Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1993-10-04PED\1993-10-04 PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 1993 The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:30 p.m. under the Chairmanship of Councillor C.M. Weylie, Vice Chairman with the following members present: Mayor D.V. Cardillo and Councillors M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, J. Smola, C. Zehr, T. Galloway and G. Lorentz. Councillor B. Stortz and G. Leadston entered the meeting after its commencement. Councillor J. Ziegler, Chairman, was absent due to an urgent personal matter. Officials Present: Mr. T. McKay, Mr. S. Klapman, Mr. B. Stanley, Mr. T. McCabe, Mr. K. Tribby, Ms. L. MacDonald, Ms. S. Frenette and Mr. L.W. Neil. 1. MINUTES On motion by Councillor T. Galloway, it was resolved: "That the Minutes of the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting held on September 20, 1993, as mailed to the members, be accepted." PD 98/93 - ADDRESS CHANGE PROPOSAL. - 167 MILL STREET TO 319 SPADINA ROAD EAST. - VICTORIA PARK WARD. The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 98/93 dated September 13, 1993 recommending a property address change with respect to the property known as 167 Mill Street. The proposed change is to 319 Spadina Road East on the basis that severance of the property has resulted in the property losing its frontage on Mill Street and now having frontage only on Spadina Road East. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner, it was resolved: "That Kitchener's City Council approve the property address change, for property assessment roll number 4-21-040, from 167 Mill Street to 319 Spadina Rd. E., to be effective November 1, 1993, in the form shown in the Proposed By-law attached and dated September 13, 1993." The Chairman advised that this resolution would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. PD 99~93 - ADDRESS CHANGE PROPOSAL. - 135A BLOOMINGDALE ROAD TO 133 BLOOMINGDALE ROAD. - BRIDGEPORT NORTH WARD. The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 99/93 dated September 13, 1993 recommending a property address change with regard to the property known as 135A Bloomingdale Road. The proposed change is to 133 Bloomingdale Road. It was noted in the report that severance of the property has resulted in the two houses carrying the address of 135 with only the letters A & B to distinguish them and this has resulted in confusion with respect to billings and deliveries. Accordingly, the owners of the house fronting directly on Bloomingdale Road have requested an address change to 133 Bloomingdale Road. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor J. Smola, it was resolved: "That Kitchener's City Council approve the property address change, for property assessment roll number 6-01-106, from 135A Bloomingdale Road to 133 Bloomingdale Road., to be effective November 1, 1993, in the form shown in the Proposed By-law attached and dated September 13, 1993." PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 170 - OCTOBER 4, 1993 PD 99~93 - ADDRESS CHANGE PROPOSAL. - 135A BLOOMINGDALE ROAD TO 133 BLOOMINGDALE ROAD. - BRIDGEPORT NORTH WARD. (CONT'D) The Chairman advised that this resolution would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. PD 94/93 - 22 COURTLAND AVENUE WEST/QUEEN STREET/DAVID STREET. - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TWO YEAR PENALTY PROVISION RE DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW. - VICTORIA PARK WARD. The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 94/93 dated September 13, 1993 responding to a request received from the owner of 22 Courtland Avenue West for Council to extend the two year penalty provision associated with the Demolition Control By-law. It was noted in the report that in 1987 Council approved an application to demolish two residential structures on the property subject to the applicant constructing or substantially completing new buildings within two years from the date of demolition. The penalty for failure to complete such construction would result in a fine of $20,000 per dwelling unit. Ownership of the subject lands has changed frequently and each new owner has approached Council to extend the time allotted for completion of construction. The new owner, Bayshore Trust, requests an additional two year period (to September 5, 1995) and several reasons cited by the owner for support were listed in the report. Ms. S. Frenette advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. Councillor M. Yantzi stated that he had a concern about continually extending the time period for development to occur and suggested that stiffer maintenance standards of such vacant lots be imposed. Councillors B. Stortz and G. Leadston entered the meeting at this point. Ms. S. Frenette commented that she had misgivings about granting such extensions but that in this case nothing would be achieved by denying the request. Councillor M. Yantzi commented that maintenance standards carried out on the property appeared to be less in 1993 than in the previous year. Mr. B. Clarkson, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation and advised that he had been retained by Bayshore Trust in this matter and that his clients were in support of the staff recommendation. Mr. Clarkson advised the Committee that his client had recently taken ownership of the property under foreclosure procedure and was unaware of the time period provision that this property was subject to under the Demolish Control By-law. Accordingly, his client was advised by staff to request Council approval of an extension. In reference to the history respecting the property, Mr. Clarkson pointed out that the City had ordered demolition of four of the six properties with the other two properties being demolished through application and granting of a demolition permit. He advised that his client would maintain the site according to required property standards. Councillor M. Wagner questioned if someone was negligent since Mr. Clarkson's client was unaware of the penalty provisions the property would be subject to under the Demolition Control By-law and questioned how this could be rectified. Mr. T. McCabe advised that there was no agreement registered on title relative to the demolition order and that a site plan for the development had been submitted at a later date. He noted that staff agree that this type of occurrence was a problem. Councillor Wagner questioned what action would avoid a similar occurrence and Mr. T. McCabe advised that a reference to demolition penalties is now being put in Section 40 Agreements. Mr. Clarkson advised that clients have requested that the previous site plan agreement be proceeded with and then the concern would be addressed. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 171 - OCTOBER 4, 1993 PD 94/93 - 22 COURTLAND AVENUE WEST/QUEEN STREET/DAVID STREET. - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TWO YEAR PENALTY PROVISION RE DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW. - VICTORIA PARK WARD. (CONT'D) Discussion then took place as to whether or not the extension should be granted. It was also suggested that the Committee consider deferral of the request until a letter was received from the owner indicating they were prepared to maintain the property. Councillor M. Wagner acknowledged that there were some extenuating circumstances with respect to the request under consideration but pointed out that Council must clearly send out the message that it's objective is to retain residential properties. He indicated that he would support a one year extension. On motion by Councillor M. Yantzi, it was resolved: "That subject to receipt of a letter, acceptable to the Commissioner of Planning and Development, from Bayshore Trust undertaking to fully comply with the City's Lot Maintenance By-law and Snow Removal By-law, Council grant a two year extension of the penalty provision associated with the Demolition Control By-law for the lands located at 22 Courtland Avenue West." The Chairman advised that this resolution would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. PD 96~93 - CITY ENFORCEMENT POLICY. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. -- AND -- PD 95/93 - CITY SIGN BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/93 dated September 10, 1993 prepared as a review one year after Council's current Enforcement Policy was passed in October 1992. It was noted that a presentation was made to the Planning and Economic Development Committee at its meeting on March 1, 1993 which primarily dealt with a review of the restructuring and job reclassification that was necessitated to accommodate the Enforcement Policy. The report being considered this date dealt with an update on some of the proposed major initiatives for 1993 as well as commenting on the effects of various aspects of Council's approved Enforcement Policy. Enforcement direction was previously given that most notably affected lodging house and portable sign inspections. Reference was also made to improved administrative measures that are underway as well as to the Legal Department attempting to obtain approval for short form wording and set fines necessary to allow Enforcement staff to issue Provincial Offence Notices (tickets) for some offenses such as sign violations. Also, initiatives are underway to inform the public of the enforcement services that are available and how they can be accessed. The Committee was also in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/93 dated September 10, 1993 prepared as a one year review of the City Sign By-law Administration and Enforcement. It was noted in the report that on August 17, 1992 Council passed the new Sign By- law and rejected a request for additional display time for portable signs, directing that the existing 120 day per year limitation be enforced for a period of one year following which the regulations would be reviewed. The report outlines the enforcement experience and notes that the affected enforcement of the 120 day per year limitation has identified a number of concerns. In order to address the concerns, the Department has recommended several changes to the regulations which were highlighted in the report and recommends that the proposed changes be circulated for comment prior to final consideration. However, the Department recommends no changes be made to the existing regulations which prohibit the use of inflatable signs. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 172 - OCTOBER 4, 1993 PD 96/93 - CITY ENFORCEMENT POLICY. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. -- AND -- PD 95~93 - CITY SIGN BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. - ONEYEAR REVIEW. (CONT'D) Mr. T. McCabe introduced report PD 96/93 and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the recommendation. He reviewed the two recommendations in the report which clarify and expand the City's Enforcement Policy. Mr. K. Tribby commented on existing enforcement practise and distributed pictures of random signage violations throughout the City. He pointed out that an Enforcement approach on complaint only would result in possible lost revenues. Mr. T. McCabe then commented on Staff Report PD 95/93 and pointed out that Council had asked for a review one year after implementation of the new Sign By-law. He stated that of particular concern was that inflatable signs continue to be prohibited and the effect of permits relative to the administrative process. He pointed out that the sign industry has responded to the regulations and staff propose revision to administrative procedures that will assist the industry. Mr. McCabe indicated that no approach has been made to the industry on the revisions which staff propose be circulated before final consideration by the Committee. A general discussion of both staff reports took place. Mr. K. Tribby indicated that he would like the Sign By-law revisions dealt with before the end of 1993 so that implementation could take place at the beginning of 1994. He commented that he expected there would be just as many portable signs as there is currently but that they would move around more frequently. Councillor B. Stortz suggested that both reports should be dealt with after the proposed changes had been circulated to the sign industry and business community for comment. He commented that the effect of passing the recommendations in report PD 96~93 would be a crackdown. Councillor M. Wagner questioned why attention was not being given to the proliferation of other types of signs such as garage sales, real estate, etc. Mr. K. Tribby reviewed the proposed changes in portable sign regulations as itemized in Appendix "A" attached to report PD 95/93. He then distributed a tabular comparison between the existing regulations and the proposed regulations as listed hereunder: "EXISTING REGULATIONS PROPOSED REGULATIONS 4 displays per business 2 approved locations 24 placements per year Revenue: $720.00 8 displays per location 3 approved locations 24 placements per year Revenue: $720.00 4 placements per business 12 potential placements per business per calendar year per calendar year" Mr. Tribby also distributed a site plan of a small plaza illustrating that as a result of the reduction in the separation requirement for portable signs, three locations would be permissable rather than two locations under current regulations. He stated that he believed the changes were an advantage for both the City and for businesses with benefits to both without a negative impact being incurred on City revenues. Mr. Paul Lawson, Lawson Signs, 891 Guelph Street, appeared as a delegation to request that the City ensure all regulations within the Sign By-law were enforced. In this regard, the Committee was in receipt of a copy of Mr. Lawson's June 21st correspondence in which Mr. Lawson had indicated he felt his company was being discriminated against with respect to Mobile Sign Permits. He commented that in these difficult economic times, businesses require as much advertising as possible. In reference to the regulations of the Sign By-law, he asked that it be enforced or repealed if regulations for all type of signs were not going PLANNING AND ECONOMIC - 173 - OCTOBER 4, 1993 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 5. PD 96/93 - CITY ENFORCEMENT POLICY. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. -- AND -- PD 95/93 - CITY SIGN BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. (CONT'D) to be equally enforced. In this regard, he referred to a few examples of advertising taking place in the City and advised that he has informed staff of these violations many times. Mr. Dave Lamka, A-Z Signs advised that the proposed changes would affect his company's business. He suggested that the example provided by Mr. Tribby was actually a fairly large plaza and that the impact would be quite different on a small plaza having much less frontage. Mr. Lamka requested additional time to study the impact of the proposed changes. Mr. T. McCabe commented that in a small plaza with only three businesses, the regulations could potentially reduce the number of sign months available for display. Mr. H.S. (Bud) Jackson, 148 McKenzie Street, Listowel, appeared as a delegation on behalf of his business which deals with inflatable signs. The Committee was in receipt of a copy of Mr. Jackson's June 9th correspondence in which he set out positive business aspects of inflatable sign business advertising. Mr. Jackson read a prepared submission which he distributed to the Committee. He indicated that in his submission that he wished to address and satisfy the City's concerns with respect to the use of inflatable signs. He circulated a petition of signatures that he was currently collecting to support inflatable signs being allowed as an effective means of stimulating business in the community. In his submission, Mr. Jackson listed the following advantages of inflatable signs with additional comment on each of the advantages: - Inflatable signs - Inflatable signs - Inflatable signs - Inflatable signs - Inflatable signs are attractive and fun. are safe. attract attention. help make an event an event. are necessary to be competitive. In summary, Mr. Jackson requested that signs be allowed on the basis that they would cause harm to anyone and would not increase municipal costs but would provide retail merchants with the help they need to better promote their businesses. Councillor T. Galloway commented that the use of inflatable signs for a special event may not be unreasonable and that for signs in general, the City should make every effort it can to control and avoid unnecessary proliferation. He questioned what the real effect was of such advertising signs as well as any thrust there might be between retailers as to who has the bigger and better sign. Mr. Jackson stressed the importance of communicating with potential customers and in particular referred to the numerous people who commute to jobs out of town who are less atuned to the local retail market. Councillor Galloway indicated that a balance must be found between what was considered desirable and what was considered visual pollution. Mr. Jackson indicated that with the inflatable sign industry being in its infancy there was an opportunity to prevent what happened in the evolution of the portable sign industry. Accordingly, he suggested that the rules could be defined now before the industry gets out of control. Councillor C. Weylie questioned how the exclusion of inflatable signs came above and Mr. K. Tribby advised that the City's 1981 By-law excluded a number types of signs and inflatable signs had always been prohibited which staff recommended be carried over into the new Sign By-law. Mr. Mario Farenga, operator of the Beaver Gas Station at the intersection of Ottawa and Weber Streets, appeared as a delegation and advised that after being requested to move a portable sign last June, he had erected a permanent sign and put up banners to draw attention to his business. He stated that because there is another business operating on the premises that he needed to draw attention to the fact that he had a garage repair business operating on the premises. Mr. Farenga also stated that he has a few other signs advertising two separate businesses at his location. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 174 - OCTOBER 4, 1993 PD 96~93 - CITY ENFORCEMENT POLICY. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. -- AND -- PD 95/93 - CITY SIGN BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. (CONT'D) Councillor B. Stortz pointed out that Mr. Farenga had purchased a sign from a Cambridge sign retailer and that the retailer did not obtain the necessary approvals for the installation. Staff received complaints and found the sign did not comply and the matter was taken to the Committee of Adjustment to resolve and that at that time a few neighbours mentioned other complaints with regard to Mr. Farenga's business operation. Councillor Stortz suggested that enforcement be tabled while the question of enforcement was being considered. Ms. L. MacDonald, Assistant City Solicitor, reminded the Committee that one year ago she had raised concerns with regard to targeting enforcement and requested the opportunity to discuss the matter in camera with Committee members. Councillor G.L. Leadston referred to a comment made previously, and the fact that it seems that tenants are being dictated to by the Oil Company in respect to what they must do with regard to special promotions and related to signage. He suggested that staff should meet with representatives of these companies and point out that they are encouraging their tenants to break municipal by-laws. In response, Mr. K. Tribby advised that staff had circulated the Oil Industry last year and noted that the old By-law had allowed cardboard advertising signs to be attached to poles on their property. He noted that an industry representative had contacted him and discussions were held and that the situation now was that there was nothing to prohibit the industry from putting up a permanent sign framework. The recommendations in the Staff Report PD 96~93 were then considered. It was agreed to revise recommendation #1 so as to add a phrase at the beginning that would exclude signs other than portables. On motion by Councillor C. Zehr, it was resolved: "That the City's Enforcement Policy be clarified and expanded as follows: That excluding signs, other than portables, Enforcement Staff may enforce any and all apparent, readily observable violations under their jurisdiction, on any property that is being inspected or investigated in accordance with Enforcement Policy criteria, thereby clarifying that this existing practice is consistent with Council's written policy." Some discussion took place regarding Clause #2 and a suggestion was made that the targeting recommendation be deferred for six months. However, the Committee agreed to discuss this matter in camera before making a decision. The Committee then dealt with the recommendations in Staff Report PD 95~93. The Committee agreed to accept recommendation #1 and to revise recommendation #2 so as to continue the prohibition of inflatable signs but considered draft regulations to permit them. On motion by Councillor C. Zehr, it was resolved: "1. That the City's Sign By-law regulations on portable signs be replaced with the regulations contained in "Appendix A" attached to Staff Report PD 95/93. The proposed changes are intended to increase the potential number of approved portable sign locations, enhance the opportunities for businesses to obtain permits for desired periods of time and ensure that portable signs are not displayed on a year-round basis at the same location. The three major changes proposed include: PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 175 - OCTOBER 4, 1993 PD 96~93 - CITY ENFORCEMENT POLICY. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. -- AND -- PD 95/93 - CITY SIGN BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. - ONE YEAR REVIEW. (CONT'D) a. calculating portable sign display time at eight (8) months per calendar year per approved location rather than four (4) months per calendar year per business or use; b. reducing the separation factor between portable signs on the same lot from fifty (50) metres to thirty (30) metres; and c. reducing the corner visibility triangle from 15.0 metres to 7.62 metres. Further, that prior to final consideration by Planning and Economic Development Committee and Council, the proposed changes be circulated to the sign industry and business community for comment. 2. That the continued prohibition of inflatable signs together with draft regulations to permit them be considered by the Planning and Economic Development Committee at the time proposed new portable sign regulations are dealt with." At this point, the Committee recessed to meet in camera. Following the in camera session, the meeting reconvened. Councillors G. Leadston and T. Galloway did not return as they left during the in camera session. The issue of proactive enforcement referred to in recommendation #2 of Staff Report PD 96/93 was then dealt with. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner, it was resolved: "That the City's Enforcement Policy be clarified and expanded as follows: 2. That effective April 1, 1994, pro-active enforcement of all apparent sign violations will be considered by City Council." The Chairman advised that these resolutions would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk