Council Agenda Monday, May 28, 2012 - City of St. John's

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page I of2 Fw: Quidi Vidi development proposal Frank Galgay to: Council Group, rsmart, Cliff Johnston, Joe Sampson, Ken O'Brien 2012/05/18 12:22 PM Hide Details From: Frank Galgay/CSJ Sort List... To: "Council Group" , rsmart@stjohns.ca, "Cliff Johnston" , "Joe Sampson" , "Ken O'Brien" I am forwarding Mr. Murray's correspondence for your Information. Frank Galgay ... Ward 2 Councilman From : sean murray [swmurray2@hotmail.com) Sent: 2012/05/18 12:49 PM GMT To: Frank Galgay Subject: Quidi Vidi development proposal HI Frank, I couldn't attend the meeting last night, but I thought I would pass along a few comments. As you know, I keep a close watch on development issues in the city, and whenever a development proposal Involving a rezoning is made available through the City's web site, I always read through it, along with the accompanying memo from planning staff. In this particular case 1 don't have any strong feelings pro or con about the proposal itself. What I did notice, however, Is how far off ba.se the proposal lS VefSUS the local area plan. The memo from planning staff Is quite dear on this. I find most of those memos are basically posative in temns of development, because overall the Municipal Plan encourages density and mixed uses, which I support. However, in this case, the local area plan really identifles some unique aspects of Qulda Vldi and seeks to preserve those, and the memo from planning staff highlights a number of areas where this proposal Is inconsastent with that plan. Ultimately, I think this issue is just as much or more about the integrity and value of the planning process, as it is about this particular proposal. If Council is going to go to the trouble of preparing local area plans, and engaging citizens on the basis that the exercise will have some value, I'm not sure how anyone could support this filc://C:\Temp\notcs32CSCD\-web6048.htm 2012/05/18
Page 2 of2 development. Otherwise, what is the value of engaging in these exercises I actually question why this was referred to Council and to a public meeting, because this is one of those very few cases where the memo from planning staff shows that the proposal is so divergent from the City's plan, that in theory it could have been rejected at the staff level. Obviously there will be times, and we've seen quite a few of them in recent years, where a new development is not consistent with the current plan, whether or not there is a local area planning scheme. In such cases, I think it is quite valid to be flexible when a proposal is somewhat outside of the range of what was envisioned by the Municipal Plan. In cases where there is a very strong divergence away from the plan, however, it should be a relatively clear choice. The best case scenario for me would be a strong degree of participation by developers in the Municipal Planning process. That way, citizens and developers are talking together at the planning stage, rather than at loggerheads after a proposal has been made. Historically, many developers have opted not to participate in the planning process, because a)they don't see how it could be useful to them and b) they're used to simply trying their luck by flicking development proposals out and seeing what will stick. Until developers buy into the process, that will continue. The only way It will stop is if it is made clear that the City is going to stick fairly closely to the spirit, if not always the letter, of the Plan, until the next Municipal Plan review, at which time the discussion can be reopened. Please feel free to pass this along to any of your colleagues. All the best, Sean Murray lile://C:\Temp\notcs32C5CD\- web6048.htm 2012105/ 18
Page 1 and 2: AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MAY 28 th ,
Page 3 and 4: 14. Adjournment - 2 - 1. Memo dated
Page 5 and 6: - 2 - 2012-05-22 SJMC2012-05-22/295
Page 7 and 8: - 4 - 2012-05-22 Public Hearing Dow
Page 9 and 10: - 6 - 2012-05-22 AG Proposed Buildi
Page 11 and 12: - 8 - 2012-05-22 4 VANGUARD CRT RN
Page 13 and 14: - 10 - 2012-05-22 CR CHNG OF OCC/RE
Page 15 and 16: - 12 - 2012-05-22 Councillor O’Le
Page 17 and 18: Date: May 24, 2012 To: Re: His Wors
Page 19 and 20: A public meeting was held on Thursd
Page 21 and 22: - 3 - 2012-05-17 • Reference was
Page 23 and 24: - 5 - 2012-05-17 • More thought s
Page 25 and 26: - 7 - 2012-05-17 • Mr. Walsh felt
Page 27 and 28: Dear Sir/Madam -City Clerk. Referen
Page 29 and 30: Page I of I Fw: Condos in Quidi Vid
Page 31 and 32: Re-zoning .. 5 story -- E-mail abo
Page 33 and 34: Page 2 of2 going to increase and im
Page 35 and 36: As a homeowner residing next to the
Page 37: May 17, 2012 City Clerk's Departmen
Page 41 and 42: from page 10, Section B). The prese
Page 43 and 44: Date: May 24, 2012 To: Re: Mayor an
Page 45 and 46: THIS AGREEMENT made at St. John's,
Page 47 and 48: Page 4 9) The Developer shall pay t
Page 49 and 50: Page 6 be deemed to be a condonatio
Page 51 and 52: Page 8 (f) (g) Notwithstanding Sect
Page 53 and 54: Date: May 23, 2012 To: From: Re: Hi
Page 55 and 56: Permits List 2012/05/23 CLASS: COMM
Page 57 and 58: 140 CANADA DR EX SINGLE DETACHED DW
Page 68 and 69: Date: May 24, 2012 To: From: Re: Hi
Page 70: Date: May 24, 2012 To: From: Re: Hi
Page 77: Page 2 Date: May 2, 2012 To: From:

Council Agenda Monday, May 28, 2012 - City of St. John's

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?