HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-19-162 - SG 2019-015 - 2960-3050 Kingsway DrREPORT TO:Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING:July16, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner -519-741-2200 ext. 7157
PREPARED BY:Katie Anderl, SeniorPlanner–519-741-2200 ext. 7987
WARD:3
th
DATE OF REPORT:July 8, 2019
REPORT #:DSD-19-162
SUBJECT:SG2019-015–2960 Kingsway Drive& 220 Fairway Road South
(Fairview Park Mall)
Applicant –Gilda Collins (PermitWorld)
Approve
Location Map: 2960 Kingsway Drive& 200 Fairway Road South
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
REPORT
Planning Comments:
CF Fairview Park Mall iscurrently undergoing major improvements that will see the traditional
retail mall transform to a higher intensity mixed-use development. The first phase of site
improvements areapproved and workincludingredevelopmentofthe main entrance, parking
areasand former bus terminalis underway. The next phase has received Site Plan Approval in
Principle and includes interior and exterior renovations to theformerSear’sstore,construction of
new freestanding restaurant buildings, and anew 4 storey mixed-use building near the main
Fairway Road South entrance. There are also longer term plans for additional office, retail,
residential and structured parking, which will require futuredevelopmentapprovals.
As part of theoverall redevelopment, Cadillac Fairview is rebranding the mall the “CF Grand
Market District” and the developer is pursuing a brick and beam industrial aesthetic-an
interpretation of Kitchener’s Victorian-era industrial architecture. This design direction will be
reflected in updated and new facades, and includes distinctive architectural elements including a
smokestackandwater tower,and also extendsto the design of site signage. The smokestack
and water tower have been approved as part of the site design as an architectural feature and
structure (respectively)and are subject to building permitsand staff review/approval of elevations
and materialsas part of the overall Site Plan Approval process.
The applicant is proposing to utilize “CF Grand Market District” branding on a roof sign, the
smokestack and the water tower, and variances are required as detailed below.Each of thesigns
subject to the requested variances are limited to identification of the owner “CF” and property
branding name “Grand Market District” and have no individual store signage or other advertising
information. The signs have been designed with a font, style and word placement typical of an
early industrial era aesthetic.Additional signage is also proposedthroughout the development,
however all othersigns willcomply with the City’s sign by-law,and permits will be required.
Photo 1–Existing Sear’s Façade (June 12, 2019)
Image 1–RenovatedSears Façade including smoke stack (with signage) and roof sign
Roof Sign –Sears Facade
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 680.19.6 and Section 680.19.7 of the Sign By-law
22
to permit a roof sign with an area of 54.22 mrather than 10 m, and to permit the supporting
structure to not be screened, whereas the by-law requires screening.
The intentof the maximum area is to ensure that a roof sign is not out of proportion with a
commercial building. The subject building is much larger than most commercial buildingsand
hasan overall length of 138 metres. The proposed roof sign is about 35 metres long and
represents about 25% of the building length. Because of the scale of this façade,the proposed
sign is appropriate in the context of the redevelopment.
The intent of requiring that supporting structures be screened is to provide for an aesthetically
pleasing design. The proposed unscreened structure is representative of the early industrial era
aestheticand is an intentional design choice. Staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate to permit
the structure without screening.
Smoke Stack
The applicant is requesting relief from section 680.10.16 of the sign by-law to permit a fasica sign
to be located on an architectural feature. The intent of prohibiting signagefrom being placed on
architectural features is to prevent the architecture from being obscured by the signage and so
that the feature is not damaged by the installation of the signage. The proposed smokestack is
new construction andwill be structurallyengineered and designed to accommodate the proposed
signage,should the requested variance be approved. Further, the vertical component will be
designed to look like painted letters on the brick, which is typical of the industrial aestheticand
commonly a feature on historic smoke stacks, which the owner is emulating. Staff is of the opinion
that is it is appropriate to permit the proposed fascia signage on the smoke stack.
While not specifically related to the sign variances, the applicant is proposingto design the smoke
stack in such a way as to provide habitat for the chimney swiftwhich is identified as a Threatened
Species at Risk in Ontario.This species has been in decline with the removal of traditional urban
habitat such as historical smokestacks and church spires, and this feature could help to provide
much needed habitatand nesting sites.The applicant will continue to work with the City to design
the smoke stack to provide this habitat.
Photo 2–Future location of four storey Mixed-Use Building and Water Tower (June 12, 2019).
Water Tower
The proposed water tower has received Approval
in Principle, as a structure on the subject lands,
through the Site Plan Approval process. The
structure meets zoning by-law regulations as a
building and will be subject to a review of the
elevations, materials, structural design,etc
through the Site Development and Building Permit
processes. The applicant is proposing to add
signage to this structure, and in so doing, the
structure has been interpreted to become a
‘ground supported sign’.As such, the requested
variances are relatedto thisclass of sign.
The applicant is requesting relief from section
680.11.4 of the Sign By-law to permit the
maximum height of a ground supportedsign to be
15.24 metres, rather than 7.5 metres;section
680.11.4 to permit a maximum sign face area of
22
21.33 mrather than 20 m; section 680.11.13 a)
to permit a minimum separation between ground
supportedsigns of 15.4 metresrather than 50
metres; and from 680.11.15 to permit the ground
supportedsign not to include the civic
number/address of the property.
Through discussions with City staff the overall
Image 2–Proposed water tower
height of the water tower has been reduced from
an original height of 21.88 metres, to the current
proposal of 15.24 metres, and the sign face area was reduced from the original proposal of 36.9
22
mto 21.33 m. The original proposal was not supported by staff. The current proposal has
significantly reduced all dimensions of the water tower, proportionately to maintain scale, and has
eliminated multi-tenantstore signage fromthelegs. The overall height of the water tower is less
than the height of the nearbyfour storey mixed-use building(about 17 metres high)located in
close proximity.
The intent of the maximum height of 7.5 metres for a ground supportedsign is to reduce impacts
to the sky line, limit the massiveness of ground supportedsignage andreduce visual clutter along
a street, so that the signs are not the dominating features along a commercial street. While the
water tower has been interpreted to be a ground supportedsign for purpose of the by-law
application, it functions more as an architectural feature, adding interest to the skylineof the Grand
Market Districtand asunique location identifying feature. Staffis of the opinion that the structure’s
designis consistent with the vision of Cadillac Fairview for the Grand Market District, and is in
keeping with the desired industrial aesthetic. The actual wordingon the sign is located high up
so does notcause a visual distraction at the street level, but is designed to have visual prominence
from farther away, however is lower than signage which may be installed on the four storey mixed-
use building(which is permitted by the Sign By-law). Further, the sign is located 6.0 metres from
the streetline, which exceeds the 0.4 metres permitted by the by-law for a ground supportedsign,
and the Landscape Plan will provide for vegetation and screening around the base. Based on
the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance is appropriate.
2
The intent oflimiting the sign face area of a ground supportedsign to 20 mis toensure that the
face of the sign is proportional to the height. The design of the signage component is quite
different from traditional ground supportedsigns and the calculation for asign face is based on
the complete area of the rectangle, whereas the water tower has a cylindrical surface and an
irregular shape. Staff is of the opinion that increase in area per face is appropriate.
Cadillac Fairview is proposing to locate a traditional multi-tenant ground supportedsign as shown
on the location map, in front of the 4 storey mixed use building. This sign does not require
variances and complies with City regulations for a ground supportedsign. However, as the water
tower will be interpreted as a ground supportedsign once the signage has been added,
permission is required for the reduced separation between the traditional ground supportedsign
and the water tower ground supportedsign. The purpose of requiring a minimum 50 metre
separation between ground supportedsigns on a single property is to reduce visual clutter along
the street, and reduce distractions to drivers. As these signs will serve different purposes, convey
different information, and are different in style, staff is of the opinion that reducing the separation
from 50 metres to 15.4 metres is appropriate.
The applicant is also requesting permission to not include the civic address on the water tower
ground supportedsign. This information will be included on the traditional ground supportedsign
and staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate not to require it on the water tower as well.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approvedsubject to
the conditionsoutlined in the Recommendation section of this report.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed sign variancesprovided a sign permit is
obtained prior to erection.
Transportation Services Comments:
Transportation Services hasno concerns with the proposed application.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No heritage planning concerns.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No environmental planning concerns due to nature of application.
Ministry of Transportation Comments:
An MTO Permit will be required prior to the issuance of Sign Permits for signage on the smoke
stack and on the Sears Roof.
RECOMMENDATION
That application SG2019-015requesting permission for:
1.aGround Supported Sign (water tower) to have a height of 15.24 m rather than a
22
maximum of 7.5 m; a sign face area of 21.33 mrather than 20 m; a separation
distance between ground supported signs of 15.4m rather than 50 m, and no civic
number ormunicipal address on the sign;
2.aFasciaSign (smoke stack)to be located on an architectural feature; and
22
3.a Roof Sign (Sear’s façade) to have a sign area of 54.22 mrather than 10 m; and
to permit the supporting structure to not be screened, whereas the by-law
requires screening.
be approved subject to the following conditions:
a)That Sign Permits be obtained for each sign prior to erection, and that the final sign
designs and supporting structuresbe consistent with the overall dimensions,
materials, style, and locations provided in support of sign variance application
SG2019-015, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning.
_____
Katie Anderl, BES, MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt,BES, MCIP, RPP
SeniorPlanner Senior Planner
July 05, 2019
Holly Dyson
City of Kitchener File No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN
200 King Street West (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND
P.O. Box 1118 CHRISTIAN HORIZIONS
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston
Dear Ms. Dyson:
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have following comments:
1. SG 2019-014 150 Pioneer Drive No Concerns.
2. SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive No Concerns.
3. A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive No Concerns.
4. A 2019-060 72 Archer Place No Concerns.
5. A 2019-061 15 Peter Street No Concerns.
6. A 2019-062 920 Keewatin Place No Concerns.
7. A 2019-063 4278 King Street East No Concerns.
8. A 2019-064 452 Prospect Avenue No Concerns.
9. A 2019-065 456 Prospect Avenue No Concerns.
10. A 2019-066 to 073 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive No Concerns.
11. A 2019-074 to 081 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive No Concerns.
12. A 2019-082 83 Elmsdale Drive No Concerns.
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor
thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЌЉЎЉАЊЌ
tğŭĻ Њ ƚŅ Ћ
Yours Truly,
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
(519) 575-4500 Ext 3867
Grand River Conservation Authority
400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729
Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W6
Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319
E-mail: thughes@grandriver.ca
PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener
Holly Dyson
DATE: YOUR FILE:
July 5, 2019 See below
Applications for Minor Variance:
RE:
SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive
A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive
A 2019-060 72 Archer Place
A 2019-061 15 Peter Street
A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place
A 2019-063 4278 King Street East
A 2019-064 452 Prospect Avenue
A 2019-065 456 Prospect Avenue
A 2019-066 to 073 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive
A 2019-074 to 081 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive
A 2019-082 83 Elmsdale Drive
Applications for Consent:
B 2019-025 4283 King Street East
B 2019-026 4285 King Street East
B 2019-029 4278 King Street East
B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue
B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue
B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive
B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive
B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive
GRCA COMMENT:
The above noted applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority
areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan review
fees will not be required. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
Trisha Hughes
Resource Planner
Grand River Conservation Authority
Page 1 of 1
*These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the
Grand River Conservation Authority.
Tracy
4± ¢¸0 ²³®±ȝ#®±±¨£®±- ¦¤¬¤³/¥¥¨¢¤±
#®±±¨£®±- ¦¤¬¤³3¤¢³¨®ȝ7¤²³2¤¦¨®
-¨¨²³±¸®¥4± ²¯®±³ ³¨®
¯§®¤ͶͲͺȁʹȁ͵ͳͱͺ
¥ ·ͶͲͺȁʹȁ͵ͳͳ