Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1995-06-12PED\1995-06-12 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:05 p.m. under Councillor M. Yantzi, Vice-Chair, with the following members present: Councillors John Smola, G. Lorentz, K. Redman, J. Ziegler and M. Wagner. Councillors T. Galloway and Jake Smola entered the meeting shortly after its commencement. Officials present: Mr. T. McCabe, Mr. J. Witmer, Mr. R. Mattice, Mr. K. Tribby, Mr. D. Mansell, Mr. J. Shivas and Mr. L.W. Neil. PD 95~26 - 4 & 30 AVALON PLACE - AMENDMENTS TO DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM AND TO RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT AGREEMENT RE: - CONDO. CONV. APPL. CDC 93/1/CL & CDC 93/2/CL - CONDO. CONV. APPL. CD/92/001 & CD/92/002 UNDER THE RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT - HUMMEL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED - ROCKWAY-ST. MARY'S WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/26 dated May 25, 1995 which has been prepared as a result of a request received from the Solicitor of the owner of 4 & 30 Avalon Place to amend the Rental Housing Protection Act Agreement registered on their lands. It was noted in the report that the owner has not yet proceeded with the final registration of the lands as condominium and wishes to amend the agreement before commencing with the final registration process. It is the opinion of the owner's solicitor that the current wording of conditions 5(c) and 5(d) of the registered agreement, which deals with the tenants right of first refusal, could make the units unsaleable. Currently the conditions give a tenant 30 days to review an offer to purchase for their unit and to decide if they wish to buy their unit based upon the terms and conditions contained in the offer. The solicitor believes 30 days is too long and requests a four day period to resolve the matter quickly. Staff have recommended a ten day period which they consider a more reasonable time frame for a tenant to review an offer to purchase and to secure financing in order to submit a counter offer. Mr. T. McCabe advised that staff had nothing to add to the report under consideration. Councillor M. Wagner questioned why staff support ten days rather than four days as requested by the owner's solicitor. Mr. R. Mattice advised that staff consider four days to be too short for a tenant to tie up details with respect to preparation and submission of an offer as a result of someone else making an offer on the unit occupied by the tenant. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler, it was resolved: "That Council amend conditions 5(c) and 5(d) of the Rental Housing Protection Act Agreement (Instrument No. 1191870) registered on the lands of 4 and 30 Avalon Place (Condominium Conversion Applications CD/92/001 and CD/92/002 under the R.H.P.A.) to read as follows: 5(c) If, at any time during the Five Year Rental Period, the Owner receives a bona fide, arms length offer to purchase an Existing Unit which the Owner is willing to accept and if the Tenant or Tenants of such unit have not waived their rights of first refusal pursuant to Section 5(b) above, the Owner shall notify the Tenant or Tenants of such unit by providing them with a true copy of the offer to purchase and the Tenant or Tenants shall have the right, during the ten (10) days immediately following receipt thereof, to purchase the unit by delivering to the Owner a signed offer to purchase for the price and upon the terms and conditions contained in the original offer, which the Owner shall accept immediately. The Owner shall provide proof of notification to the Policy, Research and Housing Division, either by a sworn affidavit of service or by a copy of the original offer to purchase signed by the Tenant as acknowledgement of receipt. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES PD 95~26 - 4 & 30 AVALON PLACE - AMENDMENTS TO DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM AND TO RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT AGREEMENT RE: - CONDO. CONV. APPL. CDC 93/1/CL & CDC 93/2/CL - CONDO. CONV. APPL. CD/92/001 & CD/92/002 UNDER THE RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT - HUMMEL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED - ROCKWAY-ST. MARY'S WARD (CONT'D) 2) 5(d) If the Tenant or Tenants do not deliver an offer to purchase to the Owner within the ten (10) days, the Tenant or Tenants shall be deemed not to have exercised the right of first refusal, and the Owner may accept the original offer to purchase. That Council change the conditions of draft approval, as approved by Council on May 9, 1994, for Draft Plan of Condominium CDC 93/1/CL and 93/2/CL (Hummel Construction), as follows: That condition 2 as approved by City Council on May 9, 1994 be deleted and replaced with the following: "2. That the conditions attached to City Council's August 23, 1993 approval under the Rental Housing Protection Act as amended by PD report 95/26, approved by Council, be satisfied prior to release of the Plan of Condominium for final registration." PD 95/52 - BILLBOARD SIGNS - PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/52 dated June 6, 1995 which deals with proposed modifications to billboard signs. Mr. T. McCabe pointed out that the staff report was the result of Council direction received on April 10 and May 8, 1995 to prepare a report regarding a review of billboard signs. He pointed out that changes to the sign by-law would require an official public meeting and the giving of notice in that regard and staff have suggested August 14th be the date of the public meeting. He did advise that recommendations (f) and (g) in the report could be dealt with immediately. Councillors Jake Smola and T. Galloway entered the meeting at this point. Mr. J. Witmer expressed appreciation to members of the sign industry for their input which allowed staff to have the opportunity to better understand their points of view. He then took the Committee through recommendations (a) to (g) of the report and explained the purpose and impact of each recommendation.. Councillor J. Ziegler referred to recommendation (c) and advised that he objected to the situation where a new billboard erected on railroad property was in effect a double sign. Mr. J. Witmer advised that two faces to a sign are the maximum that was permitted. Councillor Ziegler stated that he accepts one structure but objected to a double billboard side by side given that it blocks the landscape. Councillor M. Wagner questioned what leeway there was as to the landscaping requirement with respect to situations that require landscaping and situations that do not. Mr. J. Witmer stated that there was flexibility to require more or less landscaping in relation to the site specific location under consideration and that there was staff discretion in this regard. It was confirmed that the industry understands this variable aspect of the landscaping requirement. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that it was his preference that notification of adjacent property owners be required in respect to any application received for a billboard sign. Mr. T. McCabe advised that it was staff's recommendation that no change be made in this regard unless the billboard does not comply with the by-law. 2. PD 95~52 - BILLBOARD SIGNS - PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Mr. Darcy Clark, Mediacom, appeared as a delegation and thanked staff and Council for the opportunity for input into the review process of the billboard issue. He advised that the recommendations in the report were appropriate and his company was in support of all the recommendations. Further he noted that opportunities for billboards in Kitchener were limited and will actually become more limited in future. Mr. Sid Catalano, Manager of Regional Development for Gould Outdoor Advertising, appeared as a delegation before the Committee and expressed his appreciation to staff for their work on the report under consideration. He stated that he was in agreement with the recommendations but did have a suggestion with respect to recommendation (c). In this regard he suggested where lots were fairly large or were corner lots, that an additional sign could be permitted where the length of such lots was in excess of a certain distance. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, he advised that the $500.00 application fee for a ground billboard or pylon billboard sign seems to be about standard. Councillor J. Ziegler questioned what the size of the face of the signs was and was advised that there were two types, the first being 10 feet high by 20 feet wide and the second being 16 feet high by 12 feet wide. In respect to the issue of double signs, he was advised that there was an interpretation in this regard. On the issue of distance separation between signs, he was advised that it was 300 metres in agricultural zones which staff recommend be prohibited from this zone or 100 metres in industrial and commercial zones. Councillor Ziegler advised that he was prepared to recommend several amendments to the recommendations in the staff report. Mr. T. McCabe reminded the Committee that the formal approval in respect to this would have to be a matter of consideration at the official public meeting and that any decisions this date would stand as direction to staff relative to the consideration at the public meeting. Councillor J. Ziegler moved to: revise recommendation (c) so as to require that the two sign faces be back to back or at 90° only, add an additional recommendation to provide for a distance separation between signs of 300 metres rather than 100 metres and add an additional recommendation requiring notification to adjacent property owners that would provide them the opportunity for input as to the location of the proposed sign on the applicants lot. The Committee debated the merits of the revisions introduced by Councillor J. Ziegler. Concern was expressed over allowing neighbours the opportunity to dictate approval conditions. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that the Ward Councillor could take on the responsibility to notify abutting property owners that a sign application has been received. Mr. J. Shivas advised the Committee that the City's by-laws were based on the rule of law and that Council could not leave its application of the law upto what the neighbour wishes. Councillor J. Ziegler's revisions to the recommendations in the staff report were then considered. It was agreed to revise recommendation (c) so as to add that the two sign faces be back to back or at 90° only. It was agreed to include an additional recommendation providing that ground billboard or pylon billboard signs must be separated by a minimum 300 metre distance rather than 100 metres in commercial and industrial zones. Councillor Ziegler's revision to require notification to abutting property owners was not accepted. Councillor J. Ziegler pointed out that the original April 10, 1995 resolution asked that the issue of ability to tax billboards erected on lands that were currently tax exempt be considered and in this regard he offered the example of a strip of railroad lands through the City that contains such billboards. Mr. T. McCabe confirmed that in the August staff report the tax issue would be addressed. Councillor T. Galloway pointed out that billboard signage represented a $10,000- $15,000 improvement to the property and also brought in an annual revenue stream to the property owners. The recommendations in the staff report and the revisions already agreed to were then considered and it was resolved: "That recommendations (a) to (e), as revised, of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95152 - BILLBOARD SIGNS - PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS (CONT'D) PD 95/52, Billboard Signs -Proposed Modifications, and additional recommendation (h) be considered by Council after input from the public and sign industry; with the report and associated Sign By-law Amendments, referred to Planning and Economic Development Committee for consideration at a Public Meeting August 14, 1995; and further, PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES II I1~11~ 4'~ 400~ That recommendations (f) and (g) of this report be approved and the Committee of Adjustment process and Tariff of Fees By-law be amended to reflect these proposed changes. (a) Ground billboard or pylon billboard signs be prohibited from Agricultural Zones. (b) Ground billboard or pylon billboard signs be located behind any required building line setback and erected in compliance with all other yard requirements as set out in the Zoning Bylaw. (c) That a maximum of one (1) billboard structure having a maximum number of two (2) sign faces, back to back or at 90° only, be erected on any one lot. (d) Ground billboard or pylon billboard signs be prohibited within the Huron Business Park, Bridgeport Business Park and Lancaster Corporate Centre. (e) Ground billboard or pylon billboard signs must be setback a minimum of 300 metres from the Huron Natural Area and the following Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas; Doon Pinnacle Hill, Hidden Valley and Steckle Woods. (f) That the current procedure of property owner notification as it relates only to Committee of Adjustment circulation for minor variance applications be re- affirmed. However, Council recommend to the Committee of Adjustment that the notification distance for billboard sign variances be increased from 60.96 m (200 ft.) to 120 m (394 ft.) (g) The application fee for a ground billboard or pylon billboard sign be increased from $100.00 per sign structure to $500.00 per sign structure. (h) Ground billboard or pylon billboard signs must be separated by a minimum 300 metre distance rather than 100 metres in commercial and industrial zones. 3. PD 95/55 - ANNUAL REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL VACANCY RATE STATISTICS The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95~55 dated May 29, 1995 setting out a detailed review of residential vacancy rate statistics in the City. Mr. R. Mattice advised that the report analyzes the year 1994 based on figures extracted from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation October 1994 research. Mr. Mattice pointed out that the first report was done in 1992, the second in 1993 and the third in 1995. With the aid of an overhead presentation, he took the Committee through some of the tables in the report and provided a detailed explanation of there meaning. He pointed out that the conclusion in the report was an excellent summation of the detailed issues discussed in the report. 3. PD 95~55 - ANNUAL REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL VACANCY RATE STATISTICS (CONT'D) In response to Councillor K. Redman, Mr. Mattice advised that the statistics in the report related to privately owned rental units only. Councillor Jake Smola questioned what comparisons there are between privately owned rental housing and non-profit rental housing and what impacts there were between them, if any. Mr. R. Mattice advised that statistics for non-profit rental housing are not collected by C.M.H.C. as there were serious problems in the analysis process with respect to non-profit housing. Councillor Jake Smola questioned what impact the changes from rental units to condominium tenure were having in the market place and Mr. R. Mattice advised that there was very little impact given that the process was so lengthy. Councillor Jake Smola then inquired PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES about the impact of basement rental apartments as a result of there legalization and Mr. R. Mattice advised that there have been very few building permits issued in this regard. On motion by Councillor G. Lorentz, it was resolved: "That council accept the following report on vacancy rates for information and direct staff to make the document available to C.M.H.C., the Ministry of Housing and those persons requesting information about the local housing market." 4. STATUS OF FORMER SAUDERS PROPERTY (KING STREET)/DEMOLITION Mr. J. Witmer confirmed that demolition of the former Sauders property and an adjacent property would commence one ahead of the other but both demolitions would then go on simultaneously. Councillor K. Redman questioned what plans there were for the site once it was cleared. Mr. J. Witmer advised of the requirements of the building by-law with regard to grading and levelling and that as the work proceeded, evaluation would take place and a plan brought forward. He pointed out that the owners have been cooperating with the City in preliminary discussions with regard to future use of the cleared site. 5. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk