be rationalized on the basis of safety benefits. No traffic volumes were available for this intersection, therefore a roundabout capacity analysis was not performed at the intersection. If a roundabout were installed, it is expected to have fairly balanced volumes from each approach at the intersection and perform at an acceptable level of service. A 45.0 m diameter, single lane roundabout is appropriate at this location, per concept drawing below and in Appendix B. Exhibit 3.6: Millidge Ave/Somerset St Roundabout with Single Lane Exits i r- �- Vot41 �l Simms Corner: Main Street West at Lancaster Avenue Simms Corner is a 4-legged intersection with the stop control in the westbound (Lancaster Ave) and northbound (Fairville Blvd) directions. The intersection slopes down toward the west but has good sight distance. Large utility poles are located within the intersection that may require relocation. Railroad tracks cross July 16, 2020 589 16 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Main St W and Fairville Blvd near the intersection and access driveways are located within 50m of the intersection on Lancaster Ave and Main St W. Crandall produced a concept design for this intersection utilizing a 50m inscribed circle diameter and multi -lane entries. The full concept drawing is also provided in Appendix B. This design accommodates Long Combination Vehicles for north -south movements through the roundabout (Fairville Blvd to Bridge St). Design vehicle requirements should be confirmed during the detailed design phase as major industrial properties are in close proximity and utilize Simms Corner. Driveways near the intersection should also be considered during detailed design. Turning restrictions may be required at nearby driveways so queueing on the road does not back into the intersection such as westbound vehicles making a left -turn into the fast-food development driveway on the southside of Main St W. Traffic volumes documented in a report on Simms Corner by Terrain (2007) were used for the level of service analysis. More recent counts were available from 2014, but those were noticeably lower than the 2007 counts and were therefore deemed unreliable. Given that growth in the area has been relatively flat, the 2007 volumes were not growthed up to estimate future traffic volumes. It would be recommended to complete a new count and prepare an optimized lane configuration for the roundabout should the project proceed to a preliminary design phase. The multi -lane roundabout was modelled using Vissim 8 to determine what lane configurations would be required to accommodate traffic at this location. It was determined that a 50 m diameter multi -lane roundabout would operate well with two lane entries and exits on each leg, except for Fairville Blvd which would require only one exiting leg. The results for this configuration are summarized below. The proposed roundabout concept is shown in Exhibit 3.7. Further refinements to determine required lane configuration while also respecting truck turning requirements would be completed during preliminary design. The reconfiguration of this intersection is a high priority for the City's implementation plan and driver education should be promoted early on to ensure the success of the roundabout. All capacity analysis reports can be found in Appendix C. AM Peak PM Peak Max Queue (m) Veh Delay (s) LOS Int. Delay (s) Int. LOS Max Queue (m) Veh Delay (s) LOS Int. Delay (s) Int. LOS 2007 Terrain Report Volumes Main St 112.71 13.56 B 14.33 B 92.81 19.73 C 8.27 A Fairville Blvd 184.40 32.98 D 65.85 7.37 A Lancaster Ave 26.93 4.34 A 21.04 3.16 A Bridge Rd 58.95 3.31 A 109.75 4.95 A July 16, 2020 590 17 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 3.7: Simms Corner Roundabout Multi -Lane Roundabout Concept The 2007 Terrain Report evaluated a number of design options for improving the Simms Corner intersection. One option was the installation of a multilane roundabout. The report provided a list of pros and cons for the roundabout design option with a conclusion that the cons deemed the roundabout an unfeasible option. Since 2007, much practical design knowledge has been gained in the roundabout industry and many roundabouts have been installed in Atlantic Canada with wide success. Some conditions that were once considered inappropriate for a roundabout installation are now considered to be manageable. For these reasons, it is prudent to revisit the option of a multi -lane roundabout at Simms Corner in the context of current conditions and design practice. Exhibit 3.8 below shows the list of roundabout "cons" from Terrain's 2007 report and responses from the current context. It is our opinion that a roundabout should be considered a viable option for Simms Corner with further study to confirm the most feasible configuration that balances operations, cost, and property impacts. July 16, 2020 591 18 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Exhibit 3.8: Terrain Report Roundabout Commentary on Simms Corner ponses based o-. There are no roundabouts within t7areaver a decade later, roundabouts have become and are not consistent with local dore popular within Atlantic Canada, are a expectations. roven safe and efficient intersection option in the right conditions. Although Saint John has not yet installed a roundabout, other cities in New Brunswick have demonstrated that roundabouts can be successfully implemented with driver education campaigns and quickly gain public acceptance. Roundabouts are typically constructed on Center roundabout medians and entrances/exits flat or rolling terrain with approach grades should not be constructed on grades greater desirably 3-5%. Presently Lancaster than 4%, but having steeper grades on the Avenue has a downgrade of 6.5%. approaches is acceptable, given proper sight Extensive earthwork would be required to lines are maintained and there are minimal flatten approach grades, resulting in cost grade breaks by introducing vertical curves. prohibitive impacts to rail crossings, Extensive earthwork may not necessary be property access, and underground utilities required given the acceptance of existing and services. approach grades. Locating a roundabout near an at grade Simms Corner is adjacent to the rail crossing rail crossing is generally discouraged. regardless of the improvements made. A roundabout should not be excluded for this reason. A comprehensive traffic study is required The network of coordinated traffic signals is not to locate a roundabout within the extensive, and a roundabout should not be coordinated signal network. excluded for this reason. On -street parking to the intersection is not On -street parking may require relocation but is recommended and the presence of the manageable. Property access may be impacted roundabout may impact access to the minimally in the current concept. immediately adjacent land of Tim Hortons/Wendy's. A roundabout requires expensive retaining The Simms Brush building has since been wall replacement along the Simms Brush demolished and the site reconstructed as a truck building. entrance to the Pulp and Paper Mill. The retaining wall has been replaced by a steep rock slope. Although this still is a constraint and earthwork may be required, there may be flexibility in the design to avoid costly impacts. A roundabout requires extensive property In the current concept, property acquisition does acquisition. not appear to be overly extensive and a roundabout should not be excluded for this reason. July 16, 2020 592 19 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John 4 Implementation Roundabouts provide several benefits over conventional intersections. This type of intersection provides motorists with a safer environment, while also offering operational, environmental and economic benefits. For a community that is introducing its first roundabout, it is good practice that the first roundabout be a single lane roundabout so that drivers can become accustomed to roundabouts in a low complexity environment; however, this does not preclude a multi -lane roundabout from being the priority for implementation. Roundabouts are becoming more and more commonplace throughout New Brunswick with increasing complexity. Therefore, public exposure to roundabouts is much higher than several years ago and with a comprehensive public education campaign, a multi -lane roundabout could be implemented successfully as Saint John's first roundabout. Based on the level of need, we recommend that installation of the five candidate roundabouts be considered in the following order of priority: Main Street W at Lancaster Avenue (Simms Corner): A 50 m diameter multi -lane roundabout with double lanes entering all approaches, and double lane exits (with the exception of Fairville Boulevard which requires only a single exit lane) would operate well at this intersection. The reconfiguration of this intersection has remained a high priority for the City and is critical to the long-term traffic flow in this area and the removal of truck traffic from residential streets. A proper driver education strategy should be promoted early on to ensure the success of the roundabout. Although a 2007 study determined that a roundabout would not be feasible at this location, many of the concerns may now be overcome due to an evolution of roundabout design knowledge and practical experience. It is our opinion that a roundabout should be considered a viable option for Simms Corner with further study, new count data, and preliminary design work to confirm the most feasible configuration that balances operations, cost, and property impacts. 2. Rothesay Road at Ashburn Road: A 35 m diameter single lane roundabout is recommended for installation at this intersection. The need to address the intersection configuration is evident due to the capacity and traffic delays under existing conditions. This roundabout will require minor right-of-way acquisition. During design, drainage requirements will need to be reviewed carefully given this area is low lying and prone to flooding. 3. Sandy Point Road at Foster Thurston Drive: A 35 m diameter single lane roundabout is recommended at this location. In 2011, a traffic study was performed by the City of Saint John recommending upgrades at this intersection to address operational and safety concerns. A roundabout would provide an effective solution that July 16, 2020 593 20 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John would be fairly simple to install with minimal disruption to the existing area. 4. Manawagonish Road at Gault Road: A 40m diameter single lane roundabout would be appropriate for installation at this intersection. Although there is no history of significant operational or safety issues at this intersection, the awkward layout of the intersection and irregular traffic control are causes for concern. The proposed roundabout is a standard approach that would correct the configuration of this intersection. This roundabout would require provincial coordination in addition to property acquisition near the intersection. Development access to the south could be accommodated by a direct access into the south side of the roundabout or just to the east of the Manawagonish Road splitter island. 