Loading...
2008-09-29_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, September 29, 2008 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Labour Relations 10.2(4)(b,j) 1.2 Labour Relations 10.2(4)0) 13 Intergovernmental Negotiations 10.2(4)(c) 1.4 Labour Relations 10.2(4)0) 1.5 Legal Proceedings 10.2(4)(f,g) 1.6 Deed of Gift 10.2(4)(f,g) Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order — Prayer 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2008 3. Adoption of Agenda 3.1 Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Ave and Broadway Ave (Brought forward from Sept 15) 3.2(a) Sale of Stopped Up and Closed Portion of Highland St (Recommendation in Report) 3.2(b) Sale of Portion of Highland St to East Point Inc.(Brought forward from Sept 15) 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Saint John Waterfront Development (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager) 5.2 Saint John Theatre Co request to present (Recommendation: Refer to Cleric to schedule) 5.3 St. Joseph's Parish request to present (Recommendation: Refer to Cleric to schedule) 5.4 Saint John Animal Rescue League request to present (Recommendation: Refer to Clerk to schedule) 5.5 Imperial Theatre request for fiinding (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager and Budget Deliberation) 5.6 Brick Repointing for Fire Station (Recommendation in Report) a City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, September 29, 2008 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Labour Relations 10.2(4)(b,j) 1.2 Labour Relations 10.2(4)0) 13 Intergovernmental Negotiations 10.2(4)(c) 1.4 Labour Relations 10.2(4)0) 1.5 Legal Proceedings 10.2(4)(f,g) 1.6 Deed of Gift 10.2(4)(f,g) Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order — Prayer 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2008 3. Adoption of Agenda 3.1 Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Ave and Broadway Ave (Brought forward from Sept 15) 3.2(a) Sale of Stopped Up and Closed Portion of Highland St (Recommendation in Report) 3.2(b) Sale of Portion of Highland St to East Point Inc.(Brought forward from Sept 15) 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Saint John Waterfront Development (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager) 5.2 Saint John Theatre Co request to present (Recommendation: Refer to Cleric to schedule) 5.3 St. Joseph's Parish request to present (Recommendation: Refer to Cleric to schedule) 5.4 Saint John Animal Rescue League request to present (Recommendation: Refer to Clerk to schedule) 5.5 Imperial Theatre request for fiinding (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager and Budget Deliberation) 5.6 Brick Repointing for Fire Station (Recommendation in Report) 5.7 Assignment of Lease Raymond's Deli City Market (Recommendation in Report) 5.8 Residential Infrastructure Assistance 452 Lakewood Subdivision (Recommendation in Report) 5.9 Sale of Portions of City Land Former Tudor Lane and Woodhaven Dr (Recommendation in Report) 5.10 Sale of City Owned Land Ashburn Rd (Recommendation in Report) 5.11 Proposed Public Hearing Dates 26 Kiwanis Ct, 106 Spar Cove Rd, 324 Duke St West and 951 -961 Fairville Blvd (Recommendation in Report) 5.12 Proposal Calls Land Along Sandy Point Rd (Recommendation in Report) 5.13 Constriction of Watershed Protection Facilities - Phase III (Recommendation in Report) 5.14 Lily Lake Pavilion Sublease (Recommendation in Report) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 7.1 Patient Safety Week Proclamation 8. Delegations / Presentations 7:30 p.m. 8.1(a) Affordable Housing 8.1(b) Affordable Housing Forum Brief 8:00 p.m. 8.2 Parking Commission Presentation 9. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. 9.1(a) Proposed Section 39 Amendment 661 Dever Rd 9.1(b)Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Section 39 Amendment 661 Dever Rd 9.2(a) Proposed Section 39 Amendment 127 -129 Bayside Dr 9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Section 39 Amendment 127 -129 Bayside Dr 93(a) Proposed Zoning By Law Amendment 861 -891 Fairville Blvd 93(b) Planning Advisory Recommending Rezoning 861 -891 Fairville Blvd 10. Consideration of By -laws 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.0 Ban on Single -use Plastic Bottled Water. Tabled from September 2nd, 2008 (Mayor Court) 11.1 Letter from Minister Landry (Mayor Court) 11.2 Retirement Allowance (Deputy Mayor Chase) 113 Issues Related to Recent Heavy Rain (Deputy Mayor Chase) 11.4 Assessment of Viability of Current Municipal Plan (Councillor Killen) 11.5 Coordination of Road Work (Councillor Titus) 11.6 Proposed Changes to Pension Plan (Deputy Mayor Chase) 11.7 Tax Rate Reduction (Deputy Mayor Chase) 11.8 Weekly Council Meetings (Councillor Sullivan) 11.9 Enhancement for City Community Centres (Councillor McGuire) 11.10 Infrastructure Enhancement for Outlying Neighbourhoods (Councillor McGuire) 11.11 Standing Senate Committee Presentations (Councillor McGuire) 11.12 Use of Services and Infrastructure (Councillor Higgins) 11. 13 Pension Plan Deficit: Dealing with the Issue (Councillor Titus) 12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers 12.1 2008 Debenture Issue 12.2(a) Prince Edward St Traffic By -Law Amendment 12.2(b)(c) Saint John Traffic By Law Amendment Intersection Union St Carmarthen St Prince Edward St 123 One Mile House Interchange - Municipal Services Modifications 12.4 Brunswick Dr and Paul Harris St Watermain and Storm Sewer Installation and Street Reconstruction 12.5 Standing Committee System 12.6 Designation of Municipal Personnel as Inspectors - Clean Water Act 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Proposed Forest Hills Estates Subdivision Phase 4 be Denied. 13.2 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Townhouse Development 26- 44 Royal Parkway 13.3 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Hillcrest Heights North Subdivision 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Adjournment 3 City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 29 septembre 2008 Comite plenier 1. Ouverture de la seance 17 h Salle de conference, 8e etage, h6tel de ville 1.1 Relations de travail — alin6a 10.2(4)b),j) 1.2 Relations de travail — alin6a 10.2(4)j) 13 N6gociations intergouvernementales — alin6a 10.2(4)c) 1.4 Relations de travail — alin6a 10.2(4)j) 1.5 Procedures judiciaires — alin6a 10.2(4)f,g) 1.6 Acte de donation — alin6a 10.2(4)f), g) Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere 18h 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proc&s- verbal de la seance du 15 septembre 2008 3. Adoption de l'ordre du jour 3. I Feux de circulation a 1'intersection des avenues Rothesay et Broadway (point soulev6 lors de la seance du 15 septembre) 3.2a) Vente d'un tron�on de la rue Highland ferm6 a la circulation (recommandation figurant au rapport) 3.2b) Vente d'un tron�on de la rue Highland a la soci6t6 East Point Inc. (point soulev6 lors de la seance du 15 septembre) 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil 5.1 Partenariat d'am6nagement du secteur riverain de Saint John (recommandation : transmettre au directeur general) 5.2 Demande soumise par la troupe de theatre Saint John Theatre Company qui desire se presenter devant le conseil (recommandation : transmettre a la greffi&re pour qu'une date de presentation soit fix6e) 5.3 Demande soumise par la paroisse St. Joseph's Parish qui desire se presenter devant le conseil (recommandation : transmettre a la greffi&re pour qu'une date de presentation soit fix6e) 5.4 Demande soumise par la coalition secours animal Saint John Animal Rescue League qui desire se presenter devant le conseil (recommandation : transmettre a la greffi&re pour qu'une date de presentation soit fix6e) 5.5 Demande de financement du theatre Imperial (recommandation : transmettre au directeur general et aux deliberations budg6taires) 5.6 Cession du bail relatif a Raymond's Deli au march6 municipal (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.7 Rej ointoiement des briques de la caserne de pompier (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.8 Programme d'aide a 1'infrastricture r6sidentielle relativement au ri 52, lotissement Lakewood (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.9 Vente de portions d'un bien -fonds municipal (anciennement 1'allee Tudor et la promenade Woodhaven) (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.10 Vente d'un terrain appartenant a la Ville, situ6 sur le chemin Ashburn (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.11 Dates propos6es pour les audiences publiques visant le 26, impasse Kiwanis, le 106, chemin Spar Cove, le 324, rue Duke Ouest et le 951 -961, boulevard Fairville (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.12 Appel de propositions visant le bien -fonds longeant le chemin Sandy Point (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.13 Constriction de la phase III du projet d'installations de protection du bassin hydrographique (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.14 Sous -bail du pavillon de Lily Lake (recommandation figurant au rapport) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 7.1 Declaration relative a la semaine de la s6curit6 des patients 8. Delegations et presentations 19h30 8.1a) Logements abordables 8. lb) Compte rendu sur la tribune concernant les logements abordables 20 h 8.2 Presentation de la Commission sur le stationnement 9. Audiences publiques 19h 9.1 a) Projet de modification des conditions impos6es par 1' article 39 visant le 661, chemin Dever 9. lb) Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la modification de Particle 39 visant le 661, chemin Dever 9.2a) Projet de modification des conditions impos6es par Particle 39 visant le 127 -129, promenade Bayside 9.2b) Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la modification de Particle 39 visant le 127 -129, promenade Bayside 9.3a) Projet de modification de 1'arret6 de zonage visant le 861- 891, bowl. Fairville 9.3b) Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage visant le 861 -891, boul. Fairville 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.0 Interdiction des bouteilles d'eau en plastique a usage unique, point report6 de la seance du 2 septembre 2008 (maire Court) 11.1 Lettre du ministre Landry (maire Court) 11.2 Allocation de retraite (maire suppl6ant Chase) 11.3 Questions relatives aux fortes pluies r6centes (maire suppl6ant Chase) 11.4 Evaluation de la viabilit6 du plan d'am6nagement actuel (conseiller Killen) 11.5 Coordination des travaux de refection (conseiller Titus) 11.6 Proj et de modifications du regime de retraite (maire suppl6ant Chase) 11.7 Reduction du taux d'imposition (maire suppl6ant Chase) 11.8 Reunions hebdomadaires du conseil (conseiller Sullivan) 11.9 Amelioration des centres communautaires de la ville (conseiller McGuire) 11.10 Amelioration de l'infrastructure des quartiers p6riph6riques (conseiller McGuire) 11.11 Presentations du Comit6 senatorial permanent (conseiller McGuire) 11.12 Utilisation des services et de l'infrastructure (conseiller Higgins) 11.13 D6ficit du regime de retraite : aborder le probleme (conseiller Titus) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Emission de debentures pour 2008 12.2a) Modification de 1'arret6 concernant la circulation visant la rue Prince Edward 12.2b)c) Modification de 1'arret6 relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John a l'intersection de la rue Union, de la rue Carmarthen et de la rue Prince Edward 12.3 Echangeur d'un mille — Modifications des services municipaux (recommandation figurant au rapport) 12.4 Promenade Brunswick et rue Paul Harris — installation de la conduite d'eau principale et des 6gouts pluviaux et refection de la promenade et de la rue (recommandation figurant au rapport) 12.5 Syst&me des comit6s permanents 12.6 Designation du personnel municipal en tant qu'inspecteur — Loi sur Passainissement de Peau 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 13.1 Projet de lotissement Forest Hills Estates, phase IV 13.2 Recommandation du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme visant 1'am6nagement de maisons en rang6e situ6es au 26 -44, promenade Royal 13.3 Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant 1'approbation du lotissement Hillcrest Heights North 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance generale 16. Levee de la seance 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — September 15, 2008 7:15 P.M. present Ivan Court, Mayor Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Court, Farren, Higgins, Killen, McGuire, Mott, Snook, Sullivan, and Titus -and - T. Totten, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; Greg Yeomans, Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; P. Groody, Commissioner of Municipal Operations; K. Forrest, Commissioner of Planning and Development; W. Edwards, Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; E. Gormley, Common Clerk and J. Taylor, Assistant Common Clerk. SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 15 SEPTEMBRE 2008 A 19 H 15 Sont presents : Ivan Court, maire le maire suppleant Chase et les conseillers Court, Farren, Higgins, Killen, McGuire, Mott, Snook, Sullivan et Titus et T. Totten, directeur general; J. Nugent, avocat municipal; Greg Yeomans, commissaire aux finances et tresorier; P. Groody, commissaire aux operations municipales, K. Forrest, commissaire a I'urbanisme et au developpement; W. Edwards, commissaire aux services d'inspection et des batiments; ainsi que E. Gormley, greffiere communale et J. Taylor, greffier communal adjoint. Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Court called the meeting to order and Councillor Snook offered the opening prayer. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere La seance est ouverte par le maire Court, et le conseiller Snook recite la priere d'ouverture. 2. Approval of Minutes On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on September 2, 2008, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 2. Approbation du proces- verbal Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le proces- verbal de la seance du conseil communal tenue le 2 septembre 2008 soit approuve. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved with the addition of: 1.0 Committee of the Whole report on Council priorities; 9.2(c) Letter from Marcus Power in support of the proposed rezoning of 1198 Loch Lomond Road; 10.0 Letter from David Hierlihy regarding the rezoning process; 12.9 Report from the City Solicitor on requested investigation; and 13.9 Committee of the Whole Nominating Committee recommendations with appointments to Committees. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que I'ordre du jour de la presente reunion soit adopte, moyennant I'ajout des points suivants : 1.0, Rapport du comite plenier portant sur Ies priorites du conseil; 9.2c), Lettre d'appui de Marcus Power relative au projet de rezonage visant le 1198, chemin Loch Lomond; 10.0, Lettre de David Hierlihy concernant la demande de zonage relative au 40, promenade Mountain View; 12.9, Rapport de I'avocat municipal sur 1'enquete demandee et 13.9, Etude des recommandations du Comite des candidatures par le comite plenier ayant trait aux nominations pour sieger aux comites. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest Mayor Court and Councillor Court declared a conflict of interest with item 12.0, Municipal Services and Coastal Adaptation. 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets Le maire Court et le conseiller Court declarent qu'ils sont en situation de conflit d'interets avec le point 12.0, Services municipaux et adaptation dans Ies zones cotieres. 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That the letter from Eric Teed regarding various City streets in need of repair be referred to the City Manager. 5.2 That the letter from Patricia Dashwood regarding Performance Review be received for information. 5.3 That the letter from Patricia Dashwood regarding garbage collection be received for information. 5.4 That the letter from P. Tippett regarding a cosmetic pesticide ban be received for information. 5.5 That the letter from Armstrong Holdings Incorporated with information regarding their company's services be received for information. 5.6 That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council authorize: 1. The engineering services agreement with Terrain Group Inc. for engineering design and construction management for the Princess Street Reconstruction Project be increased from $357,729.54 to $421,855.45 (including the City's eligible HST rebate); and 2. Staff proceed with an invitation to bid for the reconstruction of the retaining walls on the City owned property identified as PID Number 8979; and 3. Staff proceed with a public call for proposals to initiate the sale and redevelopment of the City owned property identified as PID Number 8979. 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 5.7 That as recommended by the City Manager, Contract 2008 -21: Crack Sealing - 2008, be awarded to the low tenderer, 624091 Alberta Ltd. (R &N Maintenance), at the tendered price of $22,826, as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. 5.8 That as recommended by the City Manager, Contract No. 2008 -33 Cedar Point Lift Station Upgrade, be awarded to the tenderer, Fairville Construction Ltd., at the tendered price of $229,842 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. 5.9 That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council approve the revised 5 -year Capital Investment Plan for the Gas Tax Funding Agreement as submitted and further that staff be directed to submit the revised plan to the Province of New Brunswick for approval under the Gas Tax Agreement. 5.10 That as recommended by the City Manager: 1. The City of Saint John enter into "Temporary Working Room" and "Extra Temporary Working Room" Agreements with Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. in the form and upon the terms and conditions attached to the submitted report for properties having PID numbers 361022 and 55143275; and 2. The Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents. 5.11 That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council of The City of Saint John approve the contract to receive funding from the New Brunswick Environmental Trust Fund and that the seal of The City of Saint John be affixed and the contract signed by the Mayor and Common Clerk. 5.12 That as recommended by the City Manager: 1. Common Council accept the conditions as set out in the submitted report entitled: Early Access Agreement with Province for City Sidewalk Construction — University Avenue. 2. Council authorize the Mayor and Common Clerk to sign the submitted consent signifying acceptance of the conditions set out by The Province of New Brunswick. 5.13 That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council schedule the public hearings for the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications of Lynn Lamont (299 Norris Road), Loyalist City Towing Limited (341 Ashburn Road), Tony Ratchford (461 Millidge Avenue) and John C. (Luke) Kilpatrick (4207 Loch Lomond Road) for Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the applications to the Planning Advisory Committee for report and recommendation. 5.14 That as recommended by the City Manager: 1. The City of Saint John renew its Lease of Space of Stall C1 at the City Market with Winegarden Estate Limited under the same terms and conditions contained in their Lease, except for the right to renew (2.04) & the rent free period (3.01) as contained in the lease, for a further term of one year commencing September 15, 2008 and expiring on September 14, 2009 at annual gross rent of $33. p.s.f.; and 2. The Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute any renewal documentation required to finalize the transaction. 5.15 That the letter from Saint John West Business Association Incorporated requesting to host the New Brunswick Day celebrations in Saint John on Monday, August 5, 2013, be referred to the City Manager. 5.16 That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council: 1. Endorse the direct engagement of contract resources to initiate immediate repairs at Kennebecasis Drive, Meadowland Subdivision, Bayside Drive /Hazen Creek, Rodney Terminal CSP Storm Sewer; and 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 2. Endorse the direct engagement of inspection services for the above repair projects; and 3. Endorse the direct engagement of Terrain Group to initiate design for replacement of the Kennebecasis Drive Cross Culvert; and 4. Pre - approve culvert replacement and reconstruction of Kennebecasis Drive in the 2009 Capital Program with an estimated cost of $350,000.; and 5. Direct staff to follow -up and report back to Council on the results of the above actions. 5.17 That as recommended by the City Manager, the tender in the amount of $96,000. plus tax, for the labour and materials to re -point masonry at the Carleton Community Centre, be awarded to Fundy Masonry Limited Incorporated. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for each consent agenda item respectively, be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1 Que la lettre d'Eric Teed concernant la necessite de reparer diverses rues de la municipalite soit transmise au directeur general. 5.2 Que la lettre de Patricia Dashwood concernant 1'examen de rendement soit acceptee a titre informatif. 5.3 Que la lettre de Patricia Dashwood concernant la collecte des dechets soit acceptee a titre informatif. 5.4 Que la lettre de P. Tippett concernant l'interdiction des pesticides cosmetiques soit acceptee a titre informatif. 5.5 Que la lettre d'Armstrong Holdings Incorporated presentant des renseignements sur ses services soit acceptee a titre informatif. 5.6 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le conseil communal permette : 1. que la convention relative aux services d'ingenierie conclue avec Terrain Group Inc., visant la gestion de la conception technique et de la realisation du projet de refection de la rue Princess, soit modifiee en faisant passer le montant de 357 729,54 $ a 421 855,45 $ (y compris le remboursement de la taxe de vente harmonisee auquel la municipalite est admissible); 2. que le personnel procede a un appel d'offres relativement a la reconstruction des murs de soutenement de la propriete portant le NID 8979 et appartenant a la municipalite; 3. que le personnel lance un appel d'offres public pour proceder a la vente et au reamenagement de la propriete appartenant a la municipalite et portant le NID 8979. 5.7 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le contrat n° 2008 -21 relatif au calfeutrage des fissures — 2008 soit accorde au soumissionnaire le moins- disant, 624091 Alberta Ltd. (R &N Maintenance), au prix offert de 22 826 $, etabli a partir de quantites estimatives, et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer Ies documents contractuels necessaires. 5.8 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le contrat n° 2008 -33 visant la modernisation de la station de relevement de Cedar Point soit accorde au soumissionnaire Fairville Construction Ltd., au prix offert de 229 842 $, etabli a partir de quantites estimatives, et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer Ies documents contractuels necessaires. 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 5.9 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le conseil communal approuve le regime d'investissement revise a echeance de cinq ans en vertu de 1'entente sur le transfert des revenus provenant de la taxe sur 1'essence, tel qu'il a ete presente, et que Ies employes municipaux soient charges de presenter ce regime revise a la province du Nouveau - Brunswick aux fins d'approbation definitive conformement a 1'entente relative a la taxe sur 1'essence. 5.10 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general 1. The City of Saint John conclue un « contrat provisoire flexible » et un « contrat provisoire flexible supplementaire » entre elle -meme et Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd., conformement a la forme et aux conditions stipulees dans le rapport presente relativement aux biens -fonds portant Ies NID 361022 et 55143275; 2. le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer Ies documents contractuels necessaires. 5.11 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le conseil communal de The City of Saint John approuve le contrat visant a obtenir des fonds de la part du fonds en fiducie pour 1'environnement du Nouveau - Brunswick, que le sceau soit appose et que le contrat soit signe par le maire et la greffiere communale. 5.12 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general 1. le conseil communal accepte Ies conditions stipulees dans le rapport presente intitule : « Early Access Agreement with Province for City Sidewalk Construction — University Avenue » (entente relative a I'acces anticipe conclue avec la province relativement a la construction de trottoirs de la ville sur ('avenue University); 2. le conseil autorise le maire et la greffiere communale a signer I'aval soumis indiquant I'acceptation des conditions etablies par la province du Nouveau - Brunswick. 5.13 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le conseil communal fixe la date d'audiences publiques au Iundi 14 octobre 2008, a 19 h, dans la salle du conseil, relativement aux demandes de rezonage et de modification des conditions imposees par I'article 39 deposees par Lynn Lamont (299, chemin Norris), Loyalist City Towing Limited (341, chemin Ashburn), Tony Ratchford (461, avenue Millidge) et John C. (Luke) Kilpatrick (4207, chemin Loch Lomond), et que Ies demandes soient soumises au Comite consultatif d'urbanisme aux fins de la presentation d'un rapport et de recommandations. 5.14 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general 1. The City of Saint John renouvelle son bail avec Winegarden Estate Limited relativement a I'etal n° C1 sis au marche municipal, selon Ies memes modalites et conditions stipulees dans le bail, a 1'exception du droit de renouvellement (2.04) et de la periode de location gratuite (3.01) indiques dans le bail, pour une autre periode d'un an commengant le 15 septembre 2008 et se terminant le 14 septembre 2009. Le Toyer brut annuel est de 33 $ le pied carre; 2. le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer tout document requis afferent au renouvellement afin de conclure la transaction. 5.15 Que la lettre de demande de la Saint John West Business Association Incorporated, en vue d'organiser Ies celebrations entourant la fete du Nouveau - Brunswick a Saint John, le Iundi 5 aout 2013, soit transmise au directeur general 5.16 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le conseil communal : 1. approuve 1'engagement direct de ressources contractuelles afin de proceder aux reparations immediates des egouts pluviaux (buse en t6le ondulee) de la promenade Kennebecasis, du lotissement Meadowland, de la promenade Bayside /ruisseau Hazen et du terminal Rodney; 2. approuve le recours direct aux services d'inspection pour Ies projets de reparation susmentionnes; 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 3. approuve 1'embauche directe de Terrain Group afin de proceder a la conception du remplacement des buses horizontales de la promenade Kennebecasis; 4. approuve au prealable le remplacement des buses et Ies travaux de refection sur la promenade Kennebecasis, au cout estimatif de 350 000 $, dans le cadre du programme d'immobilisations de 2009; 5. charge le personnel d'effectuer un suivi et de presenter un rapport au conseil sur Ies resultats des mesures susmentionnees. 5.17 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, la soumission de Fundy Masonry Limited Incorporated, au montant de 96 000 $, taxes en sus, relative a la main - d'oeuvre et aux materiaux necessaires au rejointement de magonnerie du centre communautaire de Carleton, soit acceptee. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que Ies recommandations formulees relativement a chacun des points de la section Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil soient adoptees. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M. 9.1(a) Letter to withdraw Application for Zoning By Law Amendment- 2797 Loch Lomond Road On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the letter from Joe Mallette requesting to withdraw the application for the zoning by law amendment of 2797 Loch Lomond Road be accepted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9. Audiences publiques a 19 h 9.1a) Lettre requerant le retrait de la demande de modification de I'arrete de zonage visant le 2797, chemin Loch Lomond Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que la Iettre de Joe Mallette, requerant le retrait de la demande de modification de I'arrete de zonage visant le 2797, chemin Loch Lomond, soit acceptee. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 9.2(a) Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment 1198 Loch Lomond Road 9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Recommendation The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 1198 Loch Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 0.59 acres, also identified as PID number 00422014, from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to `B -2" General Business classification. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its September 9, 2008 meeting at which the Committee decided to deny the application to re -zone a parcel of land located at 1198 Loch Lomond Road as described above. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the re- zoning with Gary Forgie of 1204 Loch Lomond Road presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favor of the re- zoning with Scott Winters, the applicant and owner of 1198 Loch Lomond Road, presenting. 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Killen RESOLVED that the application requesting an amendment to Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 1198 Loch Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 0.59 acres, also identified as PID number 00422014, from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "B -2" General Business, be denied. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillor Higgins voting nay. 9.2a) Projet de modification de I'arrete de zonage visant le 1198, chemin Loch Lomond 9.2b) Recommandation du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme La greffiere communale indique que Ies avis requis ont ete publies en modifiant a I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, le zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 0,59 acre situee au 1198, chemin Loch Lomond et portant le NID 00422014 afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS -2 » a zone commerciale generale « B -2 ». Examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel du service d'urbanisme, etudie Tors de la seance du 9 septembre 2008, a Iaquelle le Comite a decide de rejeter la demande de rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 1198, chemin Loch Lomond, telle qu'elle est decrite ci- dessus. Le maire invite le public a se prononcer contre le projet de rezonage, ce que fait Gary Forgie du 1204, chemin Loch Lomond. Le maire invite le public a exprimer son appui au projet de rezonage, ce que fait Scott Winters, le requerant et proprietaire du 1198, chemin Loch Lomond. Proposition du conseiller Court Appuyee par le conseiller Killen RESOLU que la demande visant a modifier la classification, a I'annexe A du plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 0,59 acre situee au 1198, chemin Loch Lomond et portant le NID 00422014 pour la faire passer de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS -2 » a zone commerciale generale « B -2 », soit rejetee. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Le maire suppleant Chase et le conseiller Higgins votent contre la proposition. 9.3(a) Proposed Section 39 Amendment - 1 Market Square 9.3(b) Planning Advisory Committee Recommendation The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed Section 39 Amendment amending the Section 39 conditions imposed on the June 23, 1980 rezoning of the property located at 1 Market Square, also identified as PID Number 55011878, to permit the construction of approximately 3,800 square metres (41,000 square feet) of commercial space in a two- storey addition on the area at the southwest corner of the intersection of St. Patrick Street and Union Street, with no written objections received. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at its September 9, 2008 meeting at which the Committee decided to recommend the amendment of the existing Section 39 conditions. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the proposed amendment with no one presenting. 10 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favor of the proposed amendment with Clayton Hardman, Project Manager of The Hardman Group and Heather Peterson, Property Manager of Market Square appearing to speak on behalf of the applicant and indicating that they were in agreement with the staff report and recommendation. On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the June 23, 1980 rezoning of the property located at 1 Market Square, also identified as PID Number 55011878, to permit the proposed two - storey addition to the existing Market Square complex, containing a floor area of approximately 3,800 square metres (41,000 square feet), in accordance with a detailed site plan and exterior elevation plans, including specific exterior cladding used on the proposed structure, to be prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9.3a) Modification proposee aux conditions imposees en vertu de I'article 39 relativement au 1, Market Square 9.3b) Recommandation du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement au projet de modification des conditions imposees en vertu de I'article 39, modifiant les conditions imposees le 23 juin 1980 relativement au rezonage de la propriete situee au 1, Market Square, inscrite sous le NID 55011878, afin de permettre la construction de Iocaux commerciaux d'une superficie d'environ 3 800 metres carres (41 000 pieds carres) dans le coin sud -ouest de ('intersection des rues St. Patrick et Union sis dans la partie ou I'on a ajoute deux etages, et qu'aucune objection ecrite n'a ete reque. On a egalement examine le rapport presente par le Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport redige par le personnel du service d'urbanisme, qui ont fait ('objet d'un examen lors de la seance du 9 septembre 2008 au cours de laquelle le comite a choisi de recommander la modification des conditions en vigueur a I'heure actuelle en vertu de I'article 39. Le maire invite le public a exprimer son opposition quant a la modification proposee, mais personne ne prend la parole. Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui quant a la modification proposee. Au nom du requerant, Clayton Hardman, gestionnaire de projets de The Hardman Group, et Heather Peterson, gestionnaire immobiliere du Market Square, indiquent qu'ils appuient les recommandations et le rapport du personnel. Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller Court RESOLU que le conseil communal modifie les conditions imposees par I'article 39 le 23 juin 1980, relativement au rezonage de la propriete situee au 1, Market Square et portant le NID 55011878 afin de permettre I'ajout de deux etages propose au complexe Market Square actuel, dont I'aire de plancher est d'environ 3 800 metres carres (41 000 pieds carres), conformement aux plans d'elevation exterieure et de situation detailles, y compris un revetement exterieur precis sur la construction proposee, devant titre prepares par le promoteur et assujettis a I'approbation de I'agent d'amenagement. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 1.0 Committee of the Whole Report: City of Saint John Council Priorities Referring to a submitted report which was developed from Council meetings held September 12 -13, 2008, Mayor Court provided an update concerning the Council's ten priorities for the 2008 -2012 term. Council's Priorities: 11 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 The delivery of safe potable water is owned by all Saint Johners and is continuously communicated to all levels of government by Mayor, Council and citizens resulting in one treatment plant built by 2012. Value for money audit and management benchmarks will be completed. Upon completion, staff will develop a plan that mandates a report on efficiency and effectiveness three times per year. A significant reinvestment in existing recreational facilities and programs with the goal of planning and constructing one new recreational facility based on the needs in the community. Create a greener community by championing strategies for reducing waste while encouraging the sustainable development and use of renewable energy. Build comprehensive funding for cultural infrastructure. Resource the City's Planning Department and Common Council to update the Municipal Plan in line with Council priorities. The City must take ownership in the revitalization of our five priority neighbourhoods through leadership embedded in City Hall. Establish a clear mandate for accessible workplace for the disabled. Expand the role of Saint John Non - Profit Housing to be responsible for housing in Saint John with appropriate level of resources. Establish an economic development function within the City's Administration. On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that Council accept all ten priorities outlined in the "City of Saint John Council Priorities" report. Councillor Titus indicated that, in his opinion, the Council Priorities list should have included: a reduction in taxes and a final solution to the City of Saint John pension difficulty. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Titus voting nay. 1.0 Rapport du comite plenier portant sur les priorites du conseil de The City of Saint John Faisant reference a un rapport presente qui a ete elabore a partir des seances du conseil qui se sont tenues les 12 et 13 septembre 2008, le maire Court fait le point sur les dix priorites du conseil pour la periode de 2008 a 2012. Priorites du conseil : Le systeme de distribution d'eau potable appartient a tous les citoyens de Saint John. C'est ce que le maire, le conseil et les citoyens rappellent constamment a tous les ordres de gouvernement. C'est pourquoi la construction d'une station d'epuration des eaux aura lieu d'ici 2012. L'evaluation de ('optimisation des ressources et 1'etablissement des donnees de reference de gestion seront completees. Une fois qu'elles le seront, le personnel elaborera un plan qui exigera la redaction d'un rapport sur 1'efficience et 1'efficacite trois fois I'an. Un reinvestissement important dans les installations et les programmes recreatifs existants en vue de planifier et de construire une nouvelle installation recreative fondee sur les besoins de la collectivite. 12 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 Edifier une collectivite plus verte en soutenant les strategies visant a reduire le gaspillage tout en encourageant le developpement durable et ('utilisation de I'energie renouvelable. Augmenter le financement global destine aux infrastructures culturelles. Donner au service d'urbanisme et au conseil communal Ies ressources dont ils ont besoin pour aligner le plan d'amenagement sur Ies priorites du conseil. La municipalite doit prendre en main la revitalisation de ses cinq quartiers prioritaires au moyen du leadership demontre a I'hotel de ville. Etablir un mandat clair pour un milieu de travail accessible aux personnes handicapees Elargir le role de 1'entreprise Saint John Non - Profit Housing Inc. afin qu'elle soit responsable des Iogements dans Saint John et que son niveau de ressources soit approprie. Creer un poste de developpement economique au sein de I'administration de la municipalite. Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que le conseil approuve Ies dix priorites figurant dans le rapport intitule « Les priorites du conseil de The City of Saint John ». Le conseiller Titus indique qu'a son avis la liste des priorites du conseil aurait du" inclure une reduction des taxes et une solution finale en ce qui a trait aux problemes lies aux regimes de retraite de The City of Saint John. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le conseiller Titus vote contre la proposition. 1.1 Same Week, Same Day: Solid Waste Service Implementation Referring to a submitted presentation, the Commissioner of Municipal Operations, gave an overview of the new combined two week garbage collection cycle scheduled to commence the week of September 29, 2008. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that Common Council: 1) Endorse introduction of the new Solid Waste Management Service, as outlined in this report, for implementation on September 29, 2008. 2) Recognize the financial implications related thereto for the 2009 Operating Budget; 3) Direct the City Solicitor to bring forward a revised Solid Waste By -Law, based on the draft language earlier proposed, for the consideration of Common Council — to be made effective January 1st, 2009; and 4) Provide its views to staff on performance criteria and specific objectives for the Solid Waste Management Service. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 1.1 Meme semaine, meme jour : mise en place du service de gestion des dechets solides Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, le commissaire aux operations municipales donne un aperqu du nouveau cycle bihebdomadaire de ramassage combine des dechets qui dolt commencer la semaine du 29 septembre 2008. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le conseil communal: 13 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 1) approuve ('introduction du nouveau service de gestion des dechets solides indique dans ce rapport afin qu'il soit mis en oeuvre le 29 septembre 2008; 2) reconnaisse les incidences financieres s'y rattachant dans le cadre du budget de fonctionnement de 2009; 3) charge I'avocat municipal de presenter la revision de I'arrete de The City of Saint John sur les dechets solides, fonde sur le Iibelle propose plus t6t, et ce, aux fins d'examen du conseil communal, a compter du 1erjanvier 2009; 4) donne son opinion au personnel sur les criteres de rendement et les objectifs precis lies au service de gestion des dechets solides. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 7. Proclamation 7.1 Mayor Court declared the week of September 22 to September 26, 2008 as Learn @ Work Week in Saint John. 7. Proclamation 7.1 Le maire Court declare que la semaine du 22 au 26 septembre 2008 est la Semaine de I'apprentissage au travail dans Saint John. 8. Delegations /Presentations 8.0 District Heating & Cooling - Green Thermal Utility Presentation Referring to a submitted presentation, the Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; James Bardsley, CEO of High Performance Energy Systems; Tim Cranston, VP of Corporate Affairs for High Performance Energy Systems; David Stewart, VP of Energy Management for High Performance Energy Systems, updated Council on the potential for Green Thermal Utility in various buildings in the City of Saint John. 8. Delegations et presentations 8.0 Sources de chauffage ou de refroidissement centralises — Presentation sur I'amenagement d'installations thermiques vertes Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, le commissaire des Services d'inspection et des batiments, James Bardsley, PDG de 1'entreprise High Performance Energy Systems, Tim Cranston, vice - president des affaires de 1'entreprise High Performance Energy Systems, et David Stewart, vice - president de la gestion de 1'energie de 1'entreprise High Performance Energy Systems, mettent le conseil au courant du potentiel d'amenagement d'installations thermiques vertes dans divers batiments de The City of Saint John. 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. On motion of Councillor Snook Seconded by Councillor Mott RESOLVED that Council extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Titus voting nay. 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres Les membres du conseil s'expriment sur diverses activites communautaires. Proposition du conseiller Snook Appuyee par le conseiller Mott RESOLU que la seance du conseil soit prolongee au -dela de 22 h. 14 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le conseiller Titus vote contre la proposition. 10. Consideration of By -laws (The Mayor and Councillor Carl Killen withdrew from the meeting due to their absence at first and second reading of this Zoning By Law amendment) 10.0 Letter regarding zoning application for 40 Mountain View Drive from David Hierlihy The City Solicitor commented on the letter from Mr. Hierlihy with respect to the zoning application for 40 Mountain View Drive. The City Solicitor indicated that the section of the letter which comments on the rezoning must be ignored as the public hearing for this application has concluded. However, the City Solicitor noted that the main thrust of the letter appears to be a submission by Mr. Hierlihy that the process itself that gave rise to the hearing was flawed due to the extent of notification that was provided in advance to the public hearing being insufficient. The City Solicitor remarked that it was his understanding that the notification provided by the Office of the Common Clerk was in full compliance with the requirements of the Community Planning Act. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the letter from David Hierlihy, regarding the zoning application for 40 Mountain View Drive, be received for information with the explanation provided by the City Solicitor indicating that process was in full compliance. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 10.1(a)Third reading Zoning By Law Amendment 40 Mountain View Drive 10.1(b)Planning Advisory Report recommending Section 39 Conditions On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -law Number C.P. 110 -84 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -law of the City of Saint John ", amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 5.6 hectares, located at 40 Mountain View Drive, also identified as being PID Numbers 00313429 and 00426452, from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential classification, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -law Number C.P. 110 -84 A Law to Amend the Zoning By- law of the City of Saint John ", was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the development and use of the parcel of land located on the north side of proposed Mountain View Drive with an area of approximately 2.4 hectares, being proposed Lot 08 -1, also identified as being portions of PID Nos. 313429 and 426452, is subject to the following terms and conditions: a) The use of Lot 08 -1 is limited to a maximum of three separate buildings containing a total maximum of 168 dwelling units, together with associated amenity areas and parking facilities; and b) The developer must design and implement a detailed site drainage plan /brief, subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate, indicating the manner in which storm water collection and disposal will be handled; and c) The developer must complete an engineering water and sewer analysis in order to determine the impact this development will have on the existing water and sewer infrastructure and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing systems; and 15 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 d) The developer must provide a traffic study demonstrating that the existing street network can accommodate the volume of traffic anticipated as a result of the development, or appropriate infrastructure improvements be implemented at the expense of the developer to the satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; and e) The developer must pave all parking areas, loading areas, maneuvering areas and driveways with asphalt and enclose them with cast -in -place concrete curbs to protect the landscaped areas and to facilitate proper drainage; and f) The developer must provide all utilities underground on the site; and g) The developer must landscape all disturbed areas of the site not occupied by buildings, driveways, walkways and parking areas; and h) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan, landscaping plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, exterior building materials and finishes, landscaped areas and other site features; and i) The approved plans mentioned in conditions (b) and (h) must be attached to the application for building permit for the development, except that such plans are not required for permit applications for site preparation; and j) All site improvements (excluding landscaping), street work and extensions of municipal services and utilities must be completed prior to the occupation of any building on the site; and the landscaping must be completed within one year of building permit approval; and k) All vehicular access to Lot 08 -1 shall be oriented exclusively toward Mountain View Drive and not toward Garnett Road. Question being taken, the motion was carried On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -law Number C.P. 110 -84 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -law of the City of Saint John ", amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 5.6 hectares, located at 40 Mountain View Drive, also identified as being PID Numbers 00313429 and 00426452, from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential classification, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -law Number C.P. 110 -84 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -law of the City of Saint John ", was read a third time by title. 10. Etude des arretes municipaux (Le maire et le conseiller Carl Killen quittent la seance en raison de leur absence lors des premiere et deuxieme lectures de la modification apportee a 1'arrete de zonage). 10.0 Lettre de David Hierlihy concernant la demande de zonage relative au 40, promenade Mountain View L'avocat municipal commente la lettre de M. Hierlihy ayant trait a la demande de zonage visant le 40, promenade Mountain View. II indique que les membres du conseil ne doivent pas tenir compte de la section de la lettre dans laquelle des commentaires sont formules, etant donne que ('audience publique relative a cette demande est terminee. Toutefois, l'avocat municipal mentionne que l'idee maitresse de la lettre semble titre une 16 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 these de M. Hierlihy selon laquelle le processus qui a donne lieu a I'audience a ete altere en raison de la duree insuffisante de I'affichage de l'avis d'audience publique. L'avocat municipal souligne que, d'apres ce qu'il avait compris, l'avis fourni par le bureau de la greffiere communale etait entierement conforme aux exigences de la Loi sur Furbanisme. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que la lettre de David Hierlihy, concernant la demande de zonage visant le 40, promenade Mountain View, soit acceptee a titre informatif, et qu'elle soit accompagnee de 1'explication fournie par l'avocat municipal selon Iaquelle le processus est entierement conforme aux exigences de la Loi. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 10.1a) Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'arrete de zonage visant le 40, promenade Mountain View 10.1 b) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la modification des conditions imposees par I'article 39 Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant 1'arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant a I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, le zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 5,6 hectares situee au 40, promenade Mountain View et portant les NID 00313429 et 00426452 afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » et a zone residentielle d'immeubles -tours a logements multiples « RM -2 », fasse ('objet d'une lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. L'arrete intitule « Arrete n° C.P. 110 -84 modifiant 1'arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » est lu integralement. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU qu'en vertu des dispositions prevues a I'article 39 de la Loi surl'urbanisme, I'amenagement et ('usage de la parcelle de terrain (lot 08 -1 propose) situee sur le c6te nord de la promenade Mountain View, d'une superficie approximative de 2,4 hectares et constituant une partie du terrain portant les NID 313429 et 426452, soient assujettis aux conditions suivantes : a) ('usage du lot 08 -1 doit se limiter a trois batiments distincts comprenant un nombre total maximum de 168 logements, ainsi que des aires d'agrement et de stationnement; b) le promoteur doit concevoir et mettre a execution un plan /dossier de drainage detaille, sujet a I'approbation de l'ingenieur municipal en chef ou de son representant, et indiquant le mode prevu de collecte et de repartition des eaux pluviales sur les lieux; c) le promoteur doit realiser une analyse technique du reseau d'aqueduc et d'egouts afin de determiner ('incidence de cet amenagement sur ('infrastructure existante du reseau d'aqueduc et d'egouts et afin egalement de veiller a ce que cette proposition ne depasse pas la capacite actuelle des systemes existants; d) le promoteur doit fournir une etude de la circulation demontrant que le reseau urbain actuel peut contenir le volume de circulation anticipe en raison de I'amenagement, ou des ameliorations appropriees doivent titre apportees aux infrastructures, aux frais du promoteur, et a la satisfaction de l'ingenieur municipal en chef ou de son representant; e) le promoteur doit asphalter toutes les aires de stationnement, les aires de chargement et de manoeuvre et toutes les voies d'acces et prevoir des bordures de beton coulees sur place pour proteger les espaces paysagers et faciliter le drainage; f) le promoteur doit prevoir toutes les installations d'utilite publique souterraines; 17 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 g) le promoteur doit prevoir I'amenagement paysager des aires perturbees du site ou it n'y a pas de batiments, de voies d'acces, d'allees pietonnieres et d'aires de stationnement; h) 1'emplacement doit titre amenage conformement aux plans de situation, d'amenagement paysager et d'elevation detailles, prepares par le promoteur et sujets a I'approbation de I'agent d'amenagement, indiquant 1'emplacement de tous Ies batiments, Ies aires de stationnement, Ies voies d'acces, Ies aires de chargement, Ies affiches, 1'eclairage exterieur, Ies materiaux exterieurs des batiments et la finition, Ies espaces paysagers et Ies autres caracteristiques de 1'emplacement; i) Ies plans approuves mentionnes aux conditions b) et h) doivent accompagner la demande d'un permis de construction relativement a I'amenagement, a 1'exception des demandes de permis qui ne visent que Ies travaux de preparation du terrain, pour lesquels lesdits plans ne sont pas exiges; i) toutes Ies ameliorations apportees a 1'emplacement (a 1'exclusion de I'amenagement paysager), la refection des rues et le prolongement des services municipaux et publics doivent titre termines prealablement a ('occupation de tout immeuble situe sur 1'emplacement; I'amenagement paysager doit titre termine dans un delai d'un an a partir de la date d'approbation du permis de construction; k) L'acces de tous Ies vehicules au lot 08 -1 sera oriente exclusivement vers la promenade Mountain View et non vers le chemin Garnett. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant a I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, le zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 5,6 hectares situee au 40, promenade Mountain View et portant Ies NID 00313429 et 00426452 afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » et a zone residentielle d'immeubles -tours a logements multiples « RM -2 », fasse ('objet d'une troisieme lecture, que ledit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Troisieme lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete n° C.P. 110 -84 modifiant I'arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». 10.2 Third Reading Municipal Plan Amendment 443 Boars Head Road On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, `By -law Number C.P. 105 -21 A Law to Amend the Municipal Plan By -law of the City of Saint John ", amending Section 3.4.4 of the Millidgeville Secondary Plan (DEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES — Projects and Proposals — Development Area D: Boars Head Road) by adding the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph under the heading "Development Theme /Character ": "Apartments may also be developed on the parcel of land located at 443 Boars Head Road (PID 00449553.) ", be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -law Number C.P. 105 -21 A Law to Amend the Municipal Plan By -law ", was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Farren 18 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, `By -law Number C.P. 105 -21 A Law to Amend the Municipal Plan By -law of the City of Saint John ", amending Section 3.4.4 of the Millidgeville Secondary Plan (DEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES —Projects and Proposals —Development Area D: Boars Head Road) by adding the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph under the heading "Development Theme /Character ": "Apartments may also be developed on the parcel of land located at 443 Boars Head Road (PID 00449553.) ", be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled, "By -law Number C.P. 105 -21 A Law to Amend the Municipal Plan By -law" was read a third time by title. (Councillor Killen re- entered the meeting.) 10.2 Troisieme lecture de la modification du plan municipal visant le 443, chemin Boars Head Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que I'arrete intitule «Arrete n° C.P. 105- 21 modifiant I'arrete relatif au plan municipal de The City of Saint John », visant a modifier I'article 3.4.4 du Plan secondaire de Millidgeville (LIGNES DIRECTRICES RELATIVES A LA CONCEPTION DES SECTEURS D'AMENAGEMENT — projets et propositions relatifs au secteur d'amenagement « D » : chemin Boars Head) en ajoutant la phrase suivante a la suite du deuxieme paragraphe sous la rubrique « Thematique et caracteristique de I'amenagement» : « Des immeubles d'habitation peuvent egalement titre amenages sur la parcelle de terrain (NID 00449553) situee au 443, chemin Boars Head. », fasse ('objet d'une lecture. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. L'arrete intitule «Arrete n° C.P. 105 -21 modifiant I'arrete relatif au plan municipal » est lu integralement. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que I'arrete intitule «Arrete n° C.P. 105- 21 modifiant I'arrete relatif au plan municipal de The City of Saint John », visant a modifier I'article 3.4.4 du Plan secondaire de Millidgeville (LIGNES DIRECTRICES RELATIVES A LA CONCEPTION DES SECTEURS D'AMENAGEMENT — projets et propositions relatifs au secteur d'amenagement « D » : chemin Boars Head) en ajoutant la phrase suivante a la suite du deuxieme paragraphe sous la rubrique « Thematique et caracteristique de I'amenagement : « Des immeubles d'habitation peuvent egalement titre amenages sur la parcelle de terrain (NID 00449553) situee au 443, chemin Boars Head. », fasse ('objet d'une troisieme lecture, que ledit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Troisieme lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule «Arrete n° C.P. 105 -21 modifiant I'arrete relatif au plan municipal ». (Le conseiller Killen est de nouveau present a la seance.) 10.3 Third Reading Stop Up and Close Highland Street On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -law Number M -23, a By -law to Amend a By -law Respecting the Stopping -up and Closing of Highways in the City of Saint John" regarding a portion of Highland Street, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -law Number M -23, a By -law to amend a By -law Respecting the Stopping -up and Closing of Highways in the City of Saint John" was read in its entirety. 19 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -law Number M -23, a By -law to Amend a By -law Respecting the Stopping -up and Closing of Highways in the City of Saint John" regarding a portion of Highland Street, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled "By -law Number M -23, a By -law to Amend a By -law Respecting the Stopping -up and Closing of Highways in the City of Saint John ". (The Mayor re- entered the meeting) 10.3 Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation en vue de la fermeture d'un trongon de la rue Highland Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que I'arrete intitule «Arrete no M -23 modifiant I'arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John », relativement a un trongon de la rue Highland, fasse I'objet d'une lecture. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. L'arrete intitule « Arrete no M -23 modifiant I'arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John » est lu integralement. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete no M -23 modifiant I'arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John » relativement a un trongon de la rue Highland, fasse I'objet d'une troisieme lecture, que ledit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Troisieme lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete no M -23 modifiant I'arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John ». (Le maire reintegre la seance). 8.1 Active Transportation Saint John Presentation Referring to a submitted presentation, Dean Price, Municipal Engineer with the City of Saint John and member Active Transportion Saint John, updated Council in regard to the volunteer community group Active Transportion Saint John. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the five recommendations outlined in the presentation be referred to the City Manager: 1. Proposed Bike Routes Map or the City -Wide Bike & Trail plan 2. Co- Construction Policy 3. Public Safety Street Markings 4. AT Infrastructure 5. Marsh Line Trail Question being taken, the motion was carried. NA 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 8.1 Presentation par Active Transportation Saint John Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, Dean Price, ingenieur municipal au sein de The City of Saint John et membre de Active Transportation Saint John, signale au conseil 1'existence du groupe communautaire benevole Active Transportation Saint John. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que Ies cinq recommandations enoncees dans la presentation soient transmises au directeur general : 6. carte d'itineraires proposee pour Ies cyclistes ou plan de pistes cyclables et de sentiers a 1'echelle de la ville; 7. politique de co- construction; 8. marquage des rues aux fins de securite publique; 9. infrastructure relative au transport actif; 10. sentier le long du ruisseau Marsh. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.0 Ban on Single -use Plastic Bottled Water (Mayor Court) This item will be brought forward to meeting scheduled for September 29, 2008. 11.1 Letter from Minister Landry (Mayor Court) This item will be brought forward to meeting scheduled for September 29, 2008. 11.2 Retirement Allowance (Deputy Mayor Chase) This item will be brought forward to meeting scheduled for September 29, 2008. 11.3 Issues Related to Recent Heavy Rain (Deputy Mayor Chase) This item will be brought forward to meeting scheduled for September 29, 2008. 11.4 Assessment of Viability of Current Municipal Plan (Councillor Killen) This item will be brought forward to meeting scheduled for September 29, 2008. 11.5 Coordination of Road Work (Councillor Titus) This item will be brought forward to meeting scheduled for September 29, 2008. 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.0 Interdiction des bouteilles d'eau en plastique a usage unique (maire Court) Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 11.1 Lettre du ministre Landry (maire Court) Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 11.2 Allocation de retraite (maire suppleant Chase) Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 11.3 Questions relatives aux fortes pluies recentes (maire suppleant Chase) Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 21 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 11.4 Evaluation de la viabilite du plan d'amenagement actuel (conseiller Killen) Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 11.5 Coordination des travaux de refection (conseiller Titus) Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.0 Municipal Services and Coastal Adaptation (The Mayor and Councillor Court withdrew from the meeting citing a conflict of interest.) On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council: 1. Begin the process for development of a coastal adaptation strategy for Saint John by endorsing consultation with the Province of New Brunswick on climate change, environmental regulations and coastal adaptation, as well as collaboration with Federal agencies (Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources) concerning jurisdictional responsibility in the coastal zone; and 2. Ask the Saint John Emergency Management Organization (SJEMO) to update contingency plans for potentially `at risk' coastal areas; and 3. Recognize the construction of the extended Bayside Drive as an essential part of the City's response to erosion along the Red Head shoreline; and 4. Acquire land along Red Head Road (where risk is greatest) for the sole purpose of grading or flattening the slope to reduce the weight driving slope movement; and 5. Authorize staff to consult with Provincial authorities on securing lands (in the area) for possible relocation (by the owner) of homes along the Red Head Road that could be threatened by slope failure; and 6. Approve construction of a second access to the Harbourview subdivision, connecting Red Head Road to Lucas Street via the existing public right -of -way along Paisley Street, at an estimated cost of $50,000; and 7. Understand that Saint John Water will begin planning for the relocation of wastewater infrastructure (sanitary forcemains) presently installed along the Red Head Road; and 8. Direct staff to consider options for the possible reconfiguration or realignment of the existing Red Head Road in the area affected by erosion; and 9. Consider a policy or by -law to prohibit placement of fill on any shoreline property along the Red Head Road identified to be `at risk'; and 10. Keep Red Head area residents informed and pass on relevant geotechnical advice received by the City. For example, the City has been advised that any structure within 25 metres of the top of slope should be moved, although even at this distance, secondary block movements may cause damage to structures. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (The Mayor and Councillor Court re- entered the meeting.) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.0 Services municipaux et adaptation dans les zones cotieres (Le maire et le conseiller Court quittent la seance en raison d'un conflit d'interets.) Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur 22 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 general, le conseil communal 1. entame le processus d'elaboration d'une strategie d'adaptation dans les zones c6tieres pour Saint John en appuyant la consultation avec la province du Nouveau - Brunswick sur les changements climatiques, la reglementation de 1'environnement et I'adaptation dans les zones c6tieres ainsi que la collaboration avec les organismes federaux (ministeres de I'Environnement, des Peches et des Oceans et des Ressources naturelles) concernant le secteur de competence dans les zones c6tieres; 2. demande a I'Organisme de gestion des services d'urgence de Saint John de mettre a jour les plans d'urgence pour les zones c6tieres potentiellement « a risque »; 3. reconnaisse la construction du prolongement de la promenade Bayside comme etant un element essentiel de la reponse de la municipalite a 1'erosion le long de la cote (chemin Red Head); 4. fasse I'acquisition du bien -fonds situe le long du chemin Red Head (ou les risques sont les plus eleves) dans le seul but de niveler ou d'aplanir la pente afin de reduire le mouvement alternatif selon la pente; 5. autorise le personnel a consulter les autorites provinciales au sujet de la protection des biens -fonds (dans le secteur) en vue du deplacement possible (par le proprietaire) des maisons situees le long du chemin Red Head qui pourraient titre menacees par un affaissement de la pente; 6. approuve la construction d'un second acces au lotissement Harbourview, reliant le chemin Red Head a la rue Lucas par I'actuel droit de passage public sis le long de la rue Paisley, au cout estimatif de 50 000 $; 7. comprenne que Saint John Water commencera a planifier le deplacement des infrastructures de traitement des eaux usees (conduites de refoulement) presentement installees le long du chemin Red Head; 8. charge le personnel d'examiner les options pour la reconfiguration ou la rectification possible du chemin Red Head existant dans la zone touchee par 1'erosion; 9. examine la possibilite d'adopter une politique ou un arrete afin d'interdire le placement de remblai sur toute propriete riveraine situee le long du chemin Red Head que l'on a determine comme etant « a risque »; 10. tienne les residents du secteur du chemin Red Head au courant et qu'il communique les conseils geotechniques pertinents regus par la municipalite. Par exemple, la municipalite a ete avisee que toute construction situee dans les 25 metres de la crete du talus devrait titre deplacee, bien qu'a cette distance, le deplacement des blocs secondaires puisse causer des dommages aux constructions. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. (Le maire et le conseiller Court reintegrent la seance.) 12.1 City of Saint John Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Agreement for the Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade Project # 2008 -2012 On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, The City of Saint John accept the offer for funding under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund from the Government of Canada for the Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade Project # 2008 -2012 and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute the acceptance of the Contribution Agreement. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.1 Canada — Fonds canadien sur ('infrastructure strategique aux fins de la modernisation du systeme de traitement des eaux usees de The City of Saint John (projet no 2008 -2012) 23 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general, The City of Saint John accepte l'offre de financement dans le cadre du Fonds canadien sur ('infrastructure strategique du gouvernement du Canada relativement a la modernisation du systeme de traitement des eaux usees (projet n° 2008 -2012) et, en outre, que le maire et la greffiere communale signent I'acceptation de I'accord de contribution. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.2 Land Use Decision: A Process Review On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the City Manager, or the Commissioner of Planning and Development, be authorized to forward the submitted documentation regarding a possible engagement of Dr. Mike Ircha, and if found acceptable by Dr. Ircha, complete any necessary documentation to solidify his engagement. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.2 Decision sur ('utilisation des terres : tenue d'un examen du processus Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le directeur general ou le commissaire a l'urbanisme et au developpement soit autorise a transmettre les documents presentes concernant 1'embauche possible du Dr Mike Ircha, et que si ce dernier Ies juge acceptables, Tune ou I'autre des personnes susmentionnees remplisse toute documentation necessaire a la confirmation de son embauche. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.3 RFP — Advisory Services On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council approve the engagement of Deloitte and Touche LLP to undertake Phase 1 of the North of Union Advisory Services as per the Request for Proposal 2008- 092203P. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.3 Demande de propositions — services consultatifs Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le conseil communal approuve 1'embauche de Deloitte and Touche LLP afin d'entreprendre la phase 1 relative aux services consultatifs dans le cadre du projet du nord de la rue Union, conformement a la demande de proposition n° 2008- 092203P. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.4 The Resource Centre for Youth (TRC) in Greater Saint John Neighbourhood Development Stimulation Grant On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Snook 24 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, The City of Saint John provide funding to The Resource Center for Youth (TRC) in the amount of $22,872 in support of the Oasis Program. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.4 Subvention d'encouragement de I'amenagement du voisinage a ('intention du Resource Centre for Youth (TRC) du Grand Saint John Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general, The City of Saint John fournisse des fonds au Resource Center for Youth (TRC), au montant de 22 872 $, afin d'appuyer le programme Oasis. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.5 ONE Change Inc.- Neighbouring Development Stimulation Grant On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, The City of Saint John provide financial assistance to the ONE Change Inc. in the amount of $21,338. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.5 ONE Change Inc. —Subvention d'encouragement de I'amenagement du voisinage Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general, The City of Saint John octroie une aide financiere a ONE Change Inc., au montant de 21 338 $. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.6 Vibrant Communities- Neighbouring Development Stimulation Grant On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, The City of Saint John support the Vibrant Communities request in the amount of $16,000 and that funding be released to Vibrant Communities as follows: $10,000 initially released on approval with the balance of $6,000 to be released following the production and review of the second issue of the newspaper on December 1, 2008. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.6 Communautes vivantes — Subvention d'encouragement de I'amenagement du voisinage Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general, The City of Saint John appuie la demande de fonds de I'organisme Communautes vivantes, au montant de 16 000 $, et que ces fonds soient alloues a cet organisme comme suit: la somme de 10 000 $ accordee initialement lors de I'approbation de la demande et le solde de 6 000 $ qui sera debloque a la suite de la production et de la revision du deuxieme numero du journal du 1 er decembre 2008. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.7 City Market Review 25 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the City Market Review report from the City Manager be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.7 Examen du marche municipal Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le rapport sur 1'examen du marche municipal du directeur general soit accepte a titre informatif. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.8 City Market Cleaning Services On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that report on City Market Cleaning Services be lifted from the table. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Council approve the expenditure of $3,246.49 plus HST per month to be paid to Drummond Consulting Limited for the provision of cleaning services at the City Market with the fee to be reviewed on an annual basis prior to January 1st each year, and that the submitted report be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillor Court voting nay. 12.8 Services de nettoyage du marche municipal Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le rapport sur les services de nettoyage du marche municipal soit soumis aux fins de discussion. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general, le conseil approuve le versement de la somme mensuelle de 3 246,49 $, TVH en sus, a Drummond Consulting Limited pour la fourniture des services de nettoyage au marche municipal, que les frais fassent ('objet d'une etude annuelle avant le 1 er janvier de chaque annee, et que le rapport presente soit accepte a titre informatif. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Le maire et le conseiller Court votent contre la proposition. 12.9 Report from City Solicitor on Requested Investigation On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Killen RESOLVED that the submitted report from the City Solicitor regarding the investigation into the information leak to the media be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.9 Rapport de I'avocat municipal sur 1'enquete demandee 99 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Killen RESOLU que le rapport presente par l'avocat municipal, concernant 1'enquete sur la fuite dans les medias, soit accepte a titre informatif. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Hillcrest Heights North Subdivision Hillcrest Rd On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that: 1. Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans for the submitted Hillcrest Heights North Subdivision, to the proposed public street and to any required municipal services and public utility easements for the following lots only: 6 -N, 7 -N, 8 -N, 9 -N, 15 -N, and 16 -N: and 2. Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City /Developer Subdivision Agreements in order to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 13.1 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant I'approbation du lotissement Hillcrest Heights North situe au chemin Hillcrest Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que : 1. le conseil communal approuve le ou les plans de lotissement afferents au lotissement Hillcrest Heights North qui a ete presente, la devolution de la rue publique proposee et toute servitude de services municipaux ou d'entreprise de service public exigee pour les lots suivants uniquement : 6 -N, 7 -N, 8 -N, 9 -N, 15 -N et 16 -N; 2. le conseil communal autorise la redaction et la signature de contrats de lotissement entre la Ville et le promoteur afin de permettre 1'execution des travaux requis et la mise en place des installations necessaires, y compris 1'e1aboration de plans de situation et de drainage detailles soumis a I'approbation de l'ingenieur municipal en chef. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 27 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 13.2 Saint John Industrial Parks White Rocks Rd Pipe Materials Rebate On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that Common Council agree to release to the Saint John Industrial Parks Limited $77,316.90 (plus HST if applicable) as pipe material rebate for Phase I, White Rocks Road. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Higgins voting nay. 13.2 Saint John Industrial Parks (pares industriels de Saint John) concernant la deduction sur le coot du materiel de tuyauterie visant le chemin White Rocks Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que le conseil communal accepte d'allouer a Saint John Industrial Parks Limited la somme de 77 316,90 $ (TVH en sus, le cas echeant) pour la deduction sur le cout du materiel de tuyauterie (phase 1) visant le chemin White Rocks. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le conseiller Higgins vote contre la proposition. 13.3(a) Police Justice Steering Committee Re: Results of the Project Update - North of Union 13.3(b) Renaming of North of Union On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that Council designate the development area currently known as the "North of Union" as Peel Plaza. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.3 a) Comite directeur de la justice — Objet: mise a jour sur les resultats du projet du nord de la rue Union 13.3b) Objet: changement du nom du nord de la rue Union Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que le conseil remplace I'appellation du secteur d'amenagement actuellement connu sous le nom de « nord de la rue Union » par place Peel. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13.4 Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations - 595 Sandy Point Road On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that: 1. Common Council assent to any necessary municipal services and public utility easements for the proposed Jessie Marie Nagle Subdivision at 595 Sandy Point Road; and 2. Common Council authorize the same cost sharing as provided by Section 26 of the Subdivision By -law for this proposed subdivision; and No 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 3. Common Council accept a cash -in -lieu Land for Public Purposes dedication for the proposed Jessie Marie Nagle Subdivision. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.4 Recommandations du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme — Objet : 595, chemin Sandy Point Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que : 1. le conseil communal approuve toute servitude de services municipaux ou d'entreprise de service public exigee dans le cadre du projet de lotissement Jessie Marie Nagle situe au 595, chemin Sandy Point; 2. le conseil communal autorise le meme partage des couts pour ce projet de lotissement, comme le prevoit I'article 26 de 1'arrete de lotissement; 3. le conseil communal accepte une compensation monetaire pour le terrain d'utilite publique en vue du projet d'amenagement du lotissement Jessie Marie Nagle. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13.5 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Subdivision and Section 101 Amendment 357 Norris Road On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that: 1. Common Council assent to a subdivision plan for the proposed subdivision of a single lot from 357 Norris Road and to any required public utility easements; and 2. Common Council authorize the Mayor and Common Clerk to execute a revised Section 101 Agreement to permit the proposed subdivision, containing the recommended conditions of the Planning Advisory Committee. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.5 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la modification proposee au lotissement et a I'article 101 relativement au 357, chemin Norris Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller Titus RESOLU que : 1. le conseil communal approuve le plan de lotissement du projet de lotissement d'un seul lot qui est situe au 357, chemin Norris, de meme que toute servitude d'entreprise de service public exigee; 2. le conseil communal autorise le maire et la greffiere communale a signer la revision de I'article 101 de la convention qui contient les conditions recommandees par le Comite consultatif d'urbanisme afin de permettre la mise en oeuvre du projet de lotissement. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13.6 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Latimer Estates Subdivision Phase 111 880 Latimore Lake Road On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that: 1. Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, for Phase 3 of the Latimer Lake Estates Subdivision, as generally illustrated on the submitted tentative plan, including any necessary municipal services and public utility easements; and 29 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 2. Common Council accept a cash -in -lieu Land for Public Purposes dedication for Phase 3 of the Latimer Lake Estates Subdivision; and 3. Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of a City /Developer Subdivision Agreement(s) to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer, for Phase 3 of this subdivision development. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.6 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la phase III du projet de lotissement Latimer Estates visant le 880, chemin Latimore Lake Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que : 1. le conseil communal approuve le ou les plans de lotissement, en une ou plusieurs phases, dans le cadre de la phase 3 du projet de lotissement Latimer Lake Estates, comme le montre de maniere generale le plan provisoire presente, y compris toute servitude de services municipaux ou d'entreprise de service public exigee; 2. le conseil communal accepte une compensation monetaire pour le terrain d'utilite publique relativement a la phase 3 du projet de lotissement Latimer Lake Estates; 3. le conseil communal autorise la redaction et la signature de contrats de lotissement entre la municipalite et le promoteur afin de permettre 1'execution des travaux requis et la mise en place des installations necessaires, notamment en ce qui concerne I'elaboration de plans de situation et de drainage detailles soumis a I'approbation de l'ingenieur municipal en chef, relativement a la phase 3 dudit amenagement de lotissement. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13.7 Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations - Folkins Estates Inc. Subdivision ( Roatan Way) - 1433 Loch Lomond Rd On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that Common Council not assent to the submitted Folkins Estates Inc. tentative subdivision plan, but instead, assent to an amended plan that would vest a slightly larger turnabout for Roatan Way having a minimum diameter of 37.5 metres (124 feet). Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.7 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant I'approbation du lotissement Folkins Estates Inc. situe au 1433, chemin Loch Lomond (voie Roatan) Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le conseil communal n'approuve pas le plan provisoire de lotissement presente par Folkins Estates Inc., mais qu'il approuve plutot le plan modifie qui permettrait 1'etablissement d'un rond -point Iegerement plus grand sur la voie Roatan, dont le diametre minimal serait de 37,5 metres (124 pieds). A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 30 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 13.8 Planning Advisory Committeee Recommending Phase II North Star Holdings Limited 436 Summit Drive On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that: 1. Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the attached photo- reduced Lakewood Heights Subdivision (Phase 2) tentative plan, provided such plan is amended to include a Future Street right of -way to Willie Avenue through the proposed Land for Public Purposes area, and assent to any necessary municipal services and public utility easements; and 2. Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City /Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer; and 3. Common Council assent to an approximate 2,530 square metre (27,234 square foot) Land for Public Purposes dedication adjacent to proposed Lots 13 -A to 15 -A; and 4. Common Council authorize cost - sharing outside of the limits of the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 26 of the Subdivision By -law. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.8 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la phase II de North Star Holdings Ltd. visant le 436, promenade Summit Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que : 1. le conseil communal approuve le ou les plans de lotissement, en une ou plusieurs phases, conformement, de maniere generale, au plan de lotissement provisoire relatif a la phase 2 du projet de lotissement Lakewood Heights, presente sur photo reduite, pourvu que ce plan soit modifie afin d'y inclure le droit de passage d'une rue future menant a ('avenue Willie en passant par le terrain d'utilite publique propose, et qu'il donne son assentiment a toute servitude de services municipaux ou d'entreprise de service public exigee; 2. le conseil communal autorise la redaction et la signature de contrats de lotissement entre la Ville et le promoteur afin de permettre 1'execution des travaux requis et la mise en place des installations necessaires, y compris 1'e1aboration de plans de situation et de drainage detailles soumis a I'approbation de l'ingenieur municipal en chef; 3. le conseil communal approuve I'affectation du terrain d'utilite publique, d'une superficie approximative de 2 530 metres carres (27 234 pieds carres), qui est adjacent aux lots 13 -A a 15 -A proposes; 4. le conseil communal autorise le partage des couts au -dela des limites du projet de lotissement, conformement a I'article 26 de 1'arrete de lotissement. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 31 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL 2008 13.9 Nominating Committees Appointments to Committees On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Deputy Mayor Chase RESOLVED that the following appointments be made Saint John Harbour Bridge- to appoint Councillors Farren and Titus until the end of their current terms on Council. Performance Review Committee- to appoint Mayor Court and Councillors Killen and Sullivan until the end of their current terms on Council. Council- Saint John Water Committee- to appoint a sub - committee consisting of Mayor Court, Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors McGuire and Titus to report to the whole Council with recommendations, until the end of their current terms on Council. Question being taken, the motion was carried 13.9 Etude des recommandations du Comite des candidatures par le comite plenier ayant trait aux nominations pour sieger aux comites Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le maire suppleant Chase RESOLU que les nominations suivantes soient approuvees: Administration du pont du port de Saint John — la nomination des conseillers Farren et Titus jusqu'a la fin de leur mandat actuel au sein du conseil. Comite d'examen de rendement — la nomination du maire Court et des conseillers Killen et Sullivan jusqu'a 1'expiration de leur mandat actuel au sein du conseil. Comite compose des membres du conseil et de Saint John Water — la nomination d'un sous - comite, compose du maire Court, du maire suppleant Chase et des conseillers McGuire et Titus, qui presentera au comite plenier un rapport contenant des recommandations. Leur nomination durera jusqu'a 1'expiration de leur mandat actuel au sein du conseil. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 14.1 Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Ave / Broadway Ave This item will be brought forward to the meeting scheduled for September 29, 2008. 14.2 Sale of Portion of Highland Street (Pending Approval of Street Closure) to East Point Inc. This item will be brought forward to meeting schedule for September 29, 2008. 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 14.1 Feux de circulation a ('intersection des avenues Rothesay et Broadway Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 14.2 Vente d'une partie de la rue Highland (en attente de I'approbation de la fermeture de la rue) a la societe East Point Inc. Ce point sera reporte a la seance du 29 septembre 2008. 15. General Correspondence 15. Correspondance generale 32 93- COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL , 2008 16. Adjournment On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on September 15, 2008 be adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Titus and Farren voting nay. 16. Levee de la seance Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que la seance du conseil communal du 15 septembre 2008 soit levee a 23 h15. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Les conseillers Titus et Farren votent contre la proposition. Mayor /maire Common Clerk/greffiere communale 33 M & C 2008 — 257 August 27th, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Avenue / Broadway Avenue BACKGROUND sm On December 5, 2005 (M &C 2005 -368) Common Council approved a cost - sharing arrangement with Ritchie's Building & Flooring Centre for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Rothesay Avenue and Broadway Avenue. Ritchie's had moved their access to this intersection with the constriction of their new building and the company requested the installation of traffic signals. These were activated in June 2007. Two requests have been made by Ritchie's since the installation of signals at their new parking lot entrance from Rothesay Avenue: an advanced flashing green arrow for eastbound traffic turning left onto their property; and modification to the curb and gutter and sidewalk at the access to their property to prevent vehicles from "bottoming out" M &C 2007 — 360 was considered by Council on November 19th, 2007. The report advised that an advanced flashing green arrow on Rothesay Avenue was not recommended and that modifications to the Ritchie's access would be planned. It also advised of the higher than normal crown (cross - slope) on Rothesay Avenue. A copy of that report is attached. Inquiries on these topics, particularly the request for an advanced flashing arrow, have continued. Citizens have also asked for a flashing green signal for traffic turning left onto Broadway Avenue from Rothesay Avenue. Traffic on Rothesay Avenue has had a history of relatively high speed, particularly as it is coming off Highway 1, despite the posted speed limit being lowered to 50 kilometres per hour. The speed of vehicles needs to be moderated to enhance access and egress at businesses along its entire length. Saint John Police have been very helpful in this regard. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is present options for the intersection at Rothesay Avenue and Broadway Avenue (and the Ritchie's entrance). 34 Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Avenue /Broadway Avenue August 27"x, 2008 M & C 2008 - 257 Page 2 ANALYSIS Warrant for Dedicated Left -Turn Phase Traffic signals at intersections are "phased" to permit a variety of different movements. A four -leg intersection, such as this one, can have as few as two phases in a cycle; one for the Green on Rothesay Avenue with a Red on Broadway Avenue and at the Ritchie's exit, and the second for the alternate Green on Broadway Avenue and the Ritchie's exit, with a Red light on Rothesay Avenue. Phases can be added to a cycle for other movements, such as a dedicated left -turn or a dedicated pedestrian crossing, depending on the complexity of the intersection. Adding phases to a cycle has both benefits and disadvantages. The particular movement permitted with an added phase provides an advantage for that movement at the expense of others. Other traffic movements must yield the right -of -way during that phase. The time added to a cycle for each added phase becomes a disadvantage for traffic in other phase movements. The addition of extra phases to an intersection is normally based on an evaluation of benefits against disadvantages for the various movements involved and the efficiency of the intersection as a whole. A Warrant Assessment is used to consider the benefits and disadvantages of adding a phase or phases. The traffic engineering services of ADI Limited were engaged to complete a Warrant Assessment for a dedicated left -turn movement from Rothesay Avenue to the Ritchie's entrance. Transportation Association of Canada JAC) guidelines specify two conditions to warrant a dedicated left -turn movement: 1. Average left -turn demand is at least three (3) passenger car units (PCU) per cycle throughout the peals hour; and 2. More than 25 percent of the left -turn volume is delayed by more than one cycle during the peals hour. A traffic count was completed at the intersection on Friday October 26, 2007 for the Warrant Assessment. (Ritchie's had indicated that the volume in and out of the establishment was highest on Fridays.) ADI submitted their WarrantAssessment findings in a report to staff dated November 7th, 2007. The consultant's assessment concluded that the dedicated left -turn movement is not warranted. Options with No Dedicated Left -Turn Phase Option 1: Fixed Traffic Signal Cycle This option involves setting the traffic lights at the intersection to change from Green to Red on a fixed rotating cycle. This is the current traffic signal set -up. 35 Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Avenue /Broadway Avenue August 27"x, 2008 M & C 2008 - 257 Page 3 Option 2: Primary Green Light on Rothesay Avenue Option 2 would maintain a Green light on Rothesay Avenue except when vehicles from Broadway Avenue or the Ritchie's parking lot would seek to make a left turn onto Rothesay Avenue. Traffic loops are installed to detect a vehicle and trigger the lights to permit right of way to such a movement. The traffic loops are currently inactive. Comparative Benef is and Disadvantages of Option I and Option 2 The primary benefit of Option I over Option 2 is that the regular signal changes act to calm traffic along Rothesay Avenue. The fixed periods of Red tend to slow the speed of vehicles, particularly those exiting Highway 1. Drivers who regularly travel this route become accustomed to the cycling Red lights and, as a result, slow their speed in anticipation of having to stop at this intersection. With the lights remaining primarily Green on Rothesay Avenue with Option 2, the traffic calming effect is lost. In fact, drivers familiar with this configuration could actually accelerate when they see a vehicle approaching the intersection from the Ritchie's parking lot or from Broadway Avenue as they would know a Red light is pending. The main disadvantage of Option I vis -a -vis Option 2 is that the resulting negative impact on vehicles attempting to access Broadway Avenue or the Ritchie's property. Queuing on Rothesay Avenue at the intersection can interfere with the natural breaks in traffic that would facilitate left turns from that street. There would be less vehicle queuing with Option 2 because the Red light on Rothesay Avenue would only occur when a vehicle activates one of the traffic loops. Options with Dedicated Left -Turn Phase Although the traffic consultant's assessment concludes that a dedicated left -turn phase from Rothesay Avenue to Ritchie's is not warranted, two further options are outlined in this report. In each case, a dedicated left -turn lane in both directions of Rothesay Avenue would be required at the intersection. Approximately twice as many vehicles were observed turning left onto Broadway than into the Ritchie's entrance during the traffic count. Providing a dedicated left turn to Ritchie's would also call for a left turn onto Broadway Avenue. In order to permit both left -turn movements in a cycle and to prevent conflicts between the two, a dedicated left - turn lane would be required in each direction. Option 3: Four Lanes with Left -Turn Lanes Option 3 involves maintaining the current four lanes on Rothesay Avenue, with the inside lanes in each direction (approaching the intersection) serving as designated left -turn lanes. The two outside lanes would remain for through movements along Rothesay Avenue or for right turns. 36 Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Avenue /Broadway Avenue August 27"x, 2008 M & C 2008 - 257 Page 4 Option 4: Add Fifth Lane on Rothesay Avenue Option 4 involves adding (constricting) a fifth lane on Rothesay Avenue in the proximity of the intersection. The outside lanes would accommodate through and right -turn movements, the inside lanes would serve through movements and a queuing lane would hold left turning vehicles in both directions. Comparative Benef is and Disadvantages of Option 3 and Option 4 The level of service and safety for through traffic on Rothesay Avenue would deteriorate with Option 3. Only one lane in each direction would be available for through traffic, creating a bottle -neck potential as traffic in each set of two lanes would merge into one. Option 4 would involve a fairly major reconstruction project, requiring detailed design and a very significant capital investment. Rothesay Avenue would be widened in the approaches to the intersection to permit the added fifth lane. Comparatively, Option 3 would be far less costly. Option 4 would also require land acquisition to provide space for the fifth lane. Additional cost to acquire land may be necessary; however, Ritchie's could also be expected to donate land should Option 4 be chosen. Adiustment of Infrastructure at Ritchie's Entrance A design of Rothesay Avenue at Ritchie's to eliminate the "bottoming out" of vehicles has been prepared. The sidewalk, curb and gutter would be altered, and a portion of the road surface raised approximately 150 mm. This work was planned for this year at a cost of about $50,000. These improvements would be required under Options 1, 2 or 3. If Option 4 was implemented, resolution of the grade problem would be incorporated into the design of the reconfigured and reconstructed section of Rothesay Avenue. CONCLUSION A Warrant Assessment concluded that a dedicated left turn phase is not warranted for the Ritchie's entrance. Four options have been outlined. The first two do not include a dedicated left -turn phase onto Broadway Avenue or into the Ritchie's entrance, while the third and fourth do. Option 1 assists in reducing speeds to the posted speed limit; it is the preferred approach should the expense of dedicated left -turn signals and added turning lanes not be justified. The positive impact on safety with speed reduction outweighs occasional queuing delays for vehicles turning left from Rothesay Avenue onto Broadway Avenue or into the Ritchie's entrance. Described improvements at the entrance to Ritchie's would eliminate the "bottoming out" problem. 37 Traffic Signals at Intersection of Rothesay Avenue /Broadway Avenue August 27"x, 2008 M & C 2008 - 257 Page 5 Although considerably more costly and with land acquisition requirements, Option 4 (addition of a fifth lane) is a better choice than Option 3. The congestion and negative implications for traffic safety of Option 3 are not acceptable. Staff would also suggest that Ritchie's donate land required to widen the road in the vicinity of the entrance to their property. The scope of work and cost involved in Option 4 would need to be considered as part of the 2009 General Fund Capital Program for Transportation. Although significantly more costly and not supported by the WarrantAssevvment, Option 4 offers the only solution that addresses the traffic related concerns of all stakeholders. The close proximity of this intersection to the exit from Highway 1 and a tendency for vehicles to travel at higher than posted speed limits along this section of Rothesay Avenue is an important consideration to weigh. The Saint John Police Force can be expected to continue their traffic control diligence along Rothesay Avenue. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council direct that a project be included in the 2009 General Fund Capital Program for Transportation to widen and reconstruct Rothesay Avenue in the area of the intersection with Broadway Avenue and the Ritchie's entrance to provide a dedicated left turning lane for each direction, with the proviso that lands needed for widening be provided by Ritchie's Building & Flooring Centre, and further that the existing traffic control arrangement remain in place until that work is completed. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager 0 M & C — 2008 -284 September 26, 2008 His Worship Mavor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Sale of Stopped -Up and Closed Portion of Highland Street BACKGROUND: Common Council at its September 2, 2008 meeting held a Public Hearing for the consideration of the potential stop -up and closure of a small portion of Highland Street, containing an area of 491 square metres ± (see attached survey plan). The identified portion of Highland Street has nosy been stopped -up and closed. As mentioned in a previous report to Council dated July 31, 2008 (M &C 4222), the purpose of the closure and subsequent sale is to facilitate the construction of a retaining Nyall in order to protect the properties on Oakland Street from any potential storm Nyater runoff, Nyhich may result from future retail development in the area. Real Estate Services has negotiated Nyith representatives of East Point Inc. to sell this former portion of Highland Street for $3,300.00 plus H.S.T. This purchase price includes the costs associated Nyith the advertising for the street closure and a fair market value for the land. The costs associated Nyith the survey plan are the responsibility of the proponent, East Point Inc. The proposed agreement is consistent Nyith other street closures the Citv has been involved Nyith recently. The recommendation contained in this report Nyill facilitate the sale of this former portion of Highland Street. RECOMMENDATION: That The City of Saint John sell its interest in the parcel of land formerly being a portion of Highland Street, identified on a plan of survey dated August 12, 2008 attached to M & C 42008 -284, to East Point Inc. for the sum of $3,300.00 plus H.S.T., if applicable, on or before October 31, 2008; and that the Mavor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any documents required to effect the sale. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Terrence Totten, F.C.A. Commissioner, City Manager Planning and Development Attachments 39 I army sy 0 300. 33( m El I M & C —2008 -249 August 29, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Sale of Portion of Highland Street (Pending Approval of Street Closure) to East Point Inc. BACKGROUND: Common Council at its September 2, 2008 meeting will be holding a Public Hearing for the consideration of the potential stop up and closure of a small portion of Highland Street, containing an area of 491 square metres ± (see attached survey plan). As mentioned in a previous report to Council dated July 31, 2008 (M &C 4222), the purpose of the stop -up and closure and subsequent sale is to facilitate the constriction of a retaining wall in order to protect the properties on Oakland Street from any potential storm water runoff, which may result from future retail development in the area. Real Estate Services has negotiated with representatives of East Point Inc. to sell this portion of Highland Street for $3,300.00 plus H.S.T. (pending approval of stop -up and closure). This purchase price includes the costs associated with the advertising for the street closure and a fair market value for the land. The costs associated with the survey plan are the responsibility of the proponent, East Point Inc. The proposed agreement is consistent with other street closures the City has been involved with recently. The recommendation contained in this report will facilitate the sale of this portion of Highland Street. RECOMMENDATION: That The City of Saint John sell its fee simple absolute interest in a portion of Highland Street, having an area of 491 square metres ±, subject to receiving third reading of the By -law to stop -up and close the subject property, identified on an attached plan of survey dated August 12, 2008, to East Point Inc. or an affiliated company for $3,300.00 plus HST (if applicable) on or before October 31, 2008. :A 2. That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any documents required to finalize the transfer. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner, Planning and Development Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager CL /c 43 ee ee ear' °er ors ? u- ss O� Description of Plan: Consider stopping up and closure of a portion of Highland Street N PID: N/A Address: Portion of Highland Street Pan: N/A Date: July 23, 2008 .. Cam/ �o II � � I � �� In mcn a I I ir 11 '� o vSm� o \ � •, qy�� y � o qii Y Y y 47 Z=a a k- glit z 0 o P �� 111 1 11 1 Ig H us��o m = -4 SF41 �r Oi a (t3 Z n C3¢yF 0m _a Zg S =� to -7 "3 -ft � s H s m x o n CL Oo O F« x$ N L zbm w a a ff y t __SO oe 52 -X11 W� Un W o N � � r One Market Square, Suite 301 Saint John, New Brunswick. E2L 4Z6 Tel: 506.674.4278 / Fax: 506 649.6068 Email: Inlo&sjwaterlront.com Wcbsito: www.sjwalerfront.com September 16, 2008 Mayor Court 8r, Members of Common Council. City of Saint John PO Box 1071 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Dear Mayor Court &Members of Common Council: In May 2007 Saint John Waterfront Development sent a letter to Mr. Bill Edwards, Building &- Inspection Ser6ces regarding the Murray & Gregory- Property. In this letter, Saint John Waterfront Development formally= requested the city to take all possible action to force the clean up on this property; therefore, enabling us to move forward with our park development plans. At which time, letters of support were also submitted from City of Saint John's Tourism Department and the Department of Leisure Services along with Aquila Tours. Since being established, the Saint John Waterfront Development has been developing and expanding our plans for various parks and tourism destinations on Saint John's waterfront. Over the past several }ears, we have placed particular focus on connecting Harbour Passage up Bentley- Street and to the eastern side of the Reversing Falls Bridge with the intention of reaching Reversing Falls and Falls View Park. On March 31" & April 1't, 2008 Cornmon Council approved the engagement of the Daniel Glenn Group Ltd. in association with partnering firms to undertake the scope of services detailed in the Request for Proposal 2008 — 091501P. The study area outlined in the proposal does include the Falls View Park which represents one of the most significant tourist areas for our city. It is a prime location to view the Reversing Falls, understand the relationships of the river and the harbour, watch sea birds and ride the Revering Falls Jet Boat. The area is heavily promoted as one of our top destinations and tourism assets. In the past we expressed our desire to purchase the property of George and Milo Murray, the former Murray 8r. Gregory property (no relation to the original Murray family). City= staff, waterfront staff and volunteers have spent considerable time trying to reach an agreement with the owners but late in 2006 these talks came to a close without success. As of May 11, 2007 all offers have been officially- withdrawn. Saint John Waterfront Development continues to pursue development in this area and feel it is critical that the owners be forced to clean up their site. The state of the current property causes a significant eye sore as a prime tourist destination ill our city, SAINT" JOHN Saint John IZZ>. Board of Trade ✓r ENTERPRISE SAID JOHN M PC UPT s a i n t ; o w n ��,• Mfr E. s City of Saint join Saint John Waterfront Development formally requests that the city take all possible action to force the clean-up on this property to be more fitting of this important tourist area and to enable us to move forward with our park development plans. We are more than prepared to meet with City of Saint John staff to discuss this matter further. We would ask that you advise of what further action you are prepared to take once you have Enllen this consideration. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, kin President, Saint John Waterfront Development Cc: Terry Totten Bill Edwards Patrick Woods 47 I September 16, 2008 Office of the Common Clerk City of Saint John 8th Floor, City Hall P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Re: Meeting with Common Council SaintJohn Theatre Company Campaign Office Level III Brunswick Square, Unit C-5 39 King Street, Saint John, NB E2L4W3 T; (506) 652 - 7582 F: (506) 652-7585 I am writing to request the opportunity to address City of Saint John Common Council. Over the past few years, Council has approved substantial funding for the Saint John Theatre Company's Setting the Stage Capital Campaign. I feel it is appropriate at this time to give a formal update on our progress with the Princess Street project as well as the other activities of the Saint John Theatre Company. I would appreciate the opportunity to address council in a public session at the earliest available opportunity. President/ Artistic Director Saint John Theatre Company The Campaign for the Saint John Theatre Company W campaign@saintjohntheatrecompany.com www.saintjohntheatrecompany.com I I I I WIN I ! M 1. VAM Mayor and Council City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors, St. Joseph"s Parish 4347 Loch Lomond Road Saint John, NB E21` 1C8 St. Joseph's is a vibrant, growing community dedicated to faith, family, social service and ministry. A survey conducted in 2002 determined that a primary need in this area was a full function Community Centre that would provide a community gathering space, child care, early childhood development and education, youth programs and activities, and accessible, inclusive programs and services for our seniors. The proposed St. Joseph's Community Centre, is an 8,000 sq. ft. building, built on slab at grade, that will include classrooms for pre-school, after school and day care programs, a community hall that will seat 220, a full kitchen and a full complement of washrooms to meet building code and operational requirements. The Community Centre will be attached to the existing St. Joseph's Church and will be owned and operated by St. Joseph's Parish, through the Diocese of Saint John, ensuring ongoing and reliable long-term management, operation and maintenance. As a result of an innovative roof truss design, we will have a 2,500 sq. ft. space on the 2nd floor that will be surplus to our present needs. With its own entrance from the Community Centre parking lot, the 2nd floor will be suitable for offices, meetings, activities, and program delivery rooms. We propose that this space would be ideal for City of Saint John programs and services, providing the City with a high profile and community based presence in east Saint John. On behalf of St. Joseph's Parish, as approved by our Pastoral Council, I request A I the opportunity to bring before Mayor and Council a proposal for a lease agreement between St. Joseph's Parish and the City of Saint John. We look forward to your response. Sincerely Georgii'Q_uigley Pastoral Council Chair St. Joseph's Parish Fr. Bill Elliott Pastor St. Joseph's Parish M so ANIMAL. RESCUE'LEAGUE 134 Taylor Avenue Saint! John, NB E2K 3E6 (506) 642-0920 UY1017111 Mayor and Council Common Clerks Office City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L I September 23, 2008 Dear Mayor & Council: As a service provider to the City of Saint John, the Animal Rescue League requests time at a council meeting to give a short information presentation to council regarding the work of the shelter and the status of animal control. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Yours truly, Janet Foster Executive Director Animal Rescue League (506) 642-0921 50 (LADC) GBH O0000000 Coco 24 KING SQ4JARE SOU TH SAfNTJ0HLNNBA E21_5B8 T506-632.6163 WWW,IMPE8UALTI--IEATRE.1� P,.CA September 25, 2008 Mayor Ivan Court and Councillors of the City of Saint John City Hall, 8th Floor, 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L 41_1 Dear Mayor Court and Councillors, When our community decided to ensure that Imperial Theatre would be restored for the generations to come, it was the right thing to do. Since its reopening 14 years ago, Imperial Theatre has welcomed more than one million people to over 2000 performances. Some come to attend the performances of our own Symphony New Brunswick, Opera New Brunswick or the Saint John Theatre company to name a few. Still others flock to performances that range from comedy to country and from dramas to school recitals. Much of what is presented at the Imperial represents a diversity of cultural experience that our citizens would otherwise not get to see. Imperial Theatre is much more than a performance venue. It is an economic anchor for the City of Saint John, annually injecting more than $3.6 million into the local economy, boosting hotel and restaurant sales and attracting tourists. As a recruitment tool Imperial Theatre's presence is a key selling point when attracting new staff, doctors, professionals and businesses to our community. Affordability is paramount to our mission. Each year hundreds of free and subsidized tickets are made available to low income families, children and seniors. Our partnerships with Big Brothers Big Sisters and the Boys and Girls Club, the Seniors Resource Centre, along with other community agencies are part of Imperial Theatre's commitment to making the Theatre accessible to as broad a spectrum as possible, Beyond its home on King's Square, Imperial Theatre also makes its presence known throughout southern New Brunswick. Our technicians visit schools to show teachers and staff how to get the best out of their own equipment, also making equipment no longer in use at the Theatre available to them. Whether through our Family and School Series or our Performing Arts Summer School, Imperial Theatre is clearly focused on engaging the next generation of theatregoers. More than 86,000 students have experienced live performance at Imperial Theatre. The Theatre's board of directors has focused on fiscal matters, ensuring the organization stays in the black. They have balanced this against the mission and vision of being the community's theatre. While earned revenues account for a healthy 60 percent of the overhead, the balance comes from public and private grants, and private donations, However, if we are to continue to provide a world-class venue, we need to ensure the Theatre has the very best of technology and that its physical surroundings are in top-notch shape, Capital renewal is an 1 5 1 1 , q urgent priority. The challenge facing Imperial Theatre is that all current sources of revenue are devoted solely tooperations and not capital improvements, Because we are evo|umteer-d riven, not for profit organization, our only recourse is to raise capital funds by launching a community campaign, In order to address issues of wear and tear, as well as a need to increase the endowment to secure the future, Imperial Theatre has initiated the $2.5 Million Keep IT Live Capital Campaign, in short, our Keep it Live campaign has been mounted to address significant technical and physical plant repairs and improvements mt the Theatre totalling $1.8 million. The cladding product originally installed on the exterior of the building, and since found tnbe deficient, ia the subject of litigation worldwide, The manufacturer, architect and contractor are all bankrupt; there is no legal recourse, Yet our stage house has a significant leaking problem that is causing damage that we cannot ignore. The estimated cost for this problem alone iaot least $1million. Other required improvements and repairs include our sound and lighting systems, air handling system, box office ticketing system, as well as improving accessibility for the disabled membersof our community. To remain competitive, Imperial must keep pace and provide the equipment and technology our audience and performers expect and deserve. To date the response from the community has been outstanding and we have secured more than $1.4 million of our objective. The City of Saint John has been a consistent supporter of Imperial Theatre from the beginning, in fact the City's grant bothe inaugural campaign tu restore the Theatre was $1 million. Onam annual basis the City, through the Greater Saint John Regional Facilities Commission, provides critical operating funds and Imperial Theatre is extremely grateful. The decision to support the campaign rests with you, I only hope that when you think about what Imperial Theatre means to all of your constituents and [o the well being of our community, will begenerous. We are asking you tmconsiderVmmdingsf$50,MM0 for five years for a total gift mf$250.0UU- Your gift to the campaign will not only address today's immediate needs and help to take care of the future but it will also send a signal to others of the importance of Imperial Theatre. We will also be approaching the Town of Rothesay, Town of Quisparnsis, and Grand Bay-Westfield for support of our campaign. Thank you for considering our request. VVe look forward to your response. Sincerely yours, Derek Oland Chair 52 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL ni M & C — 2008 -298 26 September 2008 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Tender 2008- 082402T — BACKGROUND: Cily of Saint John Brick Re- pointing — Fire Station #6, King Street West As a part of the preparation of the 2008 Capital Budget for facilities maintenance, recognition was given to the re- pointing of exterior masonry at Fire Station 46 at 286 King Street West. Tenders for this project closed Wednesday, September 10, 2008. ANALYSIS: Masonry vendors on the City's registered bidders list were invited to bid and the tender call was advertised on the City's webpage, which resulted in two vendors submitting bids for this project. Staff of Materials & Fleet Management and Building and Technical Services have reviewed the bids submitted and have found them to be complete in every regard. Bids were received from the following vendors: 1.) Montford masonry Inc. $32,500.00 2.) Fundy Masonry Ltd. $29,500.00 53 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total cost for the masonry re- pointing at Fire Station 46, if awarded as recommended to the low bidder, will be $29,500.00 plus tax. This is a planned expenditure and as such fiinds are available in the Capital Budget. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tender, in the amount of $29,500.00, plus tax, for the labour and materials to re -point masonry at Fire Station 46 on King Street West be awarded to Fundy Masonry Ltd. Inc. Respectfully submitted, David Logan, CPPB Purchasing Agent T.L. Totten, FCA City Manager 54 M & C — 2008 - 292 September 26, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Assignment of Lease Raymond's Deli — City Market BACKGROUND: On November 20, 2006, Common Council resolved to enter into a lease with A.B.S. French Inc. (ABS) for space at the City Market. ABS, at that time had negotiated the sale of the business however the term on their lease had expired. As such, ABS required a new lease term to ensure the prospective purchaser would have time to recover their investment in the deli business. Once the new lease was executed ABS assigned the lease and sold the business to a numbered company, 628926 N.B. Inc. Mr. & Mrs. Kim, principals of the numbered company subsequently purchased a restaurant in the Market and successfully relaunched it as Kim's Korean Food. It is now Mr. & Mrs. Kim's intention to sell the Raymond's Deli operation. Mr. John Riley, representing the prospective purchaser of Raymond's Deli, S.K.Y. Jeon Inc., contacted the City and presented an assignment document which if approved by Council would facilitate the sale of business on or before October 31, 2008. The Deputy Market Clerk met with the principal of S.K.Y. Jeon Inc., Soo Young Jeon, and was satisfied the prospective purchaser and their business plans. 55 Report to Common Council September 26, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 1. That the City of Saint John consent to the Assignment of Lease of Space for Stall A from 628926 to S.K.Y. Jeon Inc.; and further 2. That the Mayor and Common Cleric be authorized to execute such documentation (as may be approved by the City Solicitor) to give effect to the hereinabove given consent. Respectfidly submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager 13I:111 56 THIS ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE, made this day of October A.D., 2008, B E T W E E N: 628926 N.B. INC. a duly incorporated Company under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick, with Head Office in the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province aforesaid, doing business under the firm Name and Style of RAYMOND'S DELI, hereinafter called the "Assignor ", of the First Part - and - S.K.Y. JEON INC., a duly incorporated Company under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick, with Head Office in the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province aforesaid, hereinafter called the "Assignee ", of the Second Part WHEREAS by a lease dated the 16th day of November, 2006, THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, the Lessor named therein, leased to A.B.S. FRENCH INC., the premises known as Raymond's Deli, being a portion of the City Market, 47 Charlotte Street, Saint John, N.B., more particularly described in the said Lease, for a term of Five Years from December 1st, 2006 to November 30, 2011, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein; AND WHEREAS by Assignment of lease dated the 27th day of December, 2008, A.B.S. FRENCH INC., the Assignor named therein, Assigned the above recited lease to 628926 N.B. Inc., subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein; AND WHEREAS the Assignee has requested the assignor to sell the residue of the said term of years and to assign to it the herein above recited Lease: NOW THEREFORE in consideration of $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration given and paid by the Assignee to the Assignor the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged the Assignor as beneficial owner hereby assigns to the Assignee the Assignor's interest in the premises as Raymond's Deli, being a portion of the City Market, 47 Charlotte Street, Saint John, N.B., more particularly described in the said Lease, together with the unexpired residue of the said term of years and the lease and all benefits to be derived therefrom subject to the payment of the rent and the observance and performance of the 57 -2- covenants, provisos, and conditions on the part of the tenant contained therein. The Assignor covenants with the Assignee that the lease is a valid and subsisting lease, that the rent reserved thereby has been duly paid to the October 31st, 2008, that the covenants, provisos and conditions thereof on the part of the lessee have been duly observed and performed up to the date hereof, that the Assignor is entitled to assign the lease, that subject to the payment of the rent and the observance and performance of the covenant, provisos and conditions of the lease the Assignee may enjoy the premises for the residue of the said terms of years and any renewal thereof, without interruption by the Assignor or any person claiming through Assignor, and that the Assignor shall execute such further assurances at the cost of the Assignee, as may be reasonably required. The Assignee covenants with the Assignor that the Assignee will throughout the residue of the said term of years and any renewal thereof, pay the rent reserved at the times and in the manner provided in the lease and observe and perform the covenants, provisos and conditions on the part of the tenant therein set forth and will indemnify and save harmless the Assignor from all actions, suits, costs, losses, damages and expenses in respect of such covenants, conditions and agreements that arise after the closing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Assignor has hereunto executed these presents the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) 628926 N.B. INC. in the presence of 58 PRESIDENT S.K.Y. JEON INC. PRESIDENT PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN I, Soo YOUNG JEON, of the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John, and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: - 1. THAT, I am the President of S.K.Y. JEON INC., and as such have a personal knowledge of the matters and facts hereinafter deposed to. 2. THAT I am a signing officer to make and execute documents on behalf of the Company. 3. THAT the signature "SOO YOUNG JEON" subscribed to the aforegoing Indenture is the true and proper signature of me, your deponent. 4. THAT the seal affixed to the aforegoing indenture purporting to be the corporate seal of S.K.Y. JEON INC., is the corporate Seal of the said Company and was affixed to the aforegoing Indenture by me and by Order of the Board of Directors of the said Company. SWORN TO at the City of Saint ) John, in the County of Saint ) John, in the Province of New ) Brunswick, this day of ) October, A.D., 2008 ) BEFORE ME: ) SOo YOUNG JEON JOHN G.RILEY A COMMISSIONER OF OATHS BEING A SOLICITOR 59 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN I, DONG HO KIM, of the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John, and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT:- 1. THAT, I am the President of 628926 N.B. INC., and as such have a personal knowledge of the matters and facts hereinafter deposed to. 2. THAT I am a signing officer to make and execute documents on behalf of the Company. 3. THAT the signature "DONG HO KIM" subscribed to the aforegoing Indenture is the true and proper signature of me, your deponent. 4. THAT the seal affixed to the aforegoing indenture purporting to be the corporate seal of 628926 N.B. INC., is the corporate Seal of the said Company and was affixed to the aforegoing Indenture by me and by Order of the Board of Directors of the said Company. SWORN TO at the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, this day of October, A.D., 2008 BEFORE ME: JOHN G.RILEY A COMMISSIONER OF OATHS BEING A SOLICITOR We DONG HO KIM M & C — 2008 - 289 September 23, 2008 Her Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Residential Infrastructure Assistance #52 Lakewood Subdivision ANALYSIS: On May 7, 2001, Council approved the establishment of a program to assist developers with the installation of services for residential developments. The following applications have been received and qualify for assistance as set out in the program guidelines: Applicant Location # and Type Estimated of Units 2008 Assistance #52 North Star Holdings End of Dolly Drive 70 lots $420,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Common Council approve Residential Infrastructure Assistance for: #52 North Star Holdings Limited development of 70 lots for dwelling units in the Lakewood Subdivision with an estimated expenditure of $420,000. Respectfi lly submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP Commissioner Planning and Development KJF 61 Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT / URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT RS- 2 P'0m- Delly 0l• :o a� P� 0� RS- Subject Site / site en question: r ' „s ` i Location: 436 Summit Dr. / prom. Summit Date: August / aout 11, 2008 Scale / 6chelle: Not to scale / Pas a 1'echelle M Ax" e 0, \\ \\ PID(s) / NIP(s): 55167571 (portions of / partie du) 55167589 55158760 l a N �u 'o o 0 E Cfw I o i C p m Q W; g.: f V) F-m0 z �s o 3 O o� g cr C o Z v3 c= dl Qg yqy 0 01 N SOOF06 C"o K_9Z W4 \(� �` J y[ o g x `o N O Z 8 8 ` � B , „ B(� 4/7-77' ' }aaj}S ajqo }xnH 1-p Od ¢'g p,ov °la s A .... � Y Pa `p r• sf Sa e ,ovala veaaor (� OBE r ^`� h�l T! I e4 I off/ •' �/ s d T a a. s� an d °➢ r 9011Y NI MOM � FRyalro a q 7 rs' gZ m ,p t� Pee; n ...... \� � .. CC Oiln� aW IO,V°W °u OOOR $ 1 , � 1 g ¢ [ no°S m oa 4Nm« o n Z U CC �' / ,' ! X91 °.. - R3/•• J O T4 £yy jjb ^,O CZ ccrr Ea, _y •� -`p°D p R 1 �. 1� / / uaHR.01.(A - IRS / pp �61go13 1piIPnLL >i l —us O �Q y u010H �P , . ee !rO(�NO IN°U14°W 0 NuaH a.: �p 0 .:. % Aar caia�o a" eo � ..... aalg D, al '',,.g .,�g� gy7•. 6�tlt Al a,uwo e.H°y W a o anup }iwwnS a T FTT 6LZO -1 63 M & C — 2008 -285 September 26, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: SALE OF PORTIONS OF CITY LAND FORMER TUDOR LANE AND WOODHAVEN DRIVE BACKGROUND: In 2007, NIP Developments Inc. had requested that the City Stop -Up and Close an 1,151 square metre portion of Tudor Lane and an 849 square metre portion of Woodhaven Drive (see attached plan) for the purpose of consolidating it with their own lands intended for residential development. NIP had commissioned and paid for the survey /subdivisions plans required for this process. On October 9, 2007 Common Council enacted an amendment to stop -up and close these two portions of public street right -of -ways. These two sections of former street right -of -way remain undeveloped, except for an ad hoc pedestrian pathway and municipal services. ANALYSIS: Over the past few years, NIP Developments Ltd. has developed an extension to Tudor Lane, resulting in approximately 30 new dwelling units. NIP has one remaining vacant parcel of land in this area, identified as PID Number 55187058. The intension is to add portions of the two former street properties to the aforementioned PID number to allow for the construction of two additional dwelling Louts. In addition, NIP would convey a portion of Parcel `B" to enlarge the property at civic 460 Tudor Lane. City Engineering has no objection to the sale of this property, provided the necessary land interests are retained for its existing infrastructure. The municipal service easements and the retention of a small sliver where a travelled walkway exists will accommodate the needs of the City. The attached Subdivision Plan illustrates that Parcels "A" and `B ", formerly undeveloped street right -of -ways, will be conveyed from the City to NJP. In return, the City would retain Parcel "F" and acquire from NIP, Parcel "E ". At the time of Report to Common Council Page 2 September 26, 2008 survey, Parcel "C" was owned by NJP but has since been consolidated to an adjoining property. In addition to the above noted land transfers, NJP will also pay to the City the sum of $3,894.00, which is to compensate for the difference in the area of land being transferred and the cost to advertise the street closures. This amount is consistent with other recently transferred undeveloped street right -of -ways. NJP Developments Ltd. had initiated the survey work required and is responsible for payment of such services. In addition to the above, a small parcel of the closed right -of -way, identified as Parcel "D" on an attached plan would be consolidated with an adjoining property that has been developed for many years with multi- residential units. There are still a few details yet to be resolved, and once negotiations are complete, staff would provide a further report to Council for their consideration in this matter. The recommendation contained in this report will facilitate the land transfers with NJP Developments Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: That The City of Saint John sell its interest in Parcels "A" and `B ", as identified on an attached plan titled, "City of Saint John, GLC Realty Limited and NJP Developments Ltd. Subdivision, also identified as being portions of PID Numbers 55189245 and 55189252, subject to a municipal services easement shown on said plan, to NJP Developments Ltd. for the sum of $3,894.00 plus H.S.T.; and NJP Developments Ltd. will convey to The City of Saint John, its interest in Parcel "E ", also identified as PID Number 55187041, also shown on the aforementioned plan for $1.00, plus H.S.T. (if applicable), on or before November 14, 2008. 2. That as part of the above noted land exchanges, NJP Developments Ltd. is responsible for the preparation and payment of any survey /subdivision plans required to facilitate the aforementioned land exchanges with The City of Saint John. That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any documents required to finalize the sale. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Attachments CL /c 65 Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager ON 0"" os 016 /2 20 E Description of Plan: Sale of former portions of Tudor Lane and Woodhaven Drive to N]P Developments Ltd. N PID: 55189245, Address: Portions of Former Tudor Lane 55189252 and 55187041 and Woodhaven Drive Pan: N/A Date: September 23, 2008 .. • . � es e a� sit " lilt ®R _ R E' 9 iii fJR l R a� wr r n�� wwnww 111 c.4 $ a 1i it - i I aid s " aaaaaaaazaa • g� a R + _ g m R.^. « «rat1R "' t CL OL •� � « « w w � • •r w w � � a � � F �£g 2 all 800 + + •' $ C ` , ddd d g j{'" S aF' • '� 11.1 p It a 4 .4, 2 it US 700 �: o • .. i1 O s -� + � i w, 700 �s7,,� `i� =ti �3 x f�ia� •i 67 IL C Is E E S nnnnnnnwwnnn nnnwnnnnn _ p CL In > M5 cc a; E NNNNNNN � �aaa "a'a "aaaaaaaaaaaa c d s � r T _ NNNNNNNnN NNNNN /� y� {V/ = IO 6 B : , s a S N mGGG m X Y^ 1^� Ommlminppar�Q �gV ��{ �y/�/ R�{ pQ N r �� �a � � ��� �� � ���N�NNIVNNNNNNNN/li•$�g01� V% • �� � � O Sf 21 q 4 •• N n ♦ n o n r a v� NMM NO 2 v' fi 11111 a °d N � o 831 800 + �VIf iI �•i ^ '9` s N M N � �j •�• N � 1 J. aoaz ^ £, R OF ei, tiffs e IF _b��' g$ ��•« s m s Q°60 ai�1 � `• iva�^^vA t S � •y / F .p. a di 2 831 700 •t7 7 z 831 700 o + a N CL -1119 fill cO m` I M & C — 2008 -296 September 24, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Sale of City Owned Land - Ashburn Road BACKGROUND: In spring of 2008 Common Council resolved: That The City of ,Saint John sell PIT) 53025, 672 -675 Ashburn Road to Clear View Mobile Hones Ltd under the terms and conditions contained in the attached Agreement of Purchase and ,Sale; and that Clear L ieir Mobile Homes Ltd be authorized to seek an amendment to the Municipal Plan and apply for a rezoning of the subject parcel however Common Council are not explicitly or implicitly obligated to approve any amendment to the Municipal Plan or any rezoning, and farther that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute any document required t0 effect this transfer. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale referenced in the above noted resolution calls for a closing date of September 30, 2008. The closing will not occur on or before the prescribed date as the compensatory flood risk land to be transferred to the City is subject to several restrictive covenants which must be evaluated prior to acceptance of the parcel. Legal Counsel for the prospective purchaser has asked that the City not allow the Agreement to expire. They have asked that the City extend the closing until November 30, 2008. It is hoped the concerns regarding the restrictive covenants can be addressed in the interim and the Agreement may be fiilfilled. In the event the City's concerns are addressed staff will report back to Council with a new Report to Common Council September 24, 2008 Page 2 Agreement of Purchase and Sale reflecting the new closing date as well as any modifications to the aforementioned restrictive covenants. RECOMMENDATION: That The City of Saint John grant an extension of the closing date for the potential sale of PID 53025, 672 -675 Ashburn Road to Clear View Mobile Homes Ltd. to November 30, 2008; and that Clear View Mobile Homes Ltd. be authorized to seek an amendment to the Municipal Plan and apply for a rezoning of the subject parcel however Common Council is not explicitly or implicitly obligated to approve any amendment to the Municipal Plan or any rezoning. Respectfidly submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP Commissioner Planning and Development Attachment 70 Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager M & C — 2008 -291 September 24, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Dates 26 Kiwanis Court, 106 Spar Cove Road, 324 Duke Street West and 951 -961 Fairville Boulevard BACKGROUND: As provided in Common Council's resolution of August 3, 2004, this report indicates the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications received and recommends an appropriate public hearing date. The full applications are available in the Common Clerk's office and will form part of the documentation presented at the public hearing. The following applications have been received. Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason Applicant Zone Zone Local Union 502 26 Kiwanis Court "l-R11 Section 39 To permit International Amendment business offices Brotherhood and training of Electrical facilities of a Workers trade union within the existing building Chris Legault and 106 Spar Cove Road "RM -1" `B -2" To permit a Jonathan Sabean professional office in the existing dwelling 71 Report to Common Council Saint John Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services Inc. The Plaza Group 324 Duke Street West "RM -1" 951 -961 Fairville "I -4" RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 `13-1" To permit a business office in the existing building "SC -2" To permit a commercial redevelopment, including restaurants and retail sales That Common Council schedule the public hearings for the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications of Local Union 502 (26 Kiwanis Court), Chris Legault and Jonathan Sabean (106 Spar Cove Road), Saint John Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services Inc. (324 Duke Street West) and The Plaza Group (951 -961 Fairville Boulevard) for Monday, October 27, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the applications to the Planning Advisory Committee for report and recommendation. Respectfidly submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager KF /r 72 M & C — 2008 - 293 September 26, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposal Calls Land Along Sandy Point Road BACKGROUND: In 2004, the City of Saint John undertook a project in the Sandy Point /Kennebecasis Drive area which facilitated the installation of water and sewer infrastructure in this previously unserviced area, and also improved water pressure in the Kennebecasis Drive area. It was envisioned that the infrastructure improvements would lead to increased development in this area. Staff have identified several parcels of land, that could be deemed surplus and sold as serviced building lots. In 2006, the City called for proposals for two such lots adjacent to Cranberry Hill (off Sandy Point Road) and sold the two parcels. This land has been improved with one new residence overlooking the golf course. City staff has identified another six such sites which could be taken to the market, by calling for proposals. These prospective development sites are all located along Sandy Point Road between the Golf Course and the Cherry Brook Zoo. Two of the six sites are adjacent to neighbours which will require sensitive discussion to ensure concerns they have expressed are addressed. Staff will report back once these matters are considered. A third site is the Harrigan Lake area which the City has called for proposals on two previous occasions. Staff has been working with a prospective developer and anticipates an unsolicited development proposal within the next 60 days. Council will be asked to consider this proposal at a later date as well. The remaining three sites, referenced as Lot 08 -1 on attached Plan "A" and Lots 08 -3 & 08 -4 on attached Plan B, can be sold as individual building lots. The lots 73 Report to Common Council September 26, 2008 Page 2 are zoned RIA, as such single family dwellings are the most likely development. It is the intention of staff to seek proposals for the three sites as attached, and report back with respect to the proposal call when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager 13I:111 74 0 KEY - PLAN i 61���j11 fLot 08 -1 U \ !,,•.. 1 Rockwood Park Golf Maintenance Shed \ Description of Plan: General Area Plan Parcels 08 -1, 08 -3, and 08 -4 N PID: N/A Address: Sandy Point Road Pan: N/A Date: Sep 25, 2008 75 PLAN "A" Description of Plan: Parcel 08 -1 N PID: N/A Address: Sandy Point Road Pan: N/A Date: Sep 25, 2008 76 PLAN "B" Description of Plan: Parcels 08 -31, and 08 -4 N PID: N/A Address: Sandy Point Road Pan: N/A Date: Sep 25, 2008 77 M & C 2008 - 299 September 25, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Contract 2008 -26: Construction of Watershed Protection Facilities — Phase III BACKGROUND Im This Contract consists of a project that is approved in the 2008 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program as follows: • Installation of Rip Rap at 2 locations along the walking trail adjacent to Spruce Lake where erosion is occurring • Installation of guide rail off Route 1, as well as extension of an existing culvert (including backfilling with Pit Run Gravel and installation of Rip Rap at the culvert outlet) to allow the continuation of the guide rail • Constriction of chain link fencing along the north side of the access road to the Latimer Lake Water Treatment Facility. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on September 24, 2008, with the following results: 1. L. Halpin Excavating Limited, Saint John, NB 2. Galbraith Constriction Ltd., Saint John, NB 3. Debly Enterprises Ltd., Saint John, NB The Engineer's estimate for the work was $188,620.00. 0 $ 143,694.19 $ 154,14839 $ 189,535.00 M & C 2008 -299 September 25, 2008 Page 2 ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and Crandall Engineering Ltd. and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Contract includes work that is charged award of the Contract to the low tenderer, at the estimated amount of work on this proje, others. against one capital work project. Assuming analysis has been completed which includes t that will be performed by City forces and The analysis concludes that a total amount of $250,000.00 was provided in the budget and that the projected completion cost of the project is estimated to be $167,320.51, including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate - a $82,679.49 positive difference in the Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy for the tendering of constriction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific project specifications. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Contract No. 2008 -26, Constriction of Watershed Protection Facilities Phase III be awarded to the low tenderer, L. Halpin Excavating Limited, at the tendered price of $143,694.19 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and fiirther that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfidly submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager 79 M & C 2008 -299 September 25, 2008 Page 3 a M&C #2008-286 September 11, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: LILY LAKE PAVILION SUBLEASE This past year, Lily Lake Pavilion Inc, has experienced significantly more interest in activities in and around the lake. Part of this interest has been generated by Yennab's Daytripping Outdoor Adventures Inc. which has been occupying a small portion of the lower floor of the building. The attached report is self explanatory and as a result the following resolution would now be in order. Recommended that the City of Saint John consent to the sublease made as of June 24, 2008, between Lily Lake Pavilion Inc, as Landlord and Yennah's Daytripping Outdoor Adventures Inc. as Tenant, and that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute such Consent Terrence L. Totten, FCA CITY MANAGER Attachment 9E '4R .V" Lynda D. Farrell Direct Line: 506.658.4096 Fax No.: 506.649.7939 Email: lynda.farrellCoNaintjohn,ca September 17, 2008 Terry Totten City Manager 8th Floor, City Hall Dear Terry: Re: Lily Lake Pavilion - Sublease The letter of January 22, 2008 from Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. to the Mayor and Council was referred to the City Solicitor on February 4, 2008. The letter asked for permission to sublease a portion of the space rented by the City to Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. I have been in contact with Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. and their sub-tenant and have received a copy of the sub-lease from Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. and Yennah's Daytripping Outdoor Adventures Inc. I have reviewed the documentation and nothing therein is of concern. As the granting of consent is a matter of policy, I defer to you. In the event that you are prepared to recommend that Common Council give their consent, the following recommendation would be appropriate: Recommended that the City of Saint John consent to the sub- lease made as of June 24, 2008 between Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. as Landlord and Yennah's Daytripping Outdoor Adventures Inc. as Tenant, and that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute such Consent on behalf of the City. Yours truly, Lynda D. Farrell Solicitor Attachment SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 41 1 www.saintjohn.ca j CA 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 41-1 82 THIS SUB- LEASE made as of the D#hday of June, 2008, 13 ETW E EN- LILY LAKE PAVILION INC., a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act of New Brunswick, having its head office at the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "Landlord" of the first part; and — VENNAH's DAYTRIPPING OUTDOOR ADVENTURES INC. a company duly incorporated under the Business Corporations Act of New Brunswick, having its head office at 23 Roberts Lane, Quispamsis, New Brunswick, E2E 1B9, hereinafter called the "Tenant" of the second part. GRANT OF SUB -LEASE 1. Witnesseth that in consideration of the rents, covenants and agreements hereinafter reserved and contained on the part of the Tenant. to be observed and performed, the Landlord has demised and leased and by these presents dopy deise and lease unto the Tenant a portion of the building (the "building ") located at 55 Lake Erie South, Saint John, New Brunswick, identified by PID 55181168 (the "land ") and compri .se #roar 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 0121, 022, 006 of office space as indicated on Schedule "A" attached hereto, and located at the front right of the Lower Floor of the building (the "demised premises "). The dernised premises comprise suite one being a portion of the total rental area on the Lower Floor level of the building. EXISTENCE OF HEAD-LEASE 2. The Tenant acknowledges that the Landlord is a lessee of the Lands and Building under a head lease dated November 21, 2005 as between The City of Saint John and Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. The Landlord represents and warrants that: (i) it has the power and authority pursuant to the terms in the head lease to enter into thin lease; (ii) such head lease is in full force and effect; (iii) the Landlord is not in default under such head lease; and (iv) the Landlord will pay all rent and perform all obligations contained in such head lease on the part of the Landlord to be paid and performed. TERM OF SUB -LEASE 3. To have and to hold the demised premises for and during the term of lb months to be computed as following: 60421 Lvl m -2— (a) Demised Premises For the portion of the demised premises comprising the front office space, from the I" day of February, 2008, (the "commencement date ") and from thenceforth ensuing and to be fully computed and ended at midnight on the 31" day of May, 2009. (b) Fixturing Period The Tenant shall be granted access to the demised premises free of rent for an approximate period of five (5) days prior to the commencement date (the "fixturing period ") for the purpose of preparing the demised premises for its intended use. The Landlord shall use its best efforts to complete the Landlord's work, if any, prior to the fixturing period, but if necessary to complete the Landlord's work, the Landlord and the Tenant shall co- ordinate their efforts and have joint access to the demised premises for the purpose of completing their respective work. Should the Landlord's work not be substantially completed by the commencement date, the commencement date shall be delayed by the same period that the Landlord is delayed in substantially completing the Landlord's work. (c) Rent Free Period Notwithstanding anything else herein contained, for so long as the Tenant is Yennah's Daytripping Outdoor Adventures Inc., and is not in default under this Lease, then the Tenant's obligation to pay rent shall be suspended for the first 4 months of the Term (the "Rent Free Period "). In the vent ,that this Lease is disclaimed pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, k,S.C, 11985, c. B -3, as amended or replaced from time to time, then the Tenant's obligation `to pay rent for the whole of the Dent Free Period will be deemed to have been reinstated;, effective as of the day immediately preceding the effective date of the disclaii -ner of I1he Lease, as the rate of rent first payable under the Lease. RENT 4. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this paragraph 4, yielding and paying therefore unto the Landlord, its successors and assigns, for and during the terra rent payable in advance, on the first of each month as follows:- 60421 I.vI. (a) Monthly Ren Monthly rent (the "rent ") shall be at a rate of Six Hundred .Dollars and Zero Cents ($600.00) for the demised premises, plus harmonized sales tax under the Excise Tax Act (Canada) including any comparable tax levied under provincial or federal Canadian legislation ( "HST "), payable monthly on the first (I") day of each calendar month in advance as follows:- (i) The tenant will provide to the Landlord a deposit (the "deposit ") in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($1200.00) plus HST for the first and last month's rent, payable on the I" day of February, 2008. Any deposit in the Landlord's hands at the MI 604211. v I -3— beginning of the term will be held by the Landlord without interest. The amount of the deposit shall be applied to Rent and Rental Taxes as they fall due under the Lease. Until such applications, the deposit shall be held as security for the performance by the Tenant of all its covenants, obligations and agreements herein contained. If the Tenant defaults in observing or performing any of its covenants, obligations, or agreements, the Landlord may, at its option and without notice to the Tenant, appropriate and apply the deposit then held, or as much of it as may in the Landlord's sole discretion and opinion, be necessary to compensate the Landlord for lent outstanding, or loss or damage suffered or sustained by the Landlord arising out of or in connection with such default by the Tenant. (ir) Payment of monthly rent will commence on the I" day of June, 2008; in equal consecutive monthly instalments of Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) plus HST. In addition to the deposit, the Tenant will provide to the Landlord a series of ten (I0) post -dated cheques, for each month commencing on the I5t day of July 2008 until the I" day of April, 2009, each cheque in the amount of the monthly rent plus HST. The rent includes the following services: - (A) Water; (B) Hydro (C) Heating., and Air Exchange System; (D) Full time access to maintenance in accordance with the Landlord's Obligations outlined in paragraph 5(b) hereof, (E) Access to the building and demised premises in accordance with paragraph 4(b) hereof, (F) Use of existing security system; (b) Architect's Certificate Wherever in this Lease reference is made to the size of any area or areas of any premises or whenever the amount of any payment is required to be determined in reference to the size of any area or areas of any premises, such reference shall be deemed to mean the size of such area or areas shown on the building plan attached as Schedule "A ", hereto, and the arnount or rent payable shall be adjusted accordingly. M -4— (c) Landlord's Work and Improvements The Landlord will complete certain work and improvements to the demised premises as set out in Schedule "B" hereto (the "Landlord's work ") within the following time periods.- (i) The Landlord's work on in the demised premises shall be completed by commencement date. In the event the Landlord's work on the demised premises is not completed by the commencement date, rent will continue to be due and payable in accordance with paragraph 4(a) hereof. (d) Notice of Delay In the event of delay in occupancy of demised premises, this will be communicated to the Tenant in a timely manner and the Landlord will offer reasonable accommodation. (e) Partial Rent If the tern commences on any day other than the first (I") or ends on any day other than the last day of a calendar month, rent for the fraction of a month at the commencement and at the end of the term shall be prorated'at a rate per day equal to 11365t" of the annual rent payable. COVENANTS OF THE TENANT 5. The Tenant covenants with the Landlord as follows. - (a) Rent 6042I1.v1 The Tenant agrees to and shall pay all rent required to be paid by the Tenant hereunder which shall be paid without any deduction, abatement or set -off whatsoever. (h) Use of Premises The Tenant shall use the demised premises for the solely for the purpose of the operation of business offices and a service and retail outlet with outdoor adventure sports as the key component, including such ancillary uses in connection therewith as shall be reasonably required in the operation of the business. The Tenant shall have access to the building and demised premises, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year (subject to interruptions for unforeseen emergencies). (c) Compliance with By -Laws, etc. The Tenant will abide by and comply with all by -laws, laws, orders and regulations, of the City of Saint John and the Province of°New Brunswick and of every public authority which in any way relate to or affect the demised premises and the occupation thereof by the Tenant, and the Tenant indemnifies and saves harmless the Landlord from any costs, 0 604211 v -5— charges or damages to which the Landlord may be put or which the Landlord may suffer by the breach by the Tenant of any such by -law, law, order or regulation. (d) Renovations The Tenant shall not mare any renovations, improvements or additions to the demised premises without the prior written consent of the Landlord, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. (e) Trade Fixtures Provided that the Tenant is not in default hereunder, the Tenant may at any tithe before the termination of this lease remove any trade fixtures installed by the Tenant in the demised premises, without causing any unnecessary damage to the demised premises provided, however, that the Tenant shall, in any such removal, forthwith make good any damage occasioned to the demised premises. (f) Operation The Tenant shall immediately advise the Landlord of any installations, appliances or machines used by the Tenant which consume or are likely to consume large amounts of electricity or other utilities and, on request, shalt promptly provide the Landlord with a list of all installations, appliances and machines used in the Premises. The Tenant will not install any equipment which would exceed or overload the capacity of the utility facilities in the Premises or any electrical wiring and service in the Premises. (g) Garbage Removal The Tenant is responsible for garbage collection and removal of such garbage arising in association with the Tenant's occupation of the Demised Premises. (h) Business and Other Taxes The Tenant shall pay all business or occupancy taxes, all personal property taxes assessed upon any and all personal property used or stored in the demised premises and the Tenant shall collect, remit and /or pay, as the circumstances require, any and all sales and consumption taxes and Workers" Compensation assessments in respect of any business carried on by the Tenant, and whether at or from the demised premises or otherwise, and the Tenant shall indemnify and save the Landlord harmless in respect to all of the foregoing. It is understood and agreed by Landlord and Tenant that all amounts referenced in this agreement, whether owed or payable, shall be subject to HST or any other such similar tax imposed on the Landlord by any level of government are not included in the amounts shown or referenced, unless stated or indicated otherwise. (i) insurance The Tenant will obtain and keep in force comprehensive general liability insurance covering all of the operations of the Tenant whether conducted at or away from the demised premises, subject to a limit of liability of not less than $1,000,000.00 any one a 60421 I .v 1 �Z accident or occurrence for bodily injury, death and damage to property including loss of use thereof. Such insurance shall include coverage for premises and operations liability, blanket written contractual, personal injury liability, Tenants fire legal liability, products and completed operations liability, non -owned automobile liability and a cross liability clause.. 0) Waiver of Subrogation All policies of insurance placed by the Tenant shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the Landlord and the Landlord of the Head Lease and the Tenant waives, releases and discharges all rights, claims and demands whatsoever which the Tenant might have or acquire against the Landlord and the Landlord of the Head Lease arising out of damage to or destruction of the building or any part thereof occasioned by any of the perils insured against by the Tenant or which the Tenant has agreed to insure against, whether or not such claims and demands shall arise through the negligence of the Landlord, the Landlord of the Head Lease, its mortgagee(s), employees, agents or licensees. (h) Indemnity () The Tenant shall indemnify the, Landlord and the Landlord of the Head Lease against all liabilities, claims; damage or expenses, arising out of any act or neglect of the Tenant or the Tenant's servants, employees, agents, invitees, licensees in and :4bout or in respect of the demised premises, or arising out of any, 'breatth, `iolation or non - performance by any of the foregoing persons `cif any covenant, condition or provision of this lease, including liability for injuries or damage to the person or property of the Tenant and the Tendtt's servants, employees, agents, invitees or licensees. The obligations of'the Tenant to indemnify the Landlord hereunder and the Landlord of the Head Lease with respect to or by reason of any matter arising prior to the termination of this lease shall survive any termination of this lease, anything in this lease to the contrary notwithstanding. (1) Termination (i) Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this lease the Tenant will peaceably and quietly yield and deliver up possession of the demised premises to the Landlord. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this lease the Tenant shall not be responsible to remove any leasehold improvements installed with the consent of the Landlord. (iii) Provided that the Tenant is not in default of any of the - provisions hereof, at any time after the third (3rd) month after the commencement date, the Tenant shall have the option to terminate this lease by giving three (3) months' written notice to the Landlord of the Tenant's intention to exercise such option. :: 604211. v I -7_ (iv) In the event the Tenant exercises its option to terminate this lease in accordance with paragraph 4(1)(iii), the Landlord, or its representatives, shall be permitted to show prospective tenants through the dernised premises during normal business hours; provided however that prospective tenants that are, in the Tenant's reasonable opinion, deemed to be competitive with the Tenant shall be restricted to areas authorized by the Tenant and must be escorted throughout the demised premises by an employee of the Tenant's. (rn) Waiver of Right of Distress The Tenant waives and renounces the benefit of any present or future legislation of the Province of New Brunswick removing or limiting the Landlord's right of distress and confirms to the Landlord that notwithstanding, any such enactment, present or future, all personal property of the Tenant from time to time located on the demised premises shall be subject to distress for rent. (n) Nuisance The Tenant shall not use or permit the demised premises or the building to be used in such a manner as to cause a legal nuisance Or to cause or permit annoying noises or vibrations or offensive odours. The Tertartt. agrees that the Landlord shall determine in its own discretion acting reasonably if any such state or condition exists. (o) Not to More Dangerous Materials 'The Tenant will not store or permit to-be. 'stored upon or in the demised premises anything of a dangerous, hazardous, flamma-ble or explosive materials or anything which would have the effect of increasing thy' Landlord's insurance costs or of leading to the cancellation of such insurance. (p) Subleasing and Assignment (i) The Tenant shall not assign this lease, nor sublet, or otherwise part with possession of all or any portion the demised premises. In the event the Tenant offers to assign, sublet or otherwise part with possession of all or any portion of the demised premises, the Landlord shall have the right to terminate this lease and relieve the Tenant of any further obligations hereunder subject to such other terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the Landlord and Tenant. Notwithstanding paragraph 4(p)(i) and paragraph 4(p)(ii), the Tenant may sublease or permit occupancy of all or any portion of the demised premises to any parent or affiliate, or to any related entity -of the Tenant, for the purpose of use by the sub - lessee solely as general business offices. 0 _g COVENANTS OF THE LANDLORD 6. The Landlord covenants with the Tenant as follows: (a) Quiet Enjoyment The Landlord covenants with the Tenant for quiet enjoyment. (b) Maintenance, etc. The Landlord shall pay all taxes and rates, municipal, parliamentary or otherwise, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing;, water rates with respect to the land, the building or assessed against the Landlord in respect thereof, except those directly assessed or charged to or payable by the Tenant or assessed or charged with reference to the use or occupation of the demised premises and except as otherwise provided in this lease (the "realty taxes ") and all expenses, costs or liabilities incurred in connection with the upkeep, maintenance and operation of the building including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all costs of heating, air conditioning, if any, and services for the shared or common.space, lawn care, exterior maintenance, the cost of upkeep and maintenance of all plumbing, electrical, heating, mechanical or other installations and equipment for providing sew-vices to the building including necessary repairs and replacements and insurance.;. The Landlord shall have reasonable access to the demised premises to perform any maintenance necessary in such meaner as the Landlord, in its reasonable discretion, shall determine necessary from time to time and upon reasonable notice to the Tenant. (c) Insurance The Landlord shall affect fire and extended coverage insurance on the building in which the demised premises are located in such amounts as the Landlord shall from time to time deem. necessary. (d) Heat During the term of the lease, the Landlord shall be responsible for maintaining heating and ventilation of the demised premises to a reasonable temperature in accordance with the National Building Code ref Canada. (e) Environmental To the best of the Landlord's knowledge and belief there is no lead, asbestos, PCBs, urea formaldehyde or other containment, as defined in the Clean Environment Act (flew Brunswick), in the demised premises. COMMON AREAS 7. The following provisions apply to the control, use and maintenance of the common area:- 60421 L v I a 60421 l.vI -9— (a) Control by Landlord All common areas and facilities within or in relation to the building ordinarily used by, or intended for use by the Tenant in common with others (the "common area ") shall at all times be subject to the exclusive control and management of the Landlord and the Landlord shall have the right from time to time to establish, modify and enforce reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the common areas; and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Landlord shall have the right to construct, maintain and operate lighting facilities, to police, to change the area, level, location and arrangements thereof so long as the Tenant's use and enjoyment of the demised premises and access thereto is not materially interfered with, to obstruct or close off any part or parts thereof for the purpose of maintenance or repair, and to do and perform such other acts in and to the same as, in the use of good business judgment, the Landlord shall determine to be advisable with a view to the improvement of the convenience and use thereof by Tenants, their respective guests, servants, agents, sub - tenants, invitees and licensees. Notwithstanding the foregoing the Landlord shall not unreasonable impair pedestrian or vehicle access to the demised premises, sage in the case of emergency to the extent necessary for the duration of such emergency. (b) !operation and Maintenance The Landlord shall operate and mainttlp. the common areas in such manner as the Landlord, in its reasonable discretion, shall. determine from time to time and the Landlord shall have the full right and authority 'te employ all personnel and to make rules and regulations pertaining to and necessary for the p roper operation and maintenance thereof. (c) Use of Common Areas an Subject to the terms of this lease, tllb Tenant shall have for itself and its guests, servants, agents, sub - lessees, invitees and licensees the non - exclusive right to use, in and for their proper and intended purposes and in common with others entitled thereto, those parts of the common area which are intended for common use (including without limitation the parking areas), excepting those parts inappropriate for actual use, such as roofs and service rooms; and the Tenant acknowledges and agrees that the common areas are subject to the exclusive control and management of the Landlord. (d) Interruption of Common Areas and Facilities If the common areas be diminished or interrupted due to any circumstance beyond the reasonable control of the Landlord and the Tenant's use and enjoyment of the demised premises and access thereto are not materially interfered with for a period in excess of sixty (60) days, the Landlord shall not be subject to any liability nor shall the Tenant be entitled to any compensation, diminution or abatement of rent or other payments hereunder, nor shall such diminution or interruption of the common areas be deemed constructive or actual eviction or a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment herein. In such event, the Landlord shall use its best efforts which are reasonable in the circumstances to remedy such situation. 91 tp_ MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 8. The parties hereto mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows: (a) ,point Use 60421l.vl The parties acknowledge and agree that the use of the demised premises by the Tenant is to some extent co- existent with the use of the building in which the demised premises are located by the Landlord and by other Tenants who will share common access to the building. (b) Non - Waiver The failure of either party hereto to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant of this lease on the part of the other to be performed shall not constitute a waiver of such covenant, and the waiver by either party hereto of any breach of any covenant by the other shall not constitute a waiver of such covenant in respect of any future or other breach thereof. No waiver by either party hereto of any breach by the other of any covenant of this lease shall be effective unless made in writing. (c) Remedies Cumulative The respective remedies of the parties hereto in this lease shall be cumulative and are in addition to any remedies of the parties hereto at law or in equity, and shall not be deemed to be exclusive; and the parties hereto may from time to time have recourse to one or more or all of the available remedies provided herein, or at law or in equity. (d) Inspection The Landlord, its officers, agents, employees, contractors and workmen may enter and view the state of repair of the demised premises at all reasonable times during business hours. (e) Further Assurances The parties hereto shall from time to time and at all times do such further acts and execute and deliver all such further documents and assurances as shall be reasonably required in order to perform and carry out the terms of this lease. (f) Amendments This lease may be amended only in writing executed with the same formality as this lease itself.. (g) Severability The invalidity of any provision of this lease, or any covenant herein contained, or any part thereof, shall not affect the validity of any other provision or covenant, or any part, hereof. 'A 604211.vI (h) Governing Law This lease shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the Province of New Brunswick and the federal laws of Canada applicable thereto. (i) Counterparts This lease may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all of which will constitute one and the sarne, 0) Binding Effect This lease and all the covenants, agreements, terms, conditions, provisions and undertakings herein contained, shall extend to, enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. (k) Si na e Subject to municipal by -laws and regulations, the Tenant, at its expense, may install exterior sign identification on or near the building, the design and location of which shall be subject to the approval of the Landlords said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. (1) Parkin Throughout the term of this lease, tkte Tertrtt will have access to public parking spaces as available. The Landlord does not guarantee access to parking in an area adjacent to the building during the terra of the lease, (m) Directory The Landlord, at its expense, shall install the name chosen by the Tenant on the building directory board and provide and install suite identification on the exterior of the entrance door into the demised prernises, (n) Notice All notices, demands, requests and payments (including rent) which may be or are required to be given pursuant to this lease shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if served personally upon any officer of the party for whom it is intended, sent by facsimile or other electronic means of communication or mailed, prepaid and registered, In the case of the Landlord, addressed to it, as follows: 93 Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. c/o Cathy Taylor Box 492, 55 Lake Drive Saint John, New Brunswick E21- 3Z8 Electronic mail: ]lp(q,)nb.aibn,com Phone: (506) 693 -5033 In the case of the Tenant, addressed to it as follows: Yennah Hurley 23 Roberts Lane Quispamsis, New Brunswick E2E I B9 Electronic mail: yennahhurley @hotmail.corn Phone: (506) 657 -8747 or at such other address in Canada as the parties may from time to time advise by notice in writing. The date of receipt of any such notice, demand or request shall be deemed to be the date of delivery if such notice, . demamd or request is served personally, upon receipt of the answer back if sent by f4csimile -or on the fifth (5th) business day next following the date of such mailing .if mailed as aforesaid; provided, however, that no notice shall be deemed to have been given if sent by mail at any time when a threatened or actual work stoppage exists m tho post offices in the municipalities from which or to which such notices are to be sent. (o) Entire Astreernent The Tenant acknowledges that there are no covenants, representation, warranties, agreements or conditions expressed or implied, collateral or otherwise forming part of or in any way affecting or relating to this lease save as expressly set out in this lease and its Schedules listed hereunder and attached to this lease and that this lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Landlord and the Tenant. SCHEDULES Schedule "A" - Building Plan Schedule "B" - Landlord's Work and Improvements Schedule "C" - Option to Extend Schedule "D" - Right of First Refusal (p) Interpretation In this lease: (i) "herein ", "hereof", "hereby ", "hereunder" "hereto ", "hereinafter" and similar expressions refer to this lease and not to any particular paragraph, ., section or other- portion thereof, unless there is sornething in the subject matter or context inconsistent therewith; "business day" means any of the days from Monday to Friday of each week inclusive unless such day is a statutory holiday or public holiday; and "normal business hours" means, until changed by the Landlord by notice in writing to the Tenant, the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on business days. [Remainder of page intentionally blank. Signatures are on the following page.l 95 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Landlord and the Tenant have executed these presents as of the day and year first above written, SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: A LILY LAKE PAVILION INC. Per. . Name: Pat Riley Title: Chairman I have the aLtthcrity to bind the corporation Per: Naive: Leslie McColgan Title: President I have the authority to bind the corporation YENNAH'S DAYTRIPPING OUTDOOR AVENTURES INC. Per: 0 Name: Title: I have the authority to bind the cot•pcir 6011 60421 Lv 1 Schedule "A" [Attach a copy of Architect's Certificate] 97 PACE C r:. LI 0{75 LOBBY u Oi 2 0104 RAY PER USIE 006 'CRRIDOF CHANGING ROOM RETAIL OUTDOOR ADVENTURE CED RILOC LR CORRIDOR i CHACSGE 020 ° ROOM M I � 1 MEN'S 102 WASHROOM STORACE I '�• aCOle DWG. No 0411 -AS BUILT ARCH- FILOCR PLAN NTS y ®`e SK,1 JON PITMAN JANUARY 21, 2D08 d iiy Proyecd Np: BLAIR A ROMA 0421 STAIRS I �•, Ph�'a' (5016) 652 -6970 rn (506) 652 9556 P +Qyec4 Name: L IL Y LAKE AKE LILY —it WromelPnb abn com 80 sp.'s 5rm IPA. PUMA 5."J.,, rill, i'S"F(T W-9D (211F )X5 PAVILION D,cW ;inq Noo e: PAY PER USE LOCKER ROOM I '�• aCOle DWG. No 0411 -AS BUILT ARCH- FILOCR PLAN NTS y ®`e SK,1 JON PITMAN JANUARY 21, 2D08 d iiy Proyecd Np: BLAIR A ROMA 0421 Schedule "B" Landlord's Work and Improvements Prior to the commencement date for the demised premises, the Landlord shall perform the following work: (a) Install new toilets, sinks, fixtures as and where needed as agreed upon by the Tenant and Landlord; (b) Remove toilet and cap existing toilet drain, no repairs to flooring will be made; (c) Remove wall mounted sink, cabinet and replace with pedestal sink; (d) Ensure that all fixtures and hardware are in good working condition; (e) Ensure that all wiring is to the requirements set out in the National Building Code of Canada (the "code"); (f) Ensure that there is a secure entrance to the building and secure entrance to office space; (g) Ensure windows are caulked and do not leak; (h) Notwithstanding the above, the Landlord (t its cost) shall be responsible to ensure that all electrical, lighting, mechanical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and life safety systems are in good and working order on tfie:Oomm'encernent date and meet all provincial and federal building codes. (i) Ensure that there is an emergency exit that meets the requirements set out in the code; Repair all walls and rnouldings/corners where necessary as agreed upon by Tenant and Landlord; and (k) Thoroughly clean entire space including all flooring, washrooms prior to fixturing period. 604211, v I 0 - 17- Schedule "C" Option to Extend PROVIDED THAT the Tenant is in possession of and conducting its business from the whole of the demised premises, and Tenant has complied with and performed all of Tenant's terms and covenants and is not in default under any of the terms of the lease, the Tenant shall have the option to renew this lease on the expiration of the term for two (2) additional periods of one (1) year each subject to the following terms and conditions:- (a) The option to extend herein granted shall be exercised by Tenant giving to Landlord written notice (the "notice to extend ") of Tenant's exercise of such option no later than three (3) months prior to the end of the previous term. In the event the notice to extend is not received by the Landlord at least three (3) months prior to the end of the previous term, the Landlord shall be free to market, enter and show the demised premises to prospective tenants, and the Tenant shall surrender possession of the demised premises upon the expiry of the term, in accordance with the terms of the lease, (b) In the event the notice to extend is received by the Landlord within the time specified, the Tenant and Landlord shall have one (1) month following receipt such notice to extend within which to negotiate the terms and conditions applicable extended period; (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this Schedule "C ", in the event the notice to extend is not received by the Landlord the time scifred in paragraph (a) of this Schedule "C ", or in the event the Landlord and Tenant cannot agree to the terms applicable to the lease of the demised premises for the extended term within the time period provided in paragraph (b) of this Schedule. `sC", the Landlord shall be free thereafter and at any time from time to time to market and base the demised premises, or any part thereof, to any third party or parties on whateyer terms and conditions it deems appropriate. The Landlord and Tenant agree that this Schedule "C" shall not create a perpetual right of extension and accordingly, Tenant shall have the right to exercise its option to extend only in respect of two (2) additional periods of one (1) year each and in no event shall this ,Schedule "C" provide an option for the Tenant to extend the term of this lease beyond the 31" day of March, 2011. 6©421 t.v1 100 Schedule "D" Right of First refusal to Lease Additional Premises PROVIDED THAT the Tenant is in possession of and conducting its business from the whole of the demised premises, and Tenant has complied with and performed all of Tenant's terms and covenants and is not in default under any of the terms of the lease, the Tenant shall have an on- going right of first refusal (the "1101711 ") to lease additional space on the first (1St) floor of the building during the term of this lease subject to the following terms and conditions.- (a) Should the Landlord receive a bona fide arms length offer (the "third party offer ") to lease of any space on the first (Is') floor of the building (the "additional premises ") that it is prepared to accept, then the Landlord shall give the Tenant written notice of said third party offer, including all relevant terms and conditions thereof, and the Tenant shall have five (5) business days to advise the Landlord in writing (the "notice of acceptance ") that it will lease the additional premises on the same terms and conditions as set out in the third party offer. (b) In the event the Tenant does not deliver the notice of acceptance to the Landlord within the time specified in paragraph (a) of this Schedule "D" then the ROFR in respect of the additional premises set out herein shall be null and void and the Landlord shall be free to proceed to lease the additional premises to the other prospective tenant. (c) In the event the Tenant does deliver the notice of acceptance to the Landlord within the time specified in paragraph (a) of this Schedule "D" then: i. The Landlord and the Tenw shall enter into a lease amending agreement (the "amending agreement ") incorporating the terms of the third party offer into this lease and the additional premises shall become part of the demised premises; ii. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Tenant agrees that the term for the lease of the additional space shall begin and end on the same date as set out in the third party offer; 604211.v 1 iii. The Tenant shall be allowed rent -free early possession of the additional premises to prepare the space for its business. Said early possession period shall begin as soon as the amending agreement is executed (subject to the additional premises being vacated by its outgoing tenant); iv. The Landlord, at its expense, shall be responsible for the Landlord's work set out in the third party offer; V. The Tenant shall take the additional premises on an "as is/ where is" condition, save and except for the Landlord's work set out in the third party offer, and shall assume responsibility for any leasehold improvements that it may require. 101 1,7 ' SAINT JOHN WHEREAS: the theme of Patient Week 2008 is focused on Medication Reconciliation - "Knowledge is the Best Medicine. Ask. Talk. Listen."; and WHEREAS: the goal of this week is to raise awareness of patient safety issues, related programs and projects surrounding medication reconciliation; and WHEREAS: Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation (now part of Regional Health Authority B) will have an information booth set up in Brunswick Square on October 1 from 11 am to 12 noon to distribute patient safety information. NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Ivan Court, of Saint John do hereby proclaim the week of September 29th to October 4t", 2008 as Patient Safety Week. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. P.O. Box 19,71 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4LI I wwwsaintjohn.ca d C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 41 102 i I l(I� "'A I f. l ul �r 9 O s a� 0L 4-j L Q, � s E 4-j E 4-j o V E � O �.j O � 4J 0 -a E os a� cn O E 4- > 0 0 Ln �s � a� Ln 0 s s M, • Ln C: rd O O E E O L O c� rd s s () V N s 4-j L Q, � s E 4-j E 4-j o V E � O �.j O � 4J 0 -a E os a� cn O E 4- > 0 0 Ln �s � Ln 0 s s a--+ a--+ C: C: O O E E O L O c� t0 s � 4-j L Q, � s E 4-j E 4-j o V E � O �.j O � 4J 0 -a E os a� cn O E 4- > 0 0 Ln �s � Ln o Ln O � N s Ln Ln 4- o O O E E O 4J V W 4-j L Q, � s E 4-j E 4-j o V E � O �.j O � 4J 0 -a E os a� cn O E 4- > 0 0 Ln �s � > .N � s 0) 4--J� O .� O 4 a� �E0 E > �o� ..61 O � c� Oyu 3 E cn - N O o 4 i N O }-' O 3 > co �o i O .> O 0 O CO ateJ (n a) N O Os c O }-' > E O E Q 0 O rq O p U =0 E 4-J u Q co cn U = CZ QQ Q E Q O s O U =3 .� — M 4—, >Up0Qc m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1l h,, m1llh,. O L V) ._ V) 4J O :3 sus o 4-j Ln 4-1 '§ o cz (v . rz --,-z� O � v O •— 0, cJ 4J v s 4J Ln ._ 4-J E •- U s 0 •- 4-J L E 4J O Ln 4J O 4- 4-J L4n E s o s •O 0, _ •� Q o _� • p 4-J 4-J Ln O Ln cem �0 Q E cz X W 'j; -.-; V N •� E O Q O Q — j O � s •- a� � � O � s O � � O a� u a� c� a--+ V 'O Q�j •� U-0 O Q E Z oC 4--J ° U 4-J •- U Ln � o s o •- 4-J Ln s Ln — _ s Ln E -0o o cz ° �' • 01 Ln 0 norm=) a� FAMMUMM °o�,� ol s•a�oo" IiI 1 U W, AFFORDABLE HOUSING FORUM BRIEF Prepared By: Affordable Housing Strategy Planning Group Date: September 11, 2008 Topic: Council Briefing on the Development of a Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy Introduction In May and June 2008, three Affordable Housing Forums were held in the City of Saint John to inform and educate the community on the housing issues within our neighbourhoods and to generate a united approach in the development of a Comprehensive Housing Strategy. The purpose of this Brief is to communicate to Saint John Common Council the intent of the Affordable Housing Strategy Planning Group and make recommendations on developing a short -term action plan to work with the City in dealing with affordable housing matters, and offer support for long term measures required in addressing critical housing issues and the crafting of a Comprehensive Housing Strategy for the City of Saint John. The Context The Affordable Housing Strategy Planning Group filly endorses the Vision 2015 social goal: "Our City has a flexible and adaptive housing market that meets the range cif needs irithin our community. Affordable and suitable, our housing market contributes to beautiftd and diverse neighbourhoods that evoke and encourage a strong sense cif place. Poverty and its manifestation in the urban housing market has long been a complex issue for the City. The Affordable Housing Strategy Planning Group applauds the City's efforts and commitment to enforcing by -laws, and addressing the issues of five priority neighbourhoods. Additional staff and dollars assigned to enforcing minimum standards have been positive and necessary in dealing with some fundamental housing problems; the improvement of roads and street lighting have had both aesthetic and safety benefits; and the Community Police Offices with dedicated staff currently in 4 of the 5 priority neighbourhoods, with the South End Office to be completed this fall, have had a significant impact on the overall quality of life for our citizens. As well, our Group recognizes the business community's contributions in supporting neighbourhood policing. This is the type of municipal and civic involvement that has led to successful neighbourhood revitalization in other Canadian communities. Energy project investments will create a positive and profitable shift for the community with increased employment, population growth and new housing development, including 1 111 the upgrading of the City's aging housing stock. However, an immediate challenge for the City and Region will be to maintain a balanced housing market that supplies affordable and suitable housing for all income levels, as well as, meeting the needs of temporary and long term residents. Providing appropriate housing will require immediate planning. Already, the influence of increased business investment has shown itself within the CMA's rental market: Saint John CMA Vacanev Rate October 2006 April 2007 October 2007 April 2008 7.1% 5.7% 4.7 4.3 Source: ('1lH(' Rental -llar lcc t Strr^ve)) Average Rents By Bedroom Size, 3 Units and Over, Saint John CMA Source: ('1lH('Rerital-llarlcct S'trl^ve)) Note: October Survey includes a 100% sample and is considered a more accurate reading of the rental market than the April survey, which includes a 20% sample The Saint John rental market consists of 5,910 units, of which 277 are vacant (October 2007 Rental Market Survey, Table 27). The quality of vacant rental units is a chronic issue in Saint John. The rental market is clearly unable to address upcoming temporary and permanent rental housing needs. The Benefits Blueprint Project Housing Requirements Report states: "The Saint .John C'MA Jbces q number q/ challenges in meeting housing needs both those, arising from the nel1) energy projects being developed and those, arising from the f tndamental demographic and housing market characteristics of the area. " Page i. Temporary workers are absorbing rental units and, as such, a further tightening of the rental market is expected as additional projects come on stream. With an anticipated 5,000 temporary workers required to complete the energy projects, we feel it necessary the City develop a strategy to deal with housing market implications. While affordable housing is legally in the provincial domain, their definition of affordable may be narrow in responding to the immediate issues facing the Saint John community. We feel, both the City and the Province have important roles to play in aiding Saint John in the management of the negative impact on housing supply and affordability. Investing in affordable housing has long -term payback as evidenced in the Rifle Range neighbourhood. In this case, the Federal Government stepped up with a 2 112 Bachelor 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom October 2006 $ 388 462 556 602 April 2007 $ 392 472 568 613 October 2007 $ 421 493 570 641 April 2008 $ 415 519 604 634 Source: ('1lH('Rerital-llarlcct S'trl^ve)) Note: October Survey includes a 100% sample and is considered a more accurate reading of the rental market than the April survey, which includes a 20% sample The Saint John rental market consists of 5,910 units, of which 277 are vacant (October 2007 Rental Market Survey, Table 27). The quality of vacant rental units is a chronic issue in Saint John. The rental market is clearly unable to address upcoming temporary and permanent rental housing needs. The Benefits Blueprint Project Housing Requirements Report states: "The Saint .John C'MA Jbces q number q/ challenges in meeting housing needs both those, arising from the nel1) energy projects being developed and those, arising from the f tndamental demographic and housing market characteristics of the area. " Page i. Temporary workers are absorbing rental units and, as such, a further tightening of the rental market is expected as additional projects come on stream. With an anticipated 5,000 temporary workers required to complete the energy projects, we feel it necessary the City develop a strategy to deal with housing market implications. While affordable housing is legally in the provincial domain, their definition of affordable may be narrow in responding to the immediate issues facing the Saint John community. We feel, both the City and the Province have important roles to play in aiding Saint John in the management of the negative impact on housing supply and affordability. Investing in affordable housing has long -term payback as evidenced in the Rifle Range neighbourhood. In this case, the Federal Government stepped up with a 2 112 major investment. Our current affordable housing needs will require strong corporation by all three levels of government. We uphold the City's stated direction of developing a Growth Strategy and revising the Municipal Plan. With the necessary policy documents to guide future decision - making, a Comprehensive Housing Strategy can then be developed. We encourage a Plan that analyzes the impact of government policies and regulations in development of various types of housing. Taking into account the current and projected housing needs in the community, it should result in policies that provide opportunity to build the types and amount of housing needed over the next 20 years. Housing is a major source of revenue in the form of property taxes, and is one of the largest land uses and capital asset. By examining housing related issues within a Comprehensive Plan, the need for affordable housing within the entire housing market can be properly addressed. Next Steps — Recommended Action Given the momentum of economic growth in Saint John and its consequential pressures on housing availability and affordability, there is an urgency to deal with the City's long- standing housing issues. The foundation to sound decision - making will be the Growth Strategy and Municipal Plan. However, given the time required to prepare and finalize these documents, we encourage the immediate development of a short -term action plan for affordable housing and recommend that Council take the following action: That the City seek funding from the Province so that it can dedicate a staff person to provide leadership and work with housing stakeholders to develop affordable housing solutions for immediate action. This is an urgent matter and cannot wait for the development of the Growth Strategy or the update of the Municipal Plan. Recognizing that the City has limited financial resources, this leadership is needed to inspire and attract investment dollars and shared responsibility. 2. That the development of mixed income neighbourhoods be a priority for all neighbourhoods throughout the City and that all necessary steps are taken to create the environment that will encourage and increase the supply of affordable housing. The following are examples of how the Municipality can further the development of mixed income neighbourhoods. a. The establishment of a Community Land Trust. (CLTs) would help to ensure an affordable supply of land in the upcoming years. Community Land Trusts are non - profit corporations created to acquire and hold land /properities for the benefit of a community and to provide secure affordable access to land and housing for community residents. b. The City might pursue with the Province an amendment to the Planning Act to allow Inclusionary Zoning practices. Inclusionary Zoning is a system of rules and incentives that create an environment for a portion of lower or moderated housing to be provided in new developments. 113 c. The City could formalize and standardize the process of providing grants to nonprofit organizations, in lieu of development fees, for targeted affordable housing development projects. d. The City could re- direct current funding used to encourage housing development specifically to affordable housing development. We encourage the City to partner with the University of New Brunswick to research and analyze best practices of Affordable Housing strategies the development of an Urban Studies Institute. Summary By working together, we can pool our expertise and desire to improve housing and discuss with the Province ways to increase co- operation and accomplishment on Saint John's housing file. Ensuring that polices and practices are in place to develop a balanced housing market relates to neighbourhood improvement and is part of a poverty reduction strategy, goals that the City and many of the undersigned have long been working toward. The City will produce necessary policy documents that lay the groundwork for a strategic and consistent approach to development. Strong current and future economic growth creates urgency to developing a short -term action plan to address immediate housing and affordability issues. We commit ourselves to working with the City in any and all capacity to strengthen current practices and policies in order to minimize the negative effects of growth and maximize the opportunities for our neighbourhoods. Sharing the same goal, building strong neighbourhoods to build a strong City, the Affordable Housing Strategy Planning Group looks forward to hearing from Common Council how it can assist the City in moving forward with its two recommendations. Sincerely, The Affordable Housing Strategy Planning Group Members Belinda Allen Saint John Homelessness Committee Donna Beaton Department of Social Development Monica Chaperlin Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative ( BCAPI) Randy Hatfield Human Development Council Kit Hickey Housing Alternatives Gregor Hope BCAPI and Vibrant Communities Housing Working Group Wendv MacDermott Vibrant Communities Brenda Murphy Urban Core Support Network 4 114 Saint John Parking Commission Commission sur le stationnement de Sa September 25, 2008 Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council 81h Floor, City Hall Saint John, N.B. E21 41-1 Your Worship and Councillors, 11th Floor, City Hall, 11 14m ttage, HBtel de Ville P.O. Box 1971 1 C. P. 1971 Saint John, N.B./N.-B. E2L 41-1 Tel 1 T6I: (506) 658 -2897 Fax 1 Mdcopieur: (506) 649 -7938 E -mail 1 Courriel: parking@saintjohn.ca Re: Presentation By Read Jones Christoffersen and saint John Parking Commission to Common Council — Green Parkins Facility Feasibility Study Last year the Saint John Parking Commission obtained some funding from the Environmental Trust Fund and commissioned a feasibility study regarding the incorporation of green features or Leeds like components in future parking structures. In the fall of 2007, the contract was awarded to the firm Read Jones Christoffersen under the direction of Ron Mazza to carry out a Green Parking Garage Feasibility Study. As you are aware the Justice Facility and the Police Station are proposed to be certified under the Leeds Green Building Rating System. Leeds stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. The incorporation of green features in a parking structure for the Justice - Police Area will form part of revitalization of our community and in a way that is up to date with the sustainability principles and the themes of the City's evolving Integrated Sustainability Plan. Enclosed is the following information on our presentation that will be presented at Common Council on Monday September 29, 2008: • Copy of the Slide Presentation — Green Parking Garage Feasibility Study • Copy of Executive Summary • Copy of Leed Canada Project Checklist and Life Cycle Cost Estimate • Copy of the Lead Checklist and Rating system for New Construction • Study Summary In closing, I look forward to sharing this presentation with members of Common Council, Staff and the Public. Sincerely, Sainf-John Parking Commission www.saintjohn.ca :ti Read Jones Christoffersen Is, r1b,"'!1w:A11, C'774wcl' 1 :1 G I�R ��111111��, Sl R 14�,, ��� �"sl G �I I ��� `1111( A S I I "Ir Y S 1".) �I S I J 0 W' 13 I�R LI 1 11�4 SW C August 2008 RJC # 14444.02 Prepared for: Saint John Parking Commission P.O. Box 1971 11th Floor, City Hall Saint John NB E21- 41-1 Prepared by: rr Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Toronto, ON M5J 2L7 ........... M -.2 Ne`wQBrunsvn6 N'c) M ftlk Afts ....................... . ................... . ......................... cf-Mh%w- w NK b skmirawnwd ift Sw*9 Jc.ft Slide Presentation Green Parking Garage Feasibility Study a Green Parking Garage Feasibility Study for the City of Saint John W BACKGROUND Saint John Parking Commission has identified 4 potential sites for new parking structures OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY -To determine how to best make these proposed new facilities 'green" -What features, characteristics and technology are applicable to a parking structure in the City of Saint John to reduce its environmental impact and reduce its operating cost 'Study Team • Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. • MCW Energy Solutions • BA Consulting Group "The term sustainable building is used interchangeably with green building. Its purpose is to reduce the adverse human impacts on the natural environment, while improving our quality of life and economic well- being." Government of New Zealand Is a Green Parking Garage an Oxymoron? Parking garages encourage automobile use, therefore, they must be part of the problem Is a Green Parkins Garage an Oxymoron? But the real problem is gas guzzling, CO2 spewing automobiles of the past — not the garages they park in. The fuel efficient hybrid clean exhaust vehicles of the future will still need a place to park. 9 3 Is a Green Parking Garage an Oxymoron? Parking structures are already low energy consuming buildings: -unheated, no air conditioning, natural ventilation -lighting the main energy demand plus mechanical ventilation for underground garages •a parking garage uses less than 10% of the energy of a typical office building LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design The LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction developed and monitored by the Canadian Green Building Council was used as a guide. N 4 LEED N.C. identifies 40 different areas within 5 main categories: • Sustainable Sites • Water Efficiency • Energy and Atmosphere • Materials and Resources • Indoor Environmental Quality • Innovative & Design Process 14 possible points 5 possible points 17 possible points 14 possible points 15 possible points 5 possible points 70 possible points Certified 26 — 32 points Silver 33 — 38 points Gold 39 -- 51 points Platinum 52 — 70 points LEED used as a guide only. A parking garage, being an unoccupied building, does not qualify. 5 Level 1 Credits —Easily Achieved Level 2 Credits — Showing Sustainable Leadership Level 3 Credits — More of a Stretch Level 1 Credits Easily Achieved 0 N Level 1 Credits —Easily Achieved Sustainable Sites (1 o Potential Points) • existing high density urban sites • reduce storm water discharge • encourage alternative fuel usage • encourage carpooling • encourage bicycle usage • reduce heat island affect with upper level reflective traffic coating] Level 1 Credits - Easily Achieved Continued Water Efficiency (3 Potential Points) • eliminate the use of potable water to irrigate landscaping • reduce potable water for building sewage conveyance by 50% 7 Level 1 Credits - Easily Achieved Continued..... Energy and Atmosphere (7 Potential Points) Ener -gy Use Reduction -Use T5 or T8 High Output linear fluorescent lighting fixtures. -Maximize day lighting by the use of photocell sensors to turn lights off when not required. -Use high efficiency exhaust fans, variable speed drivers and connections. Level 1 Credits -- Easily Achieved Continued..... Energy &AtmosphereContinued..... • Renewable Energy provide 5% of garage power use by a small 6.5 kw photovoltaic array demonstrates the City of Saint John's commitment to sustainability u R E, Level 1 Credits - Easily Achieved Continued..... Material & Resources (5 Potential Points) Construction Waste • divert at least half of all construction waste from landfill to recycled usage Su lementa Cementing Materials (SCMs) • use post industrial waste products such as fly ash or blast furnace slag to replace cement in concrete use • a 30% replace rate for a 600 car garage could reduce CO2 emissions from cement production by 90 tonnes • cost neutral Level X Credits - Easily Achieved Continued...., Materials & Resources Continued Regional Materials • use at least 20% locally extracted and manufactured materials • little cost penalty Durabili • develop a building durability plan in accordance with GSA 8478 -95 Guide on Durability in Buildings. XY If Level 1 Credits - Easily Achieved Continued..... Indoor Environmental Quality (6 Potential Points) • CO2 monitoring • Ventilation effectiveness • Low - Emitting materials Level 1 Credits - Easily Achieved Continued..... Innovative & Design Process (2 Potential Points) A Column Free Garage • more user - friendly • creates future flexibility to re -strip the garage to increase efficiency for smaller, more fuel - efficient vehicles • Capital cost increment - $450,000 10 OF I Level 2 Credits Showing Sustainable Leadership Level 2 Credits — Showinq Sustainable Leadership Sustainable S iteS (2 Potential Additional Points) Alternative Transportation — Changing Rooms • add showers and changing rooms to the bicycle storage provided under Level 1 • net present cost over 40 years - $140,000 Alternative Transportation — Car Pools • offer a 10% rate reduction to multi passenger vehicles to encourage car pooling and reduced vehicle usage • would reduce energy usage and CO2 emissions • would reduce parking demand and parking stalls required to be constructed at $25,000 each 11 I Level 2 Credits - Showing Sustainable Leadership Continued Water Eff ciency (2 Potential Additional Points) Water Use Reduction • harvesting and storage of storm water for use in an adjacent occupied building or for an environmentally friendly car wash Level 2 Credits - Showing Sustainable Leadership Continued Energy and Atmosphere (1 Potential Additional Credits) Renewable Eneray • to demonstrate the City of Saint John's commitment to a sustainable future a larger photovoltaic installation of 12.5 kw could be installed present net cost over 40 years of $152,000 12 Level 2 Credits -- Showing Sustainable Leadership Continued Materials & Resources (2 Potential Additional Points) Construction Work Management • divert 75% of usual construction waste from landfill to recycled usage • cost estimate $10,000 Recycled Content • increase the post consumer and post industrial recycled content in the building to 15% • allow a $40,000 cost increase Level 2 Credits — Showing Sustainable Leadership Continued Innovation & Design Process (3 Potential Additional Points) Design for Future Adaptability • incorporate a flat decks, greater floor to floor heights, increased floor loads to allow future conversion to another use • flat decks would also allow the use of electronic way finding • the need for a separate ramp system would take up more area and add construction cost • construction cost increased $660,000 13 Level 2 Credits - Showing Sustainable Leadership Continued Innovation & Design Process cwn d ... Desiqn for Future Vertical Expansion • design foundation, columns, and lateral load systems to accommodate the future construction of additional floors • provides for better land utilization by increasing the size of the buildings, either as a parking garage or some other usage • cost for additional capacity to add two more floors - $50,000 Level 3 Credits More of a Stretch c� 14 Level 3 Credits — More of a Stretch Sustainable Sites (3 Potential Additional Points) Alternative Fuels • provide altemative fuel refilling stations within 500 metres of the parking garage for at least 3% of the garage capacity • could be in partnership with an organization providing such services Level 3 Credits — More of a Stretch Continued Sustainable Sites (3 Potential Additional Points) Reflective Roof • construct a separate roof structure with a highly reflective surface to counter act the urban heat island effect • would also reduce snow ploughing costs • reduce snow plough damage and UV damage to upper parking deck membranes cost increased $1,740,000 OG 15 Level 3 Credits - More of a Stretch continued Sustainable Sites Continued Green Roof • reduces heal island affect • provides storm water retention and evaporation • provides bio diversity • improved appearance • reduces snow plough cost and damage • protects upper parking deck membrane from UV damage • 50% green roof and 50% reflective roof - $1,860,000 Level -3-Credits - More of a Stretch Continued Energy & Atmosphere (10 Potential Additional Points) Optimize Enerav Performance • investigate a fully natural ventilation system for an underground garage • would not likely eliminate the need for some mechanical ventilation • requires further study Renewable Energy • consider increasing the PY array size to 25 kw to provide 20% of the garage power supply • present net cost $270,000 over 40 years c� c� 16 Level 3 Credits - More of a Stretch Continued Innovation & Design Process (3 Potential Additional Points) Demountability • design garage to be dismantled and reused elsewhere when no longer required on this site a 17 Executive Summary I Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page II Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick III:...XIII °: 111111 C ".III 1IIE S U IMIIYM A IIR Y Introduction In response to the proposal call number 2007-083616P, Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. (RJC), in conjunction with MCW Energy Solutions (MCW), and BA Consulting Group (BA) were engaged by the Saint John Parking Commission to undertake a feasibility study for a "Green Parking Facility ". This study was undertaken in anticipation of the need for a number of new structured parking facilities in Saint John and was to determine what characteristics and qualities could be built into these future facilities to lessen their negative impact on the environment. A hypothetical 600 -car, 4-level parking structure was used as a basis for this study in calculating cost impacts. Funding for this study was provided by Environmental Trust Fund of the Province of New Brunswick. LEED as the Yardstick The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System for New Construction (NC) developed by the Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC) was used on the basis of this review. LEED is now recognized in the building industry in North America as the most widely used standard to describe the attributes of a a sustainable building. This system identifies 40 different areas within six main categories that could be incorporated into a "Green" Building. The six main categories are: • Sustainable Sites • Water Efficiency • Energy & Atmosphere • Materials & Resources • Indoor Environmental Quality • Innovative & Design Process We are not advocating that a LEED certification be sought for the final projects, nor is it clear whether a parking structure, as primarily unoccupied space, is eligible for LEED certification in Canada, but the LEED score sheet services as a convenient and relatively complete measure of green building attributes for the purposes of this study. Read Jones Chrlstoffersen Lade Green Parking Facility August 22, 2000 Page itl Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Three levels of LEED credits have been identified. Leven Credits are those that are easily achievable with little cost or even cost savings. Level 2 Credits are those that move Saint John closer to its stated goal to "make Saint John a national leader as a sustainable community" ' at a greater but still within a reasonable economic cost. Level 3 credits are those that require a greater stretch to achieve and may not be economically viable at the time of this study, but should always be reviewed during the design of any future parking facility to re- valuate their applicability to a particular design, time, and place. Costs have been calculated based on initial capital costs plus the operating and maintenance costs over a 40 -year period. HIGHLIGHTS The LEED checklist highlights a wide spectrum of opportunities to incorporate sustainable features into a parking structure in the City of Saint John. This summary is not intended to be a conclusive list for all such facilities, but is recommended as a review document for each new project. The advisability of each potential credit should be weighed against the requirements and needs of that particular garage on that particular site based on the cost of energy and available technology at the time of its design. There are, however, a number of areas that stand out in this review that deserve particular attention. Lighting The predominant user of energy in a parking structure is lighting. This is where each design should focus particular attention. This report recommends the use of High Output fluorescent fixtures based on the installation, maintenance, and energy costs measured against a wide variety of alternatives using T5 High Output fixtures measured against a baseline case of Metal Halide fixtures, a popular lighting source in garage design, installation savings in the order of $70,000 and total net present cost savings of over $400,000 are achievable over 40 years. Utilizing light sensors to take advantage of day lighting also creates substantial cost savings and energy use reductions of a net present value of $152,000 over a 40 -year life cycle. Ventilation The other significant source of energy consumption primarily in underground parking structures is ventilation. The installation of CO demand ventilation controls, high efficiency exhaust fan motors, and variable speed exhaust fans can generate almost $100,000 net present value cost savings on energy use over a 40 -year life cycle. Mlon 2015 -Our Salnf John of the fWare, November 2007, F 3 ' Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page lv Feasibility Study RJC No„ 14444M Saint John, New Brunswick CO2 Reduction In Construction Means and methods of reducing CO2 emissions associated with the construction of the garage should be considered. This includes the use of local materials to reduce transportation energy and use of materials that have a low embodied energy. One strong focus should be the reduction of cement usage in the garage either by reduced concrete usage or by the use of supplementary cementing materials such as fly ash, and industrial waste product, to replace a significant portion of the cement used in concrete. Garage Structure Design Designing the garage structural system to allow greater flexibility of parking layouts to accommodate possible smaller cars more efficiently in the future by using a clear span column grid should be considered. Designing for future vertical expansion of the facility should also be considered. Designing for future adaptability of the structure to be used for another occupancy such as residential, retail, or office should be considered. This would include a flat floor configuration with a separate vehicle ramping system, increased floor -to -floor heights, and increased floor load capacities. Electronic Wayfindinq co If flat floors are incorporated, an electronic wayfinding system directing inbound traffic directly to available spaces would both increase garage efficiency and user friendliness, while reducing energy use and CO2 emissions. Visual Demonstration to Sustainablllty Commitment There are a number of very visually obvious sustainable design features that could be added to the garage to demonstrate the City of Saint John's commitment to be a national leader as a sustainable community but which may not have a direct financial pay back. These would include the use of alternative energy such as solar or wind power, or the installation of a green or reflective roof. Read Jones Chri.stoffersen Ltd. LEED Canada Project Checklist And Life Cycle Cost Estimate N J Y v W 2 v V W a a a W W co m L U L) z ua LN u 0 m V m� L � Y m m m 8 � •� 9 E E 19 So CD N F � g LL Z •� u t7 m m 5� C ID g 25 m r o 9 a O 22 m 7 9 O O m O C m m QQ Q ❑ mm m G� U cr Q' F O co, O m m pO C. 1I1 13 J Y# W J (D C14 O O O O N d R1 O 7 -w N w W m � 69- W 6 m z C O C CD C O p mm QC C m O tO m C C E m 0 Fi O z z O z z E E O z y w cn z vt z C J � O h N m O C CD m LL a D d m$s�m `_ "' c `o M n v c C m v a a a o m U 8 C o 0 0 0 0 e -.r N o �+ c E E I 0 8 v o 0 o $ W W m c c c m g W LLf d' O O m E F Fy F F �?? — r i h N J3 je cn m t C Z E O 9 9 _ F F c n m m m m m o ro �3pp o a a r+ c a° n i 9 m m o m 9 v t In m L rd rd rd �d rd w N n rc N ai i z Nryk,. Ilfl r N N M N r N N r N m a V a V 4 L6 Sri (G �C Ih 1+ m' YIr C r r ..t V- h C7 h C7 h �7 O� C7 OD c'7 O� CS Oi PS O '� O N N V' i7 V BOUBJBJB! B86 "M14Td WN r X ,4"n WN N X $ JOAa-1 N y Z Iana-1 N > J, JOAO-I °l >- 4 1 >> > 1 1 4 1 co m L U L) z ua LN u [s' GS L i, Z w n C m U W W J U m C7 U u v � m m m 3 E m m �o m v m cm 3 R T E cd E C 9 0 C m m W c m z 3 LLI $ m � � U Em 3 a m m a ° � O O S m U v U U E m V m ar N c m a a N c g rtsa� $ a o c M U E m > m m � m C m m ed 7 V) �$ J 8 m c 8 0 J � °Cpl m m yo m � 6 m m pp Oc 8 O N a ; c8 a� W � �� m UJ J s e9 m Z O S Z E E E o Z Z J z O O C > I a a W O O M ,,. 00 U9 m 8 rn m c c o m 0 0 0 o m e to F, W w a v t cm w p pa 1pa{p j� N ti !f 13 X, v o 0 c m m n m m m W W 7 m g � N N N PI Ri r L6 m d m U U CO-) U CO) 7 Lf) to to 671iwepu gft eJQ Lpv W o Null wN o m J £ IBAB-1 0 Z lanai N 0 O 0 O G IBAB-1 M C3 o 40 > ' > p O [s' GS L i, Z w n C m U W W J U m C7 U u � m m o m �o m cm 8 T E E u� m m c U Q $ � U Em m a E m E m m a O O S U v U U E m m ar c m ° CL c g CL $ a o c U E m > > C m m ed 7 V) �$ 4 a 8 m c 8 0 LM � °Cpl m m yo m m tm 6 m m pp Oc 8 a ; c8 W � �� R s O O G CDO O O > m J r iR cm w p Z � N m J 0 O 0 O CD o 0 O C3 o 40 on ' p O p Z m L6 !A Z z O N N fp mm fA p r s fp C e* } W d? C E C m 0 a a C Or ei c m mp Fm m c o N H 0 ` c$ ?3 m V m m m pp C C C C O C ¢ C m a W W W W p C W ID CL W 0 V 3 > > > « c m or m f v p ua. Ix WO to ^� (v en N N of y� r N (V N t9 It LO w 0 +� a s L) L) L) U 7 7 papp 7 pp X17 pp 1f! iri 1N C%l N X X T 1 r j [s' GS L i, Z w n C m U W W J U m C7 U u u N � N C m E C m gw E Q m c, a > m C co b m � W E m m Z m p m Z ca ~ m C $ LL Ill C :o5 A C W im W C N G W C OD 2 m Cm CD O CCCpp m O Bl y m m C m m 0 m b m m CL �y p t'n E W m q Q Z Q Z Q Z o o Q Z Q Z Q z Q Z c7 `m °_ J J G O O EL z W m J iA m z 8 o a¢ 'Z m m o m 0 m 0 a 'Z a o z z z Z€ z z z z zz E � N C J 9 m is O O W a g E E 3 LL in N m m c $ n —° z° m m m N N � = m C C 'o m m 2 o E ,e m m Lt Ul c °' c e c ae E E m m n o�i o a W m C a cs u� O N r2 e e m m m o a `; m c 9 o M $ 0 0 m m m m O O W O O 0 W C O i f 13 ^m' Cd E m oc a 0 s '2 m W c c c2 ;; m m v o� m a v c c m m a L $ > >> o o m m m m m m m o � a � o �1 N m N N N N 0. U U U U U U U U U U U U U U u3i u`ri u 2 ' i NJ N u�i utii 'L' eouawjare9a URVAOR W )ON t, x x x x x x x Aexn w O g 18A81 0 Z lanai N 619na-1 Lo >- u � jo % 7 L k e { L m f 7 t 8 '0 a k � � �/ k� E a§ \ D } § })) })) } z ) z z z f � CL k u 7w 2 7 ) § § § K § § [ § a « & « a « « z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z¥ z» z � ■ R 2 ID 0 2 a \ k k � £ ® 2 = s C f f 2 2 G R a. 7= 7 0 E J § § f E � # 2 2$ °§ £ Co i f 0 m $, .10C 2 2 ©•\ a. s / ® _ . --Cg ® B 2§§ g j § / « < ■ � _ ■ � ■ ■ e a a I| � ■ - - e § !\ � c k k k k ' \- j-c E? _= �§ £ & & w & co B £ € k 9 - \2 ■ & & ! & § § m ) � �■ w v � v v � � � � � � � u v o a 19 J C4 C4 cl m$ m m m 2 8 8 - m N cm n e c -M-W e U w e c GO_NM _� _-�� x x x x x x x x x �,_ la p o EC l o !I a 0 »» w w w � N_ L U U Z C d W W J LEED Checklist F �_ Rating System u For New Construction Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 36 Feasibility Study RJC No,: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick :1,0 III IIE I .V. III.) CRE. K IL..... III The following is a listing of each of the prerequisites and possible credits for a LEED certified building as described in LEED Rating System for new construction as compiled by the Canadian Green Building Council. The LEED checklist was selected because of its wide acceptance in North America as a yardstick of green buildings and its wide range of green features. For each item its possible application to a parking structure is assessed. 5.1 Sustainable Sites (SS) prerequisite 1 - Erosion & Sedimentation Control Intent - Control erosion to reduce negative impacts on water and air quality during construction. Requirement - Adopt an erosion control and sediment control plan for the project site during construction employing such strategies as temporary and permanent seeding, mulching, earth dikes, silt fencing, sediment traps and sediment basins. Applicable? - Yes These requirements could be written into the construction documents and contracts to ensure compliance by the General Contractor. Cost Increment - $3,000 (SS) Credit 1 - Site Selection Intent - Avoid the development of inappropriate sites and reduce the environmental impact from the location of a building on a site. Requirement - Select sites that are not part of agricultural or forest land preserves, undeveloped land susceptible to flooding, ecologically sensitive land, habitats for rare or endangered species, close to wet lands, or public parkland. Select a suitable building location and design the building with minimal footprint to minimize site disruption. Applicable? - Yes All the sites presently being considered for new parking facilities are existing under utilized urban sites that do not meet these characteristics. Cost Increment - None (SS) Credit 2 - Development Density Intent - Channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protect green-fields and preserve habitat and natural resources. Requirement - Give reference to existing urban sites. Select sites that are already have an urban density of at least 60,000 sq.ft. /acre (2- storey downtown development). Read Jones Chrlstotfersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 37 Feasibility Study RJC No„ 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Applicable? - Yes All the sites presently being considered For new parking Facilities are existing urban sites that likely meet these characteristics. Furthermore, the construction of strategically located and municipally controlled parking garages to serve a variety of development sites will facilitate the redevelopment of smaller sites (i.e. urban infill), increased density on larger sites. It will also result in the more efficient use of parking thereby reducing the overall use of resources for this service function. The Saint John Parking Commission should look for opportunities to combine the development of their parking facility with other urban land usage such as residential or commercial developments in order to maximize the development of the site and possibly create alternative funding for the parking facility. The development of the parking structure could then be used to encourage other urban land usage and enhance the whole urban fabric. This mixed -use type development has been successfully undertaken in the past by the Parking Authority of Toronto in combining public parking and residential development in such projects as their Esplanade Garage, Holly Park Garage, and the Village by the Grange projects. ti It should be noted that the combination of usage could impact the design of the garage and thus limit some possible sustainable features. See discussion Under Section 4.3. Cost Increment - None (SS) Credit 3 - Redevelopment of Contaminated Sites Intent - Rehabilitate damaged sites where development is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination, reducing pressure on undeveloped land. Requirement - Select sites that are already contaminated and remediate to provincial standards. Identify tax incentives and property cost savings. Applicable? - Yes It is possible that at least one of the sites under consideration contains contaminants from leakage from a previous gas station subgrade storage tank. Cost Increment - Site and extent of contamination specific. Allow $50,000. Read Jones Chrlstofiersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 38 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (SS) Credit 41 - Alternative Transportation - Public Transportation Access Intent - Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. Requirement - This might seem ironic for an automobile parking facility, but the structure should encourage the use of public transportation by being located close to commuter bus, subway, and rail lines as well as to City bus routes offering frequent service. A municipally owned garage would form part of a larger co- ordinated transportation demand management program which seeks to reduce automobile use through parking supply and pricing strategies, the provision of specialized transit services (Le Comex Express Bus Service) and promotion of ride sharing. Applicable? - Yes The Saint John Parking Commission should work in close cooperation with Saint John Transit authorities so that the garage location meshes well with local bus routes and stops. Cost Increment - None (SS) Credit 4.2 - Alternative Transportation - Bicycle Storage & Changing (Rooms Intent - Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. Requirement - For commercial or institutional buildings, provide secure bicycle storage, with convenient changing /shower facilities within 200 yards of the building for 5% or more of the 00 building occupants. Applicable? - Yes Secure bicycle storage could be provided within the parking facility to encourage the use of bicycles in the city. Commuters could leave their bicycles at the garage over night and use them to complete their commute in the morning. Shower facilities and lockers could be provided on site or at nearby facilities. The provision of safe and secure bicycle storage is an important step in encouraging bicycle commuting. This practice is also consistent with the City's Traffic Demand Mitigation (TDM) strategy in that those that bicycle most of the year are more to use car pooling and /or public transportation in inclement weather. Each such cyclist represents a car that does not need to be parked downtown thus saving the cost of providing a structural parking stall at $25,000 each. Cost Increment - $150,000 plus $7,200 /year equals $273,500 net present value. Assumes the loss of 3 parking stalls to provide a bicycle storage area and 3 stalls for a locker shower area at a construction cost of $25,000 /stall and a loss of parking revenue of $100 1month per stall over 40 years. (SS) Credit 4.3 - Alternative Transportation - Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles Intent - Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. Requirement - Provide preferred parking for hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles for at least 3% of the building occupants, install alternative-fuel refuelling stations within 545 yards of the site for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity on the site. Applicable? icable? - Yes Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 39 Feasibility study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick The garage could be designed and operated to provide a preferred parking rate and space location to hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles to encourage their use. This could possible extend in the future to providing recharging capability for electric cars if they become a significant proportion of the garage users. Cost Increment - None for preferred parking spaces (SS) Credit 4.4 - Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity Intent - Reduce pollution and land development impacts from single occupancy vehicle use. Requirement - Size of parking garage not to exceed minimum zoning requirements and provide preferred and designated parking for carpools, van pools or car co-ops equal to 10% of total number of parking spaces. Applicable? - Yes It is not clear on a particular site if it will be possible for a municipal public parking structure to provide less than the particular zoning requirement for a site. in general, the use of strategically located municipal parking garages that represent a substantial portion of the overall parking supply will allow the SJPC to impact the overall supply and cost of parking in a manner that encourages less automobile use. lu It will be possible for the garage to provide reduced rates and preferred parking locations to encourage carpooling and van pooling. It will also be possible to provide preferred spaces to companies specializing in car sharing or even car rental agencies to reduce individual car ownership, and therefore, usage. Cost Increment - $125,000 net present value based on $7,200 per year revenue loss based on 60 cars /year with a 10% rate reduction on a normal $100 /month parking rate over 40 years on a 5% interest rate . (SS) Credit 5.1 - Reduced Site Disturbance - Protect or Restore Open Space Intent - Conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity. Requirement - On Greenfield sites, among other requirements, limit site disturbance including earthwork and clearing to 12 metres beyond building perimeter or on previously developed sites, restore a minimum of 50% of the site area (excluding the building footprint) by replacing impervious surfaces with native or adapted vegetation. Applicable? - Yes As parking structures are normally constructed in urban areas the Greenfield requirements would not apply. Garages constructed in urban areas tend to utilize the entire site but if not, it would not be difficult to ensure that at least half of the remaining site is landscaped with native or Adapted species. The exception would be if the City wishes to develop an urban park in conjunction with a parking facility, then the extent of open space would be significant. Read Jones Chrlstoflersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 40 Feasibility Study RJC No , 14444,02 Saint John, New Brunswick Cost Increment - Nominal (SS) Credit 5.2 - Reduced Site Disturbance - Development Footprint Intent - Conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity. Requirement - Reduce the development footprint (building footprint, access roads, and surface parking) to exceed the local zoning open space requirement for the site by 25 %. If no open space requirement is applicable, designate open space area adjacent to the building that is equal to the development footprint. Applicable? - Not likely As parking structures constructed in urban areas tend to utilize the entire site, it is not likely that significant open areas would exist to conserve or restore. The exception would be if the City wishes to develop an urban park in conjunction with a parking facility. Cost Increment - None (SS) Credit 6.1 - Stormwater Management - Rate and Quantity Intent - Limit disruption and pollution of natural water flows by managing stormwater runoff. O to Requirement - Design the facility to reduce the 1.5 year, 24-hour peak discharge rate and quantity from the site by 25%. Applicable? - Yes This could be done by promoting infiltration of the rainwater or reuse of the water for new portable uses such as irrigation purposes, toilets, and customer uses. Limit or eliminate discharge of storm water to storm sewer by minimizing impervious surfaces and providing containment for detention of peak storm water volumes. Where landscaping is required for aesthetic purposes, a bio-retention system would be appropriate. This system would incorporate a grass buffer strip, sand bed, ponding area, organic layer or mulch layer, planting soil and plants on a landscape area equal to approximately 5% of the roof area. A bio- retention area will help to reduce total storm water runoff beyond standard landscaping, as it will provide a volume for storing and infiltrating storm water. The construction cost of a bio- retention area is not significantly more than standard landscaping, although the maintenance considerations include regular inspection of soil, replacement of dead and diseased vegetation, and annual addition of mulch. Cost Increment - $7,500 A green roof would help to reduce the peak rate of storm water runoff by absorbing rainfall and rejecting it by a combination of draining and evapo- transportation. Incorporating a green roof onto a parking structure would require an additional level; however, it would not be designed to the same loading as a level of parking as only 15 Ib /ft2 is required for an extensive green roof. Read Jones Chrlstoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 41 Feasibility Study RJC No.; 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Due to the structural requirements, a green roof would cost significantly more than a bio- retention area. However, in most urban settings a green roof would be the only viable option for a biological system to manage storm water. Cost Increment - See Credit 7.2 - Heat Island Effect - Roof Physical storage could be employed to reduce the peak storm water discharge rate. A portion of the bottom level of parking could be set aside for storage tanks, or a cistern could be integrated into a portion of the foundation. Cost Increment - See Credit (WE) 3.1 - Water Use Reduction. (SS) Credit 6.2 - stormwater Management - Treatment Intent - Limit disruption of natural water flows by eliminating stormwater runoff, increasing on- site infiltration and eliminating contaminants. Requirement - Construct site storm water treatment systems designed to remove 80% of the average annual post-development total suspended solids (TSS) and 40% of the average annual post-development total phosphorous (TP) based on the average annual loadings from all storms less than or equal to the 2-year /24 -hour storm. Applicable? - Yes LO Provide mechanical and /or biological stormwater treatment mechanism to remove harmful contaminants from storm water before infiltration. Mechanical separators may be used to reduce floating debris and free oil. Vegetated filter strips and bio-retention areas may be employed to further treat water and allow infiltration were applicable. Ensure that first 25mm of rainfall is stored in cisterns or infiltrated onsite. Cost Increment - See Credit (WE) 3.1 - Water Use Reduction. Both bio- retention systems would provide the required filtration in addition to reducing the overall storm water runoff. A green roof would also contribute to the treatment of storm water. Cost Increment - See (SS) 6.1- Bio- retention System. (SS) Credit 7.1 - Heat Island Effect - Non -Roof Intent - Reduce heat islands (thermal gradient differences between developed and undeveloped areas) to minimize impact on microclimate and human and wildlife habitat. Requirement - For the non -roof areas around the parking structure either provide shade, use light - coloured reflective materials, or use open -grid pavement for at least 30% of the site's non - roof impervious surfaces. Alternatively, use open pavement systems for at least 50% of the surface parking lot area or place 50% of parking spaces underground or covered by structured parking. Applicable? - Yes Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 42 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick The extent of non -roof area of the site is not yet determined, however, it is anticipated for most urban parking garage sites to be minimal. However, we would certainly meet the requirement to place 50% of the parking spaces beneath structured parking, but the applicability of this credit to a stand -alone parking structure would be prone to interpretation by the CGBC. Cost Increment - None (SS) Credit 7.2 - Heat Island Effect - Roof Intent - Reduce heat islands (thermal gradient differences between developed and undeveloped areas) to minimize impact on microclimate and Human and wildlife habitat. Requirement - Use ENERGY STAR compliant (highly reflective) AND high emissivity roofing for a minimum of 75% of the roof surface. OR Install a "green" roof for at least 50% of the roof area. Applicable? - Yes but This credit could be achieved either with a highly reflective roof or a green roof. In a normal building this would involve the application of either a highly reflective roofing material or a green roof system in place of a normal roofing system. An above-grade parking structure, however, N LO does not normally have a separate roof structure above the highest parking deck. Therefore, to achieve this credit one could apply a reflective traffic membrane or a green roof on a waterproof membrane to the upper parking level. Whether this is a new credit or applicable under 71 would require interpretation from the CGBC. We are aware of traffic deck membranes certified to meet the Solar Reflective Index (SRI) for Credits 7.1 but not 7.2. Highly reflective traffic membranes to meet the requirements of 7.2 would be rapidly degraded due to darkening from tire wear, oil, grease, and dirt. Similarly, existing green roof systems are not suitable for parking decks. One would need to develop a green roof system that would support heavy wear in driving aisles and parking stalls. One possibility would be grass grown in open grid pavers on an earth bed over a waterproof membrane. A more conventional approach would be a separate roof structure above the upper parking deck to support either a reflective roofing system or a green roof system. This roof structure, however, would have its own additional cost. Green roofs, however, have other benefits as described in Credit 61 of helping to reduce peak stormwater run -off by absorbing rainfall and rejecting it by a combination of draining and evaporation. In an urban environment it also creates a more pleasant appearance than a traditional roof or a parking slab. Read Jones Chrlstoflersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22. 2009 Page 43 Feasibility Study RJC No :14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick LEED requires only 75% of the roof area be reflective and only 50% for a green roof. For this study, however, we have assumed 100% to gain full benefit of the ploughing and maintenance savings of a protective roof structure. Cost Increment - Roof Structure - Assume $30 /sq.ft. over 60,000 sq.ft. equals $1,800,000 - Reflective Roofing - $10.00 / sq.ft. over 60,000 sq.ft. plus equals $600,000 - Extensive Green Roof - $25.00 /sq.ft. over 60,000 sq.ft. equals $1,500,000 - Intensive Green Roof - $50.00 / sq.ft. over 60,000 sq.ft. equals $3,000,000 The cost benefit to a separate roof structure is reduced snow ploughing and upper deck membrane maintenance costs. Snow plouging costs are estimated to be $5,000 per year and membrane maintenance costs is $10,000 per year. However, to acquire the full benefit would require construction of the roof over 100% of the upper deck at a total cost of $40 /sq.ft (assuming reflective roofing) over 60,000 sq.ft equals $2,400,000 resulting in a simple pay back period greater than 100 years. (SS) Credit B - Light Pollution Reduction Intent - Eliminate light trespass from the building and site, improve night sky access and reduce development impact on nocturnal environments. Requirement - Design the building lighting to utilize full cut -off fixtures and low - reflectance surfaces on the upper level of the parking garage and perimeter walkways so that no light from those luminaries crosses the property line. Applicable? - Yes Further reduction to light pollution could be achieved by using motion sensors to turn -off the upper deck lights of an above-grade garage when not used or by the provision of a separate roof structure as outlined in Credit 7.2 Cost Increment - Lighting fixtures, no additional cost - Roof structure, See Credit 7.2 5,2 Water Efficlency (WE) Credit 1.1 - Water Efficient Landscaping - Reduce by 50% Intent - Limit or eliminate the use of potable water for landscape irrigation. Requirement - Use high efficiency irrigation technology. Use captured rain water or recycled site water to reduce potable water consumption for irrigation by 50% over conventional means. Applicable? - Yes Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. M LO Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 44 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Depending on the extent of landscaping envisioned use either high efficiency irrigation systems or captured rainwater to reduce potable water used for irrigation by at least 50 %. Select planting that requires little or no irrigation. Use retained and treated stormwater for irrigation. Cost Increment - If we use high efficiency irrigation technology the incremental cost for irrigation for the amount of landscaping envisioned for the parking structure would be nominal. (WE) Credit 1.2 - Water Efficient Landscaping - No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation Intent - Limit or eliminate the use of potable water for landscape irrigation. Requirement - Use only captured rain or recycled site water to eliminate all potable water use for site irrigation (except for initial watering to establish plants). OR Do not install permanent landscape irrigation systems. Applicable? - Yes Either eliminate irrigation entirely through appropriate landscape and by using native plants, or use captured rain or recycled site water to eliminate all potable water for site irrigation. The average annual rainfall in Saint John between in 2005 and in 2006 was on the order of 1200 mm. A stormwater cistern incorporated into the foundation could effectively be used to capture all � LO water required for irrigation and other uses. Cost Increment - Storm water cistern - $115,000 (WE) Credit 2 - Innovative Wastewater Technologies Intent - Reduce generation of wastewater and potable water demand, while increasing the local aquifer recharge. Requirement - Reduce the use of municipality provided potable water for building sewage conveyance by a minimum of 50 %. OR Treat 100% of wastewater on site to tertiary standards. Applicable? - Yes This credit deals primarily with reducing the use of potable water for building sewage conveyance and, therefore, focuses on low water usage toilets and urinals. For a parking structure the number of such fixtures would be limited to whatever staff would be on site. If a rainwater collection cistern is utilized as part of Credits 31 and 3.2 this water could be used for these fixtures. Cost Increment - See Credit (WE) 3.1 - nominal The treatment of deck wash water to tertiary standards is not likely feasible for a parking facility as the relative low waster usage would not justify the cost of a tertiary water treatment system. Cost Increment - Not applicable Read Jones Chrlstaliersen Ltd. Green Parking Facillly August 22, 2006 Page 45 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 (WE) Credit 3.1 - Water Use Reduction - 20% Reduction Intent - Maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems. Requirement - Employ strategies that use 20% less potable water than the water use baseline for the building (not including irrigation) after meeting specified fixture performance requirements. Applicable? - Yes The greatest demand for water in a parking facility is for deck washing. This is commonly done two times per year. The most effective means to reduce water usage in this regard is to use dry sweeper technology combined with the reuse of rainwater washing. It may be difficult, however, to determine the water use baseline for a parking structure. Rainwater could be captured and stored in a subgrade cistern and then used as required. There is, however, a concern about the quality of the wash water from the parking deck discharging into the City's sewer system contaminated with material, gasoline, grease, and salt. This will need treatment. Use low -flow water fixtures where applicable, however, domestic water fixtures in parking garages are minimal. A single attendant present for 10 hours per day would use on the order of 10 m3 of water per year for toilet flushing and hand washing. The volume of water used LO LO for deck washing will depend on the size of the parking facility. Cost Increment - $115,000 for a 50 -cubic meter storm water cistern with strainers, filters, pumps, and control panel. (WE) Credit 3.2 - Water Use Reduction - 30% Reduction Intent - Maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems. Requirement - Employ strategies that use 30% less potable water than the water use baseline for the building (not including irrigation) after meeting specified fixture performance requirements. Applicable? - Yes As outlined in Credit 3.1, the most effective means to reduce water usage in this regard is to use dry sweeper technology combined with the reuse of rainwater for washing. There is, however, a concern about the quality of the wash water from the parking deck discharging into the City's sewer system contaminated with material, gasoline, grease, and salt. This will need treatment. Use low-flow water fixture where applicable, however, domestic water fixtures in parking garages are minimal. Cost Increment - See Credit 3.1 Green Parking Facility August 22, 200B Page 46 Feasibility Study RJC o.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick 5.3 Energy & Atmosphere (EA) Prerequisite 1 - Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning Intent - Verify and ensure that Fundamental building elements and systems are designed, installed and calibrated to operate as intended. Requirement - Implement or have a contract in place to implement the following fundamental best practice commissioning procedures. • Engage a commissioning authority that does not Include individuals directly responsible for project design or construction management. • Review the design intent and the basis of design documentation. • Incorporate commissioning requirements into the construction documents. • Develop and utilize a commissioning plan. • Verify installation, functional performance, training and operation and maintenance documentation. • Complete a commissioning report. Applicable? - Yes This requires that a commissioning plan be developed, incorporated into the design LO documentation, and carried out through the building process, including operator training. A third party commissioning authority should be engaged to provide building commissioning and deliver a commissioning report. This ensures that the design to reduce the energy consumption of the ventilation and lighting systems are realized in the building construction and sustained through the life of the building. In addition, it ensures that gas detection and fire protection systems are functional and will be properly maintained. Although this credit is primarily intended to address a building's mechanical and electrical systems for a parking facility it is especially important that the maintenance documentation include an adequate cleaning schedule in order to prolong the life of the structure. Cost Increment - The cost of this commissioning is likely to be in the order of $5,000. (EA) Prerequisite 2 - Minimum Energy Performance Intent - Establish the minimum level of energy efficiency for the base building and systems. Requirement - Reduce the design energy consumption to comply with Natural Resources Canada's Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP) requirement for a 25% reduction relative to the consumption of the reference building designed to the Model National Energy Code for Buildings 1997 (MNECB). Compliance shall be demonstrated by using whole building energy simulation. Applicable? - Yes As outlined in Section 3.0, the primary energy demand for above grade parking garages is lighting and for below grade garages lighting and ventilation. Any focus on energy reduction must, therefore, address these two areas. It would be necessary, however, to comply with this Read Jones Christofiersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 47 Feasibility Study RJC o. 14444.02 Saint Jahn, New Brunswick prerequisite to determine the consumption of the referenced parking structure designed to the Model National Energy Code (MNEC). Such a reference may not exist. Whole building energy simulation for a parking structure where the vast majority of energy demand is for lighting and a smaller amount for ventilation in our view is unnecessary. These systems can be treated separately. Lighting - Choose lamps which are capable of producing a high lumens per watt. Choose fixtures which are highly efficient to ensure the maximum amount of lumens are reaching the task plane in the structure. Ensure that lighting fixtures are designed to provide the minimum acceptable lighting level for their intended purpose. Consider lighting level for individual applications including; pedestrian pathways, parking spaces, drives aisles, buildings entrances and other applications such as pay stations. Maximize the use of natural light and ensure lights are turned off where not required. Cost Increment - By using more energy efficient T5 HO fluorescent fixtures instead of the more commonly used metal Halide fixtures could reduce initial costs by $68,000. Over a 40 -year operating period the combined capital cost savings and maintenance and energy savings could result in a net present value cost savings of $420,000. ti LO Ventilation And Heating - Minimize run -time of exhaust fans to match air quality requirements by using Carbon Monoxide Demand Ventilation Control. Use high efficiency motors on exhaust fans. Heating in parking structures is rarely required. Where heating is required, design system to maintain only the minimum acceptable temperature. If waste heat is available from other usages nearby use it for garage heating where possible. (EA) Prerequisite 3 - CFC Reduction In HVAC &R Equipment and Elimination of Halons Intent - Reduce ozone depletion. Requirement - Zero use of CFC-based refrigerants in new base building HVAC&R systems and zero use of halons in fire suppression equipment. When reusing existing base building HVAC equipment, complete a comprehensive CFC phase -out conversion. Applicable? - No Parking garages do not typically use air conditioning or fire suppression equipment so this prerequisite is automatically achieved. (EA) Credit 1 - Optimize Energy Performance Intent - Achieve increasing levels of energy performance above the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental impacts associated with excessive energy use. Requirement - Reduce design energy cost compared to the energy cost of the MNECB OR ASHRAE /IESNA 90.1 -1999 reference building for energy systems regulated by these standards. Read Jones Christofiersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2009 Page AS Feasibility Study RJC No.; 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Compliance shall be demonstrated by using whole building energy simulation using the same compliance path (MNECB /CBIP or ASHRAE 90.1) as was used for EAp2. Points Awarded for Percentage Reductions in Design Energy Cost Relative to MNECB and ASHRAE 90.1 - New Buildings Points MNECB ASHRAE /IESNA 90.1-1999 1 24% 15% 2 29% 20% 3 33% 25% 4 38% 30% 5 42% 35% 6 47% 40% 7 51% 45% 8 55% 50% 9 j 0% 55% 10 1 64% 60% Applicable? - Yes Same as Prerequisite 2 plus, Lighting - In addition to the higher efficiency fixtures outlined in (EA) - Prerequisite 2, utilize lighting control mechanisms such as Night -Saver or Streetlight Intelligence which either dire or turn off lamps when enough sunlight is available. Several options exist whereby different levels of control are produced. One type would be to pre - program the lamps to turn off during a period of time (i.e. Sam to 4pm) during which sunlight is present. This ensures that lights are off for 8 hours per day, or as preset by the owner, but produce artificial light during times sunlight is unavailable. Another option is to dim the lamps based on available sunlight, requiring the use of photocell sensors. Cost Increment - $11,700 initial capital cost plus an anticipated net present energy cost savings of $162,000 over 40 years. A light pipe technology was considered but was not deemed suitable for a parking garage by the manufacturer based on the light pipe requiring protection as it is typically mounted in a ceiling space. However, architectural integration of open space such as at the centre of a circular ramp would allow light to penetrate the centre of the garage more effectively, thus increasing the benefit of photocell sensors. Alternately, a parking garage with a longer profile having the longer edge facing north -south would allow for maximum use of natural light. Read Jones Chrlstolfersen Ltd. Z Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 49 Feasibility Study RJC No.. 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Occupancy sensors are also a possibility to reduce lighting energy and should be seriously considered but may be problematic for a parking garage as they could be triggered by a variety of items such as wind blown leaves, birds, etc., and darkened areas may be deemed a security concern. Ventilation - Solar or wind chimneys would have limited effectiveness for ventilation of underground parking structures in Saint John. These technologies depend on access to steady wind and sun which is not typically the case at ground level in an urban setting. The incorporation of these technologies would be heavily dependent on the site selected. For enclosed garages or subgrade facilities additional cost savings can be achieved by using high efficiency motors on exhaust fans and variable speed drives. These features could achieve a net present value savings through reduced energy cost of $100,000. (EA) Credit 2.1 - Renewable Energy - 5% Intent - Encourage and recognize increasing levels of on -site renewable energy self- supply in order to reduce environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel energy use. rn Requirement - Supply at least 5% of the building's total energy use (as expressed as a fraction of to annual energy cost) through the use of on -site renewable energy systems. Applicable? - Yes Photovoltaic (PV) panels and wind turbines are the only potential renewable energy technologies that may be appropriate for parking structures. PV panels would be most easily integrated as part of a roofing structure which could include a green roof. Unfortunately the solar resource in Saint John is only 3.35 kWh /mZ /day on average. This is approximately 10% less than that in Toronto. With the net - metering available through New Brunswick Power, the payback for a PV system would be in excess of 80 years. Use photovoltaic panels for covered walkways or on south fagade or on the roof. Install small wind turbines at north corners of parking structure to avoid shading solar arrays. 5% of energy consumption would be satisfied by a 6.5 kW photovoltaic array Cost Increment - Demonstration system 6 kW - $78,000 installation cost and $96,000 net present cost total for 40 years. Depending on the site chosen, a wind turbine may demonstrate the City's commitment to sustainability and provide a better payback than a PV system. Wind turbine effectiveness in urban environments is very site specific and likely not cost - effective. Cost Increment - Two, 2.5KW wind turbine - $100,000 Read Jones Chrlstorrersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2408 Page 50 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (EA) Credit 2.2 - Renewable Energy -10% Intent - Encourage and recognize increasing levels of on -site renewable energy self - supply in order to reduce environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel energy use. Requirement - Supply at least 10% of the building's total energy use (as expressed as a fraction of annual energy cost) through the use of on -site renewable energy systems. Applicable? - Yes A 12.5 kW photovoltaic array would supply 10% of the hypothetical garage energy supply. Cost Increment - $150,000 installation cost with a total net present cost of $152,000 over 40 years. (EA) Credit 2.3 - Renewable Energy - 20% Intent - Encourage and recognize increasing levels of on -site renewable energy self - supply in order to reduce environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel energy use. Requirement - Supply at least 20% of the building's total energy use (as expressed as a fraction of annual energy cost) through the use of on -site renewable energy systems. Applicable? - Yes A 25 kW coverage of photovoltaic (PV) array should provide 20% of the power demand for a O 600 -car facility. Integrate the design of the PV panels to provide additional benefits such as shading and reduced snow removal. If wind energy is considered, maximize wind energy resource by installing the largest turbine as high as is permissible by local zoning regulations. Cost Increment - A 125 kW photovoltaic array could also be installed to meet 100% of the energy needs of the garage at an initial cost of $1,375,000 with a total net present cost of $1,068,000. - 25 kW PV array would have an initial installation cost of $300,000 and a present net value over 40 years of $268,000. (EA) Credit 3 - Best Practice Commissioning Intent - Verify and ensure that the entire building is designed, constructed and calibrated to operate as intended. Requirement - In addition to the fundamental Building Commissioning prerequisite, implement or have a contract in place to implement additional commissioning tasks: 1. A commissioning authority independent of the design team shall conduct a review of the design prior to the construction documents phase. 2. An independent commissioning authority shall conduct a review of the construction documents near completion of the construction document development and prior to issuing the contract documents for construction. 3. An independent commissioning authority shall review the contractor submittals relative to systems being commissioned. Read .Jones Christortersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August ZZ, 2008 Page 51 Feasibility Study RJC No,. 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick 4. Provide the owner with a single manual that contains the information required for re- commissioning building systems. 5. Have a contract in place to review building operation with Operations and Maintenance staff, including: • A plan for how occupants may report IA4 concerns, the subsequent investigation process and how they will be reported back to the occupant, and, • A plan for resolution of outstanding commissioning-related issues within one year after construction completion date. Applicable? - Yes In addition to Fundamental Building Commissioning, this credit requires that a third party commissioning authority be engaged to review design documents during the design and prior to construction as well as to review the contractor submittals during construction. It requires that a single manual be provided to the building owner and that a contract be in place to provide operator training. This requires that the Saint John Parking Commission engage this person independently from the design or construction team. Cost Increment - The cost of this additional commission would likely be in the order of $10,000. (EA) Credit 4 - Ozone Protection Intent - Reduce ozone depletion and support early compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Requirement - install base building level HVAC and refrigeration equipment that do not contain HCFC's. Applicable? - No Parking garages do not typically use air conditioning. (EA) Credit 5 - Measurement and Verification Intent - Provide for the ongoing accountability and optimization of building energy and water consumption performance over time. Requirement - Install continuous metering equipment for the following end -uses: • Lighting systems and controls • Constant and variable motor loads • Variable frequency drive (VFD) operation • Chiller efficiency at variable loads (kW /ton) • Cooling load • Air and water economizer and heat recovery cycles • Air distribution static pressures and ventilation air volumes • Boiler efficiencies • Building-related process energy systems and equipment • Indoor water risers and outdoor irrigation systems Read Jones Chrlstoffersen Ltd. u Green Parking Facility August 22, 2448 Page 52 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Applicable? - Yes This credit is relatively easy to achieve for parking garages due to the relatively basic energy systems. With lighting as the main and only energy consumer in above ground parking structures, and ventilation as the small contributor for underground structures, it is not difficult to measure energy consumption for the two systems. It is worthwhile to establish an estimated energy use during the design stage and to track the actual annual energy performance of the parking structure. Cost Increment - $4,000 (EA) Credit 6 - Green Power Intent - Encourage the development and use of grid-source, renewable energy technologies on a net zero pollution basis. Requirement - Provide at least 50% of the building's electricity from renewable sources by engaging in at least a two -year renewable energy contract. Renewable sources are those that meet the Environmental Choice programs' EcoLogo requirements for green power supplies. Applicable? - Possibly Purchase Green Power Certificates such as those available from JD Irving for 3 cents per kWh. N JD Irving has a 15 MW small hydropower plant in New Brunswick and had green certificates from this plant GreenLeaf certified in May 2004. JD Irving markets directly to the U.S. and Canadian governments and other large users. No other similar projects have been identified in New Brunswick. It does not appear that a viable market for green power certification exists in New Brunswick, although certificates may become available as wind and tidal power project developers seek financing for upcoming projects. 5.4 Materials & Resources (MR) Prerequisite 1 - Storage & Collection of Recyclables Intent - Facilitate the reduction of waste generated by building occupants that is hauled to and disposed of in landfills. Requirement - Provide an easily accessible area that serves the entire building and is dedicated to the separation, collection and storage of materials for recycling including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics and metals. Applicable? - Yes Provide designated areas for recyclable collection and storage and means and methods of proper disposal. This could serve as a convenience to the garage users but could also be built into the garage as a neighbourhood or regional facility separate from the actual garage operation to encourage recycling within the City of Saint John. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 53 Feasibility Study RJC No- 144.44.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Cost Increment - For the smaller facility for only the garage users assume the loss of one car stall at a construction cost of $25,000 and a net present worth of $45,000 based on revenue loss of $100 /month over 40 years. For a larger neighbourhood facility assume the loss of 3 parking stalls resulting in a $137,000 net present cost. Presume loss of 3 parking stalls at $25,000 /stall equals $75,000 plus annual loss of revenue of $300 /month equals $3,600/ year. (MR) Credit 1.1 - Building Reuse - Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof Intent - Extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport. Requirement - Maintain at least 75% of existing building structure and shell (exterior skin and framing, excluding window assemblies and non - structural roofing materials). A I_p-p ic_able? - Very Unlikely A parking structure is not likely a building suitable to be converted from an existing usage. However, in order to increase the likelihood of the new parking structure itself being reusable in the future as another building type to avoid the need for demolition and reconstruction, consideration should be given to the construction of the garage with level floors (except for M minimum required drainage slopes). These drainage slopes could be filled with light weight concrete or other self levelling materials to produce flat floors suitable for other usages. The floors should also be designed for greater than minimum parking deck loadings to facilitate this additional dead load as well as wider range of other usage loading requirements. This additional load capacity would create a marginal increase in the original cost of the structure in the order of 5 %. (MR) Credit 1.2 - Building Reuse - Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof Intent - Extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport. Requirement - Maintain an additional 20% (95% total) of existing building structure and shell (exterior skin and framing, excluding window assemblies and non - structural roofing materials). Applicable? - Very Unlikely A parking structure is not likely a building suitable to be converted from an existing usage. (MR) Credit 1.3 - Building Reuse - Maintain 50% of Interior Non - Structural Elements Intent - Extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport. Requirement - Maintain at least 50% of non -shell areas (interior walls, doors, floor coverings and ceiling systems). Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 54 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswlck Applicable? - No A parking structure is not likely a building suitable to be converted from an existing usage. (MR) Credit 2.1 - Construction Waste Management - Divert 50% from Landfill Intent - Divert construction, demolition and land clearing debris from landfill disposal. Redirect recyclable recovered resources back to the manufacturing process. Redirect reusable materials to appropriate sites. Requirement - Develop and implement a waste management plan, quantifying material diversion goals. Recycle and/or salvage at least 50% of construction, demolition and land clearing waste. Calculations can be done by weight or volume, but must be consistent throughout. Applicable? - Yes This could be a requirement of the garage construction contract with the builders of the facility to divert at least 50% of demolition construction and land clearing waste from landfill by recycling or salvage. Cost Increment - Allow additional contractor's cost of $5,000 (MR) Credit 2.2 - Construction Waste Management - Divert 75% from Landfill Intent - Divert construction, demolition and land clearing debris from landfill disposal. Redirect recyclable recovered resources back to the manufacturing process. Redirect reusable materials to appropriate sites. Requirement - Develop and implement a waste management plan, quantifying material diversion goals. Recycle and /or salvage an additional 25% (75% of total) of construction, demolition and land clearing waste. Calculations can be done by weight or volume, but must be consistent throughout. Applicable? - Yes As 2.1 but bar raised to 75 %. Cost Increment - Allow additional contractor's cost of $10,000 (MR) Credit 3.1 - Resource Reuse - 5% Intent - Reuse building materials and products in orderto reduce demand for virgin materials and to reduce waste, thereby reducing impacts associated with the extraction and processing of virgin resources. Requirement - Use salvaged, refurbished or reused materials, products and furnishings for at least 5% of the total cost of building materials. Applicable? - Not likely The materials making up a parking structure do not lend themselves to reused materials unless a source of lights, or structural materials can be sourced to suit the needs of the building before hand. Read Jones Ghristoftersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 55 Feasibility Study RJC No.; 14444,02 Saint John, New Brunswick (MR) Credit 3.2 - Resource Reuse - 10% Intent - Reuse building materials and products in order to reduce demand for virgin materials and to reduce waste, thereby reducing impacts associated with the extraction and processing of virgin resources. Requirement - Use salvaged, refurbished or reused materials, products and furnishings for at least 10% of the total cost of building materials. Applicable? - Not likely As 3.1 above. (MR) Credit 4.1 - Recycled Content - 7.5% (Post - Consumer + 1/2 Post - 11 ndustriap Intent - Increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, therefore reducing impacts resulting from extraction and processing of new virgin materials and by- passing energy and greenhouse gas - intensive industrial and manufacturing processes. Requirement - Use materials with recycled content such that the sum of post- consumer recycled content plus one -half of the post - industrial content constitutes at least 7.5% of the total value of the materials in the project. Mechanical and electrical components shall not be included in this calculation. LO Applicable? - Yes If structural steel is used it may have sufficient recycled content to qualify. In a concrete structure the reinforcing steel would likely qualify as the use of scrap steel recycled for reinforcing steel production is now normal practice so would be achieved automatically. The use of recycled concrete aggregate should also be investigated. Cost Increment - None (MR) Credit 4.2 - Recycled Content -15% (Post- Consumer + 1/2 Post-industrial) Intent - Increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, therefore reducing impacts resulting from extraction and processing of new virgin materials and by- passing energy and greenhouse gas - intensive industrial and manufacturing processes. Requirement - Use materials with recycled content such that the sum of post- consumer recycled content plus one-half of the post - industrial content constitutes at least 15% of the total value of the materials in the project. Mechanical and electrical components shall not be included in this calculation. Applicable? - Possibly but more difficult. As 4.1 above. Read Jones Christoflersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 56 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (MR) Credit 5.1 - Regional Materials -10% Extracted and Manufactured Regionally Intent - increase demand for building materials and products that are extracted and manufactured within the region, thereby supporting the use of indigenous resources and reducing the environmental impacts resulting from transportation. Requirement - Use a minimum of 10% of building materials or products for which at least 80% of the mass is extracted, processed and manufactured within 800 km (500 miles) of the project site. OR Use a minimum of 10% of building materials or products for which at least 80% of the mass is extracted, processed and manufactured within 2400 km (1,500 miles) of the project site, and shipped by rail or water. Applicable? - Yes If a concrete structure is utilized, the concrete makes up the bulk of the mass of the building and the aggregate, water, sand and possibly cement would qualify. But look for other materials that are extracted or manufactured locally as well. Cost Increment - None (MR) Credit 5.2 - Regional Materials - 20% Extracted and Manufactured Regionally Intent - Increase demand for building materials and products that are extracted and manufactured within the region, thereby supporting the use of indigenous resources and reducing the environmental impacts resulting from transportation. Requirement - As 5.1 but percentage increased to 20% Applicable? - Yes As 5.1 above. Cost Increment - None (MR) Credit 6 - Rapidly Renewable Materials Intent - Reduce the use and depletion of finite materials and long-cycle renewable materials by replacing them with rapidly renewable materials. Requirement- Use rapidly renewable building materials and products (made from plants that are typically harvested within a ten -year cycle or shorter) for 5% of the total value of all building materials and products used in the project. Applicable? - Not likely The possible use of renewable materials in a parking structure is limited. Read Jones Chrlstoffersen Ltd. Green Barking Facility August Zz, ZOOS Page 57 Feasibility Study RJC No,: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (MR) Credit 7 - Certified Wood Intent - Encourage environmentally responsible forest management. Requirement - Use a minimum of 50% of wood -based materials and products, certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council's Principles and Criteria, for wood building components including, but not limited to, structural framing and general dimensional framing, flooring, finishes, and furnishings. Applicable? - Possibly but not likely There is not likely very much wood used in a parking structure, but as long as 50% of what ever used is FSC certified you get a point. (MR) Credit B - Durable Building Intent - Minimize materials use and construction waste over a building's life resulting from premature failure of the building and its constituent components and assemblies. Requirement - Develop and implement a Building Durability Plan, in accordance with the principles in C5A 5478 -95 (R2OO1) - Guidelines on Durability in Buildings, for the components within the scope of the Guideline, for the construction and pre-occupancy phases of the building. Applicable? - Yes This requires the development and implementation of a Building Durability Plan in accordance with the principles outlined in CSA Document 5478 - 95 (R2001), Guidelines on Durability in Buildings. This is good design practice in any case. Cost Increment - Assume $25,000 cost increase to comply with S478 requirements, but should be offset by reduced maintenance costs. 5.5 Indoor Environmental Quality OEM Prerequisite 1 - Minimum IAQ Performance Intent - Establish minimum indoor air quality (IAQ) performance to enhance indoor air quality in buildings, thus contributing to the comfort and well -being of the occupants. Requirement - Meet the minimum requirements of voluntary consensus standard ASHRAE 62- 2001, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, and Addenda approved at the time the building was permitted. Mechanical ventilation systems shall be designed using the Ventilation Rate Procedure. Applicable? - Yes Provide adequate ventilation to ensure that CO2 and CO levels are below maximum acceptable levels. Cost Increment - None Read Jones Chrlstoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Rage 58 Feaslbillty Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (IEQ) Prerequisite 2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Intent - Prevent or minimize exposure of building occupants, indoor surfaces, and systems to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). Requirement - Choose one of the following compliance options: • Option 1. Prohibit smoking in the building. • Option 2. Establish negative pressure in the rooms with smoking. Applicable? - Yes Prohibit smoking in the building. Cost Increment - None OEQ) Credit 1 - Carbon Dioxide (CO) Monitoring Intent - Provide capacity for indoor air quality (IAQ) monitoring to help sustain long -term occupant comfort and well- being. Requirement - Install a permanent carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring system that provides feedback on space ventilation performance in a form that affords operational adjustments. Refer to the CO2 differential for all types of occupancy in accordance with ASHRAE 62-2001, Appendix C 00 C. Applicable? - Yes Interlock exhaust fans to CO2 and CO sensors. Ensure that design of sensors ensures early detection of pollutant concentration. Cost Increment - None, this is considered a basic case (IEQ) Credit 2 - Ventilation Effectiveness Intent - Provide for the effective delivery and mixing of supply air to support the safety, comfort and well -being of building occupants. Requirement - For mechanically ventilated buildings, design ventilation systems that result in an air change effectiveness (E ac) greater than or equal to 0.9 as determined by ASHRAE 129 -1997. For naturally ventilated spaces demonstrate a distribution and laminar flow pattern that involves not less than 90% of the room or zone area in the direction of air flow for at least 95% of hours of occupancy. Applicable? - Yes In an open -air above -grade garage this would be accomplished by natural ventilation though this would need to be demonstrated. For below.grade structures, design exhaust air and makeup air systems to ensure adequate ventilation and complete coverage of all occupied areas. Cost Increment - None Read Jones [hrlstoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 59 Feasibility Study RJC No.., 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (IEQ) Credit 31 - Construction IAQ Management Plan - During Construction Intent - Prevent indoor air quality problems resulting from the construction /renovation process in order to help sustain the comfort and well -being of construction workers and building occupants. Requirement - Develop and implement an Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan for the construction and pre - occupancy phases of the building. Applicable? - Partly Adopt an IAQ Management Plan to protect the HVAC system during construction, control pollutant sources and interrupt contamination pathways. This would not apply to non- mechanically ventilated above ground parking structures. Cost Increment - Negligible (IEQ) Credit 3.2 - Construction IAQ Management Plan - Testing Before Occupancy Intent - Minimize indoor air quality problems resulting from the construction /renovation process in order to help sustain the comfort and well -being of construction workers and building occupants. Requirement - Develop and implement an Indoor Air Quality (iAQ) Management Plan for the pre- occupancy phase. rn Applicable? - Partly Following construction and prior to occupancy, conduct baseline IAQ testing as described in the LEED Canada Reference Guide. Differing methods may be undertaken of below grade and above grade garages. Cost Increment - Negligible (IEQ) Credit 4,1 - Low - Emitting Materials - Adhesives & Sealants Intent - Reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous, potentially irritating and /or harmful to the comfort and well -being of installers and occupants. Requirement - The VOC content of adhesives, sealants and sealant primers used must be less that the VOC content limits of the State of California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule #1168, October 2003. Applicable? - Yes Specify low VOC adhesive, sealants, and sealant primers with less than the VOC content limits of the State of California South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule #1168, October 2003. Cost Increment - None Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 60 Feasibility Study RJC No.: M444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (IEQ) Credit 4.2 - Low - Emitting Materials - Paints and Coatings Intent - Reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous, potentially irritating and /or harmful to the comfort and well -being of installers and occupants. Requirement - VOC emissions from paints must not exceed the VOC and chemical component limits of Green Seal's Standard GS -11 January 1997 requirements. AND. • The VOC content of anti - corrosive coatings used must be less than the current VOC content limits of Green Seal Standard GS -03 May 1993 requirements. AND, For interior paints and coatings not already covered by GS 11 and GS-03, the VOC content of all primers, under - coatings, sealers and clear wood finishes used must be less than the current VOC content limits of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule #1113 November 1995 requirements. Applicable? - Yes Specify low VOC paints and coatings not to exceed the requirements above. Cost Increment - None 0 (IEQ) Credit 4.3 - Low - Emitting Materials - Carpet Intent - Reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous, potentially irritating and /or harmful to the comfort and well -being of installers and occupants. Requirement - Carpet systems must meet or exceed the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label Indoor Air Quality Test Program. Applicable? - No Little or no carpet use is anticipated in these parking structures Cost Increment - None (IEQ) Credit 4.4 - Low - Emitting Materials - Composite Wood and Laminate Adhesives Intent - Reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous, potentially irritating and /or harmful to the comfort and well -being of installers and occupants. Requirement - Composite wood and agrifiber products, including core materials, must contain no added urea-formaldehyde resins. Adhesives used to fabricate laminated assemblies containing these products must contain no urea - formaldehyde. Applicable? - No Little or no Composite Wood and Laminate Adhesives use is anticipated in these parking structures Read ,Jones Christarrersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22. 2008 Page 61 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John. New Brunswick (IEQ) Credit 5 - Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Intent - Minimize exposure of building occupants to potentially hazardous particulates, biological contaminants and chemical pollutants that adversely impact air and water quality. Requirement - Design to minimize pollutant cross - contamination of regularly occupied areas. Applicable? - Possibly but not likely These provisions are not directly applicable to a parking structure. However, if there are areas used for the storage of hazardous gases or chemicals, or if these chemicals are used in the garage they must be adequately segregated from surrounding areas. (IEQ) Credit 6.1 - Controllability of Systems - Perimeter Spaces Intent - Provide a high level of thermal, ventilation and lighting system control by individual occupants or specific groups in multi- occupant spaces (i.e. classrooms or conference areas) to promote the productivity, comfort and well -being of building occupants. Requirement - Provide at least an average of one operable window and one lighting control zone per 18.5 mz (200 ft2) of floor area for all regularly occupied areas within 5 metres (15 feet) of the perimeter wall. Applicable? - No Lighting System Control - Products such as Streetlight Intelligence offer building operators the ability to control the amount of light at various times during the day. Such systems allow building operators flexibility to override existing systems when there is either not enough or too much light present. However, it is not possible, or applicable to provide the level of individual control by users required by this credit in a parking structure. OE0) Credit 6.2 - Controllability of Systems - Non - Perlmeter Spaces Intent - Provide a high level of thermal, ventilation and lighting system control by individual occupants or specific groups in multi- occupant spaces (i.e. classrooms or conference areas) to promote the productivity, comfort and well-being of building occupants. Requirement - Provide controls for each individual for airflow, temperature and lighting for at least 50% of the occupants in non - perimeter, regularly occupied areas. Applicable? - No It is not possible, or applicable to provide the level of individual control by users required by this credit in a parking structure. (IEO) Credit 7.1 - Thermal Comfort - Compliance Intent - Provide a thermally comfortable environment that supports the productivity and well- being of building occupants. Applicable? - Partly. Provide controllable thermostat for parking attendant booth. Read Jones Chrlstollersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 62 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick (IEQ) Credit 7.2 - Thermal Comfort - Monitoring Intent - Provide a thermally comfortable environment that supports the productivity and well- being of building occupants. Requirement - Provide a permanent monitoring system to ensure building performance to the desired comfort criteria as determined by EQ Credit 7.1, Thermal Comfort - Compliance. Applicable? - Partly This level of thermal comfort cannot be achieved in the parking structure itself though it would be possible to monitor temperature in parking attendant booth to ensure that design temperatures are achieved. (IEQ) Credit 8.1 - Daylight and Views - Daylight 75% of Spaces Intent - Provide for the building occupants a connection between indoor spaces and the outdoors through the introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building. Requirement - Achieve a minimum Daylight Factor of 2% (excluding all direct sunlight penetration) or achieve at least 250 Lux (25 footcandles) using a computer simulation model in 75% of all regularly occupied areas with the aid of a computer simulation model. Exceptions for areas where tasks would be hindered by the use of daylight will be considered on their merits. N Applicable? - No With each level of above ground parking open to the outside, sunlight penetration should be attainable and the use of artificial lighting reduced when appropriate using photocell sensors. However, his credit is intended for facilities where occupants spend significant time such as the workplace. It would not apply to sub grade parking facilities. (IEQ) Credit 8.2 - Daylight and Views - Views for 90% of Space Intent - Provide for the building occupants a connection between indoor spaces and the outdoors through the introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building. Requirement - • Achieve direct line of sight to vision glazing for building occupants in 90% of all regularly occupied areas. • Areas directly connected to perimeter windows must have a glazing -to -floor area ratio of at least 0.07. • Parts of the floor area with horizontal view angles of less than 10 degrees at 1.27 m (50 inches) above the floor cannot be included in this calculation. • Areas not directly connected to perimeter windows must have a horizontal view angle of at least 10 degrees at 1.27 m (50 inches) above the floor involving 50% or more of the floor area. If a room meets these requirements then the entire room area is considered to meet the view requirement. • Exceptions will be considered on their merits. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2006 Page 63 Feasibility Study RJC No: 14444,02 Saint John, New Brunswick Applicable? - No With each level of above ground parking open to the outside, sunlight penetration should be attainable and the use of artificial lighting reduced when appropriate suing photocell sensors. However, his credit is intended for facilities where occupants spend significant time such as the workplace. It would not apply to sub grade parking facilities M ti Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. (IDP) Credit 1.1 - Innovation in Design (Flexibility) Flexibility is the ability to make changes to the building to better accommodate required changes to increase the efficiency of its present use. This prolongs the building useful life. A clear span structure as opposed to a design with columns located between the parking stalls allows future restriping of the floor plate to accommodate possible changes in parking stall sizes as cars become smaller and more fuel efficient. This could involve perpendicular parking stalls as opposed to angle parking or a different stall width without sacrificing garage efficiency. A functional parking layout that accommodates dividing the garage use in a variety of user areas may be a useful characteristic to extend its useful life. Building the future flexibility to expand the structure either vertically or horizontally to accommodate future parking needs may also be beneficial. Cost Increment - The cost of a clear span garage in the order of 60 feet versus an interior column garage with an average of 30 feet span would increase the structural cost in the order of � $1.00 /sq.ft. or approximately $400 /car. Therefore, for our 4-level, 600 -car parking structure this would increase the total cost for the three suspended levels (assuming) no separate roof structure (450 cars) by $180,000. (IDP) Credit 1.2 - Innovation In Design (Adaptability) Adaptability is the ability to change the building usage at a future date to avoid the need to demolish and reconstruct. Building characteristics that increase parking garages adaptability include: 1 Flat Floors A sloped deck parking garage can be a very efficient functional configuration for parking but useless for any other type of occupancy. A parking structure built with horizontal decks with a separate vertical circulation system is much more adaptable to conversion to another usage such as office or residential if no longer required for parking. However, a separate ramp system would utilize a greater site area than a sloped deck circulation system and so may not be applicable to all available sites. Parking decks would still need to meet design requirements of deck slope for drainage and waterproof membranes. Membranes would need to be removed and drainage slopes levelled with concrete fill to facilitate reuse. Cost Increment - To provide a separate vertical circulation ramp - $450,000. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 55 Feasibility Study RJC Na..14444,02 Saint John. New Brunswick .2 Increased Floor Height The minimum floor height for a parking deck is substantially less than for most other building occupancies. A typical floor- to-floor height for a clear span garage is only 10 feet allowing 3 feet for the structure and the code required clear height is only 6' -6:' For conversion to office usage a clear height of 9 feet to the underside of ceilings would be required with a sufficient ceiling space of 2 feet for mechanical services. This increases the required floor -to -floor height to 14 feet. This could be reduced with a shallower interior column flat slab structural system. Cost Increment - Increased floor -to -floor height of 2' -0 "/floor - $150,000. .3 Increased Floor Load Capacity The design live load for a parking structure is only 50 psf (pounds per square foot) with no additional superimposed dead load requirement. The minimum floor load required for office usage is 50 psf plus a superimposed partition load of 20 psf. This is a minimum load requirement but many modern office buildings are increasing that minimum load to LO accommodate storage areas, filing systems, libraries, etc. Residential loading requirements are 40 psf live load plus 20 psf partition loads. Ground floor and retail loading requirements are 100 psf. Cost Increment - For additional load capacity - $60,000. .4 Vertical Expansion Capability Designing foundations, columns and lateral load system to accommodate the future construction of additional floor levels not only provides further flexibility for increased parking capacity but also the increased usage of the site for other possible occupancies either in combination with the parking facility below or conversion and expansion of the entire facility to another usage. Cost Increment - For additional foundation and column capacities to add two more floors -$50,000. (IDP) Credit 1.3 - Innovation In Design - Electronic Wayflnding These systems are particularly effective in multi -level public access parking structures with separate ramp systems to more quickly lead garage users to available parking spaces. This would eliminate fruitless searches on those decks which are already full. Read Jones Chrlstalrersen Ltd, Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 66 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick The estimated driving distance saved for each search assuming our hypothetical four - level, 600 - car parking facility is approximately 700 per level. If we assume that all 450 cars using the garage above the entrance level are saved one fruitless search on one level by an electronic signage system that equals 315,000 feet of driving saved per day or 60 miles per day. Over a period of a year assuming a 5-day, 52 -week per year this equals 15,600 miles of driving saved. Over the 40 -year life of the garage this equals 624,000 miles. Assuming a mid-size car averaging 26 miles per gallon (though one would anticipate gas mileages improving significantly in the future), this equals 600 gallons of gasoline per year and 24,000 gallons over 40 years. Assuming the burning of a gallon of gasoline produces 8.87 kg of CO2 this would save 5,322 kg in one year and 212,000 kg over 40 years. Incremental Cost The cost of these systems for a 4- level, 600-car garage is approximately $60,000 plus approximately $20,000 for computer hardware, software and web interface. It was felt that the reduced driving times achieved in a garage of this size would not be sufficient to justify this cost, however, convenience to garage users may make this feature desirable nonetheless. (IDP) Credit 1.4 - Innovation in Design - Demountablllty Demountability is the ability to easily dismantle the parking structure when it is no longer required on this site and relocate it to another site or reuse the structural components for another building or another site. It involves the use of discrete structural components such as precast concrete or steel beams combined with precast concrete or steel deck panels that can easily disassembled, removed, shipped, and reassembled. It limits the selection of structural components for the original construction and due to the component nature of the structural assembly waterproofing details need to be well through out. The additional cost would relate to the detailing of all joints between all components to allow ease of disassembly. Cost Increment - For a demountable precast concrete or steel structure - allow $50,000. (IDP) Credit 2 - LEED Accredited Professional Intent - To support and encourage the design integration required by a LEED Green Building project and to streamline the application and certification process. Requirements - At least one principal participant of the project team that has successfully completed the LEED Accredited Professional exam. Applicable - Yes The LEED Accreditation Program is now widely adopted within the consulting engineering and architectural profession; therefore, having a LEED Accredited Professional as part of the team should be easily achieved. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Study Summary a a Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page RC Feasi lilty Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick 8 SiPWAR There are two principal aspects of sustainable or green parking structures. The first is the building itself, which includes all the sustainable aspects related directly to a particular facility. The second more general consideration is how a particular parking facility augments its urban environment; how it can be designed to facilitate or encourage other sustainable activities. We have utilized the LEED Checklist for New Construction as the basis to determine the full spectrum of Sustainable options for a particular facility. A hypothetical four- level, 600-car parking facility was used to ascertain cost related to particular credits. Three levels of LEED credits have been identified. Level 1 credits are those that are easily achievable with little cost or even cost savings. Costs have been calculated based on initial capital costs plus the operating and maintenance costs or savings over a 40 -year period. It appears that the total cost savings over the metal halide base case garage for all these possible credits including present day values of operating costs for our 600 -car facility is in the order of $115,000. Level 2 Credits are those that move Saint John closer to its stated goal to "make Saint John a CO ti national leader as a sustainable community" Z at a greater but still within a reasonable economic cost. Level 3 credits are those that require a greater stretch to achieve and may not be economically viable at the time of this study, but should always be reviewed during the design of any future parking facility to revaluate their applicability to a particular design, time, and place. Based on the LEED checklist, if all Level 1 Credits are achieved, 33 points may be available. If all Level 2 Credits are also employed 41 points appear possible. If all Level 3 credits are achieved a total point count of 45 is possible. Therefore, based on the credits ultimately selected for a particular parking facility, it appears possible to easily achieve a LEED Certified designation (26 - 32 points) and LEED Silver (33 - 38 points) and even LEED Gold (34 - 51 points). The actual point count would need to be undertaken on a particular design for a particular facility with all the attendant discussions and trade offs of cost versus effectiveness and budget. Though we are using LEED as a yardstick for a sustainable building, and there has been a parking structure LEED Certified by the United States Green building Council (USGBC), the Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC) has yet to certify a parking structure and it is not clear that they would view a parking structure as being an applicable building for LEED certification. 2 Vlslon 2015 - Our Saint John of the Future, City of Sant John, November 26, 2007 Read ,tones Chrlstolfersen Ltd. Level 1 Credits are those identified as being beneficial to the environment and relatively easy to achieve. They either have little negative cost impact to the construction or operating cost of a parking facility or have a cost benefit with little or no loss in quality. 81.1 Sustainable Sites - (10 Potential Points) Urban Sites - There are a number of credits related to site selection that a downtown parking garage by it very nature would achieve. The site would inevitably be an existing urban building lot in an area of relatively high building density near public transit. In addition, the remainder of the site not occupied by the garage could be configured to restore the remaining open space as well as be designed to mitigate the heat island affect. Lighting could be designed to reduce light pollution. Of the 14 points available in this section S appear to be relatively achievable at little or no addition cost. In addition there is possibility of selecting a contaminated site which would gain yet another environmental benefit. Storm Water Management - Provide means on the developed site to reduce the post rn development storm water discharge rate and quantity This could be achieved relatively economically on the selected site by promoting infiltration of the rainwater or reuse of the water for new portable uses such as irrigation purposes, toilets, and customer uses by minimizing impervious surfaces and providing containment for detention of peak storm water volumes. Where landscaping is required for aesthetic purposes, a bio- retention system incorporating a grass buffer strip, sand bed, ponding area, organic layer or mulch layer, planting soil and plants on a landscape area equal to approximately 5% of the roof area. The construction cost of a bio- retention area is not significantly more than standard landscaping, although the maintenance considerations include regular inspection of soil, replacement of dead and diseased vegetation, and annual addition of mulch. Cost Increment - $7,500 Alternative Fuels - The use of vehicles utilizing none hydrocarbon fuel sources could be encouraged by providing preferred parking spaces for such vehicles. This would not be sufficient to gain a LEED point, but could be undertaken at no cost to the Parking Commission. Car Pooling - Similarly, car pooling could be encouraged by providing preferred parking for vehicles with at least three occupants. Bicycle Storage - Facilities for the secure storage of bicycles inside the garage should be provided to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 82 Feasibility steady RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Reflective Coating Upper Deck - To assist in mitigating the impact of solar radiation induced heat island effect the upper level of parking could utilize a light coloured reflective waterproof membrane. This membrane could not meet the LEED requirements for a reflective roof due to the normal accumulation of dirt and oil associated with a parking deck but such a membrane would meet the requirements of reflected non roof areas and would still be environmentally beneficial at no additional cost. It would not, however, gain a LEED point in itself. 81.2 Water Efficiency- (3 Potential Points) Parking structures are not large users of potable water. Other than the toilets and sinks to serve parking staff on site, and possible semi-annual washing of the decks there is little water demand in a garage. Of the 5 points available under LEED in this section 2 can be achieved at little cost by designing the landscaping to eliminate the use of potable water in its irrigation. A further point may be achieved by utilizing means to reduce potable water for building sewage conveyance by at least 50 %. 8.1.3 Energy & Atmosphere - (T Potential Points) o 00 Energy Reduction - It was not possible to undertake a meaningful whole facility energy simulation using the Model National Energy Code as a comparator due to lack of specific information available for parking facilities nor would this be an effective strategy due to the relatively small amounts of energy consumed by a parking structure. As outlined in the report an unheated parking facility is already a low energy demand building requiring only about 10% of the energy to operate than a typical office building. This is especially true of an above -grade parking structure, which is allowed to utilize natural airflow ventilation with a required area of open perimeter. Therefore the opportunities for significant energy reductions are limited. Lighting is the primary operating energy demand for an above-grade naturally ventilated parking structure. To impact operating energy it is necessary to impact that lighting load. This can be done by: • Use T5 or T8 High Output linear fluorescent lamps lighting fixtures. T5's High Output are recommended due to their fewer number of fixtures reducing material use and waste. T5 High Output fixtures have a 28% reduction in energy usage over Metal Halide lamps and a 30% life cycle cost reduction. Even greater reductions in energy use and life cycle costs (40 %) could be achieved with the use of T8 fluorescent lamps, however, cold weather operation effectiveness needs to be confirmed. Read Jones Christoffersen ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2000 Page 03 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Cost Increment - By using more energy efficient T5 HO fluorescent fixtures instead of the more commonly used metal Halide fixtures would reduce initial costs by $68,000 and total cost savings based on a net present value of $420,000 over 40 years. • Maximize the use of day lighting in the garage and capture that energy saving by reducing or eliminating artificial light. Turn the lights off when they are not needed by using photocell sensors. In an above -grade garage with good natural light penetration this can produce a 30% reduction in energy consumption. Cost Increment - $11,700 initial cost but a net present value cost savings of $162,000 over 40 years. For a below-grade garage the majority of the energy demand is also lighting with some additional demand for mechanical ventilation. Therefore similar strategies for reducing lighting energy demand can be utilized except the opportunities for daylight use are much more limited. Daylight penetration would need to be accomplished by the creation of light wells or shafts from the surface. The only other source of energy savings for a below -grade garage is the ventilation fans. The use of high efficiency exhaust fans combined with variable speed drives can reduce ventilation power consumption by 80% or approximately 72,000 kWh /yr resulting in a $5000 annual saving. Renewable Energy - Though not cost-effective based on present installation costs and projected maintenance costs versus energy savings it is suggested that a 6.5 kW photovoltaic array providing 5% of the garage power needs to be installed and featured very visibly on the building to demonstrate the City of Saint John's commitment to be a national leader in sustainable design. The initial installation cost is estimated to be $78,000 with a 40-year net present value total cost of $96,000. 8.1.4 Materials & Resources - 15 Potential Points Construction Waste - There are not many opportunities in construction of a new parking structure to utilize significant portions of existing buildings or reused building components so these points are not likely achievable. However, it could be specified in the contract documents to have the contractor divert at least half of all construction waste from landfills to recycling and reusing. Read Jones Christotiersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 84 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Supplementary Cementing Materials (SCM's) - Utilizing post - industrial waste by replacing cement in concrete with a Supplementary Cementing Material (SCM) such as fly ash can achieve a significant industrial energy saving and eliminate a significant amount of greenhouse gas production emissions associated with cement production. A relatively modest 30% replacement rate for a 600 -car parking structure can eliminate approximately 900 tonnes of CO. emissions. Fly ash is readily available and is cost neutral in concrete. Regional Materials - The garage could be designed to be constructed of at least 20% locally extracted and manufactured materials with little cost penalty. Durability - Designing the building to develop and implement a Building Durability Plan to meet the requirements of CSA 5478 -95, Guide on Durabilityin Buildings would be a good practice in any event. 8.1.5 Indoor Environmental Quality - (6 Potential Points) The majority of this section applies to occupied buildings such as offices and does not apply to N 00 parking structures which are mostly unoccupied space. However, there are a number of potential credits related to ventilation effectiveness, indoor air quality, and low- emitting materials that would be worthwhile considering their implementation. The majority of these potential points would be applicable to underground parking garages which require active ventilation systems. 8.1.6 Innovative & Design Process - (2 Potential Points} A Column Free Garage - Utilizing a clear span structural grid with no columns located between adjacent parking stalls entails only a modest cost increase but creates a more user friendly facility with greater ease of usage, better site lines, and greater security. But more importantly for long -term sustainability it creates the flexibility to maintain an efficient parking layout if, in the future, stall width requirements change to suit smaller more energy efficient vehicles. Cost increment - $450,000 Read Jones Christollersen Ltd. Level 2 Credits are those items where there may not be a strong economic payback on an item but may be worth incorporating by the City to demonstrate the City of Saint John's commitment to be a national leader in sustainable design. 8.2.1 Sustainable Sites (2 Potentlal Additional Credits) Alternative Transportation, Changing Rooms - The garage could be designed to encourage environmentally clean alternative transportation by incorporating showers and lockers in addition to the bicycle storage listed under Level 1 Credits. This facility would not likely generate revenue equivalent to the parking stalls lost. The construction cost would be approximately $75,000 (3 parking stalls) and a loss in parking revenue of $100 /month over 40 years resulting in a net present cost of $140,000. Alternative Transportation, Car Pools - A 10% rate reduction could be offered to car pools to encourage fewer vehicle trips. This would not only result in less energy use and CO2 emission but M would reduce the number of parking stalls required to be built at a savings of $25,000 /stall. 8.2.2 Water Efficiency - (2 Additional Points Possible) Water Reduction - Due to the infrequent use of water in a parking garage, the capture of rainwater for garage cleaning cannot be fully utilized to offset utility costs. The harvesting and storage of rainwater, however, may prove advantageous for use in an adjacent building with greater water demands. Alternatively, space permitting, there may be an opportunity to incorporate an environmentally friendly car wash in or adjacent to a new parking structure to be leased to an operator. The cost of these alternatives would need to be negotiated with other partners as the opportunities develop. 8.2.3 Energy & Atmosphere - (1 Potentlal Additional Point) Renewable Energy - the use of both photovoltaic panels and on site wind turbines were reviewed for this site to provide 5%,10%, 20 %, and 100% of the required power consumption of the building. Saint John is not an ideal location either for solar or wind energy. Nor there are not presently in place significant subsidies to make these options more economically viable. The present predicted cost of such systems and the predicted cost of available electricity do not yet provide an advantageous payback period for their immediate installation. However, if the Saint John Parking Commission wishes to become an early adopter of this technology both to encourage its use by example as well as to support this fledging industry the installation of a Read Jones [hrlstoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22. 2008 Page 86 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick demonstration project may be undertaken. The more modest 6.5 kW photovoltaic array was recommended as a Level 1 application to demonstrate the City's commitment to sustainable leadership at a lower cost. For Level 2 Credits, the City could consider increasing the photovoltaic array to the 10% electricity demand level and install a 12.5 kW photovoltaic array at a present net value cost of $152,000 over a 40 -year period. 8.2.4 Materials & Resources - (2 Potential Additional Points) Construction Waste Management - It may be possible to work closely with the selected contractor to ensure that the means and methods are installed on the jobsite to divert 75% of the usual construction waste from the jobsite away from landfill. This would require a very aggressive recycling program as well as good planning to minimize the amount of waste produced on the site. Cost Increment - estimated at $10,000 Recycled Content - This involves increasing the use of post consumer and post industrial recycled CO material in the project to 15 %. Without going through an actual garage design it is not clear if this could be achieved with increased fly ash usage alone or if other recycled materials would need to be incorporated. We are assuming with some focus that this can be achieved. Cost Increment - Allow $40,000. 8.2.5 Innovative & Design Process - (3 Potential Additional Points) Design For Future Adaptability - By designing the garage to incorporate flat decks, greater floor heights, and increased floor load capacities its future conversion into another usage would be greatly facilitated. The flat deck system with a separate vertical circulation ramp system would also allow the use of electronic way finding and reduction in driving time, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and driver frustration. It would, however require the construction of a dedicated ramp system which takes up more of the available site and adds to the cost of the facility. Cost Increment - $660,000 Vertical Expansion Capability - Designing foundations, columns and lateral load system to accommodate the future construction of additional floor levels not only provides further flexibility for increased parking capacity but also the increased usage of the site for other possible occupancies either in combination with the parking facility below or conversion and expansion of the entire facility to another usage. Read Jones Chrlstotfersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page B7 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick Cost Increment - For additional foundation and column capacities to add two more floors - $50,000. Electronic Guidance Systems - An electronic guidance system combined with a flat deck garage configuration and sloped speed ramps could be beneficial in reducing fruitless search times and travel distance. Over a period of a year assuming a 5-day, 52 -week per year this could equal 15,600 miles of driving saved for our hypothetical 600 car garage. Over the 40 -year life of the garage this equals 624,000 miles. Assuming a mid -size car averaging 26 miles per gallon (though one would anticipate gas mileages improving significantly in the future), this equals 600 gallons of gasoline per year and 24,000 gallons over 40 years. Assuming the burning of a gallon of gasoline produces 8.87 kg of CO. this would save 5,322 kg in one year and 212,000 kg over 40 years. Incremental Cost - The cost of these systems for a 4- level, 600 -car garage is approximately $60,000 plus approximately $20,000 for computer hardware, software and web interface. Though there may not be a direct pay back for the installation of such a system it would be beneficial to garage users as well as to the environment. LID CID 8.3 Level 3 Credits - More of a Stretch Level 3 Credits are those that should be considered in the design of each particular parking facility but have a larger potential cost. These are design features that could have large environmental benefits, such as green roofs, but which add substantially to the capital cost of the project without the compensating cost savings in its operation, but they are still environmentally and socially responsible things to do. 8.3.1 Sustainable Sites - (3 Potential Additional Points) Alternative Fuels -The use of non - hydrocarbon fuel vehicles could be facilitated and encouraged by providing alternative -fuel refuelling stations within 500 metres of the parking garage for at least 3% of the garage capacity. This would not likely be undertaken solely by the Saint John Parking Commission, who is not in the service station business, but in partnership with an organization providing such services. Reflective Roofs - The heat island effect of urban environments could be mitigated by the installation of a highly reflective surface above the garage to reflect the applied solar radiation away form the building. This would require the construction of a separate roof structure; as such a reflective membrane applied to the upper parking deck could not meet the reflective requirements of the LEED Credit. To gain the points only 75% of the roof area needs to be covered. The construction of a roof in itself provides other advantages; however, that may be Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Rage Be Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick advantageous in itself for the Parking Commission. A roof structure eliminates the cost of snow ploughing and its inherent damage to deck membranes and expansion joints. It will also protect the upper level waterproof membrane from UV degradation. Cost Increment • Roof Structure - Assume $25 /sq.ft. over 60,000 sq. ft. = $1,500,000 • Reflective Roofing - $4.00 / sq.ft. over the full 60,000 sq.ft. plus the cost of a roof structure equals $1,740,000. (LEED only requires 75% roof coverage for the point; however, to take full advantage of the roof we have taken the full roof area. The cost benefit to a separate roof structure is reduced snow ploughing and upper deck membrane maintenance costs. Snow ploughing costs are estimated to be $5,000 per year and membrane maintenance costs is $10,000 per year. To acquire the full benefit we have assumed construction of the roof over 100% of the upper deck as indicated above with just the lower cost of a reflective roof this results in a simple pay back period of more than 100 years. Green Roofs - The installation of a green roof achieves a number of important environmental benefits addressing not only the heat island effect but also storm water retention and evaporation, increased urban biodiversity, and improved appearance. It is however, an expensive co undertaking involving not only the cost of the green roof itself but also the additional cost of the supporting roof structure. The benefits of a roof structure are outlined above eliminates the cost of snow ploughing and its inherent damage to deck membranes and expansion joints. It will also protect the upper level waterproof membrane from UV degradation. The LEED credit is based on only 50% of the roof area being covered by a green roof. Cost Increment • Roof Structure - Assume $25 /sq.ft. over 60,000 sq. ft. = $1,500,000 • Green Roof - $8.00 / sq.ft. over 50% of 60,000 sq.ft. plus the cost of a roof structure over the full area with normal or reflective roofing over the other half equals $1,860,000. The cost benefit to a separate roof structure is reduced snow ploughing and upper deck membrane maintenance costs. Snow ploughing costs are estimated to be $5,000 per year and membrane maintenance costs is $10,000 per year. To acquire the full benefit we have assumed construction of the roof over 100% of the upper deck as indicated above with just the lower cost of a reflective roof this results in a simple pay back period of more than 100 years. 8.3.2 Energy & Atmosphere - (10 Potential Additional Points) Optimize Energy Performance - An underground garage could be designed to incorporate a system of natural ventilation using vertical shafts to draw air through the garage from above by wind towers. Saint John, however, has relatively low prevailing wind strengths so these would not Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Green Parking Facility August 22, 2008 Page 89 Feasibility Study RJC No.: 14444.02 Saint John, New Brunswick eliminate the need for fans but may reduce their usage. The extent of their efficiency would need to be studied more carefully in an actual facility and configuration. The cost of such vents would not likely be offset by these energy savings. Renewable Energy - the use of both photovoltaic panels and on site wind turbines were reviewed for this site to provide 5 %, 10 %, 20%, and 100% of the required power consumption of the building. Saint John is not an ideal location either for solar or wind energy. Nor there are not presently in place significant subsidies to make these options more economically viable. The present predicted cost of such systems and the predicted cost of available electricity do not yet provide an advantageous payback period for their immediate installation. However, if the Saint John Parking Commission wishes to become an early adopter of this technology both to encourage its use by example as well as to support this fledging industry the installation of a demonstration project may be undertaken. The more modest 6.5 kW photovoltaic array was recommended as a Level 1 application to demonstrate the City's commitment to sustainable leadership at a lower cost. For Level 3 Credits, the City could consider increasing the photovoltaic array to the 20% ti electricity demand level and install a 25 kW photovoltaic array at a present net value cost of 00 $270,000 over a 40-year period. 8.3.3 Innovative & Design Process - J3 Potential Additional Points Demountability - Demountability is the ability to easily dismantle the parking structure when it is no longer required on this site and relocate it to another site or reuse the structural components for another building or another site. It involves the use of discrete structural components such as precast concrete or steel beams combined with precast concrete or steel deck panels that can easily disassembled, removed, shipped, and reassembled. It limits the selection of structural components for the original construction and due to the component nature of the structural assembly waterproofing details need to be well throughout. The additional cost would relate to the detailing of all joints between all components to allow ease of disassembly. Cost Increment - For a demountable precast concrete or steel structure - allow $50,000. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. Application for Amendment to Section 39 Resolution or Agreement Demande de modification de la resolution ou. de Fentente relative i Particle 39 Applicant Related Information / Renseignements sur le demandeur Name of Applicant / Norn du demandeur Greendale Holdings Ltd. Mailing Address of Applicant / Adresse postale du demandeur 661 Dever Road, Saint John, New Brunswick Telephone Number / Numdro de tdl6phone: Home / Domicile Fax Number / Numdro de t6ldcopieur Postal Code / Code postal — E2 M 4J2 Work / travail (506) 635-8727 Name Of Property Owner (if different) / Nom du propridtaire (si diffdrent) Postal Code / Code postal Existing Resolution / 116solution actuelle Date of Resolution to be Amended / Date de la rdsOlution A modifier June 27, 1994 Location /Emplacement 661 Dever Road, Saint John, New Brunswick PID 55106819 Civic No. / No de voirie Street / Rue PID / NIP Applicant's Interest in Property / Int6r6t de demandeurs dan la propridtd Owner What is your Proposal? / En quoi consiste votre proposition? Note: Provide a fully dimensional drawing or plan which illustrates your proposal, (Describe proposal in detail) Nota: Fournier un plan ou un dessin entidrement rOtd iflustrant votre proposition. (Ddcrire ]a proposition en d6tail) The Applicant applies to arnend the Section 39 conditions pertaining to said property to include as a permitted use a seniors' activity centre. The activity centre will be contained in the downstairs premises of 661 Dever Road and will be operated by Daybreak Senior Activity Centres Ltd. from Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. f?q A fee of $300,00 is enclosed in the form of a cheque or M e er made Ci-joint des frais de 300 $ sous forme de chdque ou de -poste Signature of Applicant/ Signature du demandeur Date Signature of the owner must be included. / Lasignature due propridtaire dolt titre Signature of Owner (if applicable) / signature du propridtaire (slit y a lieu) Date K'�,f A( 54 to the City of Saint John. de The City of Saint John, PROPOSED SECTION 39 AMENDMENT RE: 661 DEVER ROAD Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider a proposal at its regular meeting to be held in the Council Chamber on Monday, September 29, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., by: Amending the Section 39 conditions imposed on the August 5, 1994 rezoning of the property located at 661 Dever Road, also identified as PID Number 55106819, to perinit a revised proposal. REASON FOR CHANGE: To permit a senior citizens' activity centre within the existing building. The proposed amendment may be inspected by any interested person at the office of the Common Clerk, or in the office of Planning and Development, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hall. Elizabeth Gonnicy, Common Clerk 658-2862 PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE UARTICLE 39 OBJET: 661, CHEMIN DEVER Par les pr6sentes, un avis public est donn6 par lequel le conseil coniniunal de The City of Saint John indique son intention d'exan-iiner Line proposition Tors de ]a reunion ordinaire qui se tiendra dans la salle du conseil le lundi 29 septembre 2008 A 19 b en apportant les modifications suivantes : Modification des conditions irriposdes en vertu de l'article 39, le 5 aofit 1994, relativement an rezonage de la propri6t6 situ6e au 661, chemin Dever et portant le NID 55106819, , pour perinettre ]a pr6sentation dune proposition r6vis6e. RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Perniettre inn centre utilitaire pour personnel du troisi&rne age d l'int6rieUr de l'inirricuble existant. Toute personne int&css6c peut examiner ]a modification propos&e au bureau du greffier communal ou an bureau de l'urbanisme et du d6velopperrient A I'h6tel de ville au 15, Market Square, Saint John, N.-B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf les j ours f6ri6s. Veuillez faire part de vos objections au projet de modification par 6crit a ]'attention du soussign6 A l'h6tcl de ville, Elizabeth Gorinley, Greffi&re C011711-nUnale 658-2862 City of Saint John I ITTEVIT.4-L ll'JSEVTIO-V OWA For City of Saint John use only: Bud getNumber: 1.10 0801 442 201.0 Department: Common Clerk's Office (Account # 71206) Contact: Elizabeth Gormley () Phone: (506) 658-2862 Fax: 506 674-4214 Special Instructions (if any): Reference: 661. Dever Road — September 29 PH Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (SJTJ= Saint John Telegraph Journal) "SJTJ City Information Ad " SJTJ Independent Placement - SJTJ Classifieds Date(s): Tuesday, September 2, 2008 Tuesday, September 23, 2008 Date(s): Date(s): Information for Ad (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.) Section Headline: General Notice ® Tender ❑ Proposal Public Notice Sub-Headline (if aDDlicable): Text: Call to Action: Elizabeth Contact: INSERT ATTACHED Common Clerk/Greffi&e communale Telephone: (506) 658-2862 190 Low vE ° ! f %, SCHEDULE "A" 191 September 23, 2008 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Section 39 Amendment - 661 Dever Road On September 8, 2008, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its September 23, 2008 meeting. Mr. Ed Keyes appeared to represent the landlord, Greendale Holdings Ltd., and indicated that he was in agreement with the recommendation in the attached report. He also indicated that Mrs. Sherry Gionet, the operator of the proposed senior's activity centre, and her husband were present to speak in support of the application. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the application and no letters were received. After considering the attached report and the applicant's presentation, the Committee adopted the recommendation as set out below. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the June 27, 1994 rezoning of the property located at 661 Dever Road, also identified as PID Number 55106819, to include as a permitted use a senior's activity centre. Respectfidly submitted, Stephen Horgan Chairman SKH Attachments Project No. 08 -387 192 DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 Sarah Herring, MCIP, RPP Planner SUBJECT Name of Applicant: Greendale Holdings Ltd. Name of Owner: Greendale Holdings Ltd. Location: 661 Dever Road PID: 55106819 Municipal Plan: District Centre Commercial Zoning: "B -2" General Business Proposal: To permit a senior's activity centre within the existing building. Type of Application: Section 39 Amendment JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: Common Council has requested the views of the Planning Advisory Committee concerning the proposed amendment to the Section 39 conditions. Common Council will consider the Committee's recommendation at a Public Hearing on Monday, September 29, 2008. 193 Greendale Holdings Ltd. Page 2 661 Dever Road September 19, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the June 27, 1994 rezoning of the property located at 661 Dever Road, also identified as PID Number 55106819, to include as a permitted use a senior's activity centre. BACKGROUND: On June 27, 1994, Common Council rezoned the subject property to "B -2" General Business to permit the constriction of a medical/professional office building. Council approved the rezoning pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, restricting the use of the property to the applicant's specific proposal for medical/professional offices and related activities. The Section 39 conditions also included detailed requirements for the development of the site. On January 21, 2004, Common Council amended the Section 39 conditions imposed on the property to permit an athletic or health club provided it is located within the gym section of the existing physiotherapy clinic. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has no objection to the proposed Section 39 amendment. Building and Technical Services advises that detailed plans will be required for analysis related to Building Code compliance. Fire Department has been advised of this application. ANALYSIS: Subiect Site and Neighbourhood The subject site is located on the south side of Dever Road on the City's West Side. The property currently contains a two - storey brick medical centre. The second floor contains medical offices and the ground floor was previously occupied by a physiotherapy clinic. This building was constricted in 1994 following the rezoning of the property to "B -2" General Business. To the east of this site is a senior citizens housing complex, to the west is the Peter G. Murray arena and to the south is recreational land owned by the Province as part of the Barnhill Memorial School property. The land directly across Dever Road from the subject site is owned by Maritime 194 Greendale Holdings Ltd. Page 3 661 Dever Road September 19, 2008 Paper Products Limited as a portion of the site for their manufacturing plant. There is also a store and dwelling located across from the subject site. The wider surrounding area contains a number of low density subdivisions with one- and two - family residential dwellings. Proposal The applicant intends to establish and operate a senior's activity centre, operated by Daybreak Senior Activity Centres Ltd., within the ground floor of the existing building. The director of the senior's centre has indicated that the centre will provide structured indoor recreational activities and supervised walks for a maximum of 35 seniors with early stages of Alzheimer's, dementia or depression. There is green space and sidewalk infrastructure in the surrounding neighbourhood appropriate for outdoor walks. The centre will employ three staff, and will operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. daily. The proposed activity centre requires an amendment to the existing Section 39 conditions that limit the use of the subject property to medical/professional offices and related activities and an athletic or health club within the gym section of the existing physiotherapy clinic. The proposed use, providing care and supervised activities for senior citizens, can be seen as similar to and compatible with the existing medical offices and the permitted physiotherapy clinic. The subject site and building provide more than adequate space for the use, and the 33 on -site parking spaces (plus a gravel overflow parking area) will be sufficient for the medical offices and the proposed use. It is unlikely that most of the clients of the centre will be driving their own vehicles, so parking spaces will be left free for clients of the medical offices between the times when clients are dropped off at or picked up from the site. CONCLUSION: Given the nature of the site and the compatibility of the proposed use with those currently permitted, the proposed Section 39 amendment is supported. SKH Project No. 08 -387 195 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT /URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT W � W d 01.lrvin9o� ' I - 2 .. ........................ ...... 1 M- N°OvVgy lo c= K ° i .I p t, •'S., R — 1 A, p .' Q1o�. 2 °. P I D(s) /N I P(s): 00036541 Subject Site /site en question: . Location: 661 chemin Dever Road Date: August 29, 2008 Scale /6chelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'e'chelle 196 towAw SCHEDULE "A" 197 Application for Amendment to Section 39 Resolution or Agreement Demande de modification de la resolution ou de 11entente relative 'a Particle 39 Applicant Related Information / Renseignements sur le demandeur Name of Applicant / Nom du demandeur � CL U I'd Z Mailing Address of Applicant / Adresse postale du demandeur— 6110 j ry -ek Coy-h-ep- & Postal Code'/ Code postal Telephone Number / Numdro de tdldphone: Home / Domicile -- cl/q Work /travail Fax Number / Num6ro de t6l6copieur Name of Property Owner (if different) /Nom du propridtaire (si diffdrent) 67�-,j1`jj CZL_ Postal Code / Code postal Existing Resolution / R6solution actuelle Date of Resolution to be Amended / Date de la r6solution A modifier Location / Emplacement L aysjcde bt-c-oc Civic No. / No de voirie Street / Rue PID NIP Applicant's Interest in Property / Int&et de demandeurs dan la propri6td C* What is your Proposal? / En quoi consiste votre proposition? Note: Provide a fully dimensional drawing or plan which illustrates your proposal. (Describe proposal in detail) Nota: Fournier un plan ou un dessin enti6rement cot6 illustrant votre proposition. (D6crire ]a proposition en d6tail) V- El A fee of $300.00 is enclosed in the form of a cheque A Money Order made payable to the City of Saint John. Cijoint des frais de 300 $ sous forme de chdque 9d'de )nandat-pA Jibe 4 l'ordre de The City of Saint John. Signature of Applicant/ Signature du demandeur Signature of the owner must be included. / Lasignature due propridta'ire doit titre incluse. Signature of Owner (if applicable) / signature du propridtaire (s'il y a lieu) Date im RE: 127 -129 BAYSIDE DRIVE Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider a proposal at its regular meeting to be held in the Council Chamber on Monday, September 29, 2008 at 7 :00 p.m., by: Amending the Section 39 conditions imposed on the October 28, 1988 rezoning of the property located at 127 -129 Bayside Drive, also identified as PID Number 00345983. to permit a revised proposal. REASON FOR CHANGE: To recognize the existing barber shop as a permitted use. The proposed amendment may be inspected by any interested person at the office of the Common Clerk, or in the office of Planning and Development, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, . holidays excepted. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hall. Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 658 -2862 PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE L'ARTICLE 39 OBJET: 127 -129, PROMENADE BAYSIDE Par les presentee, rn7 axis public est donne par lequel le Conseil communal de The City of Saint John indique son intention d'examiner Line proposition lors de la reunion ordinaire qui se tiendra dans la salle du Conseil le lundi 29 septembre 2008 a 19 h en apportant les modifications suivantes : Modification des conditions imposees en vertu de Particle 39, le 28 octobre 1988, relativement au rezonage de la propriete situee au 127 -129. promenade Bayside et portant le NID 00345983, pour permetee la presentation d'rnne proposition revisee. RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Reconnaitre ]'existence d'un salon de coiffure pour homme comme Line utilisation permise. Toute personae interessee peut examiner la modification proposee au bureau du grefi-ier communal ou au bureau de l'urbanisme et du developpement a ]'hotel de ville an 15, Market. Square, Saint John, N. -B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 li 30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf les jours feries. Veuillez faire part de vos objections au projet de modification par ecrit a ]'attention du soussigne a ]'hotel de ville. Elizabeth Gormley, Greffiere communale 658 -2862 199 loR I'll I For City of Saint John use only: laud getNumber: 110 0801 442 2010 Department: Common Clerk's Office (Account # 71206) Contact: Elizabeth Gormley Phone: (506) 658-2862 Fax: (506) 674-4214 Special Instructions (if any): Reference: 127-129 Bayside Drive — September 29 PH Newsier Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (SJTJ= Saint John Telegraph Journal) - SJTJ City Information Ad ** SJTJ Independent Placement ** SJTJ Classifieds Date(s): Tuesday, September 2, 2008 & Tuesday, September 23, 2008 Date(s): Date(s): Information for Ad (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.) Section Headline: General Notice E] Tender Proposal Public Notice Sub-Headline (if applicable): Text: INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clei-k/Greffi&re communale Contact: I Telephone: (506) 658-2862 200 September 23, 2008 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Section 39 Amendment - 127 -129 Bayside Drive On September 8, 2008, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its September 23, 2008 meeting. Mr. David Lyttle appeared to speak in support of the application and indicated that he was in agreement with the recommendation as set out in the attached report. No one appeared to speak in support of or in opposition to the application, and no letters were received. After considering the report and the applicant's presentation, the Planning Advisory Committee adopted the recommendation as set out below. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions pertaining to 127 -129 Bayside Drive, also identified as PID Number 00345983, to read as follows: a) the use of the property be limited to a business office or barber shop with a maximum of two chairs on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor of the existing building; b) development of the site be in accordance with a detailed site plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the location of all buildings, strictures, parking areas, vehicular manoeuvring areas, driveways, signs, landscaping and other site features; c) development of the site be in accordance with a detailed drainage plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; d) the parking area and driveway be paved with asphalt; 201 Planning Advison- Committee September 25, 2008 Page 2 e) the parking areas be screened from adjacent properties by a board -on- board privacy fence, as shown on the detailed site plan and subject to the approval of the Development Officer; f) all paved and landscaped areas be enclosed with cast -in -place concrete curbs where necessary to facilitate proper site drainage and protect landscaping; g) approved site plans be attached to any building permit application for the development; h) all areas not occupied by buildings, parking areas and driveways be landscaped and all site improvements indicated on the plans be completed within one (1) year from the issuance of a building permit for the development; Respectfully submitted, Stephen Horgan Chairman SKH Attachments Project No. 08 -386 202 DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 Sarah Herring, MCIP, RPP Planner SUBJECT Name of Applicant: David Lyttle Name of Owner: David Lyttle Location: 127 -129 Bayside Drive PID: 00345983 Municipal Plan: District Centre Commercial Zoning: "B -2" General Business Proposal: To recognize the existing barber shop as a permitted use. Type of Application: Section 39 Amendment. JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: Common Council has requested the views of the Planning Advisory Committee concerning the proposed amendment to the Section 39 conditions. Common Council will consider the Committee's recommendation at a Public Hearing on Monday, September 29, 2008. 203 David Lvttle 127 -129 Bayside Drive STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: Page 2 September 19, 2008 That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions pertaining to 127 -129 Bayside Drive, also identified as PID Number 00345983, to read as follows: a) the use of the property be limited to a business office or barber shop with a maximum of two chairs on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor of the existing building; b) development of the site be in accordance with a detailed site plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the location of all buildings, strictures, parking areas, vehicular manoeuvring areas, driveways, signs, landscaping and other site features; c) development of the site be in accordance with a detailed drainage plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; d) the parking area and driveway be paved with asphalt; e) the parking areas be screened from adjacent properties by a board -on -board privacy fence, as shown on the detailed site plan and subject to the approval of the Development Officer; f) all paved and landscaped areas be enclosed with cast -in -place concrete curbs where necessary to facilitate proper site drainage and protect landscaping; g) approved site plans be attached to any building permit application for the development; h) all areas not occupied by buildings, parking areas and driveways be landscaped and all site improvements indicated on the plans be completed within one (1) year from the issuance of a building permit for the development; BACKGROUND: The subject site was rezoned from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "B -2" General Business on October 28, 1988 subject to the following conditions pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act: a) the use of the property be limited to a business office on the first floor and a dwelling on the second floor; b) the owner submit to the Development Officer for approval, a site plan which contains improvements such as an asphalt driveway and parking lot, a storm water drainage system, 204 David Lvttle 127 -129 Bayside Drive Page 3 September 19, 2008 a minimum 6 -foot high chainlink fence along the rear and side property lines sufficient to prevent access from adjoining properties and other features as directed by the Development Officer; and c) the plan referred to in condition (b) to be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit and all improvements to the site as shown on the approved plan to be completed before June 1, 1989. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering indicates that the business must have a City- approved water meter, and that parking should be provided on -site. Building and Technical Services advises that the property was rezoned in 1988 and conditions were placed on the rezoning requiring that a Building Permit be obtained and that improvements to comply with the approved site plan be completed prior to June 1, 1989. Building Inspection records indicate that the Department pursued the matter with the owner, but no permit was ever obtained. As a result, it is not known whether the required site improvements were ever completed. Of greater concern is the matter of safety, and there is no indication that the list of required improvements to meet Building Code, were ever completed. Fire Department has no objection to the application based on the understanding that the barber shop is located on the first floor of the building and that no hot works or hazardous materials are part of the application. The Fire Department expects that any business sign for the barber shop would either provide the civic numbers for the property or, at a minimum, not be positioned in a way that would block the civic numbers as already posted on the property. ANALYSIS: The subject site is located on Bayside Drive between Edith Avenue and Courtenay Avenue on the City's East Side. The 320 square metre (3,444 square foot) subject site currently contains a two - storey wood frame building with a barber shop on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor. There is a small grass and gravel parking area in the rear yard, accessed via a narrow, shared gravel driveway between the subject site and the property at 131 -133 Bayside Drive. The surrounding area contains a wide variety of uses. This section of Bayside Drive contains a number of small businesses on the same side of the street as the subject site, including a gas station and convenience store, a flooring shop, a shoe and sports repair shop and an insurance broker. The opposite side of Bayside Drive is designated as an Industrial area, and the Midland 205 David Lvttle 127 -129 Bayside Drive Page 4 September 19, 2008 Trick Terminal is located across from the subject site. The wider surrounding area, particularly those areas to the east of Bayside Drive contains mostly one- and two - family dwellings, as well as Bayside Middle School and a fire /police station. The applicant recently purchased the subject site and wishes to have the existing barber shop recognized as a permitted use by amending the Section 39 conditions imposed on the property in 1988. It is not known when the barber shop was established, as there were no applications made for the required Section 39 amendment or the required building permit. The Section 39 conditions imposed on this site in 1988 not only restricted the use of the site, but also directed that site improvements were to be made according to the attached site plan. A recent site visit revealed that these improvements, namely the paving and curbing of the rear parking area, have not been undertaken. While there is currently on- street parking on Bayside Drive in front of this business, future changes to Bayside Drive to facilitate larger industrial traffic may eliminate this parking. As a result, the previously required paved parking area is still important and should be developed by the current property owner. The existing use of the property as a barber shop with space for two barbers and two clients at a time can be seen as similar to and no less obtrusive than the business office for six employees permitted by the 1988 rezoning of the subject site. As well, the barber shop does not appear to have created any problems thus far as no complaints regarding the property have been recorded. As a result, the requested Section 39 amendment can be supported provided the previous conditions regarding the development of the site are adhered to and implemented within a reasonable period of time. Staff have amended the wording of the conditions being recommended to provide greater clarity and continuity with recent Section 39 conditions for commercial operations; however no new site development requirements are being imposed. SKH Project No. 08 -386 206 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTIURBAN ISM E ET DEVELOPPEMENT 5 L 3: , 1 • 81 , 73 ,3 13 \i 67 ♦ 95 \ ♦ 0, ` 51 ♦ \�\ 47 \ ♦ ♦ 4J A \ 50 0 4 \Y / ♦' 37 39 . \ ♦ ` ♦ ♦ 105 ♦ - 1 33 \ \ ♦ 107 91 23 23 25 \ ♦ \ � 95 ♦ \ t 10 40 111 0 ,: ♦ 2 �`�♦ -2 0 113 11 ♦ � 0 0 t�Q \ 0 'Z 1 1 �1 35 0 7 9 ' 72 100 117 oo 1t \ 95 3 5 \��•0 0 IL-2 ' 10 10 90 ♦ ♦. ♦ \ ♦` 109 0 A ♦ ♦ � �i ,zs ♦ � r ■ r rA1 110 ♦ �� ,2s 0 If ,31 ,00 •, Z „ �I\ 139 ♦ 1,3 � � 117 N 1J1 \ 139 � 139 ♦� 1432 147 ♦ ,49 151 15 , \ 5 144 , 0 ♦'s \ Subject Site /site en question: M Location: 127 -129 chemin Bayside Drive Date: September 2, 2008 Scale /6chelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'echelle 207 R- 4�• 2 O w ° G J 30 Z 9 .0 . \ ♦� . 25 r 15 15 ' ` 20 ,9 1e I L — 1 2 0 10 0 9 0 \� P I D(s) /N I P(s): 00345983 SO I IA Q. 'b 50-14 1clowee Qt ^IPWero 4ox 40,crter# m S. 7.4- 5,e.- 7- / eS ovjQin(x\ 1Cvaa s►ve Plan 12� -12�i wayside Drive 208 Ll LLJ- I I I I I L- I I I A 5 — .,CC f X., A., tYEE S. 7.4- 5,e.- 7- / eS ovjQin(x\ 1Cvaa s►ve Plan 12� -12�i wayside Drive 208 07/08/2008 09:58 1_ PLANNING AND DEVELOP PAGE 04/05 AppKcation for a ZcFwg By-law Amendment Aemande de modifi ton 3 l'arrW snr le nonage Applicant ReSted Infopa't a l Renseipemenb am It dcmandear Name of AppGcamt! Nam C ANA.DSA f,N -rJ RjF s2.6AL Nlaftg Add= of appli pvaoc du dem nd= C — TC g 1 L Ak& MYgs NGVf! SCd it A Fosyal Code 1 Gode pos�al Tr.kpkaae Nmnber IN= Horan 1 Doaticile Fax NumW 1 Numdro do Name of Property Owner Addms I Adresse 0 —2L 93S-9ct55 - Work / Tm-A Cyo2 �3 16+5. n()1 Nom da p gxi&aire (si mfrdma) Property lntormatioif lens . ewn ts sur It proprieti Locum I Lot Arcs 1 SgMWe do E)asfm Use of Property 1 Mua cow F as lmd Use I Disigaian deahlbadoa Ameodmeot Present zo:aiug I Zot F e� cue zoning andlor 1 ou ❑ Text Amertdme Code 1 Code posts] Ooo328i3 0 c 41 No-dc vatrie Strcct I Ruc PID 1 110 Strew Fm=p 1 Fapde sm tut AEPEA (0 i �- 1.1 de la prvpriw jL&TA Zvi cr- ( sw le plam madd* S 6Ri I t GC C OPW"1100R I I Modification demand& rev T b-Z SAC nAl, IJWINCA x IMAUY 1dl1,04S RIAL . art duZmagei SC.- Sft6PR4AJ6 elUNrM. - - partiwlms) / N100= 60A due taste (indiquez )es d&&) 07/08/2008 09:58 1 PLANNING AND DEVELOP PAGE 05/05 Development Proposal Proposition d'aminagement Descri 6" of Ptvporal / pion de la proposition i You must provide a scaled sf an that Illustrates Vows detest fonvetr uff plmr din rile a l'ldaelle fllustrant votre Yourpropo=L You may felt pmprrsidlorr. VoasPOwerhgakync tfournir&s phorograplrs, buflding PIS an d*,MWR93. phom9n*hles, despIms de 6dtfmmt des desains de plmr mid any other forum of Jnfo oa. 77M Pfaff Karst 'f4 vaOtw et toute avt►e forme de rrwt rtenwnt Le plan show the &menooffs of the , the locoman dolt indirfneer les dimendow de 1a proprlgtj.1'rrnplaoerfferrt de of af! buflding; driveways, areas, la tatalilh des bdtfineffes, &.r awes, des aieas de lmndscgping and signs It is t that the statfoffmment des aminagements paysagers et des panneam dlatanree betwen the pro bulldings are showff. dory mrd de slgnallWOn If est importmi d'indigzer la &sf mce entre lei limires de la praprikt¢ et les bddn,eff&s Protiide fcw= why thm should be app mv& 1 Foun* tom aunt pemaX concemaut ,0b prupns des ' qui pamrait chre apprmN&& Provide my other, aboo yomr popmW that VMWd be heipfnl. I rmunir tout Mgm reaseignemew ooaaC= votre ptopgsifm qw pontrit &M Sipmffe of Appliant / S, da damaadcur Date /Q S#0O Appiicadon F Faclascd 1 Ct-kA lea Brats de dcnumde de 400 S If"m are not the Omer of land in question Si votsr W tes pas 4 pmpri air du ranain en question, Please have the awmr sign ?lie signature of veuiller obreffir la sfgam me din proprigtaire darns la pwWe the owner is cno�ro:�19 thl plicaffon to proceed cl- *Uous. La sfgmatwe du propr italre autorismrr le forwnsidwa= Council traftemenrde toprisente demmdeponr gyre cerle derfftdre Slgoatme at Oamar (d' appii le} soil mminie par le aonmil com»aorat Si®eatme dde prtrptMuim ( y a lieu) Date: i PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT RE: 861 -891 FAIRVILLE BOULEVARD Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider amending The City of Saint John Zoning By -law at its regular meeting to be held in the Council Chamber on Monday, September 29. 2008 at 7:00 p.m., by: Rezoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 2.3 hectares, located at 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as being PID Nos. 00032813 and 00032821, from 94" Heavy Industrial Park and "B -2" General Business to "SC" Shopping Centre, as illustrated below. (INSERT MAP) REASON FOR CHANGE: To permit an approximately 5500- square -metre commercial redevelopment, including retail sales. automotive service centre and gas bar. The proposed amendment may be inspected by any interested person at the office of the Common Clerk, or in the office of Planning and Development. City Hall. 15 Market Square. Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hall. Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 658 -2862 PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE L'ARREA SUR LE ZONAGE OBJET: 861 -891, BOULEVARD FAIRVILLE Par les presentes, un avis public est donnd par lequel le conseil communal de The City of Saint John indique son intention d'dtudier la modification suivante a 1'arrete sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, lors de la reunion ordinaire qui se tiendra dans la salle du conseil le lundi 29 septembre 2008 A 19 h : Rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 2.3 hectares, situee au 861 -891, boulevard Fairville, et portant les NID 00032813 et 00032821, de zone de pare d'industrie lourde I -4 » et zone commerciale generale << B -2 » A zone de centre commercial « SC o, comme le montre la carte ci- dessous. (INSERER LA CARTE) RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Permettre un redeveioppement commercial approximativement 5 500 metres carrdes, incluant vente au d6tail, centre de services automobiles et poste d'essence. Toute personne intdress& peut examiner le projet de modification au bureau de la greffiere communale ou au bureau de l'urbanistne et du ddveloppement a Ph6tel de ville au 15, Market Square, Saint John, N. -B„ entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf les jours fdrids. Veuillez Faire parvenir vas objections au projet de modification par derit a ]'attention du soussign6 a I'hotel de ville. Elizabeth Gormley, Greffiere communale 658 -2862 N City of Saint John INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER For City of Saint John use only: Bud et Number: 110 0801 442 2010 Department: Common Clerk's Office Account # 71206 Contact: Elizabeth Gormley Phone: (506 ) 658 -2862 Fax; 506 6744214 Special Instructions (if any): Reference: 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard — September 29 PH Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (SJTJ= Saint John Telegraph Journal) SJTJ City Information Ad SJTJ Independent Placement SJTJ Classifieds Date(s): Tuesday, September 2, 2008 & Tuesday, September 23, 2008 Date(s): Date(s): Information for Ad (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.) Section Headline: ❑ General Notice ❑ Tender ❑ Proposal ® Public Notice Sub - Headline (if applicable): Text: INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Elizabeth Gormley. Common C1erk/Greffere communale Contact: Telephone: (506) 658 -2862 a _qqNsobb-, ✓oh . 7 BY -LAW NUItIBER C.P. 110 - A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The Citv of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows: ARRETE No C.P. 110 - ARRETE MODIFI_ANT L'ARRETE SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Lors d'une reunion du conseil communal, The Citv of Saint John a decrete cc qui suit: The Zoning By -law of The Citv of Uarrete sur le zonage de The Citv Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of of Saint John, decrete le dix -neuf (19) December, A.D. 2005, is amended bv: decembre 2005, est modifie par: 1 Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land vvith an area of approximately 2.3 hectares, located at 861- 891 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as being PID Nos. 00032813 and 00032821, from 1-4- Heavv Industrial Park and `B- 2" General Business to "SC" Shopping Centre - all as shown on the plan attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The Citv of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said Citv to be affixed to this by -law the * dav_ of 'I, A.D. 2008 and signed 1)v: Mavor Maire 1 La modification de (annexe «A», Plan de zonage de The Citv of Saint John, permettantde modifier la designation dune parcelle de terrain dune superficie d'environ 23 hectares, situee an 861 -891, boulevard Fairville, et portant les NID 00032813 et 00032821, de zone de pare d'industrie lourde ((1-4)) et zone commerciale generale a zone de centre commercial « SC - routes les modifications sont indiquees sur le plan ci -joint et font partie du present arrete. EN FOI DE QUOI, The Citv of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete le 2008, avec ley Signatures sulvantes Common Clerk %Greffiere communal First Reading - Premiere lecture Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 214 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT /URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT .................. I - 3 •' 1- 4 R- 2 .� 1- 4 2 R 1B . pnom OnsA1f .9i.. ,+ 1B • ° n _ 1- 4 Po f RM -1 Rb 1 4 RF P Subject Site /site en question: PID(s) /NIP(s): 00032813 00032821 Location: 861 -891, boulevard Fairville Boulevard Date: July 31 juillet 2008 Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas a Mchelle 215 : ( ( _� � |§ §) -� � � | : : § | |�� z _ ` a�r2 u � z � ■ r ■ � ®K.. - - � �§ , e ��� ■g - |/� | i� ■®. /.- — -- — -- lid § � ! §§ | ■% § k f \ k _ Aft .Ak! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ak _ _ � . - - - - - - - - - - - MIMI,' (all o 16 16 H, R Plop E 19 Ilk F11 �' °� #� I z 10 4.27. 1.6 ■ JR tit R ---- -------------------------- HIRRH - H-1 .......... GVO`d 1AVA&WNO O3SOdONd � L 217 ik A-h A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M A Ab A. A 217 ik A-h A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M A Ab A. A I I I I j 1 I I Is I I I , ■. I i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I H ti ff� • = N = 0 ■ 1 1 I ■ 1 1 I , I ; I . I 3 1 1 I I ■ 1 1 1 I ' 1 1 ■ I ' �e'.3"; <';5.�?'•�7.'t +'�. ' §n ��sy r �Z Y ~�5 �� ._•S.�M'tLdai jig � "e Sias I I I rgu9 RjgCi -Rkd 0 I I I I I 1 1 2 RUN11, .�y...o,ut:4 ra:J�� I I I I I I H ti ff� • = N = 0 ■ 1 1 I ■ 1 1 I , I ; I . I 3 1 1 I I ■ 1 1 1 I ' 1 1 ■ I ' �e'.3"; <';5.�?'•�7.'t +'�. ' §n ��sy r �Z Y 1 �� ._•S.�M'tLdai 0 9 `� I I I I 1 I I I .�y...o,ut:4 ra:J�� ; 1 s & b 1111111111 T11 IVII �i m 11.11 — i I in °35°dONd AVONIAVh�aWH° d ■ 1 ®i ■ I ■ So I I I I I I 1 J I Y 0 I V I �p� 1 ti F- 218 s w �► • w, w w w w w w A 000 A M A M Ab Ae M AM AS A! A M M w• At, Ab r �Z ■ 1 ®i ■ I ■ So I I I I I I 1 J I Y 0 I V I �p� 1 ti F- 218 s w �► • w, w w w w w w A 000 A M A M Ab Ae M AM AS A! A M M w• At, Ab 95[908 N3]3(OYd x ri � aa yp� a :r � +�• � � � � fr m Y y j � e � � � f w d all mg 111P. I= mqX�q°� L 7 I I u I I I I 1 I 1 I I t I I 30 " i I 1 I ll 1J 13 13 13 13 24 IS l tan 9, l;s:. °.Y•r'1�,�,+1� #)�i`�� �. 2����°je`,`q` 2 a,k �vn C •��r� try f I j(�,.� •�,.�t +lp� Ire 1 �',�•fn • it , ��` >��y�,� =;t Pf. so- y � • �. err a ivr1 �:M•�;xt .w: .. ;�, 13C t •�'.: i O rI—{ jt�� {I--II ► aft i dft , A* • r .i ! A& b 'ft ^ di AM Ah i d& r Ift Aft r dft r I, I&- -ft Aft r . . + 13 a �y.�� vIVII LLyTp. � � 4 ®x$R r�, YI C 0 0 C 0 A CL L CL N I x � I- ,I CZ•7 M I� ---A• 9 � ��I to rA—�I �n N 7b Nom, 16 N L' N i� It n n n O O 4 ���...IIII .B ,6 A•Z '0 a F � Lc ON 90$` q Y ■ ■ ■ CJ Lr I E i (4Z9 L) .0 • .9 (sli6lp} .9 L (@ltl) (609) - (34 1aU IIeABnO) (891r/� .9 • ,VZ 221 September 10, 2008 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning - 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard On August 18, 2008, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its September 9, 2008 meeting. Mr. Nick Pryce of Terrain Group attended the meeting on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Pryce expressed general agreement with the recommendation in the attached report, but asked that condition (f) be modified in order to permit some flexibility in the overall width of the landscaped pedestrian link to the adjoining Sobeys property. He indicated that, due to a combination of grades and parking layout, there may be areas where they would have difficulty providing an overall 4.5 -metre (15- foot) width. Staff had no objection to the request and suggested that the condition be amended to require the final design of the pedestrian link to be subject to the approval of the Development Officer. No other persons addressed the Committee and no letters were received After considering the matter, the Committee adopted the recommendation in the attached report, with the suggested modification to condition (f). The Committee also granted the requested variances for reduced yards, increased lot occupancy and signage and tenant advertising. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 2.3 hectares, located at 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as being PID Nos. 00032813, and 00032821, from "I -4" Heavy Industrial Park and "B- 2" General Business to "SC" Shopping Centre. 