The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread - Page 308

flwright · #**6141** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 3:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_d40

Um... I guess I could ask you the same questions and tell you to get your facts straight.

Since I can't copy and paste a PDF, heres the conculsion of Project No. 11-157 from the PAC:

The previous landowner/developer was given approval to carry out a one and two family subdivision on the subject property. This development did not occur, and the new landowner/developer is seeking permission to undertake a mini home subdivision. The polices of the Municipal Plan support such a development at this location, and, therefore, the requested rezoning is RECOMMEMDED with certain Section 39 conditions to ensure compliance with the Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application also involves the consideration of Zoning By-law amendments with regards to the regulation of mobile homes. These proposed changes are appropriate and have been recommended for APPROVAL, as well as the necessary subdivision APPROVALS and variances associated with this application.

Anything else you need clarification on??

You are confused.

What you are quoting is the City staff's recommendations to PAC. This is not PAC's recommendation and PAC makes up its own mind while taking into account the opinion of staff, the applicant, the residents, and good planning practices. In this instance, PAC disagreed with City staff. I can assure you 100% that PAC recommended denial because I am the PAC member that made the motion!

michael_d40 · #**6142** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flwright

You are confused.

What you are quoting is the City staff's recommendations to PAC. This is not PAC's recommendation and PAC makes up its own mind while taking into account the opinion of staff, the applicant, the residents, and good planning practices. In this instance, PAC disagreed with City staff. I can assure you 100% that PAC recommended denial because I am the PAC member that made the motion!

We will see when it's presented to council. I REALLY hope I'm wrong and it is voted down. But who are we kidding here? After the Loch Lomond debacle they will approve it thinking they are doing the right thing.

flwright · #**6143** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_d40

We will see when it's presented to council. I REALLY hope I'm wrong and it is voted down. But who are we kidding here? After the Loch Lomond debacle they will approve it thinking they are doing the right thing.

All the Loch Lomond Road developments (3) were turned down at last night's council meeting at 3rd reading.

michael_d40 · #**6144** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flwright

All the Loch Lomond Road developments (3) were turned down at last night's council meeting at 3rd reading.

I know that.

sjuser23 · #**6145** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 11:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flwright

All the Loch Lomond Road developments (3) were turned down at last night's council meeting at 3rd reading.

I really don't understand why it was turned down? Plan SJ wanted infill in Forest Hills, this is adjacent to Forest Hills, just different road, in between 2 already fully serviced sub divisions, it would reduce overall cost of delivery of services to the area and its perfect infill. Two of the proposals are 2 minutes from Mcalister drive and if it did add to traffic, we're talking a distance of 1 KM or 2 depending on which subdivision. People in any neighborhood have to get over the fact that just because there are woods adjacent to where you live doesn't mean there will always be woods there unless you buy the land yourself. Very naiive thinking in my opinion to dissaprove these two infill subdivisions.

JHikka · #**6146** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 4:31 PM**

Just some small things:

- The New Fort Howe Howard Johnson was doing some landscaping today. Removing some trees and seemingly fixing the place up a bit more. Should be looking better soon, not that it looked all that poor before. I haven't been down to the Hotel Courtney Bay (which is now a Super 8?).

- There are trailers and a few machines across Loch Lomond Avenue from the LL Villa. I know there is supposed to be an expansion of the Villa built on that land. I also know that we spoke of these plans in this thread some time ago. Was the plan to build another large building like they already have as a part of the main complex? Interested to see how this development turns out.

- The Fortress of Vengeance is awfully intimidating looking up from the bottom of the hill at Harbour Station.

cdnguys · #**6147** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 10:35 PM**

- the stone that was going on the front of three sisters condos town homes is also snaking up the columns to the top.

- The old customs house and Union Station were big losses to the city; however, I feel we are redeeming ourselves with the Law Courts and Three Sisters condos - architecturally they are going to be very nice additions to the skyline. I'm looking forward to the brick, stone and glass going on courthouse - the contrast with the prefab concrete panels will look very nice.

- Just a concern though - the very light colour of the concrete panels going on courthouse - that was the exact colour of the Brunswick Square office tower when it was build in 1978 - and now is is a dark beige with black streaks. Unfortunately I think the courthouse will meet the same fate. Just look at the soot on Harbour Station's roof!!

- Abbey St. Andrew is now advertising for tenants:

http://saintjohn.kijiji.ca/c-real-estate...ptown-Abbey-St-Andrew-W0QQAdIdZ288909082

mylesmalley · #**6148** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 11:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregHickman

Just some small things:

- The New Fort Howe Howard Johnson

The FoHoHoJo?

flwright · #**6149** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjuser23

I really don't understand why it was turned down? Plan SJ wanted infill in Forest Hills, this is adjacent to Forest Hills, just different road, in between 2 already fully serviced sub divisions, it would reduce overall cost of delivery of services to the area and its perfect infill. Two of the proposals are 2 minutes from Mcalister drive and if it did add to traffic, we're talking a distance of 1 KM or 2 depending on which subdivision. People in any neighborhood have to get over the fact that just because there are woods adjacent to where you live doesn't mean there will always be woods there unless you buy the land yourself. Very naiive thinking in my opinion to dissaprove these two infill subdivisions.

I think there needs to be a little more definition around the term "infill" in the context of PlanSJ's stable areas.

While these new subdivisions did "fill in" the space between existing subdivisions, they were packed to the brim (i.e., full, 100% build-out of the land) to the tune of nearly 200 lots or nearly 5% of ALL the development (not just infill) planned for PlanSJ over the next 25 years in an area that was not slated for substantial development. Regardless of how close these new developments might have been to adjacent growth areas, 5% is significant and goes against the growth strategy that the City paid big $$$ for. Residents of the city also spent hours and hours crafting the growth strategy with their input to specifically identify the proper areas for growth and develop their vision of Saint John. Why ignore it at the very first opportunity?

In order to achieve the efficiencies described above, by my estimate, two or three short streets could have been built with a max of 20 or 30 lots. THAT is infill -- just enough to fully utilize the existing infrastructure and create efficiencies in services with a sustainable return on investment. What was proposed was to 1) add many times more infrastructure than was necessary in 2) an area not slated for growth at 3) a density that does not provide sustainable funding to cover the costs of the additional infrastructure and 4) reduce demand for development in the areas that are actually slated for growth. And that is not to mention 5) all of the extra dead-end streets and services that must be provided that only reduce the efficiencies gained by interconnecting the existing streets.

Beyond that, it should be noted, the developer is still able "by right" (i.e., under the existing zoning) to develop a subdivision on the property but with larger lots and other minor changes or is free to re-offer a smaller subdivision under the proposed new zone that is more in keeping with the term "infill." Infill along Loch Lomond Road isn't dead, its just that the subdivisions have to be right for Saint John and in accordance with the wishes of the community as illustrated in the extensive PlanSJ process.

JHikka · #**6150** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 1:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mylesmalley

The FoHoHoJo?

Totally calling it that from now on.

thefishingnut · #**6151** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flwright

I think there needs to be a little more definition around the term "infill" in the context of PlanSJ's stable areas.

While these new subdivisions did "fill in" the space between existing subdivisions, they were packed to the brim (i.e., full, 100% build-out of the land) to the tune of nearly 200 lots or nearly 5% of ALL the development (not just infill) planned for PlanSJ over the next 25 years in an area that was not slated for substantial development. Regardless of how close these new developments might have been to adjacent growth areas, 5% is significant and goes against the growth strategy that the City paid big $$$ for. Residents of the city also spent hours and hours crafting the growth strategy with their input to specifically identify the proper areas for growth and develop their vision of Saint John. Why ignore it at the very first opportunity?

You're certainly closer to it than I am so these are general comments, but I think there are two principal issues. First is that as I understand it, it is a draft plan, and thus approval or rejection of the developers plan isn't based on any approved strategy, but rather on essentially speculation on what the strategy will end up being. (unless the input process was just lip service) People/investors have the right to know the criteria under which their requests will be evaluated, otherwise they're spending money taking shots in the dark. Second, there are existing developers who have spent money on their investments both for acquisition as well as planning who should have some sort of ability to complete their project based on the planning context in place when their project started. Mayor Court is right that it is anti-development if the rules have changed mid-flight, and especially if rules are essentially being made up on the fly (since the strategy isn't approved).

With any strategy, needs to be an implementation plan. And since private citizens/companies have made investments which may be invalid based on the adoption of a strategy which wasn't in place when their projects started, there needs to be careful consideration as to what will be done to in-flight projects.

flwright · #**6152** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefishingnut

You're certainly closer to it than I am so these are general comments, but I think there are two principal issues. First is that as I understand it, it is a draft plan, and thus approval or rejection of the developers plan isn't based on any approved strategy, but rather on essentially speculation on what the strategy will end up being. (unless the input process was just lip service) People/investors have the right to know the criteria under which their requests will be evaluated, otherwise they're spending money taking shots in the dark. Second, there are existing developers who have spent money on their investments both for acquisition as well as planning who should have some sort of ability to complete their project based on the planning context in place when their project started. Mayor Court is right that it is anti-development if the rules have changed mid-flight, and especially if rules are essentially being made up on the fly (since the strategy isn't approved).