5. Millidge Avenue at Somerset Street: A 45 m diameter single lane roundabout would be appropriate at this intersection. Although there is no history of significant operational or safety issues at this intersection, the awkward layout of the intersection and irregular traffic control are causes for concern, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed roundabout is a standard approach that would correct the configuration of this intersection. This roundabout appears to fit within the existing right-of-way. July 16, 2020 594 21 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Appendix A Traffic Volumes July 16, 2020 595 22 Road Volumes TMV 2015-01-1211:30 Movement Southbound 14 69 SouthboundTc 0 83 Northbound 45 0 NorthboundTc 13 58 Eastbound 62 0 Eastbound 19 To 81 Grand Total 222 Lights 14 68 0 82 43 0 13 56 62 0 19 81 219 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2015-01-1211:45 7 53 0 60 38 0 9 47 40 0 12 52 159 Lights 7 51 0 58 38 0 9 47 40 0 12 52 157 Other Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2015-01-1212:00 10 57 0 67 49 0 21 70 45 0 13 58 195 Lights 10 56 0 66 49 0 20 69 44 0 12 56 191 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 4 2015-01-1212:15 11 43 0 54 64 0 18 82 52 0 11 63 199 Lights 11 43 0 54 64 0 18 82 52 0 11 63 199 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-1212:30 3 64 0 67 44 0 22 66 48 0 21 69 202 Lights 3 62 0 65 44 0 22 66 48 0 21 69 200 Other Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2015-01-1212:45 2 71 0 73 52 0 32 84 42 0 14 56 213 Lights 2 70 0 72 49 0 30 79 41 0 13 54 205 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 3 0 2 5 1 0 1 2 8 2015-01-1213:00 11 65 0 76 53 0 25 78 45 0 16 61 215 Lights 11 64 0 75 53 0 25 78 44 0 16 60 213 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2015-01-1213:15 8 56 0 64 44 0 23 67 33 0 22 55 186 Lights 8 55 0 63 41 0 23 64 33 0 22 55 182 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 2015-01-1213:30 7 57 0 64 54 0 9 63 43 0 17 60 187 Lights 6 54 0 60 52 0 9 61 43 0 17 60 181 Other Vehicles 1 3 0 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 2015-01-1213:45 5 57 0 62 45 0 24 69 42 0 17 59 190 Lights 5 53 0 58 45 0 24 69 40 0 17 57 184 Other Vehicles 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 2015-01-1214:00 4 52 0 56 47 0 22 69 50 0 21 71 196 Lights 4 52 0 56 43 0 21 64 50 0 21 71 191 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 5 2015-01-12 14:15 10 57 0 67 43 0 19 62 57 0 17 74 203 Lights 10 52 0 62 41 0 17 58 54 0 17 71 191 Other Vehicles 0 5 0 5 2 0 2 4 3 0 0 3 12 2015-01-1214:30 7 55 0 62 47 0 16 63 64 0 21 85 210 Lights 5 52 0 57 46 0 16 62 63 0 21 84 203 Other Vehicles 2 3 0 5 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 7 2015-01-1214:45 5 45 0 50 48 0 15 63 64 0 19 83 196 Lights 5 44 0 49 47 0 14 61 63 0 19 82 192 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 4 2015-01-1215:00 7 51 0 58 60 0 20 80 71 0 21 92 230 Lights 7 51 0 58 54 0 20 74 70 0 21 91 223 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 7 2015-01-12 15:15 6 76 0 82 69 0 29 98 89 0 33 122 302 Lights 6 71 0 77 65 0 28 93 89 0 33 122 292 Other Vehicles 0 5 0 5 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 10 2015-01-12 15:30 4 61 0 65 67 0 16 83 98 0 47 145 293 Lights 4 58 0 62 67 0 15 82 98 0 47 145 289 Other Vehicles 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 2015-01-1215:45 5 38 0 43 75 0 20 95 105 0 36 141 279 Lights 5 38 0 43 73 0 20 93 105 0 36 141 277 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2015-01-12 16:00 10 46 0 56 88 0 11 99 113 0 51 164 319 Lights 10 45 0 55 86 0 11 97 111 0 49 160 312 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 4 7 2015-01-12 16:15 5 51 0 56 101 0 23 124 121 0 66 187 367 Lights 4 49 0 53 98 0 23 121 119 0 66 185 359 Other Vehicles 1 2 0 3 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 8 2015-01-12 16:30 9 52 0 61 93 0 24 117 124 0 37 161 339 Lights 9 50 0 59 93 0 23 116 123 0 37 160 335 Other Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 2015-01-12 16:45 9 42 0 51 121 0 26 147 101 0 50 151 349 Lights 9 41 0 50 120 0 25 145 101 0 50 151 346 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 2015-01-12 17:00 2 36 0 38 94 0 24 118 112 0 40 152 308 Lights 2 34 0 36 94 0 24 118 111 0 40 151 305 Other Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 2015-01-12 17:15 0 52 0 52 133 0 24 157 78 0 50 128 337 Lights 0 51 0 51 131 0 24 155 78 0 50 128 334 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2015-01-1217:30 4 37 0 41 93 0 11 104 64 0 31 95 240 Lights 4 36 0 40 91 0 11 102 64 0 31 95 237 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2015-01-1217:45 4 40 0 44 66 0 12 78 52 0 29 81 203 Lights 4 40 0 44 66 0 12 78 52 0 29 81 203 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-1218:00 11 33 0 44 66 0 18 84 55 0 13 68 196 Lights 11 32 0 43 66 0 18 84 55 0 13 68 195 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2015-01-1218:15 4 35 0 39 43 0 6 49 32 0 20 52 140 Lights 4 35 0 39 43 0 6 49 32 0 19 51 139 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2015-01-1218:30 5 48 0 53 44 0 6 50 31 0 10 41 144 Lights 5 47 0 52 43 0 6 49 31 0 10 41 142 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2015-01-1218:45 6 40 0 46 40 0 7 47 39 0 14 53 146 Lights 6 40 0 46 40 0 7 47 39 0 14 53 146 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-1219:00 6 32 0 38 34 1 7 42 31 0 13 44 124 Lights 6 31 0 37 34 1 7 42 31 0 13 44 123 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2015-01-12 19:15 4 44 0 48 36 0 10 46 29 0 16 45 139 Lights 4 42 0 46 36 0 10 46 29 0 16 45 137 Other Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2015-01-1219:30 4 35 0 39 35 0 5 40 50 0 16 66 145 Lights 4 35 0 39 35 0 5 40 50 0 16 66 145 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-1219:45 1 25 0 26 31 0 5 36 43 0 19 62 124 Lights 1 25 0 26 31 0 5 36 43 0 19 62 124 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 20:00 0 17 0 17 31 0 6 37 33 0 9 42 96 Lights 0 17 0 17 31 0 6 37 33 0 9 42 96 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 20:15 0 10 0 10 32 0 5 37 26 0 14 40 87 Lights 0 10 0 10 32 0 5 37 25 0 14 39 86 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2015-01-12 20:30 2 16 0 18 19 0 6 25 21 0 9 30 73 Lights 2 16 0 18 19 0 6 25 21 0 9 30 73 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 20:45 2 12 0 14 33 0 1 34 22 0 16 38 86 Lights 2 12 0 14 33 0 1 34 22 0 16 38 86 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 21:00 2 19 0 21 30 0 5 35 15 0 10 25 81 Lights 2 19 0 21 30 0 5 35 15 0 10 25 81 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 21:15 2 20 0 22 30 0 5 35 14 0 12 26 83 Lights 2 20 0 22 30 0 5 35 14 0 12 26 83 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 21:30 1 10 0 11 26 0 5 31 11 0 8 19 61 Lights 1 10 0 11 26 0 5 31 11 0 8 19 61 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 21:45 0 8 0 8 21 0 6 27 9 0 2 11 46 Lights 0 8 0 8 21 0 6 27 9 0 2 11 46 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 22:00 1 4 0 5 18 0 3 21 19 0 11 30 56 Lights 1 4 0 5 18 0 3 21 19 0 11 30 56 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 22:15 1 8 0 9 13 0 0 13 9 0 5 14 36 Lights 1 8 0 9 13 0 0 13 8 0 5 13 35 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2015-01-12 22:30 0 3 0 3 9 0 0 9 12 0 4 16 28 Lights 0 3 0 3 9 0 0 9 12 0 4 16 28 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 22:45 0 8 0 8 2 0 0 2 13 0 3 16 26 Lights 0 8 0 8 2 0 0 2 13 0 3 16 26 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 23:00 0 4 0 4 8 0 0 8 10 0 1 11 23 Lights 0 4 0 4 8 0 0 8 10 0 1 11 23 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 23:15 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 2 7 0 4 11 16 Lights 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 2 7 0 4 11 16 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 23:30 1 1 0 2 4 0 2 6 16 0 4 20 28 Lights 1 1 0 2 4 0 2 6 16 0 4 20 28 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-12 23:45 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 11 0 2 13 19 Lights 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 11 0 2 13 19 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 10 0 1 11 15 Lights 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 10 0 1 11 15 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2015-01-13 0:15 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 5 5 0 1 6 12 Lights 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 0 0 1 5 1 5 0 1 1 6 1 12 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 0:30 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 5 2 0 2 4 10 Lights 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 5 2 0 2 4 10 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 0:45 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 10 Lights 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 10 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-131:00 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 Lights 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-131:15 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 4 Lights 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 4 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-131:30 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Lights 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-131:45 0 4 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 6 Lights 0 4 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 6 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 2:00 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Lights 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 2:15 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 3 6 Lights 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 3 5 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2015-01-13 2:30 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 5 Lights 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 4 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2015-01-13 2:45 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 4 Lights 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2015-01-13 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 3:15 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 4 2 0 0 2 8 Lights 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 7 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2015-01-13 3:30 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 4 7 Lights 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 4 7 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 3:45 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lights 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 4:15 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 Lights 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 4:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 Lights 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 4:45 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 5 Lights 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2015-01-13 5:00 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Lights 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 5:15 1 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Lights 1 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 5:30 1 22 0 23 2 0 2 4 2 0 0 2 29 Lights 1 22 0 23 2 0 2 4 2 0 0 2 29 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 5:45 2 14 0 16 5 0 2 7 1 0 0 1 24 Lights 2 14 0 16 5 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 23 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2015-01-13 6:00 1 22 0 23 2 0 4 6 2 0 3 5 34 Lights 1 22 0 23 2 0 4 6 2 0 3 5 34 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 6:15 9 23 0 32 6 0 5 11 4 0 1 5 48 Lights 9 23 0 32 5 0 5 10 4 0 1 5 47 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2015-01-13 6:30 9 44 0 53 12 0 9 21 4 0 5 9 83 Lights 9 44 0 53 11 0 9 20 3 0 5 8 81 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2015-01-13 6:45 16 68 0 84 11 0 17 28 10 0 2 12 124 Lights 16 67 0 83 10 0 17 27 10 0 2 12 122 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2015-01-13 7:00 8 82 0 90 3 0 20 23 8 0 2 10 123 Lights 8 82 0 90 3 0 20 23 8 0 2 10 123 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015-01-13 7:15 31 114 0 145 17 0 28 45 29 0 6 35 225 Lights 31 113 0 144 15 0 28 43 29 0 6 35 222 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2015-01-13 7:30 28 124 0 152 26 0 21 47 44 0 11 55 254 Lights 28 123 0 151 23 0 21 44 44 0 11 55 250 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 2015-01-13 7:45 34 201 0 235 22 0 33 55 35 0 10 45 335 Lights 34 201 0 235 19 0 32 51 34 0 10 44 330 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 5 2015-01-13 8:00 37 180 0 217 29 0 22 51 25 0 5 30 298 Lights 35 175 0 210 24 0 22 46 24 0 5 29 285 Other Vehicles 2 5 0 7 5 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 13 2015-01-13 8:15 45 168 0 213 24 0 16 40 29 0 5 34 287 Lights 43 167 0 210 23 0 16 39 27 0 5 32 281 Other Vehicles 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 6 2015-01-13 8:30 39 137 0 176 20 0 18 38 19 0 5 24 238 Lights 39 137 0 176 18 0 18 36 19 0 5 24 236 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2015-01-13 8:45 22 96 0 118 27 0 21 48 32 0 8 40 206 Lights 22 92 0 114 25 0 20 45 31 0 8 39 198 Other Vehicles 0 4 0 4 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 8 2015-01-13 9:00 20 66 0 86 26 0 19 45 26 0 2 28 159 Lights 19 63 0 82 26 0 18 44 25 0 2 27 153 Other Vehicles 1 3 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 6 2015-01-13 9:15 12 50 0 62 18 0 13 31 30 0 9 39 132 Lights 12 50 0 62 16 0 13 29 28 0 9 37 128 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 2015-01-13 9:30 12 56 0 68 26 0 16 42 19 0 5 24 134 Lights 12 53 0 65 25 0 14 39 18 0 5 23 127 Other Vehicles 0 3 0 3 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 1 7 2015-01-13 9:45 18 47 0 65 19 0 12 31 33 0 15 48 144 Lights 18 44 0 62 19 0 12 31 31 0 15 46 139 Other Vehicles 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 2015-01-13 10:00 12 49 0 61 30 0 13 43 39 0 17 56 160 Lights 12 49 0 61 26 0 13 39 38 0 17 55 155 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 5 2015-01-13 10:15 9 60 0 69 28 0 8 36 32 0 16 48 153 Lights 9 57 0 66 25 0 6 31 32 0 15 47 144 Other Vehicles 0 3 0 3 3 0 2 5 0 0 1 1 9 2015-01-1310:30 9 52 0 61 30 0 13 43 42 0 6 48 152 Lights 9 52 0 61 29 0 12 41 41 0 6 47 149 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 2015-01-1310:45 4 57 0 61 27 0 16 43 43 0 10 53 157 Lights 4 56 0 60 26 0 14 40 43 0 10 53 153 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 4 2015-01-1311:00 9 55 0 64 36 0 11 47 27 1 10 38 149 Lights 9 55 0 64 36 0 11 47 27 1 9 37 148 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2015-01-1311:15 10 49 0 59 36 0 13 49 34 0 9 43 151 Lights 10 48 0 58 34 0 13 47 34 0 8 42 147 Other Vehicles 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 4 2015-01-1311:30 1 5 0 6 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 Lights 1 5 0 6 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 Other Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 627 3690 0 4317 2858 1 975 3834 2983 1 1136 4120 12271 ' .ti ti m a ti rn ti N m ti o rn ti o ti m .. ti o m ti .. .. m ti . a .. N ti .. m. .� ti N rn m ti a m ti o a ti a ti m m o a m m m I . . o I I O a a o m m O ry ry o m .-I . O .-I m m O.. o ry ry O.. .-I d o m N .-I N N O O o 0 O o O o 0 o N N o o 0 o .-I .-I o .-I I O N N O 0 o 0 .-I o .-I m m o C M .-I o 0 o M M o .-I o I N N O 0 o O .-I .-I O I o N N o o 0 o M M o I I O .-I . O 0 o 0 M M O o 0 o M M o o 0 o .-I .-I o a a o C C O 0 o 0 .-I .-I O a a o N N o o 0 o .-I .-I o a m .-I M M O 0 o 0 M M O I O I o 0 o o 0 o o O o I O N N O 0 o 0 O o O N N o M M o o 0 o .-I .-I o I I O 0 o 0 0 o 0 N N O m m o V V o .-I O .-I N N o .-I I O W W 0 O o 0 N N O C M N tD N tD V1 O 01 N N N V1 N r r O y V1 C 1tD tD o a tD V1 a a `i V1 N M V1 V1 N N C C O 01 C M N W r I C C N N O 01 W O O O M M O N N O W r O O O N N O N N O W tD O O O tD C N N .-I .-I M M O O O O .-I .-i O N N O O m `i O O O W W O N N O tD I IN O O O C C O 1 1 O tD tD O O O O V1 V1 O .-I O .-I N O M M O O O N N O M M O M M O M M O O O .-I .-i O C C O r . 1O N N O O O O O O N N O O O M M O O O M N .-I .-I 1 O.. r r O M M O O O W W O O N M `i M O O O W W O .-I 1 O W tD N C C O O O tD V1 .-I 1 1 O I Vl M M O O O O tD tD O N N O I M M M N O O O C C O 1 1 O tD I `y M M O O O r r 0 N a `i tD tD V1 V1 O C V1 V1 m M m C M C C M I I `i O m tD V1 IV1 tD V1 V1 `i O m I C IV1 m r V1 N M . tD N M N I I 1C C C C O M M r r O tD tD V1 V1 O r. . . `i W r tD m I C Ia r r r. `y Vl O O O O O O O m m O M M N N O O O O C �y O I N M M N N O O O O tD `y .-I C N I N O N N N O O O r tD . II O tD tD N N O O O O M N ci r tD N N `i N N O O O O N� O m N N N O O 01 I N O O O r r 0 M N `i W W O O O O m m �y O O N N `i r r N N O O O O .-i O `y .-I M M N N O M M M N O O O I� r 0 I� .-I O M N `y N N N N O M N `y O m m ci O W W O O O O r r O W W N N O Vl Vl N N O O O O O O N N O m m N N O tD tD N N O O O O r r O tD I N N `i C C M M O O O O r I� O m N N 01 01 N N O .-I 1 O o m ci N 0 0 M M O r r N N O O O O W N ci W N 1 Vl O C `y N N m tD N N a .mi I I O N ti O C .ai O .i .i 0 0 0 0 I� .-i a N O I I o w o a N N O O O r r O m w ti N N O I a v o s O O O r r o w w o O O O o o rry v > o on � o s O O O m W .-I m m O N N O I ni v s > o on � o s O O O m m o ti ti o C .-I M o m rry v o� s > o on � o s O O O m. v .-I 0 0 0 I a N v s > o on � o s O O O of m. m m o 1 1 O o o ri v o� s > o on � o s O O O W W O m m O O O O I ri v s > o on � o s O O O W W o m m o O O O o rn ri v o s > o on � o s 1 1 O V V O v v O M M O I a ri v s > o on � o s O O O r r o .-I . o M M O o o c v ^ o� s > o on � o s 1 1 O C C O m m O N N O I c v ^ s > o on � o s O O O W W o rv� .-I O O O o rn c v ^ o� s > o on � o s O O O r r 0 a a o M M O I a c v ^ s > o on � o s O O O V V o 0 o 0 0 0 o o vi v ^ o� s > o on � o s O O O N N 0 v v o 1 1 O I vi v ^ s > o on � o s O O O V1 V1 o .-I .ti o 1 1 O o rn vi v ^ E v o� s > o on � o s O O O N .-I m w ti M M O 1 a vi v o� v s > o on o S I• rn N Vl N^ o m tD ti^ o m N W r a m r� rl vl N W W M a s r� 0 ry tD tD rl N rl N M I rl o o� C A N N ci o O� N rl N rn ry O O N�� O-� 01 01 W W N 01 01 O 01 01 O M M O 01 01 N W W `i O O O Vl Vl C C Vl Vl 01 r N o O ti N N N O ti N I ti N O O N 1 N ti 1 r r O r r O C M rl N ti O N N O C C O M M O M M o m m O C C O N N C M rl C M rl O O O I O C C O M M O O O O M M O V1 M N C C O O O O M M O.. W W O r r O O O O O N rl ci ti N 0 O O O I I O M M O Vl Vl O.. O O O N N O N N O O O O O C C O tD tD O N N O O O O N N O tD V1 rl r r O O O O M M O r tD ci M M O O O O M M O M M O N N O O O O N N O N N O N N O O O O M M O rl ci O N rl ci O O O I I O tD tD O C C O O O O N N O O O O N N O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O N N O rl ci O O O O O O O N N O rl ci O N N O O O O O O O N N O C C O O O O M M O O O O N N O O O O N N O rl ci 0 o O O I I M N tD tD a s O V1 V1 O tD tD a s O tD IN r r `i N O tD tD M M O M M r. M M a a o M M m m O C C M M O M M IW r M M tD IO a s `i O O M M r r O N N M M 0 N N tD tD O M M O O O M M W W O m m O m m Vl Vl O 01 W a s 1M 0 0 o rn w rl ci O tD tD M O O o O o r r O O O V1 V1 O o O o w w o M M O a a M M O O o O a a o ti N 0 1 10 C C O o O o °i' .� Vl Vl O O V1 V1 O O o O r r O M M O W W N N O o O o N N 0 N N O.. tD 11 N N O o O m m o O r r N N O o O o tD tD O M M O C C O O o O V1 V1 O C C O I Im N N O o O o C C O C C O.. m N N O 0 0 0 V1 C rl O.. 1 C M M 1N 0 0 0 o O O.. 11 N O 0 0 0 C C O O O O N N O 0 0 0 tD tD o N N O m m rl O 0 0 0 N N o r r O N N N N O 0 0 0 r r o N N o C C N N O 0 0 0 a a o . . O tD tD ci O 0 0 0 rl .i O O O O C� �y O 0 0 0 V1 V1 O O O Vl � `y 0 0 C C C N N tD tD r N I W W m tD m W W M N 01 01 `i W W O r r W W O r r N N 01 1V1 O V1 1O 01 01 O Vl Vl W W Vl Vl tD C N Vl Vl N C C `i 01 m O a a N 01 O M M ^ Vl N a a 1 1 O a a vl vl O W W O a a Vl C `y a a 01 01 O N 01 N N M N 01 m N N O O O O N I `y m r N C N M M N O O O C `y O W N tD tD M M O O O O N N M M O N N m W M M `i 1 1 O O O O m m rl O a a O O O O W W O M M O N N m m N N O O O O N N O a s N N O N N a C O N N O N N I O IO N N O O N N O O O O O O O O O N N O O O N N 0 O O O M, M, O N N N N r I O O O O M, M, O O m I N r tD `y N N O O O m m O C m I W W O O O O O-1 O m 01 O m m IO O O O ti N O O O O ci tD tD I O O O O M ti O C� ci O m N N O O O N N 0^ V1 ti O ci M m �y O O O O 11O N N ci O a s N N O O O O 11 N O N N O N N M , O O O O M ti O O M N rl O O `y O.. O O O 11 N 0.. r r 0 O O O O O 01 01 O O m m M N N O N C N N m m O tD N `i C C O O O O O O O M M O O m I N N O M m o 0 o 0 I I O N N 0 m m O Vl Vl O N N o 0 o 0 W W O C C O O O N r �y rl r r 0....I a a O o o v — V O v obL> O OD c J s o s O O O N W rl r r O I v — ^ V 0 v W L> O OD c J s o s O O O ci O ci o O M N I o m v — ^ V 0 v >�s>obL> O OD c J s o s O O O m m O m m O.. 1 O I a v — ^ V 0 v O OD c J s o s O O O r r 0 O m N I o o v — ^ V 0 v O OD c J s o s O O O M �y O C C 0-1- r r 0 I v — ^ V 0 v W L> O OD c J s o s O O O M `y O O 1 1 O o m v — ^ V 0 v > O OD c J s o s O O O W W O 01-1 O" N N O I a v — ^ V 0 v W L> O OD c J s o s O O O m mO N 0,, m m O o o v — ^ V 0 v > O OD c J s o s O O O M �y rl O N N O I v — ^ V 0 v W L> O OD c J s o s O O O tD tD O ti N 0.. N N O o m v — ^ V 0 v > O OD c J s o s O O O Vl Vl O O.. N N O I a v — ^ V 0 v W L> O OD c J s o s O O O M M O O.. N N O o o of v — ^ V 0 v > O OD c J s o s O O O O O �y O O 0 0 0 I of v — ^ V 0 v >obL> O OD c J s o s O O O W W O N N O.. N N 0 o m of v — ^ V 0 v O OD c J s o s O O O M �y O O rl 1 O vl a of v ^ _ 0 v W L> O OD c J s o s O O O M M O O O O N N O o o o v N u ^ _ 0 v > O OD c J s o s O O O W W O M M O I 1 O I o v N ^ _ 0 v W L> O OD c J s o s O O O Vl Vl O N N O m m O o M o v N u ^ _ 0 v > O OD c J s o s O O O r r 0 o 0 o I 1 O I a o v N ^ _ 0 v >obL O OD c J s o s O O rl y rl ci N N o o ti N 0 O OD c J o tD tD Vt Vt M M a s `i M M M M N N N N N N o °' °' o rn rn o N N o o -- ti O N N 0 C C O N N 0 N N O C C 0 C C O N N 0 rl 1 O 1 ci 0 rl 1 O C C 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl 1 O O O N N O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O a a o N N O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O N N O O O O 0 0 0 N N O N N 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O C C 0 O O O 0 0 0 1 1 O 1 1 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 1 1 o O O O O O O O O O 1 1 0 O O O O O O O O O 1 1 o 1 1 O N N O O O O 1 1 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 1 1 O 1 1 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 1 o 0 O 0 1 N O N ti 0 ti N O N ti O N N O W W O r r O C C 0 V1 V1 O rl ci O tD tD O N N O N N O C C O rl ci O N N O N N O O O O M M O N O M M 0 O 0 O O O O O O M M 0 rl 1 O m N O O O O 1 1 O N N O W W O O O O 1 1 0 rl 1 O m N O O O O M M 0 1 ci 0 N N O O O O I 1 0 rl 1 0 W W 0 O O O M M O 0 0 O tD tD O O O O N N 0 rl 1 0 N N O O O O C C 0 0 0 O M M O O O O 1 1 O O O O M M 0 O O O N N O O O O 0 0 0 O O O I 1 0 O O O V1 V1 O O O O 1 1 0 O O O N N O O O O 0 0 O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O O N N O O O O rl ci O O O O O O O O O O rl ci O O O O 1 1 O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M O rl O O O O O O O 1 O M M O N N O 0 N 0 rl 0 0 m m 0 ti N O N ti 0 N N O M M 0.. O M M O r.. 0 0 0 M M O N N O N N O M M O C C O 0 O O O N ti 0 O O O O O'o 2 O N N O m m O O O O W W O r r O M M O-1 O O O tD tD O M M O m. O O O W W N N O r r 0.. O O O 0 C C O O O O O tD tD O C C O N N O O O O M M O M M 0.. C C O O O O r r 0 O M M O O O O V1 V1 O M M O.. r r O O O O N N O O N N 0.. O O O O O O M M O.. O.. O O O N N O O O O O O rl ci O C M, M M 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0.. O O O O O O N N O.. O.. O O O O O O O.. O.. O O O O O O O O.. O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O O rl I O O O O O O O O O O M M O O O o' 2 O W W O C C O Vt Vt O rl ci O C C O N N O M M O M M O rl ci O rl ci O O O O rl ci O O O O rl ci O rl ci O rl ci O O O O O O O N N O rl O O O O O tD tD O O M M O O I I O V1 N N N ._ > o� s> 0 O O O M M O I I O O O O O m N N 0 `v O O O M M O O O O I I O V1 a N N 0 O O O M M O I I O I I O O o N N N 0 `v O O O I I O O O O O O O V1 N N N 0 O O O I I O N N O I I O O m N N N u 0 `v O O O I I O I I O O O O V1 a N N N ^ ._ 0 O O O M M O O O O O O O O o M N N ^ ._ v 0 `v O O O M M O O O O O O O V1 M N N ^ ._ O y v 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O I I O O m M N N ^ ._ 0 `v O O O 0 0 0 I I O O O O V1 a M N N ^ ._ 0 a � s O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O W N O — U v o � `v O O O 0 0 0 I I O O O O y N — U O m> c � s O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O m y N — U 0 yZ o m> c � `v O O O 0 0 0 I I O O O O V1 c y N — U O1E0 o m> c � s O O O I I O O O O O O O O 0 ci N — U y o m> c � `v O O O O O O O O O I I O V1 y ci N — U O o m> c � s O O O O O O O O O O O O O M y ci N — U 0 y o m> c � `v O O O O O O O O O O O O V1 a y ci N — U O o m> c � s O O O O I I O I I I O O O O O O O V1 o N N N — U 0 y 0 o m> o c � `v c N 0 M O C C O C C O M N rl ci O rl r r 0 V1 V1 O. . O V1 V1 O V1 V1 O V1 C rl C M rl C C O m N O N m 0 tO . O N N N^ N m m m N , Vt W '� I I `i tO a N I I N tD r. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. I o 0 0 0 0 0 o m m 0. 0 . 0 a a 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O-- 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 10 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 1 1 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O o O I 1 0 N N O O O O o O o 1 0 1 O O O O O O O o lo 0 0 0 I 1 0 O O O O o m m 0 1 1 O O O O O o O 0 0 0 N rl O O O N O N N o O o O N N o I I O o O o I I O C C O m m O N N 0 1 1 O m m 0 N N O m m 0 C C O r r 0.. O N ti, N N `i . 0 N N O N N N O O 1 0 O O 1 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O O 1 1 0 O O O 1 1 O O O O 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O m m 0 O O O 1 1 O O O O m m O O O O O O O O O O N N 0 O O O O O O O O O 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O m m 0 O O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O N N 0 O O O 1 1 0 O O O m m 0.. O O O 1 1 O O O O O O O O 1 1 O r 1 O 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O N I I N N O m I O O O N N O O O O m m 0 O O O O O O N N O N O O O O O O O 1 ci 0 N N N O O O O O O O 0 m m 0 1 ci O N I I O I m m 0 I 1 0 1 1 O N N 0 0 0 O N I . O.. o . . O a a o m N O N N rl I N 0 0 m I I N W ci O o O o O o O o m m O O o O O o O O o O rl ci o o O o o O o o O o rl ci O rl o ci O o O O o O rl O rl o O o o O o o O O-- N N O O o O O o O O o O o rl ci o o O o o O o rl ci O O o O O o O O o O- o O o rl ci o o O o ci o O o O O o O O o O O o O o O o N rl o O o o O o O o O ci O O o O O o O rl ci o o O o o O o o O o a a O N N O O o O O o O rl ci o rl ci o o O o N N O tD tD O Vt Vt O O o O N N O W W O C m r o O o -- o N N O c O O o O N N -IN N N O t V r o O o N o tD V1 rl W W O O o O m m O N I o Vt Vt o o O o r tD rl rl O rl ci O rl ci O O O O O O O N N O O O O rl ci O rl ci O O O O O O O rl 0 rl 0 0 0 N N O N N O r r O N ti O ti N O O ti N IN ti 0 O O 1 0 0 0 0 0 v s> S O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N v o y W s> I m o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N v o o s> o m `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w v o y W s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w v o o s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 1 1 0 0 0 0 m ry v o y W s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ry v o o s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a v o y W s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .� 7! a v o o s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a v o y W s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a v o o s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o y W s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .� 7! v o o s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 1 1 O 0 0 0 m v o y W s> o m c � `v o S N O O O 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 a v o o s> o m c � `v o S N O O O M M O a a o 0 0 0 o v o y W s> o m c � `v o S N O O O C C 0 o 1 1 0 .� 7! v o o o m c � `v o S N O O O C C 0 w w o 1 1 o m v o y o m c � `v o S N O O O 1 1 0 ti I o N N o a w v^ o o m c � `v o S N O O O C C O a a o�� vt C 1 o v^ o y o m o S N O O O r r 0 o 0 0 0 7! v o V o m o S N \'J 0 Vt O Vt W C Vt M N Vt N tD Vt M 01 Vt M Vt Vt r tD M W M ti N tD O N N tD M C tD W r rl N N O tD M M N N O C C O M M O V1 C rl N N O r tD rl C C O V1 V1 O C C O V1 C rl N rl ci o O NM-1 W tD C N a C M rlI M M O O O O I O ci O O O O O O O I 1 O M rl N N rl ci O O O 1 1 0 O O O N N O O O O 0 0 O ci ci O M M 0 O O O O O O rl ci O 0 0 0 O O O N N O M N rl rl ci O O O O 1 1 O O O O rl ci O O O O 1 1 O C C O M N rl O O O O O O N N O I ci O O O O 1 1 O rl ci O N N O O O O N N O rl ci O M M O O O O O O O N rl ci M M O O O O O O O N rl ci O O O O O O O O O M M O M M O O O O C C O N O N N rl I O O O m m O N O N C r I ci O tD O O O 1 M r 1 N 1 N 01 01 r r V1 C V1 V1 C N W r V1 C 01 W 01 W �y a a 01 W M M N W W 01 r 01 tD C N O O O N M M `i O O O O O O O O O I I M M O O O O C C O M M O N N N N O O O O N N O rl ci O O m N I O O O C C O rl ci O W W M M O O O O tD tD O rl ci O m r N N N O O O C C O rl ci O C C N N O O O O M N rl O O O a M y N N O O O I ci O N N O r. N N `i O O O O O O Vt Vt O M N M M I O O O rl ci O rl ci O N N M M O O O O rl ci O O O O a s N N O O O O 1 C rl M M O r r N N O O O O M M O O O O O m C M `i O O O N N O M M O M M O O O O C C O C C O M C C N O O O C C O rl ci O C N O N N N Im O O O O D tD 1 rl W N O W M N N N m M N M tD I M M IM M� O N N 1N W r N 1M W 1tD M M tD M M O M M O 01 W N N `i tD tD N N O 01 r N N N m W M V1 N W W 11 M N 0 Vt N M M N O V1 rl O O O M N I m N N r r 0 O O O C M I rlci O `y tD tD `y O O O O m m O M� I tD �y N O O O r I N N N O M M O O O O tD 11 N� ci O N ti 0 O O O Vl C rl C N 1 ci M `y N N O O O N O W W O W W O O O O 01-1 O.. 1 N ci O ti N 0 O O O O N� ci O V1y �y O O O N N O M N ci O M O N O O O O O O M ti ci O tD �y N O O O O O O N ci O r tD `y rl O O O O O O M M O N 01 O O O O N m N N N O W W O O O ti N O rl O r tD ci O O O N ti O ci N W M O O O tD ti o rl N r V1 N O N N N Vl N N N I I O N W O N N M M O N N N 0 0 N N I I O N� �y C� O M I O O O OI ti M 01 W rl `i O �y N O N 01 O W I N M O O O O tD tD O O M O O m y v^ W o y o > o s O O O r tD rl N rl M M O I a y v W o o s> o s O O O N mO W W O N N O O o v W o y o > `v o s O O O N N,O N ti O N N O I y v W o o s> o s O O O W W O N N O M M O O m y v W o y o sYw > `v o s O O O W W O m m O M M O I a y v W o o s> cw o s O O O ti N O M M O 1 1 O O o v W o y o sYw > `v o s O O O r tD rl M M O N N O I y v W o o s> cw o s O O O a a o W W O N N O O m y v W o y o sYw `vcw o s O O O mmO rl ci O M M 0 V1 a o v W o o s O O O tD tD O C C O 0 0 0 O o o v o °J o s O O O W N C M rl 1 1 O I o v I o cw o s O O O V1 V1 O C M rl O O O O m o v o o s O O O V1 V1 O M N c M M O I a o v I o o s O O O V1 V1 O�� N N O C C O O o ti v I o o s O O O O Vl Vl O C C O V1 ti v E o o s O O O N W W r rl r a r Vl N o I O O O N O m I v m O o o S N Foster Thurston/Sandy Pt. 2010 Nov 30, Tue NB 5B WB EB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 7:00-8:00 12 116 2 0 638 10 1 0 0 35 1 65 8:00-9:00 17 105 0 0 735 17 2 1 0 20 1 67 11:30-12:30 16 161 1 0 158 27 0 0 0 24 0 16 12:30-13:30 20 199 5 1 268 28 3 1 2 31 0 30 16:00 - 17:001 59 1 571 2 1 173 1 41 0 0 2 29 0 19 17:00 - 18:001 55 1 382 2 1 1 1 162 1 50 0 1 0 1 2 1 24 1 0 29 Total 880 965 403 588 897 707 109191 I� Ln N .--I 00 (D 00 00 'T n -1 N N rI m >+ -;T Ln cn Ln 00 N co (0 I- -1 m O -1 m _ L rn m LO LO LO v Lo Ln LD LD 00 00 00 r, LD O O ~ 2 Ln Ln I, 00 N IzT 'zT LD (0 V 00 O 0 O -1 I, m -1 -1 LD 'zT -1 O 00 T M O O 00 Ln zT zT c'n O 0 00 v -1 -1 0) r, 3-00 � r,O 0) LD E 2 N N�� m�� m cl) ITcY) cY) zT IzT mIzT 'T zT zT zT zT m m LO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c-I 0 0 L N N � LI1 Ln lD Q1 m m 00 ('7 O V O c'n I, n 'zT 00 LD O 00 m 00 N Ln 7 -1 c-I N -1 N N N .-I N M N N N M m N N zT m m m m mzT y O L � L i n cn LLJ •� o m N (D Ln (D (D oo I- 1— m CO LO rI oo I, r, 00 0 'zT N oo I- (D $°'mr-(LDLn(LD zT000l--aomm woo rnlnrnoorn0000l, a� J 0) I, LD I, LD -1 0) I, (0 1- LO N N 00 O Ln I, Ln 0) LD LD m cV r4 -1 -1 -1 N -1 c-I N V CO CO V m N m m m m Ln cc > N a 0 O 00 I- 00 O LD m LO V O N O Ln m rI -zT m -zT Ln o0 O I, 0) O O L m m Ln -zT Ln LD Ln Ln co LO LO LO (0 Ln I, Ln -zT -zT -zT Ln LD -zT -zT m m � L y E H O L Z O O -1 O -1 O O O N O= 0 0 -1 -1 O eV 0 0 0 rI -1 c1 O cc LL J -1 0) N 00 N LD N 0) (0 I- 00 1- LO 00 0) N LD 00 00 'zT N 00 I, N -1 m -zT -zT -zT m -1 = N N -1 -1 N -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 c-I N C N � > a a== rloos,ml,rn-zTOco N -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 N N CO T(ol—vrnrnoornLnoo0(Drnrlrn V N N CO N m m N m m m N N m N L O L N N H R V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c-I O O O O c-I O cc $ J y J LD IzT n n m 00 M Ln I- N LO O 1- 00 M -1 O Ln I, -1 n r4 m 'zT +-' Ln Ln I, 00 I, 0) cV 0) O CO N N N m O m I, Q1 I, LD LD cV -1 0) 0 7 O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X O 7 O � t C O m (n m rI M O M Ln m N I- V c'n O c-I -zT N-zT N Ln i n n 00 LD N J O Lo O Lo O Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o m cc O m O m O m O m m IT o cn t o rI o rI m h o rI mzT O c-I m'T O -1 mzT N N N N m m to to to LD I, n n n co co c0 Y N I m o � o O O O LC) O N ii ii ii ii U- o o _ to _ U) U U 7 7 O O m o IT m o co me N� (0 (h CO CO co c o a0 � N N O N o o O O O co o o � V N 1-� N� O �o O co 0 C) 0 co O I- N N o O O 0 CO 0 (0 O L O L O 2 2 2 2 a`ci a`ci a a a a 0 O C7 O to Y U 7 C7 O O O c2 (0 co V ao LO O co O C7 O V c7 LO (0 m LO O LO C7 LO O a a� cc E N w Be MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII nnn,nnn,nnn, III�II;III�II;I�1��1; Illl�l�l�lll��llllllf IIIIII,IIIIII,IIIIII, II��II,IIIIII,II�111, IIIIII;IIIIII;IIIIII; Illlll,llllil,�lllll, IIIIII,IIIIII,IIIIII, IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII co cm 0 v N N LO O N O 1— ffv� 0 co co 0 co 0 IT C7 V 0 co cY) co 1— co V LO co co O C7 O 1- 0 LO N 0 co cc a cc E U) N W rl- 0 0 CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Appendix B Roundabout Concepts July 16, 2020 608 23 0 0 m- �F m S� �S Ym CO w U m0 F n U _ U m F 0, _ _ g m L ` 0 = 0 O and Qm V T� e 0 o 0-10 7p . o Z ow _ �Z O' Z wo m w Z0 ZF U O� wa ¢¢ ry 7 > ¢ 0 0 ¢y d� O z koo� . - .. ovoa nnvo t r ' a w =P _ m w O 3 - �m m 0 < - Z O 0 = Z ° 0 Do g zw oww = _ 0 K W O w a Z.0 7� mZ 0 O �7i e 2E O • • AP 40e. A. 3ARi0 NOlswHi 2i31SOd U "-� p�� CRANDALL ENGINEERING AND IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT MOVESJ ROUNDABOUT STRATEGY Prepared for City of Saint John Appendix C Traffic Analysis Report Output July 16, 2020 614 24 Junctions 9 ARCADY 9 - Roundabout Module Version: 9.5.0.6896 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2018 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: +44 (0)1344 379777 software@trl.co.uk www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution Filename: Ocean Westway @ Gault Road.j9 Path: Q:\2019\1900497-00-C - MoveSJ Phase 3Wdmin\Design\Roundabout Analysis\Ocean Westway @ Gault Road Report generation date: 03/12/2019 9:32:06 AM Ocean Westway @ Gault Road - 2U19, AM »Ocean Westway @ Gault Road - 2019, PM »Ocean Westway @ Gault Road - 20%, AM Ocean Westway @ Gault Road - 20%, PM Summary of intersection performance There are warnings associated with one or more model runs - see the 'Data Errors and Warnings' tables for each Analysis or Demand Set. Values shown are the highest values encountered overall time segments. Delay is the maximum value of Av. delay per arriving vehicle. Int LOS and Int Del are demand -weighted Av.s. Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Av. delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph Veh Veh perHour s -Min perMin 1; n �'p Gault o any Ir �4p4 S �3 (,%) Tg (s a� 10 m to i 0 CD 'v f �' m o� * Cc �� �5etpl 1�63 The intersection diagram reflects the last run of Intersections. Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 3.66 1 A Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Manawagonish Road ONE HOUR ✓ 199 100.000 2 - Gault Road ONE HOUR ✓ 56 100.000 3 -Route 1 Ramps ONE HOUR ✓ 35 100.000 4 - Ocean Westway ONE HOUR ✓ 160 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 Max LOS Av. Demand Intersection (Veh) (Veh/hr) Arrivals (Veh) 1 - Manawagonish Road 0.19 3.76 0.2 0.5 A 199 199 2 - Gault Road 0.06 3.49 0.1 0.5 A 56 56 3 -Route 1 Ramps 0.03 3.37 0.0 0.5 A 35 35 4 - Ocean Westway 0.15 3.66 0.2 0.5 A 160 160 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 4.19 A Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Manawagonish Road ONE HOUR ✓ 338 100.000 2 - Gault Road ONE HOUR ✓ 83 100.000 3 -Route 1 Ramps ONE HOUR ✓ 58 100.000 4 - Ocean Westway ONE HOUR ✓ 244 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 Max LOS (Veh) Av. Demand Total (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 1.qrA 1 - Manawagonish Road 0.32 4.54 0.5 2.0 A 338 338 2 - Gault Road 0.09 3.73 0.1 0.5 A 83 83 3 -Route 1 Ramps 0.06 3.40 0.1 0.5 A 58 58 4 - Ocean Westway 0.23 4.04 0.3 1.3 A 244 244 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 3.83 1 A Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Manawagonish Road ONE HOUR ✓ 239 100.000 2 - Gault Road ONE HOUR ✓ 67 100.000 3 -Route 1 Ramps ONE HOUR ✓ 42 100.000 4 - Ocean Westway ONE HOUR ✓ 192 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Max Q95 Av. Demand Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 1 - Manawagonish Road 0.22 3.96 0.3 1.3 A 239 239 2 - Gault Road 0.07 3.60 0.1 0.5 A 67 67 3 -Route 1 Ramps 0.04 3.46 0.0 0.5 A 42 42 4 - Ocean Westway 0.18 3.83 0.2 0.5 A 192 192 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 4.61 A Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Manawagonish Road ONE HOUR ✓ 406 100.000 2 - Gault Road ONE HOUR ✓ 100 100.000 3 -Route 1 Ramps ONE HOUR ✓ 70 100.000 4 - Ocean Westway ONE HOUR ✓ 293 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Max Q95 Av. Demand Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 1 - Manawagonish Road 0.39 5.12 0.6 2.7 A 406 406 2 - Gault Road 0.11 3.96 0.1 0.5 A 100 100 3 -Route 1 Ramps 0.07 3.51 0.1 0.5 A 70 70 4 - Ocean Westway 0.28 4.40 0.4 1.5 A 293 293 Junctions 9 ARCADY 9 - Roundabout Module Version: 9.5.0.6896 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2018 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: +44 (0)1344 379777 software@trl.co.uk www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution Filename: Rothesay @ Ashburn RoundaboutJ9 Path: Q:\2019\1900497-00-C - MoveSJ Phase 3\Admin\Design\Roundabout Analysis\Ashburn - Rothesay Report generation date: 03/12/2019 9:24:00 AM Rothesay Rd. @ Ashburn - 2U19, Ali' »Rothesay Rd. @ Ashburn - 2019, PM »Rothesay Rd. @ Ashburn - 20%, AM »Rothesay Rd. @ Ashburn - 20%, PM Summary of intersection performance There are warnings associated with one or more model runs - see the 'Data Errors and Warnings' tables for each Analysis or Demand Set. Values shown are the highest values encountered overall time segments. Delay is the maximum value of Av. delay per arriving vehicle. Int LOS and Int Del are demand -weighted Av.s. 11-PZII Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Av. delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph Veh Veh perHour s -Min perMin 2 - Rothesay Borth • M WEENNEEMEMd 245 (2%) 551 (254_1 IV 4 - Ro'thesay South ft .. " N& _W vmtd, The intersection diagram reflects the last run of Intersections. Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 10.50 1 B Demand overview ITrafficl Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Rothesay North ONE HOUR ✓ 817 100.000 3-Ashburn ONE HOUR ✓ 164 100.000 4 - Rothesay South ONE HOUR ✓ 193 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) Max LOS 2 - Rothesay North 0.77 13.10 3.2 14.1 B 3-Ashburn 0.22 5.71 0.3 1.2 A 4 - Rothesay South 0.18 3.60 0.2 0.5 A Data Errors and Warninas Total Av. Demand Intersection (Veh/hr) Arrivals (Veh) 817 164 817 164 193 193 Severity Area Item Description Warning Demand Sets D2 - 2019, PM Time results are shown for central hour only. (Model is run for a 90 minute period.) Warning Queue variations Analysis Options Q percentiles may be unreliable if the mean queue in any time segment is very low or very high. Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 7.43 1 A Demand overview ITrafficl Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Rothesay North ONE HOUR ✓ 224 100.000 3-Ashburn ONE HOUR ✓ 663 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period V Av. Demand Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) I Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection J Arrivals (Veh) C:PA 2 - Rothesay North 0.21 3.86 0.3 1.1 A 224 224 3-Ashburn 0.66 9.43 1.9 3.5 A 663 663 4 - Rothesay South 0.49 6.35 0.9 2.0 A 487 487 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) I Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 27.26 D Demand overview (Traffic► Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Rothesay North ONE HOUR ✓ 980 100.000 3-Ashburn ONE HOUR ✓ 197 100.000 4 - Rothesay South ONE HOUR ✓ 232 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Av. Demand Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 2 - Rothesay North 0.93 36.88 10.3 55.8 E 980 980 3-Ashburn 0.30 7.02 0.4 1.6 A 197 197 4 - Rothesay South 0.21 3.78 0.3 1.2 A 232 232 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 11.73 B 1��j Demand overview ITrafficl Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Rothesay North ONE HOUR ✓ 269 100.000 3-Ashburn ONE HOUR ✓ 796 100.000 4 - Rothesay South ONE HOUR ✓ 584 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) Max LOS 2 - Rothesay North 0.25 4.13 0.3 1.4 A 3-Ashburn 0.81 16.84 4.0 20.0 C 4 - Rothesay South 0.60 8.28 1.5 1.7 A Total Av. Demand Intersection (Veh/hr) Arrivals (Veh) 269 269 796 796 584 584 C:PZ1 Junctions 9 ARCADY 9 - Roundabout Module Version: 9.5.0.6896 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2018 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: +44 (0)1344 379777 software@trl.co.uk www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution Filename: Sandy Point - Foster Thurston RoundaboutJ9 Path: Q:\2019\1900497-00-C - MoveSJ Phase 3\Admin\Design\Roundabout Analysis\Sandy Point - Foster Thurston Report generation date: 03/12/2019 9:34:18 AM »Sandy Point @ Foster Thurston - 2019, AM »Sandy Point @ Foster Thurston - 2019, PM »Sandy Point @ Foster Thurston - 20%, AM »Sandy Point @ Foster Thurston - 20%, PM Summary of intersection performance There are warnings associated with one or more model runs - see the 'Data Errors and Warnings' tables for each Analysis or Demand Set. Values shown are the highest values encountered overall time segments. Delay is the maximum value of Av. delay per arriving vehicle. Int LOS and Int Del are demand -weighted Av.s. 1��el Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Av. delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph Veh Veh perHour s -Min perMin Cn 20 _(s%) 67 2 - Foster Thurston r r 4 - Sandy Point South Pa—"_N&—w emmm, The intersection diagram reflects the last run of Intersections. Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 9.11 I A IMU Demand overview ITrafficl Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Foster Thurston ONE HOUR ✓ 752 100.000 3 - Sandy Point West ONE HOUR ✓ 88 100.000 4 - Sandy Point South ONE HOUR ✓ 122 100.000 11 Results Summary for whole modelled period Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) 2 - Foster Thurston 0.71 10.42 2.4 3 - Sandy Point West 0.13 5.72 0.2 4 - Sandy Point South 0.11 3.47 0.1 Intersections Total Max Q95 Av. Demand (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 752 7.0 B 752 0.5 A 88 88 0.5 A 122 122 Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 6.08 1 A Demand overview ITrafficl Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Foster Thurston ONE HOUR ✓ 215 100.000 3 - Sandy Point West ONE HOUR ✓ 48 100.000 1 Results Summary for whole modelled period Max Q95 Av. Demand Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection 3.79 0.2 1.0 Arrivals (Veh) 2 - Foster Thurston 0.20 A 215 215 3 - Sandy Point West 0.05 3.39 0.0 0.5 A 48 48 4 - Sandy Point South 0.58 7.06 1.4 1.6 A 632 632 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 16.63 1 C Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Foster Thurston ONE HOUR ✓ 902 100.000 3 - Sandy Point West ONE HOUR ✓ 106 100.000 4 - Sandy Point South ONE HOUR ✓ 146 100.000 Results Results Summary for whole modelled period Max Q95 Av. Demand Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 2 - Foster Thurston 0.85 19.88 5.2 27.1 C 902 902 3 - Sandy Point West 0.18 6.95 0.2 0.6 A 106 106 4 - Sandy Point South 0.14 3.57 0.2 0.5 A 146 146 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 2, 3, 4 8.07 A Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 2 - Foster Thurston ONE HOUR ✓ 258 100.000 3 - Sandy Point West ONE HOUR ✓ 58 100.000 4 - Sandy Point South ONE HOUR ✓ 758 100.000 C•M-11 Results Summary for whole modelled period Max Q95 Av. Demand Total Leg Max V/C Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 2 - Foster Thurston 0.24 4.02 0.3 1.4 A 258 258 3 - Sandy Point West 0.06 3.50 0.1 0.5 A 58 58 4 - Sandy Point South 0.69 9.79 2.2 5.8 A 758 758 1�l Junctions 9 ARCADY 9 - Roundabout Module Version: 9.5.0.6896 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2018 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: +44 (0)1344 379777 software@trl.co.uk www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution Filename: Simms Corner Roundabout - Multi-LaneJ9 Path: Q:\2019\1900497-00-C - MoveSJ Phase 3\Admin\Design\Roundabout Analysis\Simms Corner Report generation date: 03/12/2019 9:38:06 AM »Simms Corner - 2019, AM »Simms Corner - 2019, PM »Simms Corner - 25%, AM »Simms Corner - 25%, PM Summary of intersection performance There are warnings associated with one or more model runs - see the 'Data Errors and Warnings' tables for each Analysis or Demand Set. Values shown are the highest values encountered overall time segments. Delay is the maximum value of Av. delay per arriving vehicle. Leg and int Deis are Av.s for all movements, including movements with zero delay. Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Av. delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph Veh Veh perHour s -Min perMin N fv aN + c7 r �t 41 791 2% 116 2%[ o) mr�r� N N Y t4 4A 4 - Fairville Ftrm nrt rrrpiY M 4.+wY 3Yw�•i lam wmke°A .mllMsellon N°u: C@:U6gP The intersection diagram reflects the last run of Intersections. Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 7.86 1 A Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Lancaster ONE HOUR ✓ 1 241 100.000 210 2°k 73 2% 19 2% M 2 - Bridge ONE HOUR ✓ 440 100.000 3 - Main St. West ONE HOUR ✓ 731 100.000 4 - Fairville ONE HOUR ✓ 281 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Av. Demand Total Leg Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 1 - Lancaster 7.08 0.6 2.0 A 220 330 2 - Bridge 4.64 0.8 2.6 A 402 603 3 - Main St. West 10.32 2.4 8.2 B 673 1010 4 - Fairville 7.16 0.6 2.4 A 258 387 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 6.73 A Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Lancaster ONE HOUR ✓ 196 100.000 2 - Bridge ONE HOUR ✓ 808 100.000 3 - Main St. West ONE HOUR ✓ 479 100.000 4 - Fairville ONE HOUR ✓ 377 100.000 Results Sum ary for whole modelled period Av. Demand Total Leg Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) Max LOS (Veh/hr) Intersection Arrivals (Veh) 1 - Lancaster 4.91 0.4 2.9 A 184 276 2 - Bridge 7.91 2.1 5.6 A 740 1109 3 - Main St. West 5.39 0.7 2.5 A 437 655 4 - Fairville 6.84 0.8 2.6 A 343 514 M- M Intersection Network Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 13.63 1 B Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Lancaster ONE HOUR ✓ 301 100.000 2 - Bridge ONE HOUR ✓ 550 100.000 3 - Main St. West ONE HOUR ✓ 914 100.000 4 - Fairville ONE HOUR ✓ 351 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Total Av. Demand Leg Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) Max LOS Intersection (Veh/hr) 276 Arrivals (Veh) 1 - Lancaster 11.70 1.1 4.8 B 413 2 - Bridge 5.43 1.0 3.6 A 497 745 3 - Main St. West 19.96 5.8 20.1 C 838 1257 4 - Fairville 11.44 1.5 5.5 B 324 485 Intersections Intersection Name Intersection type Use circulating lanes Leg order Int Del (s) Int LOS 1 untitled I Standard Roundabout 1, 2, 3, 4 10.68 1 B Demand overview (Traffic) Leg Linked leg Profile type Use O-D data Av. Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%) 1 - Lancaster ONE HOUR ✓ 245 100.000 2 - Bridge ONE HOUR ✓ 1010 100.000 M-19j 3 - Main St. West ONE HOUR ✓ 1 599 100.000 4 - Fairville ONE HOUR ✓ 1 471 100.000 Results Summary for whole modelled period Total Av. Demand Leg Max Delay (s) Max Q (Veh) Max Q95 (Veh) Max LOS Intersection (Veh/hr) Arrivals (Veh) 1 - Lancaster 6.04 0.5 1.7 A 224 337 2 - Bridge 14.16 4.9 16.0 B 932 1399 3 - Main St. West 6.83 1.1 3.4 A 549 824 4 - Fairville 10.49 1.7 5.7 B 430 646 M11 AM Peak PM Peak Max Queue (m) Veh Delay (s) LOS Int. Delay Int. LOS Max Queue (m) Veh Delay (s) I LOS Int. Delay Int. LOS Existing Main St 57.77 2.34 A 5.22 A 44.56 2.80 A 4.09 A Fairville Blvd 71.15 13.08 B 84.92 9.34 A Lancaster Ave 35.69 11.60 B 24.80 4.14 A Bridge Rd 15.57 1.26 A 35.39 2.29 A 20% Growth Main St 65.66 3.10 A 11.09 B 57.00 3.99 A 6.64 A Fairville Blvd 101.47 30.22 D 107.74 17.48 C Lancaster Ave 55.71 29.89 D 30.33 5.84 A Bridge Rd 23.78 1.52 A 53.20 3.23 A MIDI COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-38 Report Date February 02, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Utilities and Infrastructure Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Fundy Quay Public Space Project Scope AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Jeffrey Cyr J. Brent McGovern I John Collin RECOMMENDATION That Common Council direct the City Manager to: 1. Remove the pedway from the Fundy Quay scope of work. 2. Work with the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada to retain all funding associated with the pedway such that the funding can be used in the public space to achieve the full scope of the project as presented in M&C No. 2022-38, and 3. Complete the preparation of tender documents and proceed with tendering the Fundy Quay Public Space project based upon the full project scope as outlined in M&C No. 2022-38. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the public unveiling of the concept design of the Public Space for the Fundy Quay and Market Slip in September of 2021, the project team has been working to align the proposed design with public feedback and existing budget envelopes. Based on these efforts, it is projected that the City will have sufficient budget to complete both the full scope of the Public Space and Site Works projects, if the pedway connection is removed from the scope of the project. Alternative features from the design have been identified for a change request to be submitted to Infrastructure Canada to retain the full funding envelope for the project. With Council's support, procurement efforts for the construction of the public space will begin over the coming months. This will include the release of RFPs for systems and equipment beginning in this month (February) and the tender for construction is planned for the month of March 2022. -2- PREVIOUS RESOLUTION February 22, 2021; (M&C 2021-05) Approved Utility and General Fund — Revised 2021 Capital Programs February 22, 2021: (M&C 2021-045) Approved Architectural Services: Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage Extension. March 22, 2021: (M&C 2021-088) Fundy Quay — Infrastructure Funding — Letters of Offer. December 13, 2021: (M&C 2021-361) Contract 2021-081202T: Fundy Quay - Site Works. December 20, 2021: (M&C 2021- Public Space at Market Slip — Site Demolition. REPORT Background Since the public launch of the Fundy Quay project, considerable progress has been made towards the construction of both public infrastructure and the private development of the site. This includes the tender award for the site works project, tender award of the site demolition of the public space, engagement of the public on the concept design for the public space, and zoning approvals for the first building of the private sector development. With these milestones completed, the next critical step is to finalize the public space design, procure the materials and systems proposed, and tender for construction. The recommended design has evolved based on a detailed assessment of the physical characteristics of the site, a regulatory review, a risk assessment, public input and aspirations, review of the best practices, review of precedent waterfront designs, understanding of other city-wide initiatives and plans, and potential integration of the Fundy Quay development. Both key stakeholders and the public have been engaged through more than a dozen meetings over the past 8 months. Public Engagement & Feedback In the fall of 2021, an in -person public open house was held in the Market Square Atrium to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback on the concept design for the public space. This was followed up by an online call for public feedback and displays being set up in the City Market. The public were prompted to provide feedback on the design and to also provide direction on areas and features that should be considered for budget reductions, as the concept that was presented was likely to be beyond the scope of the project budget. Some of the most common themes of the feedback included: M- YA -3- • Open the space and improve access to the water • Declutter and change the use of the space to be more forward thinking • Universal Access and Active Transportation • Variety and Flexibility • Unite Harbour Passage and City's heritage • Comfortable, place just to "chill" • Change the name • More "green" elements • Shelter, Shade, Microclimate • Accommodate larger gatherings • Distinctive look and character • Consider all 4 seasons With regards to areas to consider for trimming the project budget, the pedway connection from Market Square to the Fundy Quay property was the most recommended element to reduce or remove from the project scope. Finalization of Budget & Scope Following the public open house held in fall of 2021, the project team began working to further the design and to identify cost savings to balance the budget. This was examined in context with the Fundy Quay Site Works project, which identified the possibility of significant cost savings on that aspect of the project. Overall, several considerations were evaluated to reduce costs while maintaining the features and quality of the public facing elements of the design. This included: • Value engineering "behind the scenes" elements of the design; • Direct procurement of specific materials and systems to avoid supply chain delays and reduce overall contractor markups; • Specific value engineering of features which were presenting themselves as high budget items; • The removal of the pedway connection from the current scope of the project; and • Implementing a strategic approach to the soil remediation project at the Fundy Quay. With the above -mentioned efforts providing the City of Saint John with significant project savings, it is forecasted that the City will have sufficient budget to complete both the full scope of the Public Space and Site Works projects. While there is still design and costing work to be finalized, the project team is confident in recommending the City proceed with the full scope of the public space design, except for the pedway connection, as recommended within this report. Mi.,] -4- Pedway Removal & Infrastructure Canada Funding Through the design and public engagement process, the pedway connection has been identified as a component of the project that both posed significant challenges and has raised concern from segments of the public. The challenges experienced on the pedway component included: • Budget, significant cost of construction increases have occurred since the outset of the project as the price of steel increased dramatically. • Timing, the Federal Funding timelines required the completion of construction of the pedway prior to the construction of the building it is planned to connect to. • Design, value engineering efforts to reduce the budget impacts of the pedway resulted in undesirable structural features that could not be recommended as part of the public space design. Based on this, it is recommended that the pedway connection be removed from the scope of the design and that staff be directed to submit a formal change request to the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada. Additional features in the design will be proposed as alternatives within the change request. This will include an extension of an enhanced Harbour Passage section from the Library to the Hilton Hotel and further enhancements to the side entrance of Market Square as shown in the image below. These features were not contemplated in the original funding application and represent a similar cost profile to the initial estimates for the pedway submitted to Infrastructure Canada. I It is also noteworthy that there may still be opportunities to continue to explore the option of a pedway connection with the Elias Management Group in the future, in conjunction with the construction of the future phase of the development that the pedway was intended to connect to. There may be efficiencies in a future collaboration that may present a viable option for the quality of pedway connection that would be suitable for such a landmark public space. M- 16-1 -5- Schedule for Design & Tenders As the project team continues to push forward in the design and construction documents for the public space, several key milestones are anticipated in the coming months. This includes the tendering of construction in the month of March and the release of Request for Proposals (RFPs) for key materials and systems in the month of February. The upcoming RFPs to be released include: • Pedestrian level lighting • Seawall railing systems • Patio enclosure glazed structure systems • Concrete unit pavers • Mechanical and pump equipment for the plaza fountains • Granite supply for the tidal steps • A chiller system for the ice surface As proposals are received for the above -mentioned RFPs further budget certainty will be secured prior to tendering for construction of the public space, managing budgetary risk for the City. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The Fundy Quay project aligns with Council's priorities of GROW, GREEN, BELONG, MOVE and PERFORM. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES Funding for the Fundy Quay project is provided by the Provincial and Federal Governments through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) and the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF). The full project (including the seawall) has received approximately $18.4 Million (67%) with the remainder funds provided by the 2021 City of Saint John General Capital program. The Fundy Quay site works are part of a broader project to transform Saint John's urban waterfront, with an agreement for private sector development on the Fundy Quay site, creating a strong business case for the project. The Ground Lease with Fundy is based on a maximum value of $6.45M and will generate initial lease payments of $250,000 annually until purchased. The development of the site is anticipated to generate $2M -$3M in annual property tax revenue at full build out, securing the development has been instrumental in the approval of an additional $15M in federal and provincial infrastructure investments. [c�[i1 -6- INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS A cross departmental team from the City and other close stakeholders in the project has been involved in project oversight since the project launch. The project also concluded a wide range of public and key stakeholder engagements with positive feedback on the proposed design. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fundy Quay Public Space Project Scope s M o;= WuoW r su< Z� O S C y"I 4-0 C: �, Z Mo � W to Mo (B C: i N ?� O a-J Q Mimi u _� _0 L/) m C: U ° Q Mo L/) CL o a'D C: LM C: � ° > O° U E Lr N Q_. E 0 N cn •0 co •O • • cn N N m O N L O O U U Q a� L Q) Q) � Q ai 4J U C6 C6 u d) O on OJ L O O 41 E Z3 Z3 ai a O n +-j ^� W E a) C]A C]A LU U .0 hA � cn v U C6 11 Q U O L a-J O a, 4- N E O U W 0 2 Q 0 U CL 0 CL 4-) U ate--+ 0 •; ^ •E Ln U Co �C: LL 00 4� 4-1 = O ou -1 4 a v� 4-, V ° E v Q� E � •o °'�� O 4j U cn Oj a °o .�' 14-� U � N � 0 � �•10 U i7i E �..� E E Cu 4U to 0 m � a� bA E t� w > m ago Qu a� ° �•a v M o �v is � 0 oc U 2 co-C D co" � +1 e W to 0 Q{ z Wil m oil I. :I ■■N !`0-4/ , z a1 v Q a a v v v W v a l a� (4-J U4a , N ,0 4- J U N � N c Q� m O 0 E Ov a W Fs {L� �Ak J U W txo W > •O O E i E O co O Lim � O �� Ca > L O :3 E crLn Vf N p� N Ca U N tw W Lim i hA -0 ca E O ca U-0 CL cr (A �+ >- U � �� N Q E 2 C 0 e m" O � ca ci V) 2 a Q . F u' jw a:p W sap�a� Z� co" e M, W to 0 a� cc Z � O � w x r � v9 f CR tom-• z '4 O Q d G Q 2 = W S h L4 y d O � O v_ d I-� y U) w Z Z WJ ym J^ a bl. y'a 4+ 1. ' C W v� a� I a WiilUMr Y Mae 70 '1 : pi 21 �� I-T it It to s H os I ra u pl, Z7, Z -- TO cn -1 4-0 c 2c,(u LU to I i LPAL&� 1;j , ; ap 1% t, cm 44*,k� CA 4J WA (M I LU 4 ti ALL Au 0 • 0 4 rloo- 4ML rid , numi I za z -Ak l" L, e IRK hr,m A 'Avow I OF LN i Z�- i cn -' �4or c Z '- W to 1 0 `� z 2 CD OWN 0 2M,- LUtn I Llml� -7- MM6UVL M all -ten - 1 . r - a3z. 0 2 WW 'S �.a V i L An }IA - - Ct 5 1 ' • � ! � ail _ _ •j +i► win A���m1'i.y� W�oW a 6 V < kAAl Z = y AL14 Am #A Cox � f i. 4+ �.� 'fir- �..f�' �•�, ��'{r � - 1 ' \ w� _+;p YµJ M, KAI tT 1� VI'll 4( le A4 li A X" I i-i z 2c c COX —0 I I0 cop) cz , �.w 2c,m- AV LU t& ji 1 resat 'A 64 m I N 000-.% m _ N N O � O O N ( N a--+ N Ln N O Ln Ca c O a--+ � O Co U � U O U 0 E c�am/') cam/') 2 L C: aw :3 o m o cn a. U N 2 U W a-+ W J 0 7 am" w a-1 U 0 a-1 E Q w O � O +_+ 4— E � U u C: i U O O O O 4 N > C m Q � N cn OU ���� • � U00 E ' O N N ca u 000 Q N . U N O U N O Q i,UM_O m L,N U �L/)z L o O= oZS 4�� co 0 E v O O ate--+ O U •— fa • 0 fa .� -0 -0 (0 N a) 0-0 0 cn O O N U Q C: Q ' U to 0 ; a--+ m a- J cn E i Q N O O •Q) E •� V U °� O +� U U +� rl N (yi F u' jw a:p W sap�a� Z� Cl� co" e M, W to COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-032 Report Date January 28, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Public Works and Transportation Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: North Depot Relocation AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Ian Fogan Michael Hugenholtz I John Collin RECOMMENDATION Recommendation from Finance Committee to Common Council to amend the 2022 Capital Budget to include $1.873 million from the Capital Reserve Fund to relocate the North Depot services to Rothesay Avenue and relocate Fleet Services to the Transit Building. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Depot, located on McIntosh Street off the Boars Head Road in Millidgeville will be requiring significant capital investment to maintain the current services provided from that location. An examination was conducted to determine if the services could be relocated to a different facility in order to consolidate the numberof facilities and make available the land in Millidgeville for development. A feasibility study was conducted and it was determined that relocating Fleet Service from the North Depot and Rothesay Avenue into the Transit building would provide an opportunity to relocate the other services such as line painting, signs and traffic lights to the Rothesay Avenue facility. This would provide the optimal outcome of lowering operating cost, lowering the cost of future capital investment, placing similar vehicle maintenance work together at Transit, bring more works crews together at Rothesay Avenue and provide for indoor storage space at minimal cost. A $1,873 million initial investment is required to enable a savings over of $2.9 million over a 20 year period. M-A -2- PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A REPORT The North Depot requires extensive capital investment in the next 10 years to maintain the services being delivered. The depot is also located in a desirable and growing area of the City. The City sought to understand what opportunities may exist for a re -alignment or relocation of the depot. Real Estate conducted examination of the lands for potential contamination and sought to determine the level of investor interest in the land. Both inquiries had positive outcomes and while the relocation of the services would still result in a net positive or break-even outcome even without sale of the land, there is significant investor interest in residential development on the parcel that houses the North Depot which adds to the positive business case for the relocation. The Facilities Management team aided in developing the alternatives for North Depot relocation. Public Works desired having the crews that work out of the North Depot, relocated to Rothesay Avenue if possible. At the same time, The City was examining options with the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions and an opportunity was identified to have all fleet and maintenance work conducted in one facility by relocating the Fleet Division to the Transit building. The joint management of fleet maintenance is now enabled with the approval of the Management Services Agreement between the Transit Commission and Common Council. Stantec was asked to help conduct a feasibility study and later, detailed design if the project was feasible, in the relocation of services. Stantec designed the Transit building in the original construction and were aware of the building's limitations and opportunities. The building was constructed for a larger Transit service than currently exists and relocating Fleet to the building will now fully utilize the building and create synergies and lower overall overhead cost of Fleet/Transit services. Finance aided in evaluation of the business case to complete the relocation. Operating cost, such as energy and heat, capital cost and potential revenues over the next 20 years were all considered in building the business case. There are energy savings from relocating service to a more efficient building and from consolidation overall. The capital costs include all projected capital in the three locations and includes the capital avoided with relocation and the initial investment required. Comparing these two scenarios gives at worst a break-even outcome that would be supported with the other qualitative improvements but there is also an opportunity to sell the land at the North Depot and realize the tax gains from development. When the potential revenues and expenses were considered in the analysis, relocating the North Depot to Rothesay Avenue and AN -3- Fleet to Transit results in a net positive of a projected $2.9 million over the next 20 years. Conservative assumptions for energy reduction, capital cost and revenues have all been used to reduce the risk to the business case. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Grow: This project will see a consolidation of work spaces, enabling the sale and subsequent redevelopment of a prime parcel of land in Millidgeville. Green: This project will reduce the City's overall energy consumption and fully utilizes environmental protection systems located at a modern Transit garage that do not yet exist in the dated Rothesay Avenue Garage. Perform: The project will lead to reduced downtime for key pieces of equipment, creates synergies by putting "like" work together at the same facility and reduce the overhead cost of services. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The relocation requires an initial investment of $1.873 million to complete the fit - up of fleet services at Transit. Using all conservative assumptions, the investment will reduce costs over the next 20 years by over $2.9 million compared to the status quo. An amendment of the Capital Budget is supported by the Capital Budget Policy in that the investment demonstrates a positive business case. Using the Capital Reserve Fund is also appropriate to support a positive business case and would ensure the City remains in line with debt management targets. Completing the relocation also offers other benefits and efficiencies to service delivery. Locating Fleet Services at Transit sustains the reduction of one management position in maintenance (the money for which is not included in the business case). Having one centralized location where the majority of vehicle maintenance is conducted will enable one manager to supervise both Fleet and Transit maintenance divisions. With Fleet leaving the Rothesay Avenue garage, Public Works will now have access to indoor storage space where most work for the department is coordinated. This will help reduce the cost of maintenance and the downtime of key pieces of equipment which is susceptible to premature wear in extreme weather conditions. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS AM -4- Real Estate and Facility services have aided Public Works and Transportation in the development of the alternatives for relocation and Finance has aided developing the business case. ATTACHMENTS Presentation given to Finance Committee C-N'7 ► 0 ON Api �' �� ter �4w Ep"# a, r� ,lttirt t f I' r , f,IA * a*" tot , r �� t� "; fA fit 1 r�►,r '►� '�' ,rr,rrp CAW rr 1 r♦1 'r*1 r1r1}� f % r+1 r�1 ter i P 4.:j a� ' 1 �- rV l_t.,, O cn 1 W 1 1 v '00" r. _ r � 0 + , �. ` r S-7r �,;P 4 ' fk4 ``. °. r r v ,n/ W 4--J nu W L0 O �U " +j O O z C: C: a C: C: O E o C: fu o � � O C: N N N N >, •� cu N _ N .0 U ate--+ >. .� N fu >, LL f6 � +j N N N N N X _� a--+ Li- +jN +j _ Q LL �•}— L cu N N O Q O N O fj m N C N � _ •E_ • — _O +-+ _ t�A O N O C O L O X C: O cn N O U U i (n '� O C G_0 'cn Q +j .0 L u E , f6 cu rfuM cu ca •O Ln O a� .C: O U .N N O Q W .N N N L f6 m Q •U m _N +j N f6 bD +j f6 U N L 0 au +j m L N N W N N > N L bD .N m +j N E +j N N .C: f6 Q ca U N L +j +j m .C: .bD N E ca O +-+ +�-+ N N E .N 4-0 N > • — +-+ = ' O O 0 � U C _0 Q O '> > m o w 0 O N -0 � a) L- +-0 c /). O ca O O _� u EN U � Z > U •— a) N O =3 Q. 'ca =3 a)4-0a)cn Q O N � _O > cn �: m 4-0 Q 4-0 Q— c w w >. a) E a > � 0 0 -- E : a� -0 Ln U N +-+ N� cn N N � N � � Q� N ca U co ca N� O N p 0 0 0 p> O � cn DC U LL Z Z DC .� Z 3 \ � to U ) 5 e m o \�± �$ \f ƒ k \ \ 2 2 > m E A E � k \ \ E k �� ~E7 / tof / / o \ r� .\ \ / \ k \ k \ �� Ln � � \ 0 - t - E 2 ƒ 4 ^ e ± Ln • t ° ./ y ) 2 ¥ \ > o LU q 2 + £ 7 g R o > \ % y \/ t \ § u( E E ) f L » 2 y £ 0£ 0 / k o ƒ / / \ \ Lf) x � � 3 § V) / \ k ¥ 2 2 @ g t E E \ 7 \ ' \ 0 E E % . = 2 x \ « \ \ CL y ƒ / 0 -0./ \ m \ y e \ e e 2 .E = E E / 7 gƒ E ° / ° 0 e 2 o ccE 13 \ 4- 0 O M M O O O O O O O O E91 091 091 091 00 m 00 m O O 0 Z. � Ob 3 O LL N O Q ti N O CY) O N O O Ef} N O C") 0 f, O 091� Ln N O 1,7 M `M O O w L a ++ O N O N ca O O H) ti 00 Ef} n 00 C\j cA Q O m L..LO Z �LO O CV N �, CO N CO O N � CY) 00 , O N M O N w to m a L A LO LO 0 � C� 0 0 C'7 649, N CA C14 � �} m Ln � N 04 m N I': U O oc ++ N 00 O N 00 O � (D m O T I m Ob m L Z O E 41 = �••� ai m •y N W w > (On O V E Z., a L Q Oy y 2 N f6 (A w> O ++ N E OA O ca ++ Q V O L O CL + w ++ O a N 3 w _ f6 O iJ Z co cm a) O O O ' U a--+ 4-J Ca tJ) ' O C� o MOU N a"' v L*O) C m C: a) E — O Ln 0 aJ LL ^ ` E Q E a) to QJ W O �j O v ' m U N O O O cn � p O1 4 O ro Ln O : N aJ m O -0 Cl C: � -0 U : 0�,��L-v v E u O O> < 1 '01, J Di M&C No. 2022-039 Report Date February 04, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Saint John Water SUBJECT: Fundy Quay — Option Amendment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL As the City continues in its infrastructure construction, as outlined in the Option Agreement, several amendments are required to same to address minor changes to the project. COUNCIL RESOLUTION That the City enter into the Amended and Restated Option Agreement in the form as attached to M&C 2022-039, being a version of the Option Agreement entered into on December 19, 2019 as supplemented and amended by Amendments #1- 5, amended and restated on December 13, 2021, and new amendments and restated, with Fundy Quay Developments Inc. for the purpose of amending to reflect proposed changes to the City's obligations to perform site preparation work and certain negotiated changes between the parties regarding the form of lease in respect of the Fundy Quay Development and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said Amended and Restated Option Agreement and any document ancillary thereto or necessary to effect the transaction. [:fliN 1 1,01, J Di M&C No. 2022-033 Report Date February 01, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Corporate Services SUBJECT. Construction License - North Market St. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL City staff was approached by Fundy Harbour Estates Inc. ("Fundy Harbour") about its desire to construct an accessible ingress/egress (the "Accessible Ingress/Egress") on the existing sidewalk infrastructure on North Market St., adjacent to its building. The elevator of the building located at 33-35 Charlotte Street that currently supports accessible access to and from the building on Charlotte St. is old and failing. Fundy Harbour advises that it is challenging to secure replacement parts for this elevator at all, much less in a timely manner. At the time of replacement or during repairs to this elevator, there will be no accessible ingress or egress to the upper stories of the building unless another solution is devised. There is another elevator that provides access to North Market St., but the existing sidewalk infrastructure does not currently accommodate accessible movements. The purpose of this report is to seek authority for the City to grant a license to Fundy Harbour to construct improvements to the existing sidewalk along North Market St. to allow accessible movements adjacent to the above noted building. COUNCIL RESOLUTION That the City enter into a License Agreement in the form as presented to Committee of Whole at its February 7, 2022 meeting with Fundy Harbour Estates Inc. for the purpose of constructing an accessible ingress and egress on the existing sidewalk infrastructure on North Market St., and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said License Agreement and any document ancillary thereto. XM-150 1 '01, j Di M&C No. 2022 - 016 Report Date February 02, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Corporate Services SUBJECT. Recommendation for Disability Benefits EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL Under the City's former pension plan, members of the plan were entitled to long term disability ("LTD") benefits payable from the plan when certain conditions were met. When the City's pension plan was converted from a Defined Benefits Plan to a Shared Risk Plan in 2013, the city purchased an insurance program for long term disability to cover new long term disability claims; however, a few employees who had a pre-existing condition prior to the January 1, 2013, conversion date were not eligible under the insured longterm disability program. Employee ID No. (number to remain confidential) is the last of the employees who had an entitlement to long term disability benefits under the City's former pension plan and was deemed ineligible for coverage under the purchased insurance program. This employee has filed an application for long term disability benefits from the City and meets the criteria as set out in the City's former pension plan. COUNCIL RESOLUTION It is recommended by the Committee of the Whole to Common Council the adoption of the following resolution: "RESOLVED that, in light of the approval letter received from Service Canada (Canada Pension Plan) respecting employee ID No. (which is to remain confidential but the ID number is defined in the Committee of the Whole Closed Session Report of this date), said employee be awarded disability benefits payable by the employer in accordance with the arrangement that was put in place regarding the payment of such benefits at the time of the conversion of the City's former pension plan to the current Shared Risk Plan." 1 1,01, j Di M&C No. 2022-034 Report Date February 02, 2022 Meeting Date February 07, 2022 Service Area Corporate Services SUBJECT. McAllister Industrial Park — Sale to McDonough Brothers Landscaping EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL City staff and McDonough Brothers have been discussing their real estate requirements off and on over the past couple of years and in earnest over the past 5 months. The brothers have determined they want to own their own site and building as opposed to their current arrangement of leasing. A 1.85-acre site was created in the McAllister Industrial Park to the satisfaction of the McDonough brothers. The purpose if this report is to secure the support of Common Council to sell a 1.85 acre parcel of land to Liam McDonough. COUNCIL RESOLUTION That the City enter into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Liam McDonough in the form as presented to Committee of the Whole at its February 7, 2022 meeting for the sale of a 1.85 acre +/- Portion of PID 337386 in the McAllister Industrial Park and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Agreement of Purchase and Sale and all documents necessary to effect the land transaction. I;t11"I February 3, 2022 Your worship and Councillors Subject: Recommended Appointment to Committee The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 29, 2021, adopted the following resolution: Saint John Board of Police Commissioners: to appoint Charles Bryant, pending a security clearance, for a 3-year term from February 7, 2022 to February 7, 2025. Sincerely, Jonathan Taylor City Clerk lr SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.f? 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4Li 1iT-Z