2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the proposed development of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 2.3 hectares, located at 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as being PID Nos. 00032813 and 0032821, for a shopping centre be subject to the following conditions: a) The developer must pave all parking areas, loading areas, manoeuvring areas and driveways with asphalt and enclose them with cast -in -place concrete curbs to protect the landscaped areas and to facilitate proper drainage; 222 Planning Advison- Committee September 10, 2008 Page 2 b) The developer must provide adequate site drainage facilities in accordance with a detailed drainage plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; c) The developer must provide all utilities underground, including power and telephone from the existing overhead facilities; d) The developer must landscape all disturbed areas of the site not occupied by buildings, driveways, walkways, parking and loading areas, including a minimum of 6 metres (20 feet) inside the front property line abutting Fairville Boulevard, and the required landscaping must extend onto the City street right -of -way to the edge of the City curb /sidewalk; e) Direct street access to the site is limited to a maximum of two driveways, as generally indicated on the submitted proposal, and the developer must also provide a vehicular interconnection between the subject site and the adjacent shopping centre site at 917 Fairville Boulevard; f) The developer must provide a landscaped walkway, through the parking lot, from the proposed building to the adjacent shopping centre site at 917 Fairville Boulevard to the satisfaction of the Development Officer; g) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan, landscaping plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, walkways, loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, exterior building materials and finishes, landscaped areas (including location and types of planting materials), and other site features; h) The approved plans mentioned in conditions (b) and (g) above must be attached to the application for building permit for the development, except that such plans are not required for permit applications for site preparation and /or foundation only; i) All site improvements shown on the approved site plan, landscaping plan and drainage plans, except for landscaping, must be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any part of the development; and the landscaping must be completed within one year of building permit approval. Respectfully submitted, Stephen Horgan Chairman Attachments 223 DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 • variance to permit the minimum front, side and rear yards to be reduced from 15 metres (49.2 feet) to 7 metres (23 feet), 3 metres 224 Randall G. Pollock, MCIP, RPP Planner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Canadian Tire Real Estate Name of Owner: Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd. Location: 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard PID: 32813 and 32821 Municipal Plan: Service Corridor Zoning: Existing: "I -4" Heavy Industrial Park and `B -2" General Business Proposed: "SC" Shopping Centre Proposal: To redevelop the Canadian Tire store on an expanded site Type of Application: 1. Rezoning 2. Variances, as follows: • variance to permit the minimum front, side and rear yards to be reduced from 15 metres (49.2 feet) to 7 metres (23 feet), 3 metres 224 Canadian Tire Real Estate 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: Page 2 September 5, 2008 (10 feet) and 4.2 metres (14 feet), respectively; variance to permit the maximum lot occupancy to be increased from 25% to 27% of the lot area; variance to permit the maximum sign area on the front facade of the building to be increased from 39.84 square metres (429 square feet) or 5% of the facade area to 112.2 square metres (1,208 square feet) or 15% of the facade area; variance to permit tenant advertising on the proposed freestanding sign, whereas the Zoning By -law permits only the shopping centre name 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, September 29, 2008. The Act also authorizes the Committee to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Zoning By -law. The Committee can impose conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 2.3 hectares, located at 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as being PID Nos. 00032813, and 00032821, from "I4" Heavy Industrial Park and "B -2" General Business to "SU Shopping Centre. 2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the proposed development of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 2.3 hectares, located at 861- 891 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as being PID Nos. 00032813 and 0032821, for a shopping centre be subject to the following conditions: a) The developer must pave all parking areas, loading areas, manoeuvring areas and driveways with asphalt and enclose them with cast -in -place concrete curbs to protect the landscaped areas and to facilitate proper drainage; 225 Canadian Tire Real Estate 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard Page 3 September 5, 2008 b) The developer must provide adequate site drainage facilities in accordance with a detailed drainage plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; c) The developer must provide all utilities underground, including power and telephone from the existing overhead facilities; d) The developer must landscape all disturbed areas of the site not occupied by buildings, driveways, walkways, parking and loading areas, including a minimum of 6 metres (20 feet) inside the front property line abutting Fairville Boulevard, and the required landscaping must extend onto the City street right -of -way to the edge of the City curb/sidewalk; e) Direct street access to the site is limited to a maximum of two driveways, as generally indicated on the submitted proposal, and the developer must also provide a vehicular interconnection between the subject site and the adjacent shopping centre site at 917 Fairville Boulevard; f) The developer must provide a landscaped walkway, through the parking lot, from the proposed building to the adjacent shopping centre site at 917 Fairville Boulevard. The walkway should include a minimum 1.5 -metre (5 -foot) concrete sidewalk and a minimum of 1.5 metres (5 feet) of landscaping on either side, resulting in an overall minimum width of 4.5 metres (15 feet); g) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan, landscaping plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, walkways, loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, exterior building materials and finishes, landscaped areas (including location and types of planting materials), and other site features; h) The approved plans mentioned in conditions (b) and (g) above must be attached to the application for building permit for the development, except that such plans are not required for permit applications for site preparation and /or foundation only; i) All site improvements shown on the approved site plan, landscaping plan and drainage plans, except for landscaping, must be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any part of the development; and the landscaping must be completed within one year of building permit approval. 3. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant the requested variances to permit a minimum front yard of 7 metres (23 feet), minimum side yard of 3 metres (10 feet), minimum rear yard of 4.2 metres (14 feet), maximum lot occupancy of 27 %, maximum sign area of 15% of the 226 Canadian Tire Real Estate 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard Page 4 September 5, 2008 front facade area of the building, and tenant advertising on the proposed freestanding sign, all as generally illustrated on the submitted proposal. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 1980, Common Council rezoned the present Canadian Tire site at 885 -891 Fairville Boulevard (PID '128 13) from "I4" Heavy Industrial Park to "B -2" General Business, subject to a Section 39 resolution requiring "that a detailed site plan shall be approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Community Planning." The Planning Advisory Committee had recommended approval of the rezoning on December 2, 1980. On February 3, 1981, the Committee granted variances to permit the Canadian Tire development to have one freestanding sign and four illuminated facia signs, having a total area of 61.7 square metres (665 square feet), whereas the Zoning By -law at the time prohibited illumination, prohibited freestanding signs, limited facia signs to the front of the building and permitted a maximum sign area of only 32.5 square metres (350 square feet). On November 24, 1981, the Committee granted a variance to permit the addition of an additional 5.6 square metres (60 square feet) of sign area in the form of a changeable message area on the pylon sign. On June 12, 1984, the Committee approved, with no conditions, the installation of a propane dispensing facility for the filling of domestic propane cylinders and /or dispensing of auto propane. The approval included a variance to permit a tank height of 7.8 metres (25.6 feet). On October 30, 1984, the Committee approved a further sign variance to permit a 10- square- metre (108 - square -foot) facia sign on the side of the building facing the Throughway. On March 7, 1989, the Committee considered a conditional use application to establish a retail gasoline bar with a canopy on the Canadian Tire property. The proposal was approved with no additional terms and conditions. A variance was subsequently granted on April 18, 1989 to permit the canopy setback to be reduced from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 6 metres (20 feet) from the front lot line. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering advises as follows: • The developer's engineering consultant must provide a detailed site drainage plan/report indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled; additionally, the consultant must determine the impact this development will have on the existing storm 227 Canadian Tire Real Estate 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard Page 5 September 5, 2008 sewer infrastructure and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing storm system. • The developer's engineering consultant must ensure that the existing water system is of sufficient quantity and pressure for the proposed development. • The developer's engineering consultant must ensure that the existing sanitary sewer is capable of receiving the anticipated peals flows. • The developer's engineering consultant must verify all gravity connections and clearances for the proposed water and sewer infrastructure. • Engineering is satisfied with the results of the traffic study. Building and Technical Services advises that, at this point in the process, there is insufficient information available to make any Building Code issues identifiable. Saint John Transit advises that bus service to this area is currently limited to seven return trips per day. However, as the various retail developments come on line in this area it is anticipated that the East /West service will be extended along this section of Fairville Boulevard. Saint John Energy advises that it has overhead facilities in the area. An extension of facilities will be required to service the proposed development and this will be dealt with at a later date with the developer. Aliant Telecom has been advised of the proposal. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline advises that its transmission line runs parallel to the throughway in this area. The developer must contact Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline to be on site when any work is done. Locate requests will have to be submitted. Enbridge Gas N.B. has been advised of the proposal Fire Department has no objection to the application. The design and constriction of the development must adhere to the National Building and Fire Codes with particular attention to the following: • submission of constriction plans to the Department of Public Safety (Technical Inspection Division) for review and approval; • proper access route location and design for firefighting equipment; • extension of fire hydrant network and appropriate placement. The department requires that the hydrants be upgraded to include a steamer port so that connections can be made with its four and five inch hose; • adherence to standards on the installation of sprinkler systems, with sprinkler system and standpipe connection subject to review by the Saint John Fire Department prior to actual placement on the facility. 228 Canadian Tire Real Estate Page 6 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard September 5, 2008 School District 8 has been advised of the proposal. ANALYSIS: Site and Neighbourhood The subject site is located on the southeast side of Fairville Boulevard in West Saint John. This is a major mixed commercial/industrial area, known as the Golden Mile, which is designated as a ,Service Corridor for the western part of the City. The site consists of two properties with a total site area of approximately 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres) and a total frontage of approximately 166 metres (545 feet) on Fairville Boulevard. It is bounded on the northwest by Fairville Boulevard, on the northeast by the Cox Electronics property, on the southwest by the new Sobeys store that is currently being developed, and on the southeast by a strip of City -owned land that was formerly a railway line. Beyond the railway line is vacant land (owned by Home Hardware) and, then, the Saint John Throughway (Route 1). Directly across Fairville Boulevard from the site is the Coast Tire automotive centre. The southwest two - thirds of the subject site contains the existing Canadian Tire store with associated parking area and gas bar. This area is currently zoned "B -2" General Business. The balance of the subject site (between the existing Canadian Tire store and Cox Electronics) contains a vacant industrial/warehouse building (former C. A. Munro building) and associated outdoor parking area. This portion of the site is currently zoned "I4" Heavy Industrial Park. Proposal The applicant proposes to develop a new store that will include a Canadian Tire retail area, Mark's Work Wearhouse, six -bay service centre, garden centre and warehouse, as illustrated on the attached plans. The building footprint will occupy 5479 square metres (58,975 square feet), while the total gross floor area will be 6674 square metres (71,838 square feet). The new store will be constricted in the general location of the C. A. Munro building, between the existing store and Cox Electronics. Upon completion of the new building, the existing 2764 - square -metre (29,750- square -foot) Canadian Tire will be demolished. The Canadian Tire gas bar will continue to operate in its present location. The attached site plan indicates that the proposed development will be accessed from Fairville Boulevard via the two existing driveways into the Canadian Tire property, while the driveway for the C. A. Munro building will be discontinued. On -site parking for approximately 247 vehicles is initially proposed for the overall development. The Zoning By -law requires a minimum of 238 spaces to be provided for the 6674- square -metre building. As noted above, the subject site is currently zoned "I4" Heavy Industrial Park and "B -2" General Business. Both of these zones permit retail developments up to a maximum of 3,000 square 229 Canadian Tire Real Estate Page 7 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard September 5, 2008 metres (32,000 square feet). Larger retail developments, however, are considered to be "shopping centres" and require rezoning. The applicant has requested that the subject site be rezoned to the "SC" Shopping Centre zone in order to permit the proposal. Municipal Plan and Proposed Rezoning As noted above, the subject site lies within the ,Service Corridor designation of the Municipal Plan. The proposed development is consistent with this designation and surrounding development in the area. The proposed "SU Shopping Centre zoning permits a wide range of retail, service and automotive uses in a shopping centre environment. This is a zone that is in conformity with the ,Service Corridor designation. With respect to new or expanded shopping centre developments, the policies of the Municipal Plan require the following: a) The proposed site is located on an arterial or collector street; and b) The shopping centre proposed is of a size and nature that is in the opinion of Council warranted on the basis of a survey to be carried out by or for the applicant of the population and location and type of other commercial establishments within the anticipated trading area and the City as a whole. The Municipal Plan designates Fairville Boulevard as an arterial street and, therefore, the subject site meets the first criterion. With respect to the second criterion, the applicant's consultant, Terrain Group, has expressed the opinion that the redevelopment of the Canadian Tire store will not influence or change the conclusions of the recent ADI Limited market study that was submitted in conjunction with the adjacent Sobeys /Plazacorp development application. The consultant provides the following rationale for its opinion: The Canadian Tire store has operated in this location for a considerable period of time, and though the new store will increase in size from the existing store, it is unlikely to have any [negative] impact on the local market. The ADI report clearly outlines that there is growth in the City and that the subject location is relatively run-down. The proposed development of the Canadian Tire store, coupled with the Sobeys development, will contribute significantly to the revitalization of West Saint John. Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure Similar to other shopping centre developments in Saint John (for example, McAllister Place, First Westmorland and East Point Shopping Centre) a major consideration in relation to such proposals is the ability of the existing transportation infrastructure to accommodate the traffic generated by the development and, if not, the nature of any required improvements. In order to help identify 230 Canadian Tire Real Estate Page 8 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard September 5, 2008 the impacts, as well as any required measures to accommodate the development, the applicant has submitted a detailed traffic impact study, prepared by Terrain Group. The objective of the traffic study was to identify the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. The study area includes Fairville Boulevard along the frontage of the site and includes the intersection of Fairville Boulevard and the two driveway intersections serving the Canadian Tire site. A one -year design period was used to identify future traffic circulation conditions associated with the proposed development, since the development is expected to be completed in 2009. The traffic study, which has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by Municipal Operations and Engineering, projects that the development would be expected to generate 42 net new trips during the morning peals hour and 75 net new trips during the evening peals hour. When analyzed, both existing (2008) and background (2009) traffic operations were found to function with acceptable levels of vehicle delay. With completion of the development, the consultant's model predicts that traffic operations at the two driveways for the site will fiinction at acceptable Levels of Service. Increases in delay will be the greatest for vehicles making a left turn from the site onto Fairville Boulevard. These left turn movements will operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better with a maximum of 27 seconds of delay per vehicle. Other turning movements will operate at higher levels of service. Based on this assessment, the traffic consultant has concluded that sufficient driveway capacity exists with the existing driveway configuration to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development, and an acceptable number of gaps in traffic will exist on Fairville Boulevard to allow traffic to safely exit. It should be noted that the developer proposes to interconnect the subject site with the adjacent Sobeys /Plazacorp property, providing for easy traffic flow from one property to the other without requiring cars to travel on Fairville Boulevard. The connection will also provide access to the new traffic lights at the Plaza Avenue (formerly Emco Lane) entrance to the Sobeys /Plazacorp development. Site Servicing and Drainage As noted by Municipal Operations and Engineering, City water, sanitary and storm sewers are available. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that grades, quantities and pressures are sufficient for the proposed and future development. Detailed servicing and drainage plans will be required. Site Development The attached preliminary site plan suggests a high quality site development, built to modern -day standards for urban commercial areas, with defined driveway access, asphalt parking areas, 231 Canadian Tire Real Estate Page 9 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard September 5, 2008 concrete curbing, underground wiring and landscaping of all disturbed areas of the site. A major concern with the present proposal, however, is with respect to the exterior design and finishes of the building. The attached elevation plans suggest that the majority of the building, other than the front facade, will be comprised of large blank walls with vertical panels, conveying a somewhat monotonous appearance, particularly on the highly visible facade facing Cox Electronics. The proposed landscaping plan indicates that this large expanse of wall will be broken up somewhat by trees planted in front of the wall. However, consideration should also be given to providing additional visual interest through the use of a variety of exterior materials, including masonry, and /or possibly breaking up the facade with windows or other openings. The high visibility of these facades will require that special attention be given to all sides of the building in terms of building design, exterior finishes (all sides to have same quality design and materials), landscaping, and screening of loading facilities. The same approach has been taken with the adjacent Sobeys development. The site development should also incorporate features that contribute to a pedestrian - friendly environment. It is suggested that the parking lot design include a pedestrian connection across the parking lot to the Sobeys /Plazacorp property. This should be of a suitable width to include a minimum 1.5 -metre (5 -foot) wide sidewalk as well as a landscaped planting strip on each side. A minimum overall width of 4.5 metres (15 feet) is suggested. In order to ensure that the final development is of a high quality, it is recommended that the Section 39 conditions incorporate the normal site development requirements that are imposed on such projects. This would include submission of detailed site, landscaping and building elevation plans to the Development Officer for approval. With regard to landscaping, it is being recommended, as part of the Section 39 conditions, that the landscaped areas have a minimum depth of 6 metres (20 feet) inside the property line abutting Fairville Boulevard (the "SU Shopping Centre zone provisions require only 2 metres (6.5 feet) of landscaping). This additional requirement is consistent with Section 39 conditions imposed on the other shopping centre developments (including the Sobeys /Plazacorp development), and is recommended for the present proposal. Proposed Variances The applicant's proposal requires a number of variances. The variances are listed on pages 1 -2 of this report, and relate to building setbacks, lot occupancy and signage. With regard to the proposed reduction of the front yard setback to 7 metres (23 feet), the applicant correctly points out that the main building will actually meet the 15 -metre (49.2 -foot) minimum yard requirement. The encroachment consists of a fenced garden centre, which would be permitted to be in the required yard if not covered, and will also include an enclosed "frost house ". The proposed front yard setback is similar to that of the existing building, and the area between the garden centre /frost house and the street will consist exclusively of a landscaped yard 232 Canadian Tire Real Estate Page 10 861 -891 Fairville Boulevard September 5, 2008 area. The applicant indicates that the fence will be an ornate, iron eagle fence rather than a typical chain -link fence. The reduced side yard of 3 metres (10 feet) is necessary, not only to permit the retention of the existing building during constriction of the new building, but also in order to maximize the parking area in front of the main facade of the new building. The reduced side yard abuts the driveway for the adjacent commercial development (Cox) and should not have a negative impact on that property. The applicant also indicates that, because the interior of the building will be equipped with sprinklers, it will not be necessary to provide vehicular access all around it for firefighting equipment. The reduced rear yard of 4.2 metres (14 feet) only applies to the small loading dock area at the southeast corner of the building. The majority of the southeast wall will actually meet the 15- metre (49.2 -foot) requirement. Approval of the variances for reduced yards is recommended. The proposed lot occupancy of 27% of the lot area is only slightly over the maximum of 25 %. The required variance in this regard can be supported. Similarly, the requested variance from the "SC" zone limitation, that permits only the shopping centre name on the freestanding sign, can also be recommended. The content of the proposed freestanding sign will be similar to that which already exists, and has become typical for a big -box shopping centre environment and, to a more limited extent, traditional enclosed malls. The Committee has approved similar variances for recent shopping centre developments and the proposal is consistent with these previous approvals. Finally, the requested variance for an increased amount of facia signage on the main facade of the building can also be recommended. Although the numerical magnitude of the variance is significant for that particular wall, it is recognized that, at the same time, there will be little or no signage on any of the other facades of the building. The attached building elevations, showing the proposed signs, suggest that the amount of signage will not look out of place given the size and length of the facade. It should also be noted that significant variances were previously granted for signage on the existing store. CONCLUSION: The subject site is located within the Fairville Boulevard (Golden Mile) ,Service Corridor. The proposed amendment to the Zoning By -law can be supported as consistent with the Municipal Plan and surrounding development. Section 39 conditions, consistent with those imposed on other developments, are recommended with respect to site development requirements including paving and curbing, access (both vehicular and pedestrian), site drainage, underground utilities, access, landscaping, and exterior building materials and finishes, with appropriate deadlines for completion of all work. 233 Canadian Tire Real Estate 861 -891 Fain-ille Boulevard Page 11 September 5, 2008 The recommendation will require the submission of detailed plans in this regard for the review and approval of the City. Approval of the proposed rezoning and variances, with the conditions as set out, can be recommended. RGP /r Project No. 08 -357 234 To: Deputy Mayor Chase and Members of Common Council Whereas Municipalities across the country are exploring a ban on the sale Of 8ingle-use plastic bottles; Whereas the regulatory requirements for monitoring water quality contained in bottled water are not as stringent eo those that must bo met by the City uf Saint John; Who"*ma The City of Saint John delivers water to its residents and businesses at a fraction of the cost of of single use plastic containers; Whereas resource extraction, packaginganddinthbubnnofuinQ|e-uoobott|odwet ronsaV*»unnoconnmry air quality and climate impacts and consumes unnecessary resources such as oil in the manufacture of plastic and the fuel in the transportation of bottled water to consumers; Whereas single-use plastic bottles, although easily recycled, often end up in garbage bags and are ultimately delivered to landfill sites, taking up unnecessary space without any further contribution to society; Whereas City of Saint John tap water is readily available at most indoor facilities, either in the form of a faucets in the washrooms of from fountains, and where it is not available a plan be put inmotion to increase access to municipal water, subject to water quality and safety requirements, budget and other umnuidembonm� Whereas the City of Saint John tap water is safe, healthy and accessible to Saint JGhners and visitors, and more environmentally sustainable than single-use bottled water; Whereas A priority of Saint John Common Council remains that where easy access to municipal tap water does not exist, the availability of bottled water isa very appropriate alternative: VVhenoae the City Council wishes to set a positive example to the Saint John community on environmental matter uuwe strive Uu become u zero- waste culture Therefore Beb Resolved That: (i) single-use plastic bottled water will no longer be so|dinCitymwnedorCity —administered concession and vending machines in public facilities where easy access to municipal tap water exists (ii)single-use bottled water wiDnm|ongorbvpumhanedomdpnuvidwdp4mpptimgwwhvnnnesy access to municipal tap water exists; (iii) the availability of water jugs with municipal tap water bw|noraesod.vvhwraroquinad; (iv) a City staff and public awareness campaign be developed to support the rational for these important changes, including the need for Saint Johmomtodo their part: and v) a review of facilities and a schedule for implementation be put into place insuring tap water is readily available in all our facilities, Respectfully submitted, VOE September 15, 2008 Deputy Mayor Chase Et Councillors Please see the attached letter the Mayor's Office received a few days ago, it is a good news story. Sincerely, lvari Court MAYOR G"01 -11 . ....................................................................... ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ----------------------------------------- SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21- 4L1 y www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4LI 236 INfillister Ministre Transportation Transports File No, 112-973 September 9, 2008 Mr. Ivan Court, Mayor City of Saint John PO Box 1971, 15 Market Square Saint John NB E2L 4L I Dear Mayor Court: The Department of Transportation has tendered Contract 08-0451 for Phase I of the One Mile House Interchange. Work on Phase I is anticipated to commence in September 2008 and be completed in January 2009. Construction under this contract will necessitate relocation of existing municipal infrastructure in the Rothesay Avenue / Russell Street area, This relocation work has been designed by ADI Ltd, who have estimated the construction cost to be $900,000.00. This letter confirms that the Department of Transportation accepts responsibility for construction costs associated with the municipal infrastructure relocation. Further, the Department agrees that the City of Saint John shall tender this work to be done in conjunction with Contract 08-0451 between September and December, 2008, with the understanding that ADI Ltd be engaged to carry out construction supervision and that tendering and contract administration costs, estimated at $100,000.00, will be billed to the Department along with construction costs. All amounts are understood to include HST. We look forward to continued cooperation in the execution of this project. Sincerely, Denis Landry Minister c.c. Richard Smith, ADI Limited Bruce Keenan, City of Saint John Alan Kerr, District Engineer — Saint John Tel./'1`0 phont : P.O. Box 6000 Case postalc 6000 (506) 457-7345 Fredericton Fredericton Fax/T66 ' r: New Brunswick NOLIVC�M-Bnmmvick (506) 45VU11 Canada E3B 5HI Gmada E3B 5131 is September 11, 2008 FRIG:: Retirement Allowance All employees upon retirement from the city are entitled to a retirement pay bonus equal to one month's pay, to a maximurn of six months, for every five years of service. Given most employees are retiring with at least 30 years experience, payouts on this bonus are equivalent to one half years' salary. Currently, this account has $2,814,500. For 2007, the City set aside over $300,000 for retirement allowance for the General and Water Fund. When the actuary did the review, lie said to have it completely funded we should set aside approximately another $175,000. I want to call attention to the fact that retiring employees receive a pension. This plan, as we are well aware, is a significant cost and requires additional funding beyond regular employee and employer contributions in order to meet the plan's obligations because of the going concern deficit. Funding the going concern deficit drains funds away from other set-vices and programs. I believe, given the demand for service and programs in this city, that this "retirement allowance" is a benefit the city can no longer afford. I believe that when citizens have to do with less service or go Without prograrn funding that it is not unreasonable to rationalize the entire retirement benefits of employees. I feel the taxpayers, through their contributions via the City of Saint .John as the employer, contribute enough through the pension plan without having to further enhance retirement packages for employees. This money could be better utilized elsewhere in City services and programs. Resolve: The City of Saint John discontinues the retirement allowance. Stephen Chase Deputy Mayor (Source verified) GO�I -- SAINT JOHN RO. Box 1971 Saiintlohn, NB Canada E21-4L1 I vwvw.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saintlohn, 4x1. -B. Canada F2L L1 238 �� |\ �/ September 11,200O Mayor Ivan Courtand Councillors� Re: Issues related to recent heavy rain Staff and Council have been deluged with calls from citizens upset over the flooding as a result of this past weekend's heavy rain. Many uf these citizens are expressing concerns over future occurrences. In some instances, citizens have experienced flooding twice isim recent history, whereas they have never had these experiences before. I would like Council to have a report from staff outlining the "trouble areas" and what mitigation strategies could be implemented to avoid or reduce further occurrence. | fully recognize that there are areas such as Glen Falls / McAllister Drive area that because oftheir geographical location have been historically vulnerable and will continue to be at risk for flooding. in areas such as this and despite risk abatement measures such as compensatory storage, flooding will occur. Possibly, additional measures can be taken for these areas. There are some other areas of the City, such as Sherbrooke Street, where homes have experienced significant flooding twice this year. This isanew phenomenon to this area. My understanding iothat staff has Kndentified a possible solution to reduce this risk. Motion: That staff provide Council with a report outlining the "trouble areas" and what mitigation strategies could be implemented to avoid or reduce further occurrence. Stephen Chase Deputy Mayor (Source verified) W.- SAINT JOHN PO, Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4LI| www.sainLjohn.ca |[Al971 Saint John, N�Canada E2L 41-1 I I September 2008 To His Worship and members of Common Council: As a member of the Planning Advisory Committee for the last four years, I have watched the work of the committee grow as the city itself has grown. The scope and nature of variances, rezonings and other issues that the committee is commonly called upon to address suggests that the current Municipal Plan perhaps needs to be revised or even replaced. As Saint John begins to experience more fully the growing boom and the developments in all sectors that are bound to accompany it, having an up-to-date plan is essential. Motion: That Council direct the Commissioner of Planning and the Planning Department to provide, by the next council meeting, an assessment of the viability of the current Municipal Plan and, more specifically, whether the time has come for a serious revision or even the replacement of that plan. Respectfully submitted, Councillor Killen 240 www, saintJoh ii. ca September 11, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Fellow Councillors, Re: Coordination of Roadwork P.O. Box/C.P. 1971 Saint John, NB/N.-B. Canada E2L 4LI The Harbour Bridge Authority has determined that it will be necessary to close at least two lanes of the bridge for extended periods (May — October) during 2009 and 2010 in order to complete unavoidable repairs. I am also aware that other major work is being planned at Simm's Comer, the One Mile House Interchange in addition to the ongoing upgrades and repairs to the provincial structures such as Reversing Falls and the Torrybum/Rothesay Ave. exit. Careful coordination of these projects will be necessary in order to minimize traffic disruption during this period and to ensure uninterrupted circulation of emergency vehicles. Recommendation That the City Manager be directed to develop a plan, in conjunction with the Province of New Brunswick and the Harbour Bridge Authority, to coordinate major road work and bridge work during 2009, and 2010. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher T. Titus Councillor 241 Mayor and Council September 22, 2008 Re: Pension Plan Issues Issue One I have no doubt that resolving the issues of the pension - chiefly the chronically under - funded ongoing concern — which heavily burdens Council and taxpayers, is an important objective of this Council. I would even state, it is likely the biggest financial challenge of this Council, and accordingly requires the strongest commitment by Council to remedy. I believe it important that such an objective be publicly affirmed by Council. This recognition of the strongest commitment is important not only to the tax payers but to pension beneficiaries who will ultimately be called upon to agree to make the legislated changes. This should not be understated, because if Council does not signal that this is one of its most important objectives, then why would the beneficiaries wish to participate in the necessary changes? And just as important, taxpayers need to be assured that their interests are under strong and responsible stewardship. Resolution: Council affirm its commitment to resolving the Pension Plan difficulties and that this commitment is one of high priority. Issue Two As a recently appointed Pension Trustee, I attended a series of very informative educational seminars on pension plans. One issue that was very relevant to the City Of Saint John's pension situation was the fact that sponsors of other 'defined benefit' plans are changing benefits because of the magnitude of the funding liabilities. In many cases, employee groups and plan beneficiaries have taken class action lawsuits against the plan sponsor because of the plan changes. What is emerging from these class action lawsuits is the importance of the plan sponsor clearly communicating the plan changes well in advance. The law courts recognize the sponsor's right to make plan changes but are establishing the need for communication well ahead of actual changes. I believe it important, that Council officially communicate with employee groups and beneficiaries as to the need to make changes to the City of Saint John Pension Plan. I further believe that this official communication from Council would invite, in good faith, the employee groups and beneficiaries to work earnestly toward a plan that is sustainable. Resolution: Council officially communicate with employee groups and plan beneficiaries that benefit changes are required to resolve the plans difficulties. 242 Issue Three The Pension Plan will require certain changes in order overcome the plan difficulties. The question arises: what plan changes can Council make and what changes can only be made by the New Brunswick government? Resolution: Direct the City Manager to provide to Council a table listing and distinguishing plan changes in the purview of Council and those of the New Brunswick Government. Issue Four As noted earlier, sponsors of defined benefits plans are making necessary changes to benefits because of the financial crushing magnitude of the funding liabilities. Council cannot make such changes because the core benefits are protected in legislation. Only the government of New Brunswick can make required changes upon the request of Saint John Common Council. In anticipation that the Government of New Brunswick will be asked to make changes to the City of Saint John pension Plan, Council should undertake immediately, information sessions with MLA's so that they may better understand and recognize the need for such change. It would be important to understand, that city services and programs relate to Saint John's growth. Saint John's growth is important to the New Brunswick economy. A pension plan which is chronically under funded and requires extra funding from tax detracts from city services and programs. This makes Saint John less competitive and less desirable to live in, and slows or even inhibits growth. Resolution: Council begin discussions with Members of Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick regarding the need to make changes to the Pension Legislation Stephen Chase Received by e -mail Deputy Mayor 243 Mavor and Council September 25, 2008 Tai Rate Reduction This letter to Council is N ritten Nv th the lcnoNyledge that Council has engaged the services of Dr. Slack and Dr. Kitchen to provide a report on tai rate reduction. Their report Neill focus on other level of government funding and likely Nvhat services could be delivered under user fees. The concept Nyould be that shifting the tai burden aNyaN- from property tai — the main source of municipal revenue — Neill create the opportunity to lower the tai rate. I am aNvare that Council recognizes the need for a fundamental shift in taxation a shift that Nyould make sense to the community and is not punitive. Unfortunately, any taxation changes Nyill — if ever the provincial government enables — Nyill not be in place this budget Near. As Nye enter the 2009 budget deliberations, Council needs to consider: • Community demand for a loNver tax rate • Property ovmers still paying a tax increase as a result of increase property assessments regardless of tax rate increase • General operating budget Nyill increase an estimated 6% • A tax base grovah that may be at 6% (hopefully more but likely not by a lot) • Tax rate reduction needs to be sustainable (do not reduce asphalt repair Nyhich ultimately Nyill lead to high replacement capital cost) It is likely that Council Nyill find itself in a budget Near deliberation Nvith no opportunity to reduce the tax rate as a result of an absence of any positive net increase in tax base grovah Nvhich exceeds operations expenditures. In the context of budget planning this means a budget that Neill plan on reductions in expenditures. This planning requires considerable lead time. Therefore, if Council is interested in a tax rate reduction, direction must be given to the City Manager to prepare a budget that Neill alloy for a tax rate reduction. Moreover, it Nyould be reasonable to ask the City Manager to prepare a budget based on expenditure reductions in scale ranging from $.02 to $.10 reduction for Council's consideration. With such a scale Council can reasonably determine during the budget deliberations, Nyhich is most acceptable to the community in terms of balancing tax rate reduction and service delivery. Resolution: A sustainable tax rate reduction is an objective for the 2009 budget and that the City Manager be directed to prepare draft budgets accordingly. Regards Received by e -mail Stephen Chase Deputy Mayor 244 M7 ................. September 18, 2008 Whereas: We have had many recent meetings without completing the agenda Whereas: Several items have been tabled for over one month due to that lack of completion Whereas: The number of public hearings is expected to increase with development Whereas: it is expected of council that we complete business in a timely fashion, Motion: Be it resolved that Saint John Common Council meet weekly on Monday nights. Meetings are to alternate between Committee of the Whole and Public hearings on one Monday with Council meetings on the alternative Monday nights, Sincerely (source verified) Gary Sullivan QZ4 - SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4LI I wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4LI 245 September 24,2OBA Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Re: Enhancement for all of The City of Saint John's Community Centres Community Centres have represented an important recreational, cultural, academic and social support system tn thousands nf children in Saint John over the years. Several thousand of our children live in poverty and are faced with many challenges on a day-to-day basis. A threat exists to severa I of our neighbourhoods in that their community school may be closed- thus reducing the social support network inthese neighbourhoods. Asa City, we have invested in our vulnerable neighbourhoods and this investment must oondmoe. An investment into 'all of' our community centres is an investment in our future- that being our children andteens. A number of our community centres look "old" and "tired"- in some respects reflecting the look of the neighbourhood. |fvve are to attract new citizens tn our City, enhancing this key infrastructure support appears tobe appropriate. MOTION: That the City Manager and Mr. Morrison prepare for Council a document outlying the needs and subsequent financial support required to enhance our community centres. A report back in one month |ormquested- Heopectfu|lysubmdted (Source verified) Councillor Peter McGuire @­ ___ __ __ - . ........................................... ................. . . . — -------------- - ----- --------------- . . ..... . . . ....................... - -- --------------- - — - ------------- - SAINT JOHN RO. Box 197l ~-----^ �nintjohn NB Canada E2L41-1 1 www.saintjohn.ca | CA 1971 Saint John, N.-LCanada E2L4Q 246 Carleton Community Centre Centre (Fall — Spring Season): 220 Youth Registrations in 2007 / Program participation attendance over 32 weeks Youth & Adults — 39,584 0 Summer Playground Program: 80 Children Registered (June 25 —August 17) — 2,066 North End Community Centre 0 Centre (Fall — Spring Season): 167 Youth Registrations / Program participation attendance over 32 weeks Youth & Adults — 21,472 Summer Playground Program: 47 Children Registers (June 25 — August 17) — 1,.355 Somerset Community Centre 0 Centre (Fall — Spring Season): 150 Youth Registrations / Program participation attendance over 32 weeks Youth & Adults — 20,000 1461 Summer Playground Program: 45 Children registered (June 25 —August 17) —Attendance 247 September 24, 2008 Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Issue: Infrastructure Enhancement for Outlying Neighbourhoods Several of our neighbourhoods need to be considered forand then strategically planned for aco>rdin8kywbhthe8na|nfanenhamcenmentoftheirlmfnastructune Road and sidewalk work is extremely high on their neighbourhood need list. 0 Sidewalks have been identified by most Canadian cities as key resources of positive social and health determinants — walking is an important variable with respect to a vibrant neighbourhood |fvve are to create sustainable neighbourhoods, vve must invest in their infrastructure 0 LnrnevDn, the River Valley Road and the Ocean West Way neighbourhoods deem strong ° Outlying neighbourhoods have been forgotten to some degree over the course of time — itb now time to reinvest in their future Motion: That the City Manager report back to Council in one month's time with a strategic developmental program for the infrastructure enhancement of the neighbourhoods of LurnevUe\the River Valley Road and Ocean West Way. Respectfully submitted, (Source Verified) Councillor Peter McGuire @- -.-- -- . . .................................................. .............................. ..................................... . . . ---- ----- . .......... . . .... ---- SAINT JOHN P���l� -- !�i�� Canada BL ��� | ��l9�!�t��N��� �� -� 248 September 24, 2008 Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council w The following represents a summarization with respect to two presentations delivered on behalf of The City of Saint John earlier this year. 0 1 would like to thank the Mayor for his support in allowing the delivery of this work. I> Presentation tm Standing Senate Committee qn Social Affairs, Science and Technology Subcommittee on Cities) The Committee conducted a study of major Canadian cities with an initial focus on poverty, housing and homelessness. Next phase was to hear from the municipalities about the options outlined in their study. Saint John was invited to participate in Halifax on August 14, 2008. Presentation Overview: Several key options presented to the Committee include: (a) Outline our poverty rate and positive work being done to reduce poverty (b) City proactive work in vulnerable neighbourhoods, minimum property standards by law, affordable housing and public transportation (c) Critical need for investment by federal/provincial government in Affordable Housing Agreement (d) National Poverty Reduction Strategy iscritical (e) National Affordable Housing Strategy iscritical (f) Funding for public transportation iycritical /g\ Funding for home ownership programming is critical (h) Poverty reduction is a critical issue for all three levels of government, business community amdmun- pnufitsector In conclusion, twenty options were reviewed and presented on behalf of The City of Saint John. 2) Presentation tq Canadian Housing Renewal Association 2008 Symposium- Rejuvenate Your Neighbourhood- Montreal * Invited to present afterSaint John hosted a successful Affordable Housing Summit w Focus Vf presentation on Crescent Valley neighbourhood Gli& - - - - ------------- - -------- . . .................................... . . . . -.- SAINT JOHN PD. Box lY7 Saint John N8 [nnwdm E21- 41-1 | www.saintjohn.ca | [R 1971 Saint John, MJB.[anmda E2L41-1 items presented: • History ofneighbourhood • Demographics ufneighbourhood • Positive relationships built between City Staff and residents • Positive relationships built between City Staff and Department of Social Development • Process bv which residents have taken ownership ofneighbourhood Learning Aspects: 1) City of Ottawa Planning DePartment - "No Community Left Behind" Process ' Puts strategic development process in place to improve quality oflife in vulnerable neighbourhoods - VVebsi1e'h1tp://wxmvv.nocommunity|eF1behind.00 - Multi-departmental process (no silos) - Process embedded within City structure - Strong leadership taken by Planning Dept. 2) City of Toronto "p|ace-based" thinking with respect 10 Planning Department Process embedded within City structure Neighbourhood Action Teams (I3) • kNu|ti'departmentn|procesa • Works closely with schools, etc. • Horizontal process 3\ St. Roch, Quebec - City Planning Department moved toneighbourhood - Laval students (low rent),15Q moved there - Art community moved there - Mayor made political decisions which positively affected this neighbourhood ' Major first step was building of high quality garden which restored pride/brought people back tu the neighbourhood. Motion: To receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, (Source Verified) Councillor Peter McGuire September 25, 2008 Saint John Mayor Ivan Court and City Councillors, After consideration of Council's Priorities and responsibilities, as well as the expectations of the Province of New Brunswick and the Canadian governments; And, in the spirit and intention of: — Equal Opportunity — True Growth Strategies — Self - sufficient' Agenda — Benefits Blueprint — And other well-intentioned, yet non-specific initiatives; And, with the necessity of going into the 2009 budget process knowing our level of fiscal partnerships, I make the following motion to Saint John City Council; that-. Beginning November V, 2008, the City of Saint John collect user fee of $8.00 per day as an offset to full use of Saint John services and infrastructure to all those who make use of said services and infrastructure, but are not residents of the City of Saint John. Councillor Patty Higgins ��&ATQL \ierl, pred - 251 September 25, 2008 Mayor Ivan Court and Fellow Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: PENSION PLAN DEFICIT: DEALING WITH THE ISSUE 4a all of you are aware, | recently stated that from my perspective, finding a resolve to the pension deficit issue must beo priority of this Council. | appreciate that all of you want to see this matter resolved, but unless Council makes a definitive statement to this effect, I do not have confidence that the political will exists to du what has to be done. | say this after having reviewed in some detail, my files on this matter. Time and time again [oumd| has received recommendations from the City Manager as to what actions need to be taken. |m each and every instance, his recommendations have largely been ignored with the view that taxpayers and employees can simply throw a little bit more in the pot, markets will improve and the issue will 0o away. [ for one, nn longer have the confidence that the issue is going todisappear. In fact, Iamquickly becoming convinced that the situation is going to worsen. Something must be done. It isin this vein, and knowing that bvmerely everyone getting together and having o nice discussion or group hug won't solve this issue, I would ask Council 's support for the following recommendation. That the City Manager be directed tmrevisit the recommendations he has previously made to Council tV deal with, the Pension Deficit and determine ifim fact his previous recommendations are still relevant |n2OO9. Further, that the City Manager be directed to propose a course of action for Council to follow knowing that Council has made a commitment to employees that no changes to the Plan will be made prior to2O10. That the City Manager include within the 2009 Operating Budget any necessary financial resources that Council will require in 2009 to move this file forward. Yumrswery CUumc|LLOK SAINT JOHN P0. Box 1977 Saint John, NO Canada ElL | CA 1971 Sa�L�hn\N-�Canada F21- 4L1 -�--_� �uf OPEN SESSION September 19, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: The New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation is planning a bond issue in the near future. While the issue will not be sold until the Corporation feels that rates are reasonable, they have provided ranges within which the issue could be sold. These are as follows: Interest Rate: Not to exceed an average of 6.50% Price, Net: Not to be less than $98.00 per $100.00 of debenture Term: Serial form to mature in equal annual amounts over a term not to exceed 15 years for the General Fund and Transit and 20 years for the Water & Sewerage Utility. Notice of motion was given at the August 18, 2008 meeting of Common Council regarding the need to borrow $10,500,000. In order to proceed with the debenture financing it is now recommended that the following be adopted. e........... . . . . .......................................................... . ..... . .. . ........................... - SAINT JOHN RO. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L-1 253 Page 2 Whereas occasion having arisen in the public interest for the following public civic works and needed civic improvements, that is to say: GENERAL FUND General Government $ 500'000 Protective Services $ 500,000 Transportation Services $ 3,000,000 Economic Development $ 1,000,000 Parks and Recreation $ 500,000 WATER & SEWERAGE UTILITY Water System $ 2,500,000 Sewer System $ 1,000,000 $3,500,000 SAINT JOHN TRANSIT $1,500,000 TOTAL 1$ 10,500,00� 1. Therefore resolved that debentures be issued under provisions of the Acts of Assembly 52, Victoria, Chapter 27, Section 29 and amendments thereto to the amount of $10,500,000. 254 Page 3 2. Commissioner of Finance be authorized to issue and to sell to the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation (the "Corporation") a City of Saint John bond or debenture in the principal amount of $10,500,000 at such terms and conditions as are recommended by the Corporation. 3. And further that the City of Saint John agrees to issue post-dated cheques to the Corporation, or other such arrangements as the Corporation may from time to time accept, in payment of principal and interest charges on the above bond or debenture as and when they are required by the Corporation. 4. And further that the Commissioner of Finance be hereby authorized to receive an offer in connection with the foregoing debentures at a price not less than $98 per $100 of debenture, at interest rates not to exceed an average of 6.50% and at a term not to exceed 15 years for the issue related to the General Fund and Transit and not to exceed 20 years for the Water & Sewerage Utility. 5. And further that the Commissioner of Finance report to Common Council the exact values for price per $100 of debenture, interest rate and term in years, together with the date of the issue. Respectfully submi tjd, Gregory mans, CGA, MBA CommisloTof Finance 255 M & C 2008 - 283 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: PRINCE EDWARD STREET — TRAFFIC BY -LAW AMENDMENT BACKGROUND It Im An upgrade to the intersection of Union Street, Carmarthen Street and Prince Edward Street is currently underway. This project, which includes reconfiguration of the intersection and installation of a traffic signal system, will improve the flow and safety of vehicles and pedestrians. There are currently two ways of accessing Union Street from Prince Edward Street and vice versa at this intersection (see Figure 1). The two ways are separated by a traffic island. The upgrade of the intersection provided an opportunity to review and improve this situation. ANALYSIS Benefits of Proposed Change The upgrade of the intersection of Union Street, Carmarthen Street and Prince Edward Street includes a plan to reduce the south- west -most section of Prince Edward Street to a one -way street in the south -west direction (see Figure 2). This proposed change, which requires an amendment to the Traffic By -Law, has two main benefits as described in the following paragraphs: Benefit 1: This change would reduce the number of traffic movement conflicts by two. These conflicts are described below and are illustrated in Figure 1: (1) A vehicle intending to travel south on Prince Edward Street toward Union Street (on the east side of the traffic island) must yield to traffic already traveling north -east on Prince Edward Street. (2) A vehicle that is traveling north on Prince Edward Street (on the east side of the traffic island) that intends to turn north -east on Prince Edward Street must first yield to traffic already heading north -east on Prince Edward from the west side of the traffic island. 256 M & C 2008 -283 September 25, 2008 Page 2 Both of these conflicts would be removed with the proposed by -law change as illustrated by comparing Figure 1 with Figure 2. i Conniat (11 a�IP a�IP Conniat (2) 0eeti e eeti Q`\c� tic N Q.c� tic iii •• � uIIN�. pIV� iIVV IJr of S'tree' Union Street Figure 1: Current Traffic Movements Figure 2: Proposed Traffic Movements between Union Street and Prince between Union Street and Prince Edward Street Edward Street Benefit 2: A vehicle traveling east on Union Street that intends to make the first left -turn to Prince Edward Street is stopped in close proximity to the intersection of Union Street and Waterloo Street until a break in Union's westerly traffic permits the movement. Operators making this left -turn tend to move close to the street centre -line to permit other vehicles to pass on the right. However, wide vehicles or drivers unfamiliar with the area can block traffic back to the Union/Waterloo intersection until the left -turn is possible. Vehicles would no longer be permitted to make this movement with the proposed by -law change. The second left -turn movement from Union Street to Prince Edward Street, which would remain with the proposed change, would have a protected movement from vehicles traveling west on Union Street with an advanced Green light as part of installation of traffic signals at the Union/ Carmarthen/ Prince Edward intersection. Community Input Titus Bakery and the Salvation Army are located on the south -west section of Prince Edward Street where the change to one -way traffic is proposed. City staff sought input and received positive support for the proposed change from both. 257 M & C 2008 -283 September 25, 2008 Page 3 Support from City Solicitor A By -law amendment has been prepared by the City Solicitor who also submitted a report to Council at this session of Council with the said amendment attached in proper form. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council amend the Traffic By -Law, Schedule "D" — One Way Streets, by adding Prince Edward Street, from the most westerly point of Prince Edward Street extending 50 metres northeasterly, in the south- westerly direction. Respectfidly submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager 258 September 25, 2008 Common Council of The Citv of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Saint John Traffic By -Law Amendment - The intersection Union Street, Carmarthen Street and Prince Edward Street We have been advised by staff from the Municipal Operations Department that an upgrade to the intersection of Union Street, Carmarthen Street and Prince EdNvard Street is planned to commence in the next couple of Nveeks. Municipal Operations staff have informed us that in conjunction Nvith the foregoing upgrade, Council Neill receive at its scheduled meeting of September 29 "', 2008 a recommendation by the City Manager to amend the Saint John Traffic By -law. The upgrade Nvill soon be completed Nvere told and consequently dealing Nvith the amendment is especially time sensitive. Accordingly and in anticipation of Council's dealing Nvith the prepared amendment at its meeting of September 29`h, 2008, Nve have prepared the text thereof. Section 113(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M -17, authorizes local authorities (a "local authority" includes a municipality) to regulate the designation of particular highNvays as one -Nvay highNvays and require all vehicles thereon be moved in one specific direction. Section 113(1)(h) of the said Act also authorizes local authorities to regulate or prohibit the turning of vehicles or specified types of vehicles at intersections. Section 10 of the Saint John Traffic By -law sets out in Schedule "D" one -Nvay streets and the movement of all vehicles thereon. Among the streets currently listed in Schedule "D" — "One -Wav Streets ", the intersection of Union Street, Carmarthen Street and Prince EdNvard Street is not listed and this amendment Neill result in the desired change. The submitted proposed amendment may by given first and second reading if Common Council v shes. Respectfully submitted, John L. Nugent Citv Solicitor Attachment 259 A BY -LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING TRAFFIC ON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1973, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES RUES DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN EDICTE CONFORMEMENT A LA LOI SUR LES VEHICULES A MOTEUR (1973) ET MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors dune reunion du conseil municipal, The Citv of Saint John as follows: The Citv of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit : A By -law of The Citv of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Traffic On Streets In The Citv of Saint John Made Under The Authoritv of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto ", enacted on the 19`h day of December, A.D. 2005, is hereby amended as follov s: 1 Schedule D — One Way Streets is amended by adding the following Nvords under the following headings: Streets Limits Direction Prince Edward From the most South - westerly St. westerly point of Prince Edward Street extending 50 metres Northeasterly IN WITNESS WHEREOF The Citv of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said Citv to be affixed to this by -law the day of September, A.D., 2008 signed bv: Par les presentes, Farrete de The City of Saint John intitule « Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The Citv of Saint John edicte conformement a la Loi sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et modifications afferentes », decrete le 19 decembre 2005, est modifie comme suit: 1 L'annexe D — Rues a sens uniques est modifiee par Fadjonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Rues Limites Direction rue Prince A partir dun point Sud -ouest Edward situe le plus a Fouest de la rue Prince Edv and jusqu'a 50 metres plus loin en direction nord -est EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau municipal sur le present arrete le septembre 2008, avec les signatures suivantes Mavor /Maire Common Clerk/greffiere communale First Reading - Premiere lecture - Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture - Third Reading - Troisieme lecture - 260 M & C 2008 - 297 September 25, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: CONTRACT NO. 2008 -36 ONE MILE HOUSE INTERCHANGE — MUNICIPAL SERVICES MODIFICATIONS BACKGROUND The City of'Saint Olin The New Brunswick Department of Transportation ( NBDOT) is designing and constricting an interchange project at the One Mile House location . The total estimated cost is $45 Million ($37 Million for the stricture and $8 Million for the road work). The project funding is scheduled over a four year period. Constriction work identified for 2008/ 2009 includes: • Portion of east bound and west bound exits from Highway 41 • Soil reinforcement utilizing "Geopier" technology in the area of Russell Street and Marsh Creek • Relocation of utilities and City services in the Rothesay Avenue/ Russell Street area. The relocation of City services (water, sanitary and storm infrastructure) is necessary to make way for the constriction of the interchange stricture and its foundations. The relocation work includes the supply of all necessary labour, materials and equipment for the installation of approximately 175m of 600mm watermain, 265m of various sizes of sanitary sewer, 175m of 450mm storm sewer and 400m of 400mm forcemain including all necessary appurtenances plus reinstatement. On September 9, 2008 the Minister of Transportation sent a letter addressed to the Mayor advising of the requirement for the relocation work and further that the NBDOT accepts responsibility for constriction costs associated with the work estimated at that time to be $900,000. The Province proposed that the City tender the relocation project, look after the contract administration and then invoice NBDOT for the constriction costs. 261 M& C 2008 —297 September 25, 2008 Page 2 TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on September 24, 2008, with the following results: Galbraith Constriction Ltd., Saint John, NB $ 1,484,797.40 2. Gulf Operators Ltd., Saint John, NB $ 1,707,800.64 The Engineer's estimate for the work was $896,592.85. ANALYSIS Timing of the relocation work is critical to maintaining the overall Interchange project on schedule. The contract requires the relocation work including reinstatement of asphalt to be completed on or before December 19, 2008. Tenders closed on September 24, 2008 and were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The low tender was submitted by Galbraith Constriction in the amount of $1,484,797.40. The tender amount was $588,204.55 ($1,484,797.40 - $896,592.85) greater than the Engineer's estimate prepared by the design consultant ADI Limited on behalf of NBDOT. ADI Limited has prepared a letter to NBDOT and the City (copy attached) recommending the contract be awarded to Galbraith Constriction and stating "The results of the Tenders were higher than anticipated. A review of the Tender prices indicate an increase in all unit prices versus specific Tender items when compared to the Engineer's estimate. The prices appear to reflect a level of costing based on the risk and tight constriction schedule required given the location of work. It is for this reason that the tendered costs are justifiable to have this work done by December 19, 2008." Staff have been in contact with ADI and NBDOT throughout the design and tendering process. Staff from NBDOT have advised they are in agreement with the consultants recommendation for award to Galbraith and have agreed to forward a revised letter to the Mayor indicating the Province will reimburse the City for the full amount of the constriction costs estimated at $1,484,797.40. The City will be responsible to make the interim progress payments to the Contractor and then invoice the Province for reimbursement of constriction costs. Staff propose that Council approve the addition of three projects to the 2008 Capital Program under "other share" as follows in order to track the costs: 2008 General Fund Capital Program, Storm category ($395,000); 2008 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program, Infrastructure Renewal Water category ($275,000) and 2008 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program, Infrastructure Renewal Sanitary category ($820,000). The above projects will increase the overall General Fund Capital Program envelope amount by $395,000 and the overall Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program envelope amount by $1,095,000. 262 M& C 2008 —297 September 25, 2008 Page 2 As outlined above, financing of the additional projects will only be on an interim basis as the Province has agreed to reimburse the City for constriction costs in a timely manner. The only costs to the City should be for staff time to manage the relocation project. POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy for the tendering of constriction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific project specifications. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that: 1. Common Council approve three additional projects in the 2008 Capital Programs as follows: • General Fund Capital Program — Storm Category; Russell Street — Storm in the amount of $395,000 under "other share" • Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Program — Infrastructure Renewal Water Category; Russell Street - Water in the amount of $275,000 under "other share" • Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Program — Infrastructure Renewal Sanitary Category; Russell Street — Sanitary in the amount of $820,000 under "other share" 2. Contract No: 2008 -36: One Mile House Interchange — Municipal Services Modifications, be awarded to the low tenderer, Galbraith Constriction Ltd., at the tendered price of $1,484,797.40 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. Commissioner City Manager Municipal Operations & Engineering 263 ACILNU September 24, 2,008 (65) 0600 - 514.1 / x,1.1 ADI Limited City of Saint John Engineering, Cans ulhng, Procurernent 175 Rothesay Ave. and Pioject Nlana,geimnt P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4LI ATTENTION: Dean Price, P.Eng. RE: Contract No. 2008 - 36 - One Mile House Interchange Municipal Services Modifications is pk • Tenders for the above-noted project were received by the City of Saint John's Purchasing Agent up until 2:30 pm, September 24, 2008 at which time the Tenders were opened publicly. 'T B I? S N [A N A G.F, ONI 1) NI Two Tenders were received, both in accordance with the City of Saint John's Tendering Policy for Construction Contracts, Details of the Tenders are attached and a summary is given below, C\J Tenderer Tender Price (inn HST) Galbraith Construction Ltd. $ 1,484,797.40 Gulf Operators Ltd, $ 1,707,800.64 The results of the Tenders were higher than anticipated. A review of the Tender 520 Somwset Street prices indicate an increase in all unit prices versus specific Tender items when Saint,Johri, NB E2K 2Y7 compared to the Engineer's estimate. The prices appear to reflect a level of costing GanadR based on the risk and tight construction schedule required given the location of work. Telephone: 506.64 6.8020 It is for this reason that the tendered costs are justifiable to have this work done by Fax; 50 6,646.8025 December 15, 2008, E-n,iad: saintjohn@adi.ca The Engineer's estimate was $896,592.85 (incl. HST). Based on our review of the Tenders it is recommended that the contract be awarded OIUR MISSM-1 to Galbraith Construction Ltd. in the amount of S 1,484,797.40 (incl. HST). SUCCOSS ifirougli Yours truly, satistied err storners, / ep Richard Smith, P.Eng, Encl. www,adl.ca cc Brian Keenan, City of Saint John Mike Taylor, NBDOT M & C 2008 — 294 September 25, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Im CONTRACT NO. 2008 -34: BRUNSWICK DRIVE AND PAUL HARRIS STREET — WATERMAIN AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND The 2008 General Fund and Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Programs include funding for the reconstruction of Brunswick Drive and Paul Harris Street (including the constriction of a dedicated left turn lane from Paul Harris Street onto Crown Street) and the installation of new sewer and watermain. The work consists generally of the supply of all necessary labour, materials and equipment for the constriction of approximately 280m of 400mm watermain, 10m of 300mm sanitary sewer, 20m of 600mm sanitary sewer, 50m of 300mm storm sewer, 130m of 450mm storm sewer, 55m of 525mm storm sewer and 110m of 600mm storm sewer (including 200mm catch basin leads). The work also includes 1100m of concrete curb, 2000m2 of concrete sidewalk, 3550 m3 of imported pit run gravel, 1200 m3 of imported crushed gravel base, 1050 tonnes of asphalt concrete base course (type "B" mix), 550 tonnes of asphalt concrete surface course (type "D" mix), 180 m3 of topsoil, 1800m2 of nursery sod, 28 trees, 28m2 of Allan Block retaining wall, 65m of new chain link fencing (including a new gate) and other related work. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on September 23, 2008 with the following results: 1) Galbraith Constriction Ltd., Saint John, NB $1,430,224.05 2) Fairville Constriction Ltd., Saint John, NB $1,441,648.35 3) Lafarge Canada Inc., Saint John, NB $1,644,664.15 4) Gulf Operators Ltd., Saint John, NB $1,680,904.38 The Engineer's estimate for the work was $1,635,073.84. 265 M & C 2008 -294 September 25, 2008 Page 2 ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Contract includes work that is charged against the 2008 General Fund Capital Program and the Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. Assuming award of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes the estimated amount of work that will be performed by City forces and Others. The analysis concludes that a total amount of $1,415,000.00 was provided in the budgets for this project and that the projected completion cost of the project is estimated to be $1,456,555.95, including the City's eligible HST rebate - a $20,011.86 negative difference in the General Fund Capital Program and a $21,544.09 negative difference in the Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. In order to ensure the City received competitive bids for the Brunswick Drive and Paul Harris Street project, the completion date was specified as August 31, 2009. After award of the tender, the City will receive a schedule from the contractor which will indicate the portion of work (if any) that is to be completed in 2008. POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy for the tendering of constriction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific project specifications. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Contract 2008 -34: Brunswick Drive and Paul Harris Street — Watermain and Storm Sewer Installation and Street Reconstruction be awarded to the low tenderer, Galbraith Constriction Ltd., at the tendered price of $1,430,224.05 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and fi rther, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfi lly submitted, M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager 266 . ................ ............ ..... ------------- 1111mumommills City Hall 15 Market Scluare September 22, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Fellow Councillors, Re: Standing Committee System R 0 � B o G 97 Sairit )ohll Nem BrLuiswick Caiiada E21, 4111 City of Saint 101111 Background Implementation of a standing committee system has been discussed on a number of occasions by Common Council. A comprehensive model and discussion paper were presented by staff to the pervious Council dealing with the structure, operation, merits and drawbacks of using a standing committee governance system. Staff are proposing that a teach-in be held with the new Council to review this information and address any issues that may arise. Council will then be in a better position to make an informed decision on whether or not to proceed. Sufficient lead time is required to finalize the committee mandates, implement the required bylaw changes and set up the appropriate support systems should Council decide to proceed. For this reason a teach-in is proposed for early October. Recommendation That Common Council schedule a special meeting in open Committee-of-the-Wbole for Saturday, October 4`h or Thursday, October 9th, 2008 to hold a teach-in on the Committee system. Respectfully Submitted City Manager 267 M & C 2008 - 288 September 23, 2008 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Designation of Municipal Personnel as Inspectors - Clean Water Act PURPOSE Im The purpose of this report is to share a copy of the invitation and to invite Your Worship, Members of Common Council to attend the drinking water event being presented by the New Brunswick Department of Environment entitled; "Designation of Municipal Personnel as Inspectors under the Clean Water Act ". This session will be held on the morning of Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at the Saint John Free Public Library located at 1 Market Square, Saint John, commencing at 9:15 am. BACKGROUND One of the three services Saint John Water provides is the Drinking Water Service which includes the provision of safe, good quality potable water to residential, institutional, municipal, commercial and industrial customers. Currently, drinking water receives limited treatment only; coarse screening, disinfection (chlorination) and fluoridation. The supply of quality, safe drinking water is essential to life and good health. As such, Saint John Water is striving to achieve higher levels of treatment, sustainable use of water resources and fiurther protection of the watersheds; all with the goal of attaining high quality drinking water standards. Watershed Management is a program within the Drinking Water Service. The goal of this program is: "To Protect the drinking irater sources f -om adverve igffltences of h1tman heingv and nature and to maintain the environmental sustainabi%ity of those iratervhedv through sound management of irater, land, )res ts and iqf -- structure irit in each iratervhed. " •i M & C 2008 — 288 September 23, 2008 Page 2 Watersheds are the first protective barrier in the multi- barrier approach. Sustainability and protection of watersheds are vitally important therefore proactively enforcing watershed protection standards, renewing infrastructure, putting in place safety features, monitoring watershed activity, educating the public and dealing with illegal dumping all form part of the effort to ensure safe, clean drinking water. Saint John Water over the past five years has invested considerable amounts of ratepayer dollars in capital projects and purchases. In total, over the five years (2003 to 2008) approximately $2.195 million has been budgeted to acquire watershed lands, design facilities to protect the watershed from highway hazards and to evaluate existing strictures. These investments are for purposes of protecting the watershed for the users of today and for future generations. Protecting Saint John's watersheds is far more effective and less costly than removing contaminants after they are introduced to the system. This half -day session will include details on the Watershed Protected Area Designation Order, the WelJfield Protected Area Designation Order, as well as the roles and powers of a Designated Inspector under the Clean Water Act. Each attendee will receive an identification card. This event provides Council an opportunity to learn more about protecting our watersheds (and wellfields) which supply drinking water for the majority of the citizens of Saint John. This report is being provided for the information of Council and to extend an invitation to attend the "Designation of ninnicipal personnel as inspectors under the Clean Water Act" session. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering 269 Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager Planning Advisory Committee July 30, 2008 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: Proposed Forest Hills Estates Subdivision - Phase 4 40 Mountain View Drive city, of "paint John The Committee considered the attached report at its July 29, 2008 meeting. This letter deals with the proposed subdivision. It should be noted that the Committee's recommendation with respect to the rezoning of the property was the subject of a separate letter from the Committee to Council. Messrs. Bob and Scott Darling attended the meeting on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Bob Darling indicated his agreement with the recommendation in the staff report with respect to the proposed subdivision of the site. A large number of people from the surrounding area attended the meeting in opposition to the proposal. Don Watson (77 Garnett Road and on behalf of the "Myles Subdivision Ratepayers Association "), Deborah Watson (77 Garnett Road), Darlene Bonner (8 Silverstone Street), Heather Barrieau (100 Garnett Road and on behalf of the ratepayers association), Brian Hersey (no address stated), and Maureen Smith (on behalf of the Highmeadow Park North Homeowners' Association) all addressed the Committee. The speakers were all opposed to the proposed four- storey condominium apartment buildings and most also objected to the proposed extension of Westbrook Drive to Mountain View Drive, as well as to the proposed connection of Colter Street' to Garnett Road. Concerns included traffic, compatibility of the development with the existing neighbourhoods, design and height of the development, the location and shape of the land for public purposes (LPP), the possibility of the development becoming low income housing, drainage, water pressure and lack of a buffer adjacent to Highmeadow Park. Most of the speakers indicated that they would only be in favour of the development of one - family dwellings with no vehicular connection to the Westbrook Avenue or Garnett Road. In addition to the report and presentations, the Committee received a large number of written submissions and petitions, copies of which are attached. ' It should be noted that, subsequent to completion of the attached report, the applicant advised that his surveyor had spelled Colter Street incorrectly on the tentative subdivision plan as Coulter Street. The meeting was advised of this correction in spelling. References to the street in the Committee's recommendation use the correct spelling, as desired by the applicant. ttttllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 270 Planning Advisory Committee July 30, 2008 Page 2 After considering the report and presentations, the Committee decided to recommend that Common Council not assent to the subdivision plan as proposed. An alternate plan should be prepared to accommodate the development of dwelling units with access only from Mountain View Drive and/or Colter Street (i.e. no street connections to Westbrook Avenue or Garnett Road). RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council not give its assent to the submitted Forest Hills Estates Subdivision, Phase 4 subdivision plan. Respectfully submitted, *At Bernie tgenbogen Third Member of Executive Attachments Project No. 08 -255 271 Planning and Development P.O. Box/C.P. 1971 Urbanisme et developpement Saint John, NB/N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 www.sainijohn.ca DATE: JULY 25, 2008 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR: MEETING OF JULY 29, 2008 Randall G. Pollock, - Pr Planner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: North Star Holdings Ltd. Name of Owner: North Star Holdings Ltd. Location: 40 Mountain View Drive PID: 313429 and 426452 The City of Saint John "Cr. Municipal Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Existing: "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential Proposed: "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential Proposal: To undertake a residential subdivision development consisting of two - family dwellings and apartment buildings Type of Application: Rezoning, subdivision, conditional use (dwelling group), and variance to permit the proposed apartment complex to have three driveways on proposed Coulter Street, whereas the Zoning By -law permits a maximum of two driveways per frontage. 272 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 2 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 JURISDICTION OF COMMTTEE: 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 Tuesday, August 5, 2008. The Act also authorizes the Committee to advise Common Council concerning the creation of public streets and land for public purposes (LPP) in conjunction with the subdivision of land. In addition, the Subdivision By -law authorizes the Committee to approve the names of new streets in a subdivision. The Zoning By -law authorizes the Committee to impose terms and conditions upon the development of a dwelling group in the "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential zone. Finally, the Community Planning Act also authorizes the Committee to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Zoning By -law. Conditions can be imposed by the Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMNIITTEE: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 5.6 hectares, located at 40 Mountain View Drive, also identified as being PID Nos. 313429 and 426452, from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential. 2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the development and use of the parcel of land located on the north side of proposed Coulter Street with an area of approximately 2.4 hectares, being proposed Lot 08 -1, also identified as being portions of PID Nos. 313429 and 426452, is subject to the following terms and conditions: a) The use of Lot 08 -1 is limited to a maximum of three separate buildings containing a total maximum of 168 dwelling units, together with associated amenity areas and parking facilities; b) The developer must design and implement a detailed site drainage plan/brief, subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate, indicating the manner in which storm water collection and disposal will be handled; c) The developer must complete an engineering water and sewer analysis in order to determine the impact this development will have on the existing water and sewer 273 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 3 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 infrastructure and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing systems; d) The developer must provide a traffic study demonstrating that the existing street network can accommodate the volume of traffic anticipated as a result of the development, or appropriate infrastructure improvements be implemented at the expense of the developer to the satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; e) The developer must pave all parking areas, loading areas, manoeuvring areas and driveways with asphalt and enclose them with cast -in -place concrete curbs to protect the landscaped areas and to facilitate proper drainage; f) The developer must provide all utilities underground on the site; g) The developer must landscape all disturbed areas of the site not occupied by buildings, driveways, walkways and parking areas; h) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan, landscaping plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, exterior building materials and finishes, landscaped areas and other site features; i) The approved plans mentioned in conditions (b) and (h) must be attached to the application for building permit for the development, except that such plans are not required for permit applications for site preparation; j) All site improvements (excluding landscaping), street work and extensions of municipal services and utilities must be completed prior to the occupation of any building on the site; and the landscaping must be completed within one year of building permit approval; That, if and when third reading is given to the rezoning mentioned in 1 above, Common Council: a) assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the submitted Forest Hills Estates Subdivision — Phase 4, located at 40 Mountain View Drive (PID Nos. 313429 and 426452), with respect to the vesting of the proposed public streets, land for public purposes (LPP) and any required municipal services easements or public utility easements, except that the LPP dedication shall include a minimum 1- metre -wide strip of land along the street line of Mountain View Drive to prevent direct access to lots in the subdivision, and a decrease in the size of the LPP on the south side of Coulter Street in order to permit Lots 1 & 2 -C and 3 & 4 -C to front onto Coulter Street rather than onto Mountain View Drive; 274 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 4 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 b) authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City /developer subdivision agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate. 4. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the name Coulter Street. That the Planning Advisory Committee impose no additional terms and conditions upon the development of a dwelling group on proposed Lot 08 -1. 6. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant the necessary variance to permit Lot 08 -1 to have up to three driveways on Coulter Street. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering provides the following comments: • Detailed engineering drawings must be submitted to the City. • The water requirements for this proposed development will have to be fed from the existing Cottage Hill Zone. Capacity and fire flow requirements will have to be verified once a detailed submission is provided by the developer's engineering consultant. Currently the City is reviewing this system and will be able to provide more information to the developer once it is determined by the developer what the requirements will be for this development. The City must have from the developer's engineering consultant what the expected average and peak water consumption flows will be from this proposed development. Once this information is provided, the City can confirm if the capacity is available. • Water connections for this proposed development would be from the 250 mm diameter high pressure water main on Mountain View Drive. Any new water mains installed must be interconnected to existing to make sure that there are no dead -ended water mains. • The developer must provide a site drainage plan indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled. • The developer must provide a traffic study to determine if the volume of traffic can be handled by the existing City streets. • An engineering water and sewer analysis must be completed in order to determine the impact this development will have on existing water and sewer infrastructure and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing systems. • Upgrades to existing infrastructure by the developer may be required. Detailed engineering plans must be submitted prior to determining the exact nature of any required upgrades. • Currently there are other significant developments proposed in this area and all are adding to the existing water and sewer system and subsequent capacity issues. The current Cottage Hill Zone (water) requires some upgrades and is currently being studied by a 275 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 5 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 consultant retained by the City. Until completion of the study, it is uncertain as to what required upgrades are necessary and how it may impact this subdivision. Additionally, wastewater flows generated by this development would need to be reviewed to determine if the existing pumping station(s) is /are capable of handling the additional capacity that this type of development would generate. As well, sewer system upgrades in this area may be required. This would have to be identified and if upgrades are required to handle the capacities generated, this must be completed prior to the addition of any flows. The City is currently reviewing these systems but will require detailed engineering plans to determine how and where sewage is to be collected and transported. • All grades for water and sewer systems must be verified by the developer's engineering consultant. • The developer shall be responsible for the installation of all concrete curb, sidewalk and asphalt pavement, landscaping and underground utilities. • Garnett Road and the proposed Coulter Street would have to be constructed and connected in accordance with applicable street standards. • Proposed Westbrook Avenue extension would have to be constructed and connected to the existing Westbrook Avenue in accordance with applicable street standards. • As per the application, three driveway locations are requested for the condominiums on the proposed Coulter Street. Locations should be submitted on the engineering plans to be submitted. Building and Technical Services has no comment. Saint John Transit advises that it provides significant service on Mountain View Drive with the Champlain Lakewood bus. Saint John Energy has been advised of the proposal. Aliant Telecom advises that it has no issues with the proposal. Aliant will work jointly with the developer and Saint John Energy as this development transpires. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline has no objection. Enbridge Gas N.B. has been advised of the proposal. Leisure Services has been advised of the proposal. Fire Department has been advised of the proposal. School District No. 8 has been advised of the proposal. 276 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 6 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 ANALYSIS: Site and Neighbourhood The subject site consists of two large undeveloped parcels of land on the east side of Mountain View Drive in the Forest Hills area of East Saint John. The site has a total area of approximately 5.6 hectares (13.8 acres) and extends from Mountain View Drive easterly to Garnett Road. To the south of the site are the Highmeadow Park and Silver Falls residential areas, consisting of townhouses and one - family dwellings, respectively. The land to the north of the site, extending approximately % kilometre to the original section of Forest Hills subdivision, is undeveloped land that is designated for additional future residential development. The land on the opposite side of Mountain View Drive from the subject site includes newer homes on Carlile Crescent and Casey Crescent, as well as the recently developed Canada Revenue Agency offices at the intersection of Mountain View and McAllister Drives. Proposal The applicant has requested that the subject site be rezoned from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential in order to permit a proposed subdivision of the land for a mix of two - family dwellings and condominium apartment buildings. The proposed subdivision includes an extension of Westbrook Avenue to Mountain View Drive, as well as a new public street (proposed name Coulter Street) that would connect Mountain View Drive with Garnett Road. The total area of the site (including the proposed streets) is approximately 5.6 hectares (13.8 acres). Proposed Lot 08 -1 on the attached tentative plan has an area of 2.4 hectares (5.9 acres). It would be rezoned to "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential and developed with three condominium apartment buildings. Each building would be four storeys in height' and would have a total of 56 dwelling units (14 dwelling units per floor). The total number of units in all three buildings would therefore be 168 units. Surface parking is provided for 210 vehicles, which meets the Zoning By -law requirement of 1.25 spaces per unit. The development concept includes substantial yard areas that more than satisfy the minimum requirements for landscaped and useable open space areas on the site. The balance of the subject site would be rezoned to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential. The applicant proposes to create four two - family lots (8 units) fronting on the south side of proposed Coulter Street, two two - family lots (4 units) fronting on Mountain View Drive, and six two - family lots (12 units) fronting on the proposed extension of Westbrook Avenue. All of the lots are well above the minimum standards for the "R -2" One and Two Family Residential zone in terms of width, depth, area and yard requirements. Although two - family dwellings are already ' The applicant had initially proposed five - storey buildings but is now only proposing that they be four storeys in height. Anything over three storeys requires "RM -2" zoning. 277 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 7 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 permitted by the existing zoning, the applicant is requesting the change to "R -2" because the minimum side yard requirements are more consistent with the pattern of development in the urban areas of the City. It should be noted that the original part of Forest Hills lies within the "R- 2" zone and the lots on Carlile Crescent were rezoned to "R -2" when Carlile Crescent was developed a few years ago. The proposed subdivision of the site requires a minimum land for public purposes dedication of 10% of the "RM -2" area and 6% of the "R -2" area (exclusive of proposed streets), resulting in a total LPP requirement of 3445 square metres (0.85 acres) for this development. The applicant is proposing to provide a 4090- square -metre (one -acre) parcel on the south side of proposed Coulter Street. The proposed LPP will provide a buffer between the new street and the rear lot lines of the existing houses on Westbrook Avenue. It will also provide for a pedestrian link between proposed Coulter Street and the end of Myles Drive. In addition to Common Council approval of the proposed rezoning, the proposal requires the following approvals: • Common Council assent to the subdivision plan with respect to the proposed streets, land for public purposes (LPP) and any required municipal services easements and public utility easements; • Common Council authorization of a City /developer subdivision agreement to ensure the provision of the required street and servicing work; • Planning Advisory Committee approval of the proposed street name rue Coulter Street. • Planning Advisory Committee approval of a variance from the general requirements of the Zoning By -law, to permit the proposed condominium complex to have three driveways on the Coulter Street frontage, whereas the Zoning By -law permits a maximum of two driveways per frontage. Proposed Rezonins The subject site and surrounding area are designated Low Density Residential by the Municipal Plan. The Plan's policies for low density residential areas provide for a wide range of housing, including a mix of one and two- family dwellings, townhouses and apartments, up to a maximum overall net neighbourhood density of 38 units per hectare (15 units per acre). While the proposal for the subject site results in a net density of approximately 46 units per hectare (19 units per acre), when the larger developed area is considered the overall density of the neighbourhood will remain well within the Plan's guidelines. The proposed "R -2" zoning for the majority of the site is appropriate and, as noted above, matches the current zoning of Carlile Crescent, as well as that of the older section of Forest Hills. The proposed "RM -2" zoning for Lot 08 -1, and subsequent development of four- storey condominiums, will introduce another housing option for the area in close proximity to the Westmorland/McAllister Regional Centre. The location adjacent to Mountain View Drive, which 278 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 8 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 functions as a residential collector off of a major arterial, results in traffic not having to pass through the lower density residential streets in order to reach the condominiums. While the proposed rezoning can be supported, it is recommended that the "RM -2" zoning of Lot 08 -1 be subject to Section 39 conditions limiting the use of the property and tying the size of the development to the applicant's proposal in terms of maximum number of units and height of the buildings. Other recommended conditions include Development Officer approval of detailed site and building elevation plans to ensure a high quality development is realized. In this regard, the developer should consider changes to the design of the buildings so that there is some variety in their footprints and/or orientations rather than having three long rectangular structures in a row. Similarly, the three proposed parking areas should be redesigned so they do not have the appearance of long monotonous rows of parking. If the rezoning is approved, staff will work with the developer in this regard. Features such as paving and curbing of driveways and parking areas, underground utilities, landscaping of all disturbed areas of the site not occupied by the buildings and parking, and preparation of a site drainage plan should also be required. These are all normal requirements for new developments in the fully serviced urban areas of the City. In addition to these normal requirements, Municipal Operations and Engineering has requested that the developer prepare and submit a traffic study to determine if the volume of traffic generated by the development can be handled by the existing City streets. This requirement is also included as one of the proposed Section 39 conditions. Proposed Subdivision As noted above, the developer proposes to extend Westbrook Avenue to Mountain View Drive and create a new public street (Coulter Street), which would connect Mountain View Drive with the end of Garnett Road. The proposed street layout is logical and appropriate for the development of the site, providing frontage on a public street for all of the proposed lots. However, two of the proposed two - family dwellings are proposed to front on Mountain View Drive. This arrangement is not recommended. The lots fronting on Mountain View Drive should be reoriented to front on Coulter Street, which will probably result in the LPP parcel havir. g to be reduced in size to achieve the same number of units. It is also recommended that a one -metre wide strip of LPP be provided along Mountain View Drive, similar to the arrangement in Eastwood Park that prevents direct access to individual lots off Heather Way. The proposed name, Coulter Street, has been reviewed by staff and is considered to be sufficiently different in sound and spelling from existing street names in the region. Therefore, the proposed street name can be approved. The proposed streets will be required to be constructed with an asphalt surface, concrete sidewalk and curbing, along with underground public utilities and full municipal services (i.e. municipal 279 North Star Holdings Ltd. Page 9 40 Mountain View Drive July 25, 2008 water, sewer and storm). In addition, upgrading of Garnett Road will be required. Municipal Operations and Engineering has indicated that the Developer's agreement will need to verify that the existing services can accommodate the residential development. Detailed engineering plans will be required for the approval of the Chief City Engineer, which will be attached to the agreement. The Subdivision By -law automatically provides for cost sharing of piped services within the subdivision. The proposed LPP parcel will provide a buffer between the existing lots on Westbrook Avenue and the condominium area. This area would likely remain in its natural state, although there is an opportunity for pedestrian access between Coulter Street and the end of Myles Drive. The recommendation includes all the necessary assents and approvals for the proposed subdivision. Conditional Use In addition to the above approvals, the proposed development of Lot 08 -1 is considered under the Zoning By -law to be a dwelling group, which is a conditional use (i.e. subject to review by the Planning Advisory Committee for the imposition of possible additional terms and conditions) in the "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential zone. As the development is and will continue to be subject to conditions pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, it is not considered necessary for the Committee to impose an additional set of conditions. Proposed Variances for Driveways on Lot 08 -1 The applicant has proposed that each of the three condominium buildings have its own driveway off Coulter Street. This would be permitted if each building were on a separate lot, as the Zoning By -law permits one driveway per lot frontage. The number of driveways may be increased to two when the lot has a frontage of over 75 metres. In the present case, the Lot 08 -1 is permitted to have only two driveways on Coulter Street. However, the frontage is approximately 190 metres, which is substantially more than double the 75 metres required for two driveways. Given the extensive frontage of the site and the fact that no driveways are proposed on the Mountain View Drive frontage, approval of the request variance is recommended. CONCLUSION: The proposed development will provide for a mix of residential uses in an area that is designated for further residential development. Approval of the proposal with some minor modifications is recommended. RGP /r Project No. 08 -255 WE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTIURBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT R-2 IL -2 US I- I O US S� J `L y h s` 0 i a � a .,��, W� rook AV ...w. _ d � _ 7 `oM 4a Y • h6 _ T4 iV ' I D Subject Site/site en question: PID(s)INIP(s): 00313429 00426452 Location: 40, promenade Mountain View Road Date: June 16 juin 2008 Scalelechelle: Not to scale /Pas a I'echelle 281 Ll r Y.YY s lip �a 4- / XX / / Nf 47r.� 3e aAIJQ BaIXVI q ;: �� 3 �aaJls / au°;BJaAI!S / f • s' o_, f 282 lu I7Q a -rill I TJ! ■ 1-110 Ir ,t, l 3! 9 �t ti 4111 A Al � x T 1 ! t 1 ;` S ti 14ga%1 1 �t �1r Ali +•by 282 lu I7Q a 0 TJ! ■ 1-110 Ir ,t, l 3! �t ti li 1 ' im M/25/1999 00:03 5525226 MILNER PAGE 02 PAUfine Mifner 153 Garnett Road Saint John, New Brunswick E2J 3C4 Phone {-%0 596-8071 Email gmilnerAMers.com July 23, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee ,City of Saint John P O Box 1971 Saint John, N.B. EM 4L1 RE: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivaion 40 Mountain View Drive Attention: Randall G. Pollock, MCIP, RPP Dear Mr. Pollock, ID JUL 24 2308 SAS In response to your correspondence dated July 11*, 2008 and our telephone converations on July 11 *, 2008, and July 12'x, 2008, I wish to make n quests and bring forward concerns regarding the proposed razoomg and subdivision development pert uumg to 40 Mountain View Drive. In specific regard to the proposed construction of rho semi- detached strictures, named f - D, 2 -D, 3-D and 4-D which will be approximately 20 feet from the back of my property, named Lot 724, and in specific regard to the proposed construction of 'Coulter Sftm -* which will be close to the aide of my property, named Lot 72-4: I request that the builder, North Star Holdings, namely Bob Darling, construct an opaque fe ace, to the height of 8 feet, made of wood material and aesthetically pleasing as to compliment the landscape surrounding my home. 'lie fence woutld only need to be placed along the back of my property and along the side whom the proposed `Coulter Street' is to be constructed. When I purchased my home in February, 1997, one of the main reasons was for privacy. In 2003,1 was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease complicated by severe Anemia_ Since dW time, I have remained at home as 1 am disabled. My son and I live alone and very much value the quietness of our M1 02/25/1999 00:03 6525228 MILNER 03 surroundings. Due to my disability, I sleep much of the time and my bedroom backs directly onto the proposed construction site, I do realize that some noise will have to be tolerated as construction takes place during the day, however, as those homes are occupied, I want to prevent people from entering onto my property, It is certainly very conceivable with the layout of nay property being such that there is a large area of cleared land beside my home that people may start using that area as a short curt. I certainly do not want to have to start chasing people off of my property and become known as a `nasty neighbour'. Also, is order to maintain our quality of life, I f=l it is important to retain as much privacy as possible. While I am sure it is not the intention of the builder to impede on the currant residents, I feel the request of erecting a fence is a small price to ask in order to develop the area. In specific regard to the proposed construction of `Coulter Street', which will be at the side of my property, named Lot — 72-4: • Them axe a group of toes along the side of my property at 153 Garnett Road, These trees are half on the City of Saint John's property and half on my property, 'They are the only mau= trees on the properly. It is my request that the trees not be cut down if the proposal goes forward to construct Coulter Street'. For the past eleven years, we have been cleaning out under the trees and have mmoved, with very much effort, huge old pieces of wood that had become an actual part of the ground. In the past few years, now that we have the area to the point when the ground is level and we have decorated it with rocks and with a shade garden, we have very much cn"ed sitting under the trees, the only shade which we have on out property. The tees do not occupy a large area and I hope they will not have to be sacrificed for the new proposed `Coulter Street' and my son and I thank you for your consideration. While I am not opposed to the proposed development, I do feel that there are some valid concerns that must be addressed before the development can proceed. It wound be appreciated if these concerns were thoroughly adjudicated as they are merited, The City of Saint John is currently assessing a drainage problem that has existed for some time in regards to my property. Briefly, all of the water that comes from the hill across the mad from my property located at 153 Garnett Road is draining across the road and directly onto my property causing damage. The City of Saint John has been aware of this drainage problem for over thm years. bast April, 2007, I had a telephone conversion with Shayne Galbraith, Director of Public Works, who assured me the matter 285 02/25/1999 00:03 6525228 MILNER PAGE 04 would be handled. A City of Saint John worker later advised me, in person, that engineering was handling the problem. As the problem went unresolved, the erosion of my property has gotten worse in the last year, thereby leading to a flood in the basement of my home on February 141s, 2008. Due to the substantial damage, this claim is currently being handled by the City's Insu anre Adjusters. The area of Garnett Road, in front of my home, is sloped in such a way that the water is draining onto my property. In addition, there is a etch basin directly across from my driveway that may or may not be capped off. It is in the area that the greatest erosion has occurred. If the catch basin is not capped ofZ the City needs to determine where the pipe is leading. If the pipe goes under my driveway and leads to somewhere else on my property, there could be substantial damage occurring tinder the ground which cannot be seen. This could possibly lead to the eventual collapse of portions of my property and perhaps even the foundation of the house itself. It is important that the developer be made aware of this issue before any construction begins and tbat the City fixes this problem before any earth is moved in the area. Any earth displacement that occurs before the drainage problem is fixed could destabilize my property, as it is built up, or could lead to a collapse of the foundation. If this problem is not corrected to my satisfaction before any construction or disturbance of the earth occurs, I must insist that the City of Saint John and the developer provide me with a written guarantee, signed by the appropriate engineers and verified by my own engineers, that no fiuther damage to my property will result. Also, I am sure the developer will not wish to proceed with any development until this problem its pmperly addressed as I certainly do not wish to see the developer come to any loss because of this drainage problem. If the developer requests, I am certainly willing to discuss this problem with them directly and they may contact me anytime at their convenience. • It should also be noted that the City has been aware of a collapsed culvert that is past my home at 153 Garnett Road for several years. Local residents filled the Collapsed end where there was a gaping We with gravel and rocks as the hole was large enough to cause an accident either by someone walking into the hole or by a bicycle wheel being caught causing the bike to flip. I, personally, asked Mr_ Chris Titus to forward this matter to city works, which he did, and the request was duly ignored. The city only recently came to mark where the collapsed culvert is, however they have still faded to fix the problem. :. o,c®/Z]J.L 7 YJd: V d bbZOZ2U MILNER Also, there are many times in the winter when Garnett Road is not plowed until early evening, wham the plows have been on the road since early morning. The plowing is seldom done well and many residemts can attest to the `cow path' of ice and snow that we have to deal with on a regular basis. Repeated calls for the street to be re- plowed meet on deaf ears. If the City of Saint John is going to construct a new street that connects to Garmett Road, the residents, including myself, would like to be sure that maintemce in the area will be a priority. The wooded and grassy area in the proposed development region has been a venerable home to some very uaiquc wildlife since I have been a resident at 153 Garnett Road. PAGE 05 There is a snowy owl, quite uncommon far this pant of Canada, wbo bas returned for the past several years to nest behind my home. We have seen him take flight many times while pursuing prey in the early morning hours and he is magnificent. As, to my knowledge, no Federal money is being allotted to this project, I realize the developer is not obligated to respect Federal, harvesting laws, but I do hope the developer will only harvest the trees in that area after the bird breeding season has ended. I am sure the owl will find another home close by when he mturins next year, but it would be a shame to disturb his habitat while he is here. In recent years, I have not seen the owl past the middle of October. Also, we have a number of peregrine faloons and bald eagles that frequent the area behind our home. It is my hope that the developer will take care not to disturb any nests they fired that may be occupied. We also have at least five deer that roany residents see on a regular basis. We even plant hastas and swiss chard for their enjoyment. The dea actually walk through our front yards and down the street on a regular basis. While we will be sorry that the development will likely make them skittish, we hope they will feel confident enough to rettun when for development is complete as there will still be a lot of wooded area here for them to enjoy. While I know it is important to promote new development in the City of Saint John and new construction usually adds value and encourages residency in the city. I simply would like the developer to be aware that this is a unique area for wildlife within the City and I hops their habitat will be infringed upon as little as possible' or at least at a time when they are able to easily find a new home, such as off-breeding season • Due to the fact that most, if not all, of the dwellings on Garnett Road, Josselyn Drive, Myles Drive, Westbrook Avenue and Silvemtone Avenue are single 287 02/25/1999 00:03 652522B MILNER PAGE 06 family homes, I would like the developer to consider constructing single family dwellings as opposed to duplexes to better fit in with the area. If duplexes are the only option, I would like the developer to address the issue as to why. There are already rows of townhouses in close proximity to our existing homes that require upgrading and I believe that staying with the single dwelling theme would be a better fit for the community. It is noted on the map that theme is Land for Public Purposes allotted between the backs of the homes on Westbrook Avenue and the proposed ` Couher Street', In order to maintain the exceptional view of the downtown and of the Harbour from my property and from surrounding properties, it should be specified in any agreement or zoning change that the allotted Land for Public Purposes cannot later be changed to allow for dwellings higher than two storeys. The view from any property adds to the quality of life and it is important to keep that view intact whenever possible. • There is no mention of sidewalks being conshwted on the propo3ed `Coulter Street,. With the proposal containing a plan for 56 condominium units, it would be Prudent for sidewalks to be installed for the safety of al l residents. Thane are already a lot of children in this am and with the influx potential of more children, their sa" has to be paramount ount to all involved. Upon reviewing the map, although it is hard to judge with the downsized vcrsion I received, it is still evident that the proposed `Coulter Street' will have at least two turns at the end of a long, straight stmtch. This feature alone should make it abundantly clear that sidewalks would be a must for this street. :: U2/15/1999 00:03 6525228 MILNER PAGE 07 Thank you for giving the the opportunity to submit my requests and concerns regarding this ntw subdivision development. Coping with a debilitating illness is made much easier when one is able to make their home one of which they are proud, as I have. My son and I spend as much time as possible improving our property and though we are somewhat saddened that we will lose some of the peace and tranquility that we have grown to cherish, I hope tic Committee, the Developer and the City will address our concerns with the same thought and consideration with which they have been presented. Thank yvu for your tune. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have or if further clarification is needed. It is my plan to attend both the Planning Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, July , th and the public hearing on Tuesday, August 51h if my health will allow. Sincerely, Pauline Milner :• 12 Westbrook Avenue Saint John, NB E23 3132 Tel: (506) 696 -6161 July 16, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John P O Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Dear Sirs /Madame: Regarding the rezoning of the proposed Lot 08 -1, for the construction of the four story condominium buildings, we would ask your consideration to make part of the rezoning to require that the lands for Public Purposes maintain the existing mature growth of trees. This will help to create a buffer, and to provide a degree of privacy from the tall buildings. Also, we would request that city staff review surface and storm drainage with regard to the extension of Westbrook Avenue. Currently there Is an existing 15" Storm Sewer which ends near the west side of our property, then crosses the corner of our property by ditch, and then flows across the area proposed for semi - detached dwellings by way of a natural drainage course to a culvert on Mountain View Drive. The surface drainage of our lot, as well as our footing drain flows to this swale. When this drainage course is disturbed by the construction of the proposed dwellings, an alternate method of controlling surface water must be constructed. (See sketch attached). With regards to changing Westbrook Avenue to a through street, we would appreciate it if staff could, In conjunction with utilities; address the low overhead service wires, As where it Is currently a dead -end we have had them pulled down from time to time, even by the city garbage truck. However, if a through street is created we could see this as a regular occurrence. We realize the storm drainage and overhead wires are not directly related to rezoning; however, we ask your committee to pass this along to the appropriate departments. Sincerely yours, John D. McAulay/Deborah i-. McAulay JDM :dIm Attachment r �F ! 290 M m w ' V— CO) ci i Y 3 of • • d AQ GuolrbiGNIS I i _71 f log t, ' 3 %qI 'Me� [Itp�U b 291 LLT-: 1_ 1-6 V ,hn a till 4.. l Robert & Shirley Rinehart 3 Lynn Avenue Saint John, New Brunswick July 7, 2009 Dear Members of Council and PAC for the City of Saint John: It has come to our attention that an application for rezoning of a section of Mountain View Drive has been made to the City of Saint John. I must say that this is yet again another deja vu experience for myself as well as the majority of my neighbours. This will be at least the fourth time, and probably more, that such an application has been made for the same general area of land and the second time for the exact same type of rezoning request. The difference this time? We are now tallcing about the land on the opposite side of the road, still within the same housing development area, still adjacent to the same neighbours. I don't understand why these requests continue to be entertained given that they have been heard previously and disallowed. Over the past few years residents in this neighborhood have spent a considerable amount of their time and money trying to protect their quality of life and the essence of the area in which they live. Presentations have been made to PAC and to the previous Council. Residents have met with the developer and have compromised on their position to allow some element of rezoning to occur, Despite these acts of good faith, we are again faced with the same request to build a multi -unit, multi - Ievel condominium (another word for apartments with the exception that they are owned as opposed to rented) in an area where single family homes are the norm. This is not in keeping with the single level garden homes and single family homes that have been built by the developer to date, not to mention the other homes which have existed for over 40 years as part of the Forest Hills subdivision. When the land was purchased I am sure the zoning was known. This zoning has been in place for many years and if it did not suit the developer's plans then the land should not have been purchased. Those of us who purchased our homes here knew the zoning of the area and made our purchase decisions on that basis. We, as a City, are constantly fighting to bring residents back within the City limits as opposed to having them reside in neighbouring communities, coming to town only to work or make use of our facilities but not contribute to the property tax base. I think that the residents in the area have been more than accommodating for development of Mountain View Drive. It is now time for you,our elected officials, to protect our quality of life as you have done for the residents of Monte Cristo (ride park) and Glen Falls (strip mall). Follow the zoning of the municipal plan. Do not alter the character of our subdivision by allowin for high rise, high density housing to be built. , 292 J0i� -E1; 3. 0 July 16, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, N.B. E2L 4L1 RE: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision 40 Mountain View Drive This letter is in response to the one that was received by my family in relation to the above rezoning request. We as residents of Silverstone Street STRONGLY OPPOSE the extension of Westbrook Avenue and Garnet Road. This small subdivision is primarily made up of seniors and we do not welcome or want the additional motor vehicle traffic, foot traffic or increased noise. We have lived in the area since 1976 and truly enjoy the peace and quiet we have come to know. As citizens of Saint John and taxpayers we are entitled to live quietly which is what is now being done in this subdivision. We also feel that this construction will decrease the value of our properties which is not something we should have to absorb. It is your job as representatives of the City of Saint John to deny this request and honor the wishes of the residents whom currently live in this area. To do otherwise is a blatant overuse of your power. Darlele T-. A 8 Silverstone 293 R ' A r �I F CkAu� t� i-L �- ,ed . �t 294 9 295 DE RECEPIE FI July 15, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee, City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, N.B. E2L 4L1 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is an acknowledgment of receipt of your correspondence dated July 11, 2008 regarding the proposed rezoning and subdivision 40 Mountain View Drive by North Star Holdings Ltd. Please be advised that we are opposed to this development in our neighborhood for several reasons. When my wife and I decided on building a home on Carlile Cres, it was because of the family style surroundings that the neighborhood depicted along with the country backdrop of the wooded areas that surrounded the neighborhood. This created a nice buffer zone from the busy traffic areas of Loch Lomond Road and McAllister Drive. Almost daily we could look out our front window and see deer running throag}1 the yards adding to the atmosphere. With the continuing development in our neighborhood, the sighting of wildlife has but almost vanished and it is sad to see their natural habitat being destroyed at a continuing rate. With the clearing of the wooded areas to make way for this new development our buffer zone will be gone. We have noticed that the water pressure in this area has been getting lower each year as development continues and we are afraid that this new construction will only make matters worse. Each day the vehicle traffic gets .heavier on Mountain View Drive. On many occasions there have been many near accidents where Mountain View Drive intersects with McAllister Drive. With the added residents of the new development, the traffic problem will only increase. This past year many of the residents experienced a problem with large rats infesting our neighborhood and coming into the yards while our children were outside playing. This caused such a problem that Mayor Norm McFarlane was contacted to ask for help from the City of Saint John. My wife and I hired a pest control company to come in and bait with poison which was costly to say the least. The pest control officer stated that his company was being kept very busy in this area due to the boom in development. It was his belief, echoed by ourselves, that all of the construction was uprooting the rats from their natural habitat thus causing the infestations in the neighborhoods. We are afraid of further rodent problems if this new development is permitted. Last but not least, we feel that adding glorified apartment buildings to a residential neighborhood is only going to urbanize and commercialize the area thus causing our property values to drop, but not our property taxes. Everyone knows that no one wants to buy any family home with an apartment complex staring down at them. North Star can call them Condos, but you well know that a condo is a fancy name for an apartment. I have seen it happen many times that the builders of these complexes get government kickbacks if they allot a percentage of their space for low income or subsidized housing, and we are concerned that this could happen in this case and again affect our property values. 296 3 -2- July 15, 2008 The bottom line is, we are greatly opposed to any father development, and if development is to occur it should only be for residential single family homes, not any form of town houses, two family, or apartment style condos. Another thing that needs to be addressed if development is allowed to occur is that Mountain Yew Drive needs to be upgraded with sidewalks and a set of traffic lights where it intersects with McAllister Drive and the water pressure and rodent issue needs to be addressed. Should development be permitted, I can guarantee you one thing; our home will be listed immediately for sale and we will be moving into the Quispamsis area where we can continue to raise our children in the family style, residential neighborhoods they have to offer. Sincerely, Craig & Nicole McRae 15 CARLILE CRES SAINT JOHN N.B. E2J 5C3 297 duly 20,2008 Dear SirlMadam: Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision 40 Mountain View Drive This letter is to notify you, the Planning Advisory Committee, that we (Doug & Pam MacLean), are "NOT" in favour of the rezoning of 40 Mountain View Drive from « -2" to «RM- 2,1 As home owners, at 6 Myles Drive, we have enjoyed "28" years of quiet living in our subdivision. Traffic within this area has been very light through out. these years. Your proposed rezoning will impact our area in several "negative" ways. -The 56 units of these three condo apartment buildings will, by themselves, unleash a very high volume of automobile traffic down our streets at all hours of the day & night. -The property values will be impacted negatively as many future home buyers coming into our neighbourhood will think twice before buying due to tie presence of these 4 story apartment units close by. We believe as city officials you represent our interests as, well as North Star Holdings and you will serve our interests' best by declining the rezoning for this land Yours T uy, CLC�LLGu,� L Doug & Pam MacLean P_..gJ .. y ��s ...................... JULY 21, 2008 ATTENTION: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT RE: PROPOSED REZONING & SUBDIVISION 40 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE JUL 21 20103 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the rezoning to allow condominium apartment buildings in this area. I believe a few years ago we had meetings with many people opposed to this on the other side of Mountain View Drive and my views have not changed in this regard. I feel that if this is allowed the value of my home and the surrounding homes would go down as I have talked with some people in the real estate business and they have advise me of this. We have also had an extremely bad problem with rodents in this area mainly rats (whereas they were in my driveway every day for months as the city was ad-vise on numerous occasions) and it seems like every time the land is disturbed it gets worse.. This area has been in the process of being dug over the past 5 years and is an ongoing situation which we as home owners have had to put up with. There is also a problem with water pressure in this area and if we have more homes or apartment buildings I believe this will be worse as they will be a greater demand on the water supply. As it is now sometimes the toilets do not fully fill up and the water pressure when having a shower or doing dishes it not what it should be. There is also an problem in this area with carpenters ants and I believe new home owners should be advised of this, I have had to have pest control in every year to my property. Another problem we have in this area is trying to get out onto McAllister Drive without any traffic lights, sometimes you sit there for a while without a break in traffic and with the construction of new homes or apartment buildings this will only get worse. The removal of more woods in this area is also not good for the deer, rabbits and other animals that live in this area. I moved to this area because I liked the fact that the area was full of woods and they are all slowly disappearing. In closing my largest concern is the value of my home and the rodents, I am strongly opposed to this rezoning as I believe many others will be also. Sincerely Michelle Saunders I I Carlile Crescent Saint John, N.B. 299 A A July 29, 2008 12 Lynn Avenue Saint John, NB E2J 2Z3 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John POBox1971 Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 RECEWW JUL 29 2008 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Advisory Committee: This letter is in reference to the rezoning application from North Star Holdings Ltd., to rezone and subdivide lands at 40 Mountain View Drive. Since we moved to Forest Hills in 1974, we have supported any development that improves the area and enhances the lifestyle of citizens of the City of Saint John. However, we do not support the rezoning application by this developer for this particular area of land. Previous applications by this developer for this area have required the attention of residents. In the past, we have met with Planning and Development staff and with the developer on more than one occasion. We think the concerns are resolved but then another application is submitted and more concerns arise. Please understand that we support development but not at the expense of the residential community that currently exists here. Residents have worked hard to maintain properties in this residential community. High Rise Multiple Residential does not fit here. Since earlier development has occurred on Mountain View Drive, there are already issues with accessing McAllister Drive safely. Increased traffic from residents from an apartment complex will only add to this. This is not a condominium development. It is an apartment complex. Please leave it as One and Two Family Suburban Residential as it has been and as we expected it to remain when we moved here. Eileen and James Cullen Via Email 300 To the planning advisory committee, On the proposed rezoning and subdivision 40 Mountain View Drive, I am completely opposed. I am not naive enough to believe there would be no development in the area, but have many concerns about the project as a whole. I live on 8 Westbrook Ave, which will border the proposed land for public purposes. My first concern would be the privacy of my back yard that I would lose. My second concern would be the opening of Westbrook Ave. My children use the dead end to ride their bikes on it is a quite street where I have always felt confident in letting my children play, with the proposed opening of Westbrook Ave. I feel the safety would be gone. My biggest concern is about the construction and displacement of the water in the swamp that lies behind my property line. Water has been a concern in the area for some time, and I feel the building on the proposed Coulter Street, would make a serious impact on the current water issues. Carla Bernatchez Roland Bernatchez 1 8 Westbrook Ave 301 aL 3 a u A-LU MIL 411�L ct cn 28 MOM r V � N 302 To the Planning Advisory Committee I Pat Capson of 7 Westbrook avenue strongly oppose the re- zoning of 40 Mountain View Drive to become a RM2 High rise Multiple Residential site. This re- zoning is not acceptable to the outlaying areas. As it will disrupts the quiet and peaceful atmosphere that we have here,. Its like living in the country but being in the city. I see no reason why our subdivision needs to be affected by this. If you need to build then build one and two family homes. I see no reason why Westbrook Avenue, Myles Drive and Garnett Road need to be opened up. We do not want to look out our windows and see a high rise or see and hear extra traffic all the time. Thank You � � Pat Capson JUL 28 ZOOS 303 26/07/2008 �-.GcO H4 �wD/ 22 .� CanNewc�'v�.'H.p r 4 JUL 28 20M 304 July 26, 2008 City Of Saint John Planning Advisory Committee PO Box 1971 Saint John NB E2L 4L1 To Whom It May Concern: 3 We want to express our concerns about the "proposed Rezoning and Subdivision of 40 Mountain View Drive" especially the extension of Westbrook Ave to Mountain View Dr and the rezoning from RS -2 to RM -2 of the proposed Lot 08 -1. First, the extension of Westbrook Ave will cause a considerable increase in traffic on our avenue. We are worried that it will become a shortcut from Loch Lomond Rd to Mountain View as motorist will want to avoid Champlain Heights traffic lights, we are already experiencing cars speeding up Silverstone St and turning back squealing their tires at the end of Westbrook Avenue. We even had some that made a u -turn right on our front lawn. I think that the safety of the children and the residents will be seriously compromised by this proposal, by the increase of vandalism and the lost of our quiet neighborhood. Secondly, we disagree to the rezoning of Lot 08 -01 for the following reasons: ❑ The proposal for removing all the trees for the buffer zone or public area will open access to our backyards by pedestrian wanting to take shortcuts to Loch Lomond Rd and Simonds High School. ❑ We will lose our privacy due to removal of all the nice trees located on the rear lots of the existing houses on Westbook Avenue. ❑ We will lose the existing safety and warm feeling of our neighborhood. I hope that you will seriously consider the negative impact that the proposal would have on our community and neighborhood. Such a proposal can only cause increase of traffic, decrease of the value of our properties and increase of crime rate. Thanks for your support. Sincerely, DE Yvon and Colette Doucet RECENED 11 Westbrook Ave Saint -John NB E2J 3B4 (506) 693 -9378 A4 JUL cS 2G Z 3 305 Planning & Advisory Committee City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 RE: Proposed municipal plan amendment, 40 Mountain View Drive, from RS-2 One & Two Family Suburban Residential to R-2 One & Two Family Residential, & RM -2 High Rise Multiple Residential. The residents of Foresthills have enjoyed the peace of mind, of a well - established quiet Residential neighbourhood for over the past 45 years. This is why we bought our home on Mountain View Dr.! When the residents of Carlile Cr where sold their homes, they were promised by the developer that it would stay this way. In the past couple of years, many families have built expensive homes on this road with the understanding that they were indeed building in a residential area. No one would have built there, had they thought the area was to be rezoned! With the high volume of traffic already on McAllister Dr., it is already very difficult to turn onto, or off of Mountain View Dr. during the peek periods, the added traffic created by the extra 180 units will just make it a lot worst! Help us keep our neighbourhood RS -2 One &Two Family Suburban Residential by not allowing this change. Therefore, I would appreciate this letter to be considered as an objection to this proposal. JW6�ra 05 Bryce & Deborah Brine 139 Mountain View DR. Saint John, NB E2] 3A3 306 JUL 28 2009 1 July 28, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 41_1 Attention: Randall G. Pollock, MCIP, RPP Planner Dear Mr. Pollock: 3 Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision — 40 Mountain View Drive Attached please find a petition signed by homeowners of Loch Lomond Holdings Ltd. objecting to the above proposed rezoning and subdivision. Our Association is a non -profit homeowners association and we are commonly referred to Highmeadow Park North. We represent 46 units in our subdivision and an attempt was made to contact all owner /occupied units. The results are as follows: 37 homeowners - object to the rezoning and subdivision plan 1 homeowner - has no objection 1 homeowner - unable to contact after several attempts 7 homeowners - do not occupy the property (rentals) and were not approached ( 1 owner did sign petition but was not counted in the 37) Listed below are some of the reasons for our objections: High Rise Multiple Residential: First we will speak on the construction of the proposed rezoning of property from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "RM -2° High Rise Multiple Residential. ➢ The rezoning of property to allow condominiums is not consistent with existing zonings in the area. The closest condo complex is off Golden Grove Road with apartment buildings on Hickey Road and Michael Crescent. This area is zoned for single family dwellings and it is our opinion that the area should maintain the current zoning to be 307 Page 2 Loch Lomond Holdings Ltd. consistent with existing housing developments in the area. It is our opinion that the construction of condo units may decrease our property values. ➢ Water pressure — there are concerns that the increased development will affect our water pressure, with approximately 156 new users (condo complex) on the system, in close proximity to us. ➢ Increased pedestrian traffic through our property for shortcuts One and Two Family Residential: ➢ Drainage problems. The elevation of Lots 1 -A to 6-A in the proposed subdivision is higher than our property. If the back of these lots are sloped downward, away from their property, the drainage will run onto our property. We request that a swale be constructed to divert any possible drainage from these lots. ➢ On the proposed subdivision plan a buffer zone (Land for Public Purposes) is proposed to the rear of Civic Vs 2 —12 on Westbrook Avenue. There is no buffer zone included in the plan to the rear of Lots 1 -A to 6 -A off Westbrook Avenue. We request that a tree line of mixed hardwood and softwood trees be planted by the developer or a fence maintained by the developer. Lots 1 -A to 6 -A abut our property. ➢ Increased pedestrian traffic through our property for shortcuts. ➢ Water pressure — there are concerns that the increased development will affect our water pressure, with approximately 24 new users (semi detached) on the system, in close proximity to us. There are other areas of concern which we wish to expand upon. M Page 3 Loch Lomond Holdings Ltd. In closing, we object to the proposed subdivision and rezoning plan as presented to us. Yours truly, M Maureen Smith Secretary Loch Lomond Holdings Enc. 309 July 17, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 Attention: Randall G. Pollock, MCIP, RPP Planner Dear Mr. Pollock: Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision — 40 Mountain View Drive Highmeadow Park North (Loch Lomond Holdings) is a subdivision consisting of 46 townhouse units which was built in the early to mid 1970's. A portion of our land abuts the proposed development as noted above. We the Lndersigned property owners object to the proposed rezoning and subdivision: i ! � To' 0�1 I , I , ff—l-, L I FAR - PAP ri', �� / Highmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB MH4ihmeadow Drive, Saint John, N13 Highm eadow Drive, Saint John, NB fil Highmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Vplp.-,WXI 310 Page 2 July 17, 2008 Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision — 40 Mountain View Drive We the undersigned property owners object to the proposed rezoning and subdivision: HOMEOWNER 0 c 1 i1 ��i�G1.e UNIT # ADDRESS (0.-)4- /it t I . , _ . o Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB 81 3 Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB g Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB I Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB 90 Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB �S Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB � b Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB .Z, Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB H ig hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Q Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John,,NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB [ Highmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB 311 0 Page 3 July 17, 2008 Re: Proaosed Rezoning and Subdivision — 40 Mountain View Drive We the undersigned property owners object to the proposed rezoning and subdivision: HOMEOWNER UNIT # ADDRESS b Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB 01 S Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB G ®� Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB F Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB O Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB j Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB o� Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB 312 hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Page 4 July 17, 2008 Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision — 40 Mountain View Drive We the undersigned property owners object to the proposed rezoning and subdivision: OMEOWNER UNIT # ADDRESS r�\i Yk V alq Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Vp r 0 Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB Hi hmeadow Drive, Saint John, NB 313 Page Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision - 40 Mountain Drive �C) 1\015 We the undersigned property owners object to the proposed rezoning and subdivision: 314 Patrick D. Darrah JUL 28 2008 27Kelton Street Saint John NB E2J 3A8 July 23, 2008 Planning & Advisory Board City of Saint John CP 1971 15 Market Square Saint John NB E2L 4L1 Members of PAC for the City of Saint John: Re: Darling Construction Proiect It has come to my attention that an application for rezoning of a section of Mountain View Drive had been made to the City of Saint John. This is yet again another experience for myself, as well as the majority of my neighbours. This is the fourth time that such an application has been made for the same general area of land, and the second time for the exact same type of rezoning request. The difference this time? — we are now talking about the land on the upper side of the road, still within the same housing development area and adjacent to the same neighbours. I find it disturbing that these request continue to be entertained given that they have been heard previously and disallowed. Over the past number of years residents in this neighbourhood have spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to protect their quality of life, and the essence of the area in which they live. Presentations have been made to PAC and to the previous council. Residents have met with the developer and have compromised on their position to allow some element of rezoning to occur. Despite these acts of good faith we are again faced with the same request to build multi -unit, multi -level housing units 315 where single family homes are the norm. This is not in keeping with the single level garden homes and single family homes that have been built by the developer to date, not to mention the hundreds of homes which have existed for over forty years as part of the Forest Hills Subdivision. When the land was purchased the zoning was known. This zoning has been in place for many years and if it did not suit the developer's plans then the land should not have been purchased. Those of us who purchased our homes here knew the zoning of the area and made our purchase decisions on that basis. We as a city are constantly fighting to bring residents back within the city limits, as opposed to having them reside in neighbouring communities, coming to town only to work or make use of our facilities, but not contribute to the property tax base. I think that the residents in the area have been more than accommodating for the development of Mountain View Drive. It is now time for the Board to protect our quality of life as you have done elsewhere. Follow the zoning of the municipal plan. Do not alter the character of our subdivision by allowing for high rise, high density housing to be built. Thank you, Patrick D. Darrah 316 Suellen Sherwood 19 Silverstone St, Saint John, NB E2J 3B7 506 - 634 -1931 July 25, 2008 Planning and Advisory Committee The City of Saint John PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 In response to your letter of July 11, 2008 and the proposal to rezone and subdivide 40 Mountain View Drive, my concern is the additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic that the connection of Westbrook Avenue to Mountain View Drive will generate along Silverstone Street. My suggestion is not to connect Westbrook Avenue to Mountain View Drive and to leave the west end of Westbrook Avenue as a cul -de -sac. Silverstone Street is a straight stretch of road that enables people to accelerate their vehicles beyond the speed limit and with the proposed increase of families and vehicles in the neighbourhood this situation would only get worse. If this is not a viable alternative, I would strongly suggest that sidewalks be built along Silverstone Street and Westbrook Drive to ensure the safety of the many families that routinely walk along these streets. Thank you for your consideration, 'kLV__>'D Suellen Sherwood cc: Pat & Larry Capson 317 i JUL 28 NN Sunday July 27, 2008 To the attention of the planning Advisory Committee, I am writing to express my objection to the destruction of Garnett Road. I highly object to the proposed construction of the four storey condominiums and the thruway connecting Mountain View and Garnett Road. I live at 144 Garnett, which is right at the top of the street. My family has lived In this area for years; I now own the house that my grandfather himself built, and I grew up next door at number 100, where my parents and my 11 year old brother still live. What is being proposed would devastate the quality of life for me and my family. For one thing, we currently enjoy a quiet, safe neighborhood . We have many birds and .wildlife In the woods here, and deer often visit the backyard to eat from the apple trees. Children play in the streets untroubled, and we barely see traffic. This street is a cul -de -sac, so cars do not have any need to drive up here unless they are going to one of the houses. A new road connecting with Mountain View, would mean traffic coming through purely to avoid the lights on the corner by Highmeadow Park, looking for a shortcut. As you surely know, this would have a huge effect on what this neighborhood Is used to. I am not against change and progress, however being turned from a cul -de -sac to a busy road would greatly affect the quality of life In a negative way and bring down property value. I am a 22 year old who, like most, works for a living, paying my mortgage and hoping to one day raise a family in this house. That future will be looking much bleaker If condominiums go up and a thruway put is in. My house is currently on well water. I am concerned as to how so much construction will affect this, as well as the septic system being disturbed. I also work overnights which means I rest and sleep during the day. This will also be affected by both construction, and traffic if the new road is put in. The new road Is my main concern, it will cause the largest impact, on this street at least. It seems it would make more sense to have it coming back through off Mountain View, as Mountain View is a busier street to begin with. While I have been speaking personally, I am aware that the vast majority of the neighborhood Is also against this re- zoning, and we all have many reasons to be opposed, some which are personal and others which are more complex. After speaking with almost all of Garnett Road and also some of Westbrook, etc, of all the residents, there is only 1 who Is so far in favor of the new road. As members of the Myles Subdivision Ratepayers Association both me and my fiance are extremely concerned, and If our views are not taken Into consideration then it will not end here. We will stop at nothing to keep our neighborhood as It should be, Sincerely, Joshua Barrieau & Claire Tasker 318 JUL 2% No% 1 Or Of I From: piustason@nebcape.net To: .net Subject; Fwd: Please print* I don't have Microsoft Word on my p.m Date: Stn, 27 Jul 2008 7:33 pm ---- Original Message---- - From: piustason @netscap+e.net To: piustaso cam: usselmetals.eom Sent: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 7:06 pm Subject Please print, I don't have Microsoft Wont on my p.c. City of Saint John Planning Advisory Commission To who it may concern: JUL 28 2000 S- Please be advised that we are opposed to any and all multi family development in the neighborhood of Gamett Rd. & Myles Dr. We believe that this will put an end to our currant way of fife and peaceful surroundings. We now live on a small dead end street, know all our neighbors & can go to sleep without worrying about all the traffic, noise and extra problems that will arise with the influx of approx 200 new families in such a small area of land. We share the following concerns with our neighbors: 1) Increased traffic on all our surrounding streets. 2) Increased vandalism 3) Increased foot traffic through our properties due to the possibility of extra students attending Simonds Nigh School. 4) Increase in garbage attracting rodents & other wildlife. 5) Possible decrease in property values 6) Possible water problems due to the added burden of the apartment buildings. 7) Loss of privacy due to increased traffic on our streets. We believe that if this goes through we will lose the small community feeling we have come to enjoy and will just become another large impersonal subdivision. We moved to Gamett IS years ago to escape the large communities of the Kennebecasis Valley and now feel threatened that it will happen here. Please ,Qo not give the go ahead to the rezoning, and let us keep our neighbourhood as it is. 72 Garnett Saint John ` 506- 696-13 The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Now! The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Now! 319 7/27/2008 7:37 PM Sunday, July 27, 2008 AP; JUL 2s one Debra Watson 77 Garnett Road Saint John, New Brunswick E21-3C4 696 -4062 Attention: Planning Advisory Committee I have many concerns regarding the proposal submitted by Northstar with respect to the development at 40 Mountain View Drive. My main concern is the linking of Garnett Road with this subdivision. Garnett Road at the uppdr end is wide enough for one vehicle and I am concerned that an increase in traffic will destroy what tranquility we have. This area has always had a "country like feeling" to it unlike a lot of communities. Our neighbours all know each other, many of us are multi generation families and we are like one big family. I am concerned that we will see an increase in vandalism, and that the water table will shift given the degree of construction and the compacting the soil on which this development is proposed to be built, disturbing the many springs than run by and under Garnett Road_ And that this is going to cause major flooding problems down the road for those of us who live here. The water is going to run to the lowest elevation. We currently experience abnormal run off of water in the spring and during heavy rains, we have no storm drains on Garnett Road with one exception where Garnett Road and Loch Lomond intersect and most times that is flooded and level with the road. That has always been a problem since I have lived here. We have no sidewalks on either side of Garnett Road and an increase in traffic from the subdivision will surely place our kids at risk of being hit That's not to speak of the traffic coming off of McAllister Drive or Mountain View trying cutting through to avoid the traffic lights at the top of McAllister Drive. It is difficult enough given the way East Saint John has built up over the last few years to exit out onto Loch Lomond from Garnett Road. The traffic has gotten considerably heavier. We have a lot to lose and nothing to gain should this development get the approval it needs. I am concerned with the number of teenagers that may cut through our properties in an attempt to take a short cut through to Simolidp High School. Some of my neighbours don't lock their doors, this will no doubt change. My husband and I often go for a drive and leave our garage door wide open because we have never had any vandalism, That will not be the case when this development goes through. If there is any blasting, what about damage to cinder block foundations or to the wells and septic systems that some of our neighbours have at the upper end of Garnett Road. I 320 am in total opposition to the development of these properties as they have been proposed by North Star. Garnett Road cannot handle the traffic that will generate as a result of this proposed subdivision. In closing I would like to say that I am opposed to the four story condominiums, they are in compatible with the type of housing that is currently established in our area. The area on which Northstar proposes to build these condominiums, a study was done in the 70's and a test of the soil and ground was done and found to be unsuitable to hold the weight of larger buildings. Century 21 who bought the land, had to build elsewhere and built them on Hickey Road This Am has never been developed so what has changed to make this area "now" suitable for development. This proposal is unsuitable and is going to greatly impact the lives of those of us who have the most to lose. I request that this proposal be turned down. Respectfully, Debra Watson 696-4062 321 Planni n and Development PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4LI July 27, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision at 40 Mountain View Drive I am writing to formally object to the proposed rezoning and subdivision at 40 Mountain View Drive for the following reasons; The proposed subdivision includes an extension of Westbrook Avenue onto Mountain View Drive. I am opposed to the opening up of Westbrook as there is no need as the road into the new subdivision could have a cul -de -sac in it like many other areas in of the city. The opening of Westbrook would only create increased traffic resulting in the disruption of a quiet neighborhood and increasing the potential danger of accidents in a safe neighborhood where children. Westbrook Avenue is a road that does not have adequate lighting or any sidewalks to walk on. I feel that drivers would use Westbrook as a means to avoid the traffic lights at the comer of Loch Lomond Road. I am also opposed to the proposed rezoning of Lot 08 -1 from a "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential. I feel there is no need to change the structure of the currently existing neighborhood The addition of High Rise multiple units is out of character with the existing low density, low lying houses in the area. The proposed development is unsympathetic, inconsiderate and inappropriate for the citizens in the surrounding areas. Also, the proposed buffer zone does not seem to be an adequate amount of space, as well as, the design and functionality is incorrect. The buffer area does not shield the existing community from the increased traffic and noise levels produced by an apartment complex of that size and nature. The character and design of the proposed development and access routes is inadequate, unacceptable and flawed I object to the proposal due to the size, nature and location of this project, with its significant effects in terms of visual and potential noise impacts. I believe my quality of life will be adversely affected. I would also like to see an Environmental Impact Assessment done on the portion of land for the proposed site. I hope that when the planning committee considers this proposed development will take into account the feelings of this neighborhood on the subject. Sincerely; AmyWatters 5 Westbrook Ave Saint John, NB E2J 3B3 (506)635 -4109 322 0.7077 - f :, -UL 28 2008 Planning and Development PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 July 27, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision at 40 Mountain View Drive •fir �. " i � JUL 28 2008 'Y 4P ,_ I am writing to formally object to the proposed rezoning and subdivision at 40 Mountain View Drive for the following reasons: The proposed subdivision includes an extension of Westbrook Avenue onto Mountain View Drive. I am opposed to the opening up of Westbrook as there is no need as the road into the new subdivision could have a cul-de -sac in it like many other areas in of the city. The opening of Westbrook would only create increased traffic resulting in the disruption of a quiet neighborhood and increasing the potential danger of accidents in a safe neighborhood where children. Westbrook Avenue is a road that does not have adequate lighting or any sidewalks to walk on. I feel that drivers would use Westbrook as a means to avoid the traffic lights at the comer of Loch Lomond Road. I am also opposed to the proposed rezoning of Lot 08 -1 from a "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "RM -2" High Rise Multiple Residential. I feeI there is no need to change the structure of the currently existing neighborhood. The addition of High Rise multiple units is out of character with the existing low density, low lying houses in the area The proposed development is unsympathetic, inconsiderate and inappropriate for the citizens in the surrounding areas. Also, the proposed buffer zone does not seem to be an adequate amount of space, as well as, the design and functionality is incorrect. The buffer area does not shield the existing community from the increased traffic and noise levels produced by an apartment complex of that size and nature. The character and design of the proposed development and access routes is inadequate, unacceptable and flawed. I object to the proposal due to the size, nature and location of this project, with its significant effects in terms of visual and potential noise impacts. I believe my quality of life will be adversely affected. I would also like to see an Environmental Impact Assessment done on the portion of land for the proposed site. I hope that when the planning committee considers this proposed development will take into account the feelings of this neighborhood on the subject. Sin er ly; v6lz�_ J Watters 5 Westbrook Ave Saint John, NB E2J 3B3 (506)651 -8492 323 3 JUL 28 zoo To Whom It May Concern: Re: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision�'C 40 Mountain View Drive We have lived at 14 Silverstone Street for the past 16 years. There have been many changes in the east side of town during that tune. The area around Westmorland Rd/Consumers Drive has had a lot of development over the years. As well there have been homes added off of Mountain View Drive with the addition of Carlile and Casey Crescent. We have never been opposed to any of this development. Carlile and Casey Crescent generate tax dollars for the city which hopefully will keep our taxes down. We cannot support certain parts of this proposed plan. First of all we strongly disagree with the zoning being changed to RM -2 to support the development of 3 condominium apartment buildings. The Carlile and Casey Crescent homes fit in perfectly with the rest of the buildings in our area but the apartment buildings will not fit in esthetically with the rest of our homes. As far as the rest of the one and two family home development we do not have a problem with them as long as they fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood. We do not agree with extending Westbrook Avenue to allow access from Mountain View Drive. This will cause an unbelievable amount of traffic on Silverstone. We use McAllister Drive to travel to and from work. We turn off unto Highmeadow in order to get to Silverstone. There are MANY vehicles that cut through Highmeadow in order to get to Loch Lomond Road so they can avoid the traffic lights at Loch Lomond Road. The vehicles speed through Highmeadow Park so that they can beat the light. It is amazing that there have not been any serious injuries. With opening Westbrook from Mountain View Drive, Silverstone Street is going to be put in the same position as I ighmeadow is now. This will not be acceptable. As well if Coulter Street is built as proposed with an entrance unto Mountain View this will see a huge increase in traffic on Mountain View. We see a lot of cars now trying to get out of Mountain View to turn left on McAllister Drive. It is so difficult to make this turn now we can't imagine what it will be like with the increased amount of cars. 324 We are very worried about how this development is going to affect our on our street. Are we going to start having problems with our water pressure? We've found out recently that there are some homes in our area that are already affected by this. In the proposal it says that Cottage Hill Zone (we do not know where this is) requires some upgrades. In closing we appreciate you taking the time to read this letter regarding the concerns that we have with this prop=4 development As wp'vp pmentioned before we are not opposed to One and Two Family homes being built in our area however we will not support the condominiums or the opening of Westbrook Aw -nue to Mountain View. We enjoy a quality of life in our area that we have become accustomed to, even wit4 99 much retail dq-yelopment around ps ar4 it is very important for us to continue to have it . , , . , . Sincerely, Robert & Nicole Knox 14 Silverstone Street 325 J#f 4 ),asol nj 5�.. �- �bIlel� vi�ib� .9,r�_ _ yQ _ �N�un�a.�.n U'e� ...... ..... ........ - ...... --- lc�_._.a�._. --------- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- -- _ .... ... ..... - -� s..<e7,fi -�1. rm 326 WA� b r 26,07,08 3 To Planning Advisory Committee I strongly oppose the application to rezone 40 Mountain View Drive from the existing RS -2 Residential, to RM -2 High Rise Multiple Residential. The simple fact is, this sub - division is an oasis, surrounded by The commercial and residential sector. To open up Westbrook Avenue, Garnett Road or Myles Drive, to meet Mountain View Drive would be the end of our peaceful way of life!! Thank You RECENE6"Uo Larry Capson JUL za 2008 7 Westbrook Avenue rt- 327 3 To the Planning Advisory Committee Re: Proposed Rezoning of Subdivision at 40 Mountain view Drive My name is Don Watson, my wife and I live at 77 Garnett Road with our children. My father built this house in 1958 and I have lived here for 30+ years. I am completely and totally opposed to the proposal before you. To begin with there is no four story buildings in this neighbourhood and this part of the plan is completely Inappropriate and simply does not fit In with this neighbourhood nor for this matter Forest Hills or the recently constructed Carlisle Crescent area Also the proposal to open Garnett Road via Coulter Street is equally without merit. Garnett Road has been a narrow dead end street for many, many years. As a result our children are able to play on or near the street and come and go with relative safety. There is no reason to open this up as the lands in the upper part of Garnett Road are not going to be sale for development ever. One family has owned this property for decades and they have plans for their families to build there. So I am completely perplexed as to why it is necessary to open up the upper end of Garnett Road to high volumes of vehicles that will pass through at all hours of the day and night. A real concern of mine is the potential for Garnett Road to become a Shortcut around the traffic at the Champlain Drive - McAllister Drive -Loch Lomond Road intersection. Don't think this will happen, ask the people in High Meadow Park where it is already happening. I would like to request a traffic study be done to determine the true impact on our way of life. Our way of life should not be subject to a Developers desire to maximize profits. Unlike most communities, the majority of families on Garnett Road and on the neighbouring streets that would be impacted by this proposal are second and third generation families or have lived here many, many years. We were here FUM and are absolutely opposed to any development that involves four story buildings, and the opening of Garnett Road to a marked increase in traffic. We would have no benefit to this indeed our properties could now be more easily accessed for vandalism and burglaries and to the teenagers attending Simonds High School cutting through our properties as they make there way to school. To say nothing of the hazards to our children. To get an idea of what we stand to lose ask the residents of Mark Drive who endured a nightmare of traffic all hours of the day and night. Now with the construction of the bypass their street is quieter and more importantly safe. PLEASE do not take our peace and tranquility from us. We matter and have a right to be considered. Wildlife and forests abound in the woods at the upper end of Garnett Road. Garnett Road nn] a lot of subdivisions has a country like feel to it, and where deer, eagles, owls and the like are numerous. It has been a safe haven to raise children and we are unwilling to have this taken away from us. With regards to the four story apartment buildings, I do not believe that this is a suitable fit for this neighbourhood and while the developer calls them "condominiums", they could in fact morph into rentals or low income housing, we have no guarantees if they were build that they would in fact be maintained properly. The increased noise, population and traffic would be an unfair burden to place on those of us who have lived here all of our lives. I can't understand why this developer who built Carlisle Crescent single family one story homes would now find it necessary to build four story apartment buildings. I can't but wonder why they weren't built on Carlisle Crescent? Also worth noting the area marked as "land for public purposes" is a joke. This area is swampy and virtually unusable as it sits now. $o I guess my question is if they have to backfill this what happens to the trees along the backside of Wgstbrook Avenue. There has been several sightings of a "Short Eared Owl" nesting in this area ... ... . 328 EJ The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) plays a prominent role is the protection of species at risk. And I don't believe you would be permitted to ddstroy their nesting site. Also sometime ago, there was a proposal to build the apartment buildings that eventually became Century 21. That proposal was shelved because the soil and rock was tested and found to be unsuitable to bold the weight of larger buildings. I don't believe the wa has changed. In addition should extensive backlilling occur, what guarantees could be given to those of us at the upper end of Garnett Road but below that elevation that we would not experience flooding problems? Some of us now do. As well, if blasting occurs? I can tell you the answer to these two questions! There is no guarantee. Also, some of the bouses at the top of Garnett Road are on well and septic systems, it appears these people would be hum out and extensive development Haight affect these systems. In closing I am asking the PAC to reject this proposal and any rezoning requests that would allow anything other than one and two story homes and under no circumstances should Garnett Road become a through street. I would like to see what this developer plans to do if Garnett Road is opened up, does he plan other subdivisions in that area, we have a right to know. I have lived here practically all my life and to think I may have to le4ve because of someones desire to make a fast buck breaks my heart This proposal is completely inappropriate for this community and would have an extremely negative affect on our quality of life and the enjoyment of our properties. I am asking that it be turned down. Thankyou. Debra and Don Watson 77 Garnett Road Saint John, N.B. VJ3C4 696-4062 329 3& 0 ----- .. 330 . . ...... .... . -Iwo V, AL E 15 aak-ae- 331 July 24, 2008 S Dear sir; Re: Proposed Rezoning and subdivision 40 Mountain View Drive We are writing in regards to the proposed subdivision behind Westbrook Ave and bordering Garnett Rd. We live at 100 Garnett Rd and our son lives directly across to the proposed new road coming from Mountain View Drive at 144 Garnett Rd. We would Ike to express our opinion of this development. We are strongly against this proposal, due to traffic concerns, as well as a wildlife concern. Cm=tly, we have little or no traffic on our dead end road. We are afraid that with these new constructions, traffic would increase because people may decide that our street is a quick way around a long line-up at the McAllister Drive/Loch Lomond lights. Also, since there has been so much construction in the east end, the habitat for our wildlife has dwindled. In our little area, we have skunks, raccoon, and deer, as well as many birds, ie crows. We are also on a well/septic system, which we feel the water table may be compromised by the close proximity of the construction. This land was owned and named after my great grandfather, Edward Garnett Bit by bit, parcels were sold off to construction companies, as well as to the City of Saint John. My two brothers, as well as my son and I still own and live on property on this road This is our homestead and has sentimental value to us. I am for change but not at the expense of our lifestyle, which promotes peaceful quiet surroundings, within the boundaries of the city. My son has a wonderful view from his upstairs. With this new development, these four -story apartment buildings will block it These developers are taking over the east side, building more homes, businesses, etc. We think this is enough. We need to slow down. We need to take our time to realize the consequences of these "green spaces" they are ruining. Wbat will happen to all these homes when the "boom" has stopped. We will be left with homes that people are selling because they are movmg away or can't afford anymore. It has recently come to our attention, that this particular developer has requested that lot sizes be reduced so he can put more houses on this land. is this true and if so, is this a good idea? Are you setting a precedent for other developers to request the same thong in the future, when they want to crowd houses into their particular development. Councillors and members of the Pluming Committee, please take our comments and concerns seriously, before allowing this development to happen. Yours truly, & DE ' RMWD Mr. And Mrs. Barrieau JUL 2 8 2003 100 Garnett Rd 696 -5378 Mr. Joshua Barrieau 144 Garnett Rd 658 -0792 4 332 July 25, 2008 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter in regards to the proposed re- zoning to accommodate the four -story condos and a throughway onto the Garnett Rd. I feel I must express to you, city councillors and the planning advisory committee my shock and disappointment Most of the people on the Garnett Road are of several generations of family and enjoy the privacy and quiet on our road. Our kids rarely think to look both ways because it is a dead end road and very little traffic. A few years back, I asked my husband what if we won the lottery and wanted to build a million dollar home here on Garnett Road. My husband says the city wouldn't allow it because it wouldn't fit in with the neighbourhood. So there is your answer.—Condos won't fit into our neighbourhood, either. I am also concerned about the wildlife, what will happen to the wild animals that travel through our yards and neighbourhood ?? It gives one a good feeling that they trust us enough to live in our area and feel unthreatened. With this proposal, they will be threatened and have to move and I feel the people on our road will feel the same way, with a highway going past their door, not to mention all the loss of privacy plus all the noise and a heightened amount of danger to our children. Mrs. Marjorie Page ^ -°� R4 xS7RMMW,IMk JUL 28 2003 333 3 July 25, 2008 Dear Sir; My name is Richard Page. I have lived on the Garnett Road, all of my 62 years of my life. My wife submitted a letter but I feel she left out some very important points so I thought I would write my own letter. The Garnett Road was named after my great grandfather. I had visions of this property I am on, and the properties of my sister, brother, and nephew remain in the Page Family. I am not opposed to progress, but there should be some restrictions if it is going to have a negative affect our quality of life. I thought our mayor and city councillors wanted people to move back to our city? Then just tell them our horror story and see how fast they move back. I have watched my grandkids grow up on this road and had hoped to live here long enough to see the great grandchildren here as well. It gives one a good feeling to have watched our land grow into a cozy quiet neighbourhood where all neighbours know each other and look out for one anther's property. If we see strangers on a neighbours property, we automatically start asking questions. On the other hand, if we see an eagle or the deer on someone's property, we call them so they can get a look before they move on. I feel very proud and like to brag about the number of animals that live amongst myself and my neighbours in an area that is in city limits. Heck, we can look down over the hill and see malls, movie theatres, eateries, etc...... try and top that. JUL 2$ 2OM'S . vllv-f-�1176? 334 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John 3 Dear sir, In response to your letter ( July 11,2008 ) regarding the proposed development of 40 Mountain View Drive ( North Star Holdings ). I own property on Garnett Rd and I feel that this development would be very detrimental to the current residents on this street. The increased population and subsequent increased traffic would curate a severe hazard on the Garnett Rd ,which is not adequate to handle large amounts of traffic. The extension of Myles Drive to connect with Coulter Street would seem the more logical routing for traffic if the housing proposal goes ahead. As to the proposed Condo Apartment Buildings I feel that four stories is excessive in relation to the surrounding residential areas. Two story apartments would cause less of a visual impact and blend into the locale more readily . Thank you the opportunity to express my concerns W- _ Dave Page ( 506 773 86) JUL 28 200a JPSAVO W 335 JUL 2% 2IBB ,��Ov 10 ivl< CoN oeQrlr Fo 7�0 �-fi nq rn (!X ;h A..�y Ll (g }Mp/e T T /�v o. 0, z.T3 c 3 5-;�j ri 0 hcRc is ri 7-8 -�" _rD W)L,1C rj PO A 0 C; U 1963k)%J"' 7k Lo�d�� b lR s , Luc S L gT f "I T y � S tom W" -� o ui rJ C L)V-Kc Evin i9ooe-2 w I-D /-,,, -Pic - , 336 p� The►�.e j 4 DeRD nrd ,LeOe q509Lo,✓e ,op' 6L42 uJocj�' k) s R v4j A Tolt- �, I"! - A. r ryl 337 Glen & Sharon Veysey 67 Garnett Rd Saint John NB E2J3C4 Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John Re: Letter of Oppostion Dear Sirs, As a resident of this neighbourhood since 1962 and a home owner on Garnett Rd since 19821 am opposed to North Star Holdings Ltd's proposal to rezone said land located at 40 Mountain View Drive. The rezoning of the property from RS-2 to RM -2 High Rise Residential with the construction of 3 condominium apartment buildings 4 storeys in height and 56 units, presents a concern for us. When this property was first sold in the seventies for the proposed high rise complex then known as "Century 21" it was determined at the time that the land was unstable to support such a complex and the building site was moved to Hickey Rd. My Husband and I also feel the proposed construction of the 3 condominium 4 storey high apartment buildings is out of character for the neighbourhood which consists of 1 and 2 family homes. We are also concerned with possible walking traffic through our properties with children finding a shorter route to Simonds High School. Our serene, quite neighborhood provides country living within minutes of the city. We enjoy wildlife with deer, a Snowy Owl , Falcons and a Bald Eagle who all habitat the proposed building site. Another major factor and perhaps the most important is the contruction of Colter Street and its access to Garnett Rd. This road has been a safe haven for our children for generations... myself, my children and now my grandchildren. We have familes on this road who have lived here for 5 generatoins and never had to worry about through traffic and the safety of our children. Another major point Is the disrepair of our road , drainage and water problems we now experience. We have deep ditches, no storm drains, and a road that is quickly deteriorating with broken asphalte. Increased traffic will certainly cause major concems..The ditches actually run up hill in certain places with flooding during the winter and spring to the point it creeps up some of our driveways. Culverts are actually non existant or damaged or are of no use at all. The road above me is nothing more than a lane and room only for 1 car. The proposed site is full of trenches and natural springs and its proposed construction will certainly increase our now existing water problems. 1 ask you to consider our concems and our oppostion to first ,the extension of Colter tit to Gamnett Rd and secondly to the proposed 4 storey condominium apartment buklings. .4 JUL 28 2049 �OPSA-06( 338 Sharon & Glen Veysey 67 Garnett Rd Saint John ;`�2� name i,5 �ac� C,Pn�e �. .�f1'7 ��,�,-. -a y C_4t 031 L/2 Ou Lie 79 -1 Wyll �� I''.c�l�� . -�_ - -_ � ; - -- I-- �-�._s ; -�-� -� ; - `','_ -� -- _� yr��.�.' . X111.:. �'-_� _;, o r) a e- W__ abd io.&� 77 ko 835 �7i J: T� L July 27, 2008 To the Planning and Advisory Committee, On July 26/08 Myles Subdivision Rate Payers Association had a meeting to discuss the proposed Rezoning and Subdivision at 40 Mountain View Dr. These signatures were collected at that meeting. JUL 28 20x8 340 SIGNATURES OF RESIDENTS OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 MO- UNTAIN VIEW DRIVE 341 S-70 — a- .Scgj 7 77? Y, 342 F V fflffl _.. Is W, F err _■ ! I ra MT m 4MA: . . 342 September 25, 2008 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. (Townhouse Development) 26 -44 Royal Parkway The Planning Advisory Committee considered the attached report at its September 23, 2008 meeting. The applicant, Mr. Gary Galbraith, appeared before the Committee in support of the application and staff recommendation. There were no other presentations made at the meeting concerning this matter, and no letters from adjoining property owners were received. After considering the report and presentation, the Committee resolved to adopt the staff recommendation, which is set out below for your convenience. The Committee also granted the recommended variances and approved the requested street name. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the attached photo - reduced tentative subdivision plan, as well as assent to any necessary municipal services and public utility easements. 2. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City /Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer. That Common Council authorize cost - sharing outside of the limits of the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 26 of the Subdivision By -law. Respectfidly submitted, Bernie Regenbogen Third Executive Member MRO Attachments Project No. 08 -422 343 DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Name of Owner: Location: PID: Municipal Plan: Millidgeville Secondary Plan Zoning: Proposal: Type of Application: Mark O'Hearn Planning Officer Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. 26 -44 Royal Parkway 00407817, 00406595, 004064131 & 00405845 Low Density Residential Development Area B — University Avenue "RM -I" Three Storey Multiple Residential To extend a public street in order to undertake a townhouse development. Subdivision and Variances that would: (a) Reduce the minimum lot area requirement of 230 square metres (2,476 square feet) to approximately 225 square metres (2,422 square feet) for the majority of the proposed individual townhouse lots; 344 Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. 26 -44 Roval Parkwav Page 2 September 19, 2008 (b) Reduce the minimum side yard requirement of 3 metres (9.8 feet) to approximately 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) for certain proposed buildings; (c) Reduce the minimum building height requirement of 2 storeys to 1 storey for all the proposed buildings; (d) Allow for the creation of double frontage lots when such lots are not permitted; (e) Allow individual driveways for certain lots (Lots 21 -25) to abut Royal Parkway when such accesses are not permitted; and (f) Reduce the minimum asphalt pavement width of 11 metres (36 feet) to approximately 9.2 metres (30 feet) for the proposed new street constriction. JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning the subdivision of land, including the assent of streets and municipal services and public utility easements, as well as cost sharing for piping materials outside the limits of the subdivision, and the authorization of City /Developer Subdivision Agreements. The Act also authorizes the Committee to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -law. Conditions can be imposed by the Committee. The Subdivision By -law authorizes the PAC to approve the names of new streets in conjunction with the subdivision of land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the attached photo - reduced tentative subdivision plan, as well as assent to any necessary municipal services and public utility easements. 2. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City /Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure provision of the required work and 345 Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. 26 -44 Roval Parkwav Page 3 September 19, 2008 facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer. That Common Council authorize cost - sharing outside of the limits of the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 26 of the Subdivision By -law. 4. That the Planning Advisory Committee not grant the requested side yard or driveway access variances for the proposed townhouse development, but instead grant the following variances that would: (a) Reduce the minimum lot area requirement of 230 square metres (2,476 square feet) to approximately 225 square metres (2,422 square feet) for the majority of the proposed individual townhouse lots as illustrated on the submitted tentative plan; (b) Reduce the minimum building height requirement of 2 storeys to 1 storey for all the proposed buildings; (c) Reduce the minimum side yard requirement of 3 metres (9.8 feet) to approximately 2.7 metres (8.9 feet) for the proposed building to be situated on Lots 21 -25; (d) Allow for the creation of proposed Lots 21 -25 with frontage on two local streets, on the condition that driveway access be prohibited onto Royal Parkway (proposed extension), and that such restriction be clearly identified on any final subdivision plan for these lots; and (e) Reduce the minimum asphalt pavement width of 11 metres (36 feet) to approximately 9.2 metres (30 feet) for the proposed new street constriction. 5. That the Planning Advisory Committee not approve the requested street name "Royal Crescent" but instead approve the name "Twogirl Crescent." INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has provided the following comments regarding this application: (a) The developer's engineering consultant must ensure that the existing water system is of sufficient quantity and pressure for the proposed development. Confirmation of this must be submitted to the City for review. 346 Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. Page 4 26 -44 Royal Parkway September 19, 2008 (b) The developer's engineering consultant must ensure that the existing sanitary sewer is capable of receiving the anticipated peals flows. Confirmation of this must be submitted to the City for review. (c) All grades for water and sewerage systems must be verified by the developer's engineering consultant. (d) The developer shall be responsible to provide all connections to the water, sanitary and storm sewer systems. (e) The developer shall be responsible for the installation of all concrete curbing, sidewalk and asphalt pavement, landscaping, underground utilities, and street lighting. (f) The developer's engineering consultant must provide a site drainage plan indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled. (g) The developer shall provide a drainage study which is to include not only the drainage basin affected by this development phase, but all property that will drain this area through the existing storm system. This study shall also include a downstream infrastructure review to ensure it is capable of handling the additional flow resulting from this development and fi ture developments. (h) An engineering water and sewer analysis must be completed by the developer's engineering consultant in order to determine the impact this development will have on the existing water and sewer infrastructure, and also to ensure that this proposal does not exceed the current capacity of the existing systems. (i) Upgrades to existing infrastructure by the developer may be required. Detailed engineering plans must be submitted to the City in order to determine whether this is the case. 0) The Subdivision By -law normally requires an 11 metre (36 foot) wide asphalt pavement for townhouse developments. The tentative plan illustrates a 9.2 metre (30 foot) wide surface. (k) The proposed site plan should (or detailed storm water plan) also include contours. Buildings and Inspection Services has been advised of this proposal. Saint John Transit has advised that a high level of service is provided to the Saint John Regional Hospital and UNB (Saint John Campus) along University Avenue. 347 Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. 26 -44 Roval Parkwav Saint John Energy has been advised of this development. Page 5 September 19, 2008 Aliant Telecom has no issues with regards to the proposed townhouse development. An extension of underground facilities will be required in order to service the proposed new lots. Aliant will work jointly with the developer and Saint John Energy. Rogers has been advised of this matter. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline has no concerns with regards to this housing development. Fire Department has been advised of this application. N.B. Department of Environment has been advised of this subdivision. School District 8 has been advised of this proposal. ANALYSIS: Development Proposal and Requested Variances The subject area is comprised of four vacant parcels of land along an undeveloped portion of Royal Parkway off University Avenue in Millidgeville (see attached location map). The site has an average slope of 10 percent and is primarily covered by trees. There are six apartment buildings along Royal Parkway (and Alpha Place). The lands to the north, east and west have remained undeveloped. A brook (Alder Brook) nuns through the area to the west of the subject property, a distance over 51 metres (167 feet) away. The developer is seeking permission to subdivide the property in order to undertake a one storey townhouse development consisting of 5 buildings with a total of 25 individual units. In order to accommodate this project, Royal Parkway would have to be extended by the developer (within the existing public street right -of -way), who would also need to develop a new public street (Royal Crescent) off this extension. The Municipal Development Plan has designated the area as Low Density Residential. The Millidgeville Secondary Plan encourages the development of townhouses and apartments within the immediate vicinity of University Avenue. With regards specifically to Royal Parkway, the Secondary Plan encourages the development of apartment buildings and townhouses within the first 274 metres (900 feet), two - family development for the next 183 metres (600 feet), with the one - family dwellings for the remainder of this street, which could be eventually extended to Hill Heights Road. The subject property is within the first section where apartments and townhouses are encouraged. Em Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. 26 -44 Roval Parkwav Page 6 September 19, 2008 The area is zoned "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential, and the proposed townhouse project is permitted in this zone. The submitted plan can satisfy the applicable requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws except as follows: ■ A minimum lot area (for each individual unit) of 230 square metres (2,476 square feet) is required, whereas most of the proposed lots would have a slightly reduced area of approximately 225 square metres (2,422 square feet); ■ A minimum side yard of 3 metres (9.8 feet) is required, whereas most of the buildings illustrate a 1.5 metre (4.9 foot) side yard; ■ A minimum building height of 2 storeys is required, whereas the developer is seeking permission to constrict 1 storey garden homes; ■ Double frontage lots are not permitted, whereas the developer is proposing to create Lots 21 -25 with frontage on two local streets; ■ The individual driveways for Lots 21 -25 are not permitted to access Royal Parkway; and ■ A minimum asphalt pavement width of 11 metres (36 feet) is required for the new street constriction, whereas the developer is proposing a width of approximately 9.2 metres (30 feet). Subdivision Design and Variance Consideration The "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential zone has regulated a number of townhouse developments over the years. However, a new "TH" Townhouse zone has been included in the Zoning By -law to better facilitate new townhouse projects. To maintain consistency with other recent townhouse proposals, the requested variances should be considered in light of these more appropriate zone standards. The "TH" zone only requires a minimum lot area of 180 square metres (1,938 square feet). Therefore, the requested 230 square metre (2,476 square foot) lot area is considered reasonable. It should be noted that certain lots (i.e., Lot 5, 6, 15 & 16) will have even larger areas. With regards to the proposed 1.5 metre (4.9 foot) side yards, the required 3 metre (9.8 foot) standard can be provided by slightly adjusting the location of the proposed buildings. However, a variance for approximately 2.7 metres (8.9 feet) for the central building to be situated on Lots 21- 25 is recommended for approval. This building cannot be adjusted, and while the building could be reduced in width it would have a side yard distance over 8 metres (26 feet) from the street curb. Municipal Operations and Engineering have not expressed any concern with regards to this slightly reduced side yard for this one building. 349 Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. 26 -44 Roval Parkwav Page 7 September 19, 2008 The developer is interested in constricting one storey townhouses (often referred to as garden homes) hoping to attract seniors and empty nesters interested in living in this area of the community. The zoning requires a minimum building height of two storeys. In comparison, the apartment buildings in the immediate area are three storeys. In light of the mentioned Secondary Plan development scheme for this particular area of Millidgeville, the proposed one storey townhouse project is considered to be an ideal transition from the existing apartment buildings near University Avenue and the possible fiiture constriction of two and one - family dwellings that may be developed fiirther north. Therefore, the requested building height variance can be readily supported. The Subdivision By -law normally prohibits the creation of double- frontage lots. The central townhouse lots (Lots 21 -25) would have frontage along Royal Parkway and Royal Crescent. There is insufficient overall property depth to create a second tier of lots. Somewhat related to this By -law provision, the "RM -1" zone prohibits the development of individual driveways for four or more townhouse units directly onto a street that is not exclusively used for the townhouse development. This provision is not required in the "TH" Townhouse zone. Notwithstanding, as there is opportunity to adjust the plan and have the driveways abut the proposed new street (Royal Crescent), staff cannot recommend approval of this particular variance. However, as there is insufficient overall property depth to avoid the creation of these central double- frontage lots, this variance can be recommended, on the condition that there is no vehicular access from these lots to Royal Parkway (proposed extension). Finally, the Subdivision By -law requires a minimum asphalt pavement width of 11 metres (36 feet) for the new street constriction. The developer is proposing a width of approximately 9.2 metres (30 feet). As this was the standard in which the existing portion of Royal Parkway and Alpha Street were constricted, this variance is considered reasonable under the circumstances. Provisions of Work and Facilities The Subdivision By -law requires the developer to constrict the proposed new public streets (Royal Crescent and extension of Royal Parkway) to Local ,Street standards. This will include a 9.2 metre (30 foot) wide asphalt surface (if the variance is approved), concrete curbing along both sides, and the installation of a 1.5 metre (5 foot) wide concrete sidewalk along the new street and the western side of Royal Parkway (extension). As the current sidewalk ends at the intersection of Royal Parkway and Alpha Place, at a later date the City will have to extend the sidewalk approximately 65 metres (2 13 feet) to where the developer will undertake the extension of the street. Underground public utilities, street lighting, and fiill municipal services (i.e., sewer, water and storm) will also have to be provided by the developer. Municipal Operations and Engineering has provided various comments regarding the constriction of the streets and servicing. It is understood that a detailed engineering plan for the street constriction will be required. In addition, site and drainage plans will also be necessary. As there 350 Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. 26 -44 Roval Parkwav Page 8 September 19, 2008 will likely be a steeply sloped area immediate behind proposed Lots 6 -15, appropriate measures must also be undertaken by the developer with regards to surface drainage. Finally, the developer's engineering consultant will also need to satisfy the other various issues mentioned in the comments received from Engineering (please refer to the Input f -om Other ,Sources section of this report). The staff recommendation includes all the necessary assents and approvals for this proposed development. Street Naming The developer has proposed the new street name "Royal Crescent." This proposed name is not acceptable. However, the developer has submitted a fiirther name, "Twogirl Crescent" that is unique from other existing street names. This name has been recommended for approval. CONCLUSION: The proposed townhouse project is consistent with the Millidgeville Secondary Plan, and can generally satisfy the applicable requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws except as discussed and recommended in this report. All the necessary assents and approvals for the development have been recommended. Mxo Project No. 08 -422 351 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT / URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT r R -1A R- 1A RS.2 R- 1A r . ,.k RS -2 M -I a..' R3-2 a RM -I R- 1A RS -2 y R -2 +' c R RS- 2 •• P X " :6 n2ta R- 1 A 1 D -2 PID(s) / NIP(s): Subject Site / site en question: n 00407817 00406595 Location: 26 -44 Royal Pkwy. / rte de plais. Royal 00406413 00405845 Date: September / septembre 8, 2008 Scale / echelle: Not to scale / Pas a 1'echelle 352 T F O J � Q O J _M h O J N F- O J O J F- O i (n @ 0o O J DUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATI 6 ~ " O �4h 0 N TT O H O J N G Q O Wosos•e J 6 ~ " O �4h 0 N TT O U') H�#-- O J 0 �4h 0 N OJ N O J V C F- U 0 J N Ci M o ° � � q N N F- O J N 1— O MOU .0,0Z J W3 P --J :; •6 N U') H�#-- O J 0 �4h 0 a E OJ h r I Rl Y Q D.. J } O U) -4- c ....................................................................... ..............................I .. .................................................................... ... .............. .- ... .- _ .... _................................................................................................ _. . .°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" mUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUUUUUUUUUUUIIUIUIUIIIIIIIIUUUUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUUUIIIIUIU 1111a :nni' i ,1.. September 25, 2008 Your Worship and Councillors: R IC' ). Bob'. 1971 (")6 658-28()0 &iint john NUm: vv Brunswick C'armada E2L 4L,I SUBJECT: Hillerest Heights North Subdivision Hillerest Road The Planning Advisory Committee considered the attached report at its September 3, 2008 meeting. The Developer, Mr, Kevin Steele, appeared before the Committee in support of the application and indicated he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. After considering the report and presentation, the Committee resolved to adopt the following recommendation, which is set out below for your convenience. The Committee approved the proposed new street name of "Meahan Crescent ". RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans for the submitted Hillerest Heights North Subdivision, to the proposed public street and to any required municipal services and public utility easements for the following lots only: 6 -N, 7 -N, 8 -N, 9 -N, 15 -N, and 16 -N. 2. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements in order to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer. v LI"I 1111 QL1 PF Attachments Planning and Development P.O. Box/C.P. 1971 Urbanisme et developpement Saint John, NB/N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 www.saintjohn.ca it DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 The City of Saint John TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 Patrick Foran Planning Officer SUBJECT: Subdivision Application - Hillcrest Heights North (Phase 2) BACKGROUND: The Committee, at its September 3, 2008 meeting, considered the attached report concerning the above - mentioned development. At the time, there were some outstanding drainage issues and, based on the response from the City's Municipal Operations and Engineering Department, the Committee only recommended Council assent for the proposed lots 6 -N, 7 -N, 8 -N, 9 -N, 15 -N, and 16 -N. Since that time, the drainage issues appear to have been resolved and the applicant is now requesting tentative approval for the remaining lots (Lots 1 -N to 5 -N, inclusive, and Lots 13 -N, 14 -N, and 17 -N). In order for the Development Officer to give tentative approval to the proposed subdivision, Common Council assent is required for the remaining portion of the proposed public street as well as for any municipal services and public utility easements. Additional assent is also required to authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities. The proposed development otherwise satisfies the requirements of both the Subdivision and Zoning By -laws. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: 1) That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans for the submitted Hillcrest Heights North Subdivision, to the proposed public street and to any required municipal irg Hillcrest Heights North Subdivision September 19, 2008 Page 2 services and public utility easements for the remaining lots (Lots 1 -N to 5 -N, inclusive, and Lots 13 -N, 14 -N, and 17 -N). 2) That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements in order to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer. PF Project No. 08 -375 pe V I' ' � 1 I Q I , f I n _ I j r 1 1`'t a 1_�Ul�ris �J C14 z Lo \ - - --- \ CL ' .. jq cri D •.• �•: ~ \ � -ova — � � +: ^. I • 1 S = r W �• � I � $ a � r ll ''�l �, 00 01 III ;1III IS LP'r T� c W. di on mom, cva I , J • i 'I .n `- — I, , t ��'�'1'It,'`t , `}ll. • • `�1 �r• ` uin *� ' 1j1��'I Planning and Development P.O. Box/C.P. 1971 Urbanisme et developpement Saint John, NB/N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 www.saintjohn.ca DATE: AUGUST 22, 2008 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2008 v Patrick Foran Planning Officer SUBJECT: n�n ems- '"'rte, Name of Applicant: Kierstead, Quigley and Roberts Ltd. (on behalf of Kevin Steele) Name of Owner: Jovin Construction Ltd. Location: Hillcrest Road PID: 55181242 Municipal Plan: Unserviced Residential Zoning: "RR" One Family Rural Residential Proposal: To subdivide fourteen lots and create a new public street. Type of Application: Subdivision JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning the subdivision of land, including the assent of streets, municipal Hillcrest Heights North Subdiviawn Hillcrest Road Pa,- 2 August 22, 2008 services and public utility easements, and the authorization of City/Developer Subdivision Agreements. The Subdivision By -law authorizes the Committee to approve the names of new streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: 1) That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans for the submitted Hillcrest Heights North Subdivision, to the proposed public street and to any required municipal services and public utility easements for the following lots only: 6 -N, 7 -N, 8 -N, 9 -N, 15 -N, and 16 -N. 2) That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements in order to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer. 3) That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the new street name "Meahan Crescent". BACKGROUND: Development of the Hillcrest Heights Subdivision commenced in 2003 with the subdivision of two lots fronting on Loch Lomond Road. At the time, the parent property was zoned "RS -1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential but because no new streets or street extensions were proposed, it was not considered a rural residential subdivision and rezoning to "RR" One Family Rural Residential was not necessary. A proposal to subdivide the rest of the site, which extended from Loch Lomond Road to Hillcrest Road and included the subject property, was submitted in April of 2004. The number of proposed lots and the creation of new streets precipitated a rezoning to the "RR" zone, which received third reading from Council in August of 2004. Development of the subdivision has continued in phases since then, primarily on the portion south of Graham's Brook which is almost complete. The present application pertains to the remnant portion, located between Graham's Brook and Hillcrest Road. Final approval has already been given for the creation of three lots fronting on Hillcrest Road. INPUT FROM OTHER ,SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has provided the following comments: M .V. •Hillcrest Heights North Subdivi�..,n Hillcrest Road Pa6_ 3 August 22, 2008 • The developer's engineering consultant must provide a detailed site drainage plan/brief to the City for review. • There are no municipal services in this area. • Detailed engineering (drainage and street) plans must be provided to the City by the developer's engineering consultant for review. Building and Technical Services has no concerns with the proposal. Saint John Transit advises that it offers service on Loch Lomand Road, but has no service on Hillcrest Road. A collector parking lot on Loch Lomond Road might provide alternatives to residents in this area. Saint John Energy indicates that it has overhead facilities in the area. An extension of facilities may be required to service the proposed development and this will be dealt with at a Iater date with the developer. Aliant Telecom indicates that it will work jointly with the developer and Saint John Energy to provide the necessary extension to existing facilities. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline has commented that the area in question is not near any of Q0 their facilities. co Fire Department has been advised of the application. N.B. Department of Public Health and Wellness has indicated that 1.2 metres (4 feet) of imported fill material will be required for the purposes of on -site sewage disposal, and that the following lots are acceptable for 3- bedroom homes only: 2N, 3N, 9N, 10N, 11N, 12N, and 13N. N.B. Department of Environment and Local Government has reviewed the Abbreviated Water Supply Assessment Study prepared by the developer's engineering firm and indicates that, in general, there appears to be adequate water quantity in the area to support the development of single - family homes, however, low well yields are possible and water storage or conservation methods may be required. There is no guarantee of the water quality in the proposed subdivision, however the water chemistry data for the area generally indicates that water treatment may be required for iron, manganese, turbidity, hardness and/or arsenic. All new wells should be tested 1 The developer has been working with the Municipal Operations and Engineering Department to arrive at an acceptable drainage plan for the entire subdivision, however there remains some disagreement for the portion of the subdivision comprised of Lots 1 -N to 5 -N (inclusive) and Lots 13 -N, 14 -N and 17 -N. While it is anticipated that a mutually acceptable resolution can be found, Staff can only support approval of that portion of the subdivision where the drainage plan has been accepted by the Municipal Operations and Engineering Department, which is reflected in the Staff Recommendation. •Hillcrest Heights North Subdivision P%_ 4 Hillcrest Road August 22, 2008 for general chemistry, trace metals and microbiology prior to consumption to determine if any specific parameters (i.e., arsenic, iron, manganese, lead, uranium, etc.) require water treatment. Homeowners also need to understand the importance of regular water quality testing (e.g., annually) and maintenance of treatment systems. School Board has been notified of this proposed development. Civic Addressing has confirmed that the proposed street name of Meahan Crescent is unique in sound and spelling and is therefore acceptable. ANALYSIS: Site Characteristics The subject property is situated immediately to the northeast of the Greenwood Subdivision in East Saint John (see attached location map). The property has a total area of approximately 11, hectares (27.9 acres) with frontage on Hillcrest Road. The site is covered by a forest with a rolling topography and a valley area separating it from the southern portion of the Hillcrest Heights Subdivision. The surrounding area is comprised mostly of single- family dwellings on large unserviced lots. As mentioned, the Greenwood Subdivision is situated immediately to the southwest of the subject Q0 site, and a rural residential subdivision is located to the northwest along Hillcrest Road. CO Development Proposal The application involves the subdivision of fourteen unserviced residential lots, twelve of which would be along a new public street, tentatively called Meahan Crescent, with the remaining two lots fronting on Hillcrest Road. A future street is also proposed to connect with the westerly - adjacent vacant lot, owned by Sierra Supplies Ltd. It is the intention of the developer to undertake this subdivision proposal in phases over a period of time; the next phase of the project involves Lots 5 -N and 8 -N. It should be noted that no variances are required and the Land for Public Purposes requirement has been satisfied by an earlier phase of the overall subdivision2. A Water Supply Assessment Study has been completed (the Department of Environment's comments are included above) and the present application is only to obtain the Committee's views concerning assent to the subdivision plan, the location of public and future streets, any necessary City/Developer Subdivision Agreements and municipal services and public utility easements. 2 The land vested with the City was the buffer surrounding Graham's Brook. . HiIlcrest Heights North Subdivi —ort Pa6_ 5 Hillcrest Road August 22, 2008 Re aired Subdivision Work and Public Utilities The Subdivision By -law requires the construction of the proposed public street to Country Road Standards. These standards include a 7.5 -metre (25 -foot) wide asphalt driving surface, 1.8 -metre (6 -foot) wide gravel shoulders, and 0.6 -metre (2 -foot) deep ditching. The Staff Recommendation includes authorization of a City/Developer Subdivision Agreement(s) should the Developer wish to obtain final subdivision approval before completing all the necessary street work for the proposed subdivision. The execution of an Agreement allows for a developer to construct the road up to a granular "B" material without requiring an asphalt surface until two (2) years from the date that the Agreement was executed. However, sufficient security for the remaining work and liability insurance must accompany this Agreement. Alternatively, a developer could complete all the necessary street work prior to seeking approval of the final subdivision plan. In addition, the Subdivision By -law allows a developer to carryout any subdivision proposal in phases. All the necessary assents and approvals have been included in the recommendation with regards to undertaking the necessary work and providing the public utilities. Street Naming The naming of proposed streets requires the approval of the PIanning Advisory Committee. The developer has provided the name "Meahan Crescent ", which has been accepted by the City's Civic Addressing branch as being unique in sound and spelling. It can therefore be recommended for approval. CONCLUSION: The proposed subdivision development is consistent with the previous proposals put forth by the applicant and can satisfy the provisions of both the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws. Approval of the necessary assent and authorization of the Subdivision Agreement for the proposed subdivision development can therefore be recommended, as can the proposed street name of "Meahan Crescent ". PF Project No. 08 -375 M tl • v c LID I'D I • Z O IM o ``' pp o�i7 � /� o�Y ww • T .Y S J 0. g g R _ I U _j Y o ' e • r� I � z am s :N s� ..._...- - --'-` �W - - "• _�- �+ds - -. lrTu� � --- Iii a - _\ � r �p : .,-- ..._- _._.... • "�' i U i1 dam C l �.o 11 J z I _ Y , u•_ ss RVr ur +'R _ ccu l �, � �`- �,\ ♦ 111 Si �`�•�'} ��g 1J•80 -/�' . - ' r ! 1 .11�. AI �I , tt, "� ) v�� ,