With any strategy, needs to be an implementation plan. And since private citizens/companies have made investments which may be invalid based on the adoption of a strategy which wasn't in place when their projects started, there needs to be careful consideration as to what will be done to in-flight projects.

Actually, there are two components: 1) the municipal plan, and 2) the growth strategy. You are correct that the municipal plan is still in the draft form, but the growth strategy was unanimously approved by Council about 2 months ago. Essentially, the growth strategy indicates "where" to grow and the municipal plan indicates "how" to grow.

The unfortunate part, as you've identified, is that there is a necessary overlap where the policies aren't entirely clear for developers between the old and new municipal plans. On the other hand, developing is a risky business even when the policies are known and there has been no secret that there was a new municipal plan in the works that would change "the rules of the game." Approval of the growth strategy is also part of the implementation plan for the new municipal plan to ease the transition.

In the case of the development further down Loch Lomond Road, the developer had already received some approvals and spent further money in good faith per Council's request to finalize the development and this was taken into account in PAC's decision to approve the development even though it didn't fit within the growth strategy. Unfortunately for the developer, Council (within its rights) still turned it down. On the other hand, the other two subdivisions on Loch Lomond Road were more speculative in nature but not to say that they hadn't also spent money in good faith to come to this point. That is the gamble of developing and they could have still been turned down regardless of the new growth strategy and municipal plan.

Fischbob · #**6153** Posted **Jul 22, 2011, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Housing: Project intended as home for people with 'a sense of community'
C1
HILARY PAIGE SMITH
TELEGRAPH-JOURNAL

SAINT JOHN - Abbey St. Andrew will be a community within a community, Peter Jollymore says.

Construction of the building, located at the corner of Charlotte and Duke streets in the city centre, began last summer. The 96-unit building is slated for completion at the end of August.

"It's mixed housing. We're trying to have a mix of residents that's typical of an actual community," Jollymore said during a tour of the site Tuesday.

"Out of that may come some insights that can be applied in the broader community because we recognize the issue of poverty and so on isn't just about housing, it's about physical health, spiritual health, economics, jobs, a whole variety of things."

Abbey St. Andrew includes 55 government-subsidized affordable housing units, alongside 41 "market" units. Units range in size from one to three bedroom and there are seven two-storey townhouse units on the Duke Street side.

...

The biggest glitch so far was the discovery of furnace oil while they were digging at the site. The setback cost $350,000 to fix, only $150,000 of which has been raised by donation. Jollymore said the non-profit organization is in the process of fundraising for the remaining $200,000.

Not including land, which was provided by nearby Church of St. Andrew and David, the structure cost $12.5 million to build. The project received $2.2 million in federal funding toward construction costs, and $4.2 million in rent supplements from the provincial government for 55 of the units. Enbridge Gas also provided grant funding. The remaining cost has been mortgaged by the church.

Jollymore said he won't likely be around by the time the mortgage is paid off, adding it could be around 35 years.

"It should end up paying for itself in the long run," he said.

...

Jollymore said more money was put into the cost of building materials to lessen costs down the road. The units are heated by a gas and hot water system. Gas heats the hot water, which runs underneath the tile floor, heating units from the bottom up.

...

Jollymore said the building is an opportunity for people of different backgrounds to mingle. Residents will include people of all ages, singles, couples and families.

"We want this to be, not just a dwelling place, but a home for people with a sense of community."

----

Units: 96.
Rooms: One-, two- and three-bedroom units.
Expected residents: Between 150 and 200.
Cost: $12.5 million.
Subsidized rent: Tenants will be charged 30 per cent of their monthly income.
Market rent: $950 to $1,875.
Features: Heated floors, underground parking garage, courtyard.

Full article: http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/1424919

This is an excellent example of infill done right. 150-200 residents where there was only a parking lot before (and reqiring no major infrastructure extensions!). Hopefully this is only the beginning: we've got plenty more surface parking in the uptown that could be put to better use!

nwalbert · #**6154** Posted **Jul 25, 2011, 10:40 PM**

Almost all of these jobs are in SJ. Good to see that the city continues to foster new employment opportunities with the majority of the province hovering around 10% unemployment rates.

J.D. Irving hunts for 200 workers

J.D. Irving Ltd. is holding a job fair in Saint John over the next two days as one of the province's largest employers is looking to hire as many as 200 people to work as truck drivers and harvesters.

The forestry company is advertising the jobs, which are available in communities across the province, and is urging people to come forward to the job fair even if they have no experience in the forest industry.

Jim Ketterling, a J.D. Irving official, said the company traditionally did a lot of its hiring by word of mouth, but that's changing with the province's demographic trends.

"We're finding...more people living in urban areas, and also the fact that the workforce is aging in the forest industry," he said.

"In our case in the forest industry in Canada over half the people are over the age of 45."

Ketterling said the company is looking to hire about 80 people in the Saint John area and 200 across the province.

The company is holding a job fair at Lily Lake Pavilion in Saint John on Monday and Tuesday and has already held events in Fredericton and St. Stephen.

The company official said more than 100 job seekers turned out for each event.

New Brunswick's unemployment rate has been hovering at close to 10 per cent for almost a year.

The New Brunswick economy lost 1,900 jobs in June, pushing the unemployment rate to 9.6 per cent, according to Statistics Canada.

Premier David Alward said on Friday his government was looking at halting the planned minimum wage increase in September until April because he was worried the move could cost further jobs.

nwalbert · #**6155** Posted **Jul 26, 2011, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintJohnCycling

While it is frustrating that Saint John has few bike lanes and they are not well-connected, I'm very pleased that progress is being made. The temporary Main Street Bike Lane may not be perfect, but the fact that the city is making an effort and providing a solution for cyclists who would normally use Harbour Passage is great!

It would be great if this change was permanent, as Main Street does not need to be six lanes wide, but once Harbour Passage re-opens, it shouldn't be necessary.

Given that Union Street is closed, I don't think that the center lane should be left turn only at Main and Union. Funelling the traffic down to one lane, then back out to two lanes on St. Patrick Street isn't a major problem, except that some people will go through straight in the left turn lane and cause an accident.

The bike lane starts and ends at intersections. The expectation is that cyclists will access it via the crosswalks. The city will release an istructional video tomorrow.

I'm very glad that Saint John is catching up in Active Transportation!

Here is the press release: http://www.saintjohn.ca/en/home/newsroom/newsreleases/mainstreetbikelanetobeinstalledthisweek.aspx

After spending last week in India where there are literally millions of bikes, but all powered and now this week in Germany where are thousands of pedal bikes I see the advantage that making a city bicycle friendly can deliver.

I am in a Northern city very close to Wolfsburg that is roughly the size of Saint John. Went for dinner with colleagues last night and was really shocked at the vibrancy within the downtown core. It felt like the entire population must be down there. It turns out most of the city does live/work/play within that area. Obviously European cities have a different culture but the ease of bike/pedestrian traffic also clearly plays a role in the vibrancy of a downtown.

That being said, I have absolutely noticed Saint John's core becoming more populated. Should be interesting to see if the Harbour Front residences add to that when they are complete. The Coast Guard site could be the icing on the cake.

JHikka · #**6156** Posted **Jul 26, 2011, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwalbert

...Obviously European cities have a different culture...

And that about sums it up. Europe: Bike/Train & North America: Car

I'll be headed to Köln in the spring if all goes accordingly, and although that is a larger city i'm sure there are still a good number of cyclists and public commuters. European cities are mode adept at creating those environments because they are built around them more than their North American counterparts.

I'm not so sure about Saint John's core being more populated right now

Wolkenkratzerliebhab · #**6157** Posted **Jul 26, 2011, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregHickman

And that about sums it up. Europe: Bike/Train & North America: Car

I'll be headed to Köln in the spring if all goes accordingly, and although that is a larger city i'm sure there are still a good number of cyclists and public commuters.

I haven't been to Koln, but German cities in general are great for cyclists, and the best of them all is Freiburg-Im-Bresgau in Baden Wurtemberg, which has a lot of the Altstadt, or older parts of the town dedicated to walkers and cyclists. Very little car traffic, and even though Freiburg has 219,000 in the city (380,000 with suburbs) it is very, very accommodating to cyclists, as are a lot of other German cities. Koln is old, big and absolutely beautiful, so I'm I little jealous that I can't visit it myself, so have a great time if you go? Oh, by the way, die Deutcherin ist sehr schone! (German babes are HOT